Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics: Reminiscences, History, and Visions for the Future of AWM (Association for Women in Mathematics Series, 28) 3030826570, 9783030826574

Citation preview

Association for Women in Mathematics Series

Janet L. Beery Sarah J. Greenwald Cathy Kessel   Editors

Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics Reminiscences, History, and Visions for the Future of AWM

Association for Women in Mathematics Series Volume 28

Series Editor Kristin Lauter Microsoft Research Redmond, WA, USA

Association for Women in Mathematics Series

Focusing on the groundbreaking work of women in mathematics past, present, and future, Springer’s Association for Women in Mathematics Series presents the latest research and proceedings of conferences worldwide organized by the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM). All works are peer-reviewed to meet the highest standards of scientific literature, while presenting topics at the cutting edge of pure and applied mathematics, as well as in the areas of mathematical education and history. Since its inception in 1971, The Association for Women in Mathematics has been a non-profit organization designed to help encourage women and girls to study and pursue active careers in mathematics and the mathematical sciences and to promote equal opportunity and equal treatment of women and girls in the mathematical sciences. Currently, the organization represents more than 3000 members and 200 institutions constituting a broad spectrum of the mathematical community in the United States and around the world. Titles from this series are indexed by Scopus.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/13764

Janet L. Beery • Sarah J. Greenwald • Cathy Kessel Editors

Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics Reminiscences, History, and Visions for the Future of AWM Volume I and II

Editors Janet L. Beery University of Redlands Redlands, CA, USA

Sarah J. Greenwald Appalachian State University Boone, NC, USA

Cathy Kessel Berkeley, CA, USA

ISSN 2364-5733 ISSN 2364-5741 (electronic) Association for Women in Mathematics Series ISBN 978-3-030-82657-4 ISBN 978-3-030-82658-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1 Mathematics Subject Classification: 01A80, 01-06, 01A70, 01A60, 01A61, 97A30 © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

AWM is the oldest organization in the world for women in mathematics. Its 50th anniversary is an opportune time to reflect on women and mathematics, the organization as a whole, and the role AWM plays for individuals and the mathematical community. This collection of refereed articles, illustrated by color photographs, responds to numerous questions: What has it been like for women in mathematics? How has AWM supported women and girls? How have women and girls been supported in other ways? What leads people to dedicate themselves to an organization for short or long periods of time? What obstacles has the organization faced, how did it overcome them, and what challenges does it face today? We view this book as the beginning of a conversation about such questions rather than the end of one—a conversation that we hope to see continued in later articles and books. Other publications have discussed women and mathematics. What does this book add? As AWM has grown, so has the number of women mathematicians, the length and variety of their careers, the ways of analyzing their situation, and the number of organizations that support them. Some articles in this book focus on the situation for women in mathematics at various times and places, including other countries. Others describe how individuals have shaped AWM, and, in turn, how the organization has impacted individuals as well as the broader mathematical community. Some are personal stories about careers in mathematics. Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics: Reminiscences, History, and Visions for the Future of AWM covers a span from AWM’s beginnings through the following fifty years. The volume celebrates AWM without shying away from its challenges, although we acknowledge a bias toward AWM’s successes. We are immensely grateful to the hundreds of people around the world, both authors and reviewers, who helped us to bring this volume into being. Many of them were working in extraordinary conditions because of COVID-19. Some had overwhelming responsibilities such as full-time childcare while teaching online for the first time. Some were in poor health. Others did not always have access to the internet or a computer. Some of those unable to write for the volume reviewed articles, answered our questions about AWM, and suggested authors or themes. v

vi

Preface

We could have organized this volume in a variety of ways. Many of the articles touch on numerous topics and make many connections, reflecting personal and professional relationships that sometimes span decades or continents. Different types of events and activities began in different eras as AWM developed. Because the situation for women in mathematics and the nature of AWM’s activities changed and expanded over the years, decade and type of activity have considerable overlap in some groupings. The book begins with a chronology that gives an overview of AWM’s five decades, allowing readers to locate events in other articles within the larger picture of AWM’s programs, activities, contributions, and concerns. In understanding how AWM started, it is helpful to know the context of its founding and the experiences of its first chairman, influenced by the movements for civil rights and women’s rights. Part I, How AWM Began, consists of personal accounts from people who were present in 1971. Part II, How It Was, How Should It Be?: Inclusion, Diversity, Equal Opportunity, has a thematic grouping. These and related themes, such as equity, intersectionality, or racism, appear throughout this book, for example, in articles by Bettye Anne Case, Ruth Haas, Fern Hunt, and Gail Letzter and Marie Vitulli. However, while we planned to have a stand-alone article on the participation of underrepresented minority groups in AWM, or lack thereof in some prominent positions, we were unable to find authors. We hope that someone will take on this important topic in the future. We have some preliminary historical research that we would be happy to share. There are many additional themes to be found within the book that are not explicit in groupings, for instance, the difficulty of finding jobs for both members of a couple surfaces in several personal accounts (e.g., those of Judith Grabiner, Judy Green, and Marjorie Senechal) as well as Lenore Blum’s “Brief History.” Balancing family and job is mentioned in personal histories and also in discussions of AWM panels (e.g., the articles by Jacqueline Jensen-Vallin and Christina Sormani). Themes of belonging and community are salient in articles such as Anna Ghazaryan, Rachel Kuske, and Emille Lawrence’s account of the beginning and growth of AWM’s Mentor Network and in Julianne Vega’s description of her experiences as a graduate student. Some authors discuss sexism, discrimination, harassment, or assault. See, for instance, the articles by Sue Geller, Cathy Kessel, Judith Roitman, Christina Sormani, and Jean Taylor. Others shared devastating stories privately that they did not want to share publicly. Many authors relate how their own experiences have led to them working to address barriers to full participation. The articles in Part III, How AWM Grew: Membership, Meetings, and the Newsletter, include personal accounts that begin in AWM’s first decade, several from people with long-term connections to AWM. Another perspective on AWM’s growth comes from 1991. On the occasion of AWM’s 20th anniversary, Lenore Blum collected reflections about AWM from the first ten AWM presidents. The version of her article reprinted in this volume has additional explanatory footnotes, and a new preface and postscript. This “brief history” influenced the approach

Preface

vii

taken in this book of asking presidents for their thoughts about AWM. With the exception of Alice Schafer, AWM’s second president, who died in 2009, the first ten presidents have written their own reflections for this book, as have most successive presidents. Aspects of AWM’s initiation, growth, and maintenance occur throughout this volume but get special emphasis in the contributions from presidents, executive directors, and long-term volunteers in Parts I, III, X–XIII, and XVII. Part IV, Organizing AWM Workshops, Panels, Regional Meetings, Research Networks, and Research Symposia, and Part V, Telling Our AWM Stories, have contributions from people at a variety of career stages from mid-career to retirement. Some authors, such as Susan Landau, recount how they benefited from relatively brief but significant interactions with AWM. Others, for instance, Victoria Howle and Heather Lewis, describe one long-term interaction, how AWM’s Essay Contest had its genesis and how it has been maintained over the past two decades. Many authors in these sections, such as Raegan Higgins and Katharine Ott, have had a variety of different interactions with AWM over the years. Some attended AWM workshops early in their careers, helped with a Sonia Kovalevsky Day or an Essay Contest for students, and organized a research symposium or benefited from an AWM research network. Historical and cultural framings predominate in Part VI, Individuals, Institutions, Recognition, Collaboration: Longitudinal Perspectives on Mathematics and Women in Mathematics. The articles in this section include discussions of discourse within or related to AWM: collaboration, sexism, and the meaning of “in” in AWM. The situation of individual women with respect to the mathematical community has changed over the years. Examples come from a wide range of lives, past and present: Olga Ladyzhenskaya (shortlisted for the Fields Medal in 1958); Alice Schafer, AWM’s second president; Maryam Mirzakhani (winner of the Fields Medal in 2014); and winners of AWM’s Schafer prize. Has the situation changed in fifty years? The answer may be yes or no, depending on one’s viewpoint. In Part VII, Reflecting on Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, personal histories from women mathematicians suggest how the profession has grown and changed. In contrast, analyses from statistician Lynne Billard indicate that some important gender differences in academe are still very much with us. How has AWM supported women and girls? How can women and girls be supported in other ways? Part VIII, Outreach, Inreach, and Mentoring: Grade School to Grad School, describes how different people have answered these questions. Some have chosen to establish or assist with AWM programs for girls and women. Others, some of them AWM Fellows, and some winners of AWM’s Humphreys award for mentoring, describe how they have supported girls and women in other ways. Part IX, Education and AWM, describes change and constancy in the ways that AWM has informed its members about education via the Newsletter and how the activities of its Education Committee have changed with the times. Both are illustrated in the story of Erica Voolich. Aspects of AWM’s growth and maintenance continue in Part X, AWM in Her Teens: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director; Part XI, AWM

viii

Preface

in Her Twenties: Perspectives from Presidents; Part XII, AWM in Her Thirties: Perspectives from Presidents and Executive Directors; and Part XIII, AWM in Her Forties: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director. Government policies affect many women around the world. In the United States, these include, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment—which is yet to be ratified. Funding decisions for the National Science Foundation and other government agencies affect mathematics and science. Women in mathematics are also affected by the practices of other mathematics organizations, for instance, ways in which speakers are selected and awards are allocated. Since its early days, AWM has taken action on such matters (see the chronology that begins this volume). This initially occurred with the individual efforts of AWM presidents and others, later in more institutionalized ways: as part of committee work and in official collaborations with other mathematics organizations. Some of these institutionalized activities are described in Part XIV, Advocacy, Policy, and Recognition: In Government and in the Mathematical Community. How do organizations that support women vary according to departmental, national, or international contexts? Part XV, AWM Student Chapters, gives a wealth of examples from US mathematics departments, illustrating how departmental groups can nurture a sense of belonging as well as professional acumen in earlycareer mathematicians. Part XVI, National and International Groups That Support Women in Mathematics, provides examples of how national and international organizations for women in mathematics have developed in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America; and the role played by the International Mathematical Union’s Committee on Women. Part XVII, AWM at Fifty, ends the book with reflections on concerns and aspirations for AWM by the president and president-elect, written shortly before the 50th anniversary. We invite readers to mine the book for themes that we haven’t mentioned above—there are so many rich connections. One way to locate personal connections is to consider the index. This functions as a name index rather than an author or subject index. Names appear when they are mentioned by an author or in a photo caption, marking intersections of time, place, and persons, as well as roles within or beyond AWM. Many such connections wouldn’t have been apparent without the online archive of digitized newsletters, made possible by past president Jean Taylor’s support. Many presidents wrote reflections for a “50th-anniversary” column in the newsletter; expanded versions appear in this book. We thank Francesca Bernardi, Kayla Bicol, and Eva Brayfindley for their help with this column and with this volume. Appalachian State University provided an email account for the book, technical support, and sabbatical time. The University of Redlands provided a professional Overleaf account for our LATEX collaboration. Photos not otherwise credited appear with permission of AWM or the author. We are grateful to the many people who dug into their closets and attics for photos. This has had the happy consequence of adding to AWM’s digital archives. Anne Leggett and Darla Kremer were especially helpful in this regard. We are pleased to be able to include what seems to be the

Preface

ix

earliest (1975) known picture of AWM members at a meeting (see Lenore Blum’s article). As always, we feel fortunate to work on a project to benefit AWM, an organization whose volunteers are so willing to devote time and energy to help others. We dedicate this book to all those who have done so since 1971 when AWM began. Redlands, CA, USA Boone, NC, USA Berkeley, CA, USA January 2021

Janet L. Beery Sarah J. Greenwald Cathy Kessel

Contents

Volume I AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years . . . . . Janet L. Beery, Sarah J. Greenwald, and Cathy Kessel

1

Part I How AWM Began When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Gray

15

Mathematicians Action Group and the Founding of AWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chandler Davis

25

A Caucus Is Born: Women in Mathematics Find a Formula for Solidarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanne Darken

31

Part II How It Was, How Should It Be? Inclusion, Diversity, Equal Opportunity How It Was. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith Roitman

37

My AWM Experience: A Lesson on The Relentless Pursuit of Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elebeoba E. May

41

Reflection on Diversity from a Former National Science Foundation Program Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lloyd Douglas

47

Mathematicians for Equal Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alice Silverberg

49

xi

xii

Contents

Part III How AWM Grew: Membership, Meetings, and the Newsletter How AWM Changed My Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judy Green

57

Starting and Early Days of AWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Clark Kenschaft

67

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The Presidents’ Perspectives (The First Twenty Years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lenore Blum

71

Reflections from AWM’s Fourth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith Roitman

113

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Leggett

117

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bettye Anne Busbee Case

127

Part IV Organizing AWM Workshops, Panels, Regional Meetings, Research Networks, and Research Symposia Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sue Geller

161

Intertwining Paths: AWM, AMS, and Me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine A. Roberts

171

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics . . . Christina Sormani

177

My Journey Alongside the Association for Women in Mathematics: A Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatella Danielli

193

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community . . . . Jacqueline A. Jensen-Vallin

199

The Road Less Traveled: My Journey to Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raegan Higgins

211

From Graduate School to Tenure: Building My Career with the Help of the AWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katharine A. Ott

219

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Betty Mayfield

227

Contents

xiii

Part V Telling Our AWM Stories Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria E. Howle and Heather A. Lewis

241

The AWM, 50 Years Ago and Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joan Birman

271

My Personal Interaction with AWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen K. Uhlenbeck

273

AWM Activity of Fern Y. Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fern Y. Hunt

277

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria M. Klawe

283

Personal Reflections: An Evolving Perspective on Women in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leslie Hogben What AWM Has Meant to Me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan Landau

295 301

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Semra Kılıç-Bahi

307

How AWM Can Help Support and Shape a Career: Reflections from a Grateful Mathematician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathleen Kavanagh

317

Part VI

Individuals, Institutions, Recognition, Collaboration: Longitudinal Perspectives on Mathematics and Women in Mathematics

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael J. Barany

325

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jemma Lorenat

343

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism in Mathematics During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laura E. Turner

355

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph A. Gallian

389

xiv

Contents

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara N. Hottinger

405

Part VII Reflecting on Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?: Degrees, Rank, and Salary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Billard

427

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marjorie Senechal

439

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith V. Grabiner

449

Snapshots of Five Decades: My Career, Women in Mathematics Departments, and AWM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tina H. Straley Women and Mathematics: A Perfect Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eileen L. Poiani

459 485

Part VIII Outreach, Inreach, and Mentoring: Grade School to Grad School Women Count! A Quarter Century of Sonia Kovalevsky Days . . . . . . . . . . . Betsy Yanik

495

Twenty Years of the AWM Mentor Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anna Ghazaryan, Rachel Kuske, and Emille Lawrence

501

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlene Morrow and James Morrow Mentoring and Providing Community for Young Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deanna Haunsperger Advisor Actions: Reach Out, Listen, Provide Timely Information—Advisee Reactions: Overwhelmed, Informed, More Confident and Connected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William Yslas Vélez and Alex Julia Hinojosa Christensen Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helen G. Grundman

507 525

531

545

Contents

xv

A Few Memories and Insights from a 50-Year Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naomi Jochnowitz

559

Celebrating AWM’s Fiftieth Anniversary: Mentoring PhD Students . . . . Chi-Wang Shu

565

Part IX Education and AWM The Story of the Education Column in the AWM Newsletter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacqueline M. Dewar The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erica Dakin Voolich The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pao-sheng Hsu and Jacqueline M. Dewar

571

585 599

Volume II Part X AWM in Her Teens: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director Reflections of AWM’s Fifth President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bhama Srinivasan Reflections from the Sixth President: AWM’s Past, Present, and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linda Rothschild

627

631

Reflections of AWM’s Seventh President on AWM in the Mid-1980s . . . . Linda Keen

637

My AWM Presidency: Reflections from AWM’s Eighth President . . . . . . . Rhonda Hughes

641

AWM’s Executive Director 1987–1988: Growing Up with AWM . . . . . . . . . Lori Kenschaft

647

Part XI

AWM in Her Twenties: Perspectives from Presidents

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jill P. Mesirov 1991–1992 Plus and Minus : Reflections from AWM’s Tenth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carol Wood

657

667

Reflections of Chuu-Lian Terng, AWM’s Twelfth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chuu-Lian Terng

673

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylvia Wiegand

679

xvi

Contents

Part XII AWM in Her Thirties: Perspectives from Presidents and Executive Directors A Blast from the Past and a Hope for the Future: Reflections from AWM’s Fourteenth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean E. Taylor

703

Connections with My AWM Family: Reflections from AWM’s Fifteenth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suzanne Lenhart

709

Progress and Hope: Reflections from AWM’s Sixteenth President . . . . . . . Carolyn Gordon

713

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President . . . . . . . . . Barbara Lee Keyfitz

721

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President . . . . . . . . . Cathy Kessel

739

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020. . . . . Maeve Lewis McCarthy, Karoline Pershell, and Jennifer J. Quinn

759

Part XIII AWM in Her Forties: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director Reflections of AWM’s Nineteenth President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgia Benkart

777

A Personal Reflection by AWM’s 21st President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ruth Charney

785

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kristin Lauter AWM in Her Forties: Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization by AWM’s Executive Director, 2011–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnhild Lien

789

817

Part XIV Advocacy, Policy, and Recognition: In Government and in the Mathematical Community A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Saxe

845

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle B. Snider

855

Contents

xvii

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee . . . . . . . . Gail Letzter and Marie A. Vitulli

865

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Betty Mayfield

901

Part XV AWM Student Chapters University of Oregon AWM Chapter: Its Creation and Evolution . . . . . . . Elisa Bellah, Sarah Frei, Leanne Merrill, and Kelly Pohland

921

Building Community Through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Student Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Francesca Bernardi

929

The Florida Atlantic University Student Chapter of AWM: Fundraising and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Berrouët, Anae Myers, Angela Robinson, and Yuan Wang

933

Journey of the University of Houston AWM Student Chapter: From a Bake Sale to an Award-Winning Regional Conference . . . . . . . . . . . Jasmine Bhullar, Prajakta Bedekar, and Yuliya Gorb

943

Society for Women in Mathematics at the Colorado School of Mines: Professional Development Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debra Carney, Karin Leiderman, and Rebecca Swanson

949

Looking Within and Reaching Out: Outreach, Friendship, and Community in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign AWM Student Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Jaffe and Mina Nahvi The AWM at the University of Kentucky: Community and Community Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kate Ponto, Kalila Sawyer, and Carissa Slone My Unspoken Mathematical Journey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julianne Vega Part XVI

959

963 967

National and International Groups That Support Women in Mathematics

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies for Women in STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amy Ackerberg-Hastings

975

European Women in Mathematics and the European Mathematical Society’s Women in Mathematics Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marie-Françoise Roy and Caroline Series

987

xviii

Contents

Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soon-Yi Kang and Kyewon Koh Park

1007

Indian Women and Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nikita Agarwal, Amber Habib, and Geetha Venkataraman

1015

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheryl E. Praeger and Lesley A. Ward

1029

The African Women in Mathematics Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marie Françoise Ouedraogo

1051

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhana Thapa and Anjana Pokharel

1065

Now That We’re Together: Biography of the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians and Overview of Latin American Organizations for Women in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . María Isabel Cortez and Andrea Vera-Gajardo International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marie-Françoise Roy and Caroline Series

1079 1095

Part XVII AWM at Fifty No Ordinary Time: Reflections from AWM’s 24th President . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ruth Haas

1115

Creating A Place: Reflections of the 2021 AWM President-Elect . . . . . . . . . Kathryn Leonard

1121

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1127

Acronyms

AAAS AAUP AAUW AMATYC AMS AWIS AWM BIPOC CBMS HBCU ICIAM

ICM ICWM IMU JMM LGBTQIA+ MAA MAG NAM NAS NCTM NSF SACNAS SIAM

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of University Professors American Association of University Women American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges American Mathematical Society Association for Women in Science Association for Women in Mathematics Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or Historically Black College or University International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, also International Congress (or Conference) for Industrial and Applied Mathematics International Congress of Mathematicians International Conference for Women Mathematicians International Mathematical Union Joint Mathematics Meetings Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual (or Ally), plus additional identities Mathematical Association of America Mathematicians Action Group National Association of Mathematicians National Academy of Sciences National Council of Teachers of Mathematics National Science Foundation Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

xix

xx

STEM STEMM WME (WM)2

Acronyms

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Women in Mathematics Education World Meeting for Women in Mathematics

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years Janet L. Beery, Sarah J. Greenwald, and Cathy Kessel

Introduction Founded in 1971, during a surge of feminist and civil rights activities, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) is the oldest organization in the world devoted to women in mathematics and among the oldest organizations devoted to women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Even before the feminist surge of the 1970s, individual women had gained recognition within the mathematical sciences. For example, Helen Walker became the American Statistical Association’s first woman president in 1944. In contrast, the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) did not have a woman president until 1979. The American Mathematical Society (AMS) did not have a woman president until 1983. Before AWM, women in mathematics had low status and unequal opportunity as evidenced by the articles in this volume and early AWM Newsletters. Organizations for groups underrepresented in STEM had begun to form prior to AWM’s founding. For instance, the Society of Women Engineers was founded in 1950. The National Association of Mathematicians (NAM) and the Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) both started in 1969.

J. L. Beery University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. J. Greenwald () Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Kessel Berkeley, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_1

1

2

J. L. Beery et al.

It is within this context that AWM began. The chronology below illustrates AWM’s evolution over its fifty years of existence. This list, which is not exhaustive, includes select events and ongoing initiatives drawn from numerous sources (AWM, 2018, 2020, n.d.; Blum, 1991; Greenwald et al., 2015; Lorch, 1996; Schafer, 1981; Taylor and Wiegand, 1999) and especially the AWM Newsletter.1 These selections are organized by year but not necessarily by month. Rather than being comprehensive, this chronology is intended to give a sense of diverse AWM programs, activities, contributions, and concerns, from AWM’s founding in 1971 to 2020.

AWM’s First Decade: 1971–1980 1971

AWM founded during the annual meeting of the AMS in Atlantic City, New Jersey Mary Gray becomes chairman AWM Newsletter launched, along with communication by mail Bylaws established Regional meetings held, along with panels at national and international meetings of other organizations

1972

First job listings in Newsletter Begins work toward changes in legislation, e.g., ERA and Title IX Begins work toward changes in attitudes about discriminatory practices and structures, e.g., as one of six organizations who became plaintiffs in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) lawsuit Sponsors Part-time Positions in Mathematics panel, AMS-MAA summer meeting,2 Dartmouth College

1973

Alice T. Schafer becomes president Sponsors employment and affirmative action panel, JMM,3 Dallas, Texas AWM incorporated in State of Massachusetts

1 An extended version of this chronology includes source page numbers for each item (Beery et al., 2020). 2 For simplicity, we refer to the joint summer meetings as an AMS-MAA summer meeting even though at times there were contiguous meetings of additional organizations such as AWM, MAG, and Pi Mu Epsilon. 3 For simplicity, we refer to the annual winter meetings as JMM even though they were contiguous meetings of organizations such as the AMS and MAA, rather than being called the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM).

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years

1974

3

Granted tax-exempt status Office established at Wellesley College Sponsors status of women mathematicians around the world panel and another women in mathematics and employment in North America panel, International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM), Vancouver, BC, Canada Becomes an affiliate member of the Federation of Organizations for Professional Women (FOPW)

1975

Lenore Blum becomes president Speakers Bureau initiated

1976

AWM becomes an affiliate member of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) Sponsors Women Mathematicians in Business, Industry, and Government panel, organized in response to a job shortage in academia, JMM, San Antonio, Texas Newsletter begins with congratulations to Julia Robinson, first woman elected to the mathematics section of the National Academy of Sciences Sponsors History of Women in Mathematics panel, AMS-MAA summer meeting, University of Toronto

1977

AWM party, later called “reception,” held at each JMM from 1977 to 2020, except for 1979 due to the meeting being held in a non-ERA-ratified state

1978

Judith Roitman becomes president Sponsors Black Women in Mathematics panel, JMM, Atlanta, Georgia Newsletter notes women are more visible in mathematics, e.g., Dorothy Bernstein is MAA president-elect, Shirley Hill is National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) president [Bernstein was the first woman president of the MAA; several women preceded Hill as NCTM president] Helps precipitate decisions by AMS and MAA not to hold national meetings in states that had not ratified the ERA: the 1979 AMS-MAA summer meeting is moved as a result Protests absence of women speakers, ICM, Helsinki, Finland

1979

AWM begins using ERA green as signature color with the wearing of armbands, JMM, Biloxi, Mississippi Sponsors Mathematics Education: A Feminist Perspective panel, AMSMAA summer meeting, University of Minnesota

4

1980

J. L. Beery et al.

AWM’s first lecture series begins with inaugural Emmy Noether Lecture on mathematical sciences, JMM, San Antonio, Texas Holds AWM Anna Pell Wheeler Symposium, AMS-MAA summer meeting, University of Michigan

1981–1990 1981

Bhama Srinivasan becomes president AWM reaches 1000+ members Forms Maternity Leave Policies Committee Responds to claims about nature versus nurture, e.g., AWM statement on Benbow-Stanley study

1982

Celebrates Emmy Noether centennial, JMM, Cincinnati, Ohio Newsletter announces establishment of Committee on Mathematics Education Newsletter reports that Julia Robinson is AMS president-elect [Robinson was the first woman AMS president] First AWM research conference with National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, the Emmy Noether Symposium held, AMS Meeting, Bryn Mawr College

1983

Linda Rothschild becomes president AWM receives Raytheon Company grant for Summer Program for Women High School Teachers taking courses in PASCAL First AWM-related book published: Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics in Honor of Emmy Noether’s 100th Birthday

1984

Sponsors Lipman Bers, A Mathematical Mentor panel, JMM, Louisville, Kentucky MAA honors the AWM and others who have furthered the progress of mathematics by enhancing significantly the status of women in mathematics with a special citation AWM’s program focuses on how teachers at any level can encourage girls and women to pursue and succeed in mathematical studies, AMS-MAA summer meeting, University of Oregon

1985

Linda Keen becomes president Three-part Sonya Kovalevsky Celebration held: sessions at AMS Sectional Meeting, Amherst College; program for high school seniors (forerunner

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years

5

to Sonia Kovalevsky Days) and Kovalevsky Symposium, the latter two at Radcliffe 1986

AWM-AMS-MAA Julia Robinson Memorial, JMM, New Orleans, Louisiana Careers for Women in Mathematics brochure appears in Newsletter Newsletter reports plans to form a “European branch of AWM” [This became a separate organization, European Women in Mathematics]

1987

Rhonda Hughes becomes president Second AWM-related book published: The Legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics and the Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute held October 25–28, 1985 AWM and Simmons College sponsor the first Sonia Kovalevsky High School Day

1988

AWM publishes Profiles of Women in Mathematics: The Emmy Noether Lectures booklet

1989

Jill P. Mesirov becomes president First NSF-AWM Travel Grants awarded AWM receives Exxon Education Foundation (EEF) grant, including funds for Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days. This is one of many examples of EEF support mentioned in the Newsletter Tradition of outgoing president passing silver Centennial Bowl (a gift from AMS during its 1988 centennial) to new president begins AWM Archive established at Wellesley College

1990

Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman established and awarded for the first time Sponsors mathematics in industry panel featuring five women discussing their research in applied mathematics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) National Meeting Sponsors status of women in mathematics panel, ICM in Kyoto, Japan

1991–2000 1991

Carol Wood becomes president Newsletter first published in its green-highlighted two-column booklet format AWM 20th Anniversary Celebration, JMM, San Francisco, California

6

J. L. Beery et al.

First Louise Hay Award for Excellence in Mathematics Education awarded Bettye Anne Case, AWM Meetings Coordinator for 8 years, and Anne Leggett, AWM Newsletter Editor for 13 years, receive Outstanding Service to the Organization awards First AWM Workshops for recent PhDs (who gave talks) and current graduate students (who presented posters), sponsored by NSF and ONR, at both JMM, San Francisco, California, and International Conference on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Washington, DC AWM publishes Careers That Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences booklet AWM sponsors symposium on Mathematics in the Public Policy Arena, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting, Washington, DC 1992

AWM becomes an affiliate of AAAS at AAAS’s annual meeting in February. AWM participation in AAAS annual meetings continues Issues dispute resolution statement, primarily for tenure and promotion decisions at academic institutions, that recommends formation of an external review committee to propose a solution Registers complaint with Mattel about its new “Teen Talk” Barbie doll, who said “Math class is tough.” By the end of the year, Mattel had removed this utterance from the doll’s repertoire

1993

Cora Sadosky becomes president Sponsors Is Geography Destiny? panel on the “two-body problem,” JMM, San Antonio, Texas Issues Statement on Parental Leave Moves its office from Wellesley College to the University of Maryland Sponsors affirmative action panel, AMS-CMS-MAA summer meeting, University of British Columbia Issues Statement on Sexual Harassment4

1994

AWM sponsors Are Women Getting All the Jobs? panel, JMM, Cincinnati, Ohio AWM, CWM, and EWM present first Special Noether Lecture at ICM in Zürich

4 A 1992 letter to the editor: “Why did women mathematicians wait all these years to say anything about this issue, even to one another? Because, until Anita Hill’s testimony, sexual harassment has been a private embarrassment. Some of us are surprised that she ever told anyone about it at all” (Senechal and Taylor, 1992).

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years

7

Newsletter announces that Margaret Wright was SIAM president-elect [Wright was the first woman SIAM president] AWM-Net email forum created 1995

Chuu-Lian Terng becomes president AWM sponsors minisymposium geared to postdocs, International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Hamburg, Germany

1996

AWM sponsors Affirmative Action: A Look Back and a Look Ahead panel, JMM, Orlando, Florida First AWM Invited Address at MathFest on mathematics or mathematics education [This was renamed Etta Zuber Falconer Lecture in 2004]

1997

Sylvia M. Wiegand becomes president AWM joins AMS, SIAM, MAA, and 100 other scientific organizations in a focused effort to increase US government support of mathematics and science. Subsequently, NSF funding increased by nearly 5%

1998

AWM website created

1999

Jean E. Taylor becomes president NSF-AWM Travel Grant program expanded to include Mentoring Travel Grants Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics held at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute

2000

AWM’s financial base expands to include online advertising and institutional sponsors

2001–2010 2001

Suzanne Lenhart becomes president AWM Mentor Network initiated AWM Student Essay Contest for middle school, high school, and college students launched (a graduate student category was included for its first two years)

2002

AWM student chapters created

2003

Carolyn Gordon becomes president First AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Lecture on applied or computational mathematics given Long-range planning is initiated, expanding and restructuring the organization and its leadership

8

J. L. Beery et al.

2004

Sponsors Diverse Personal Lives of Mathematicians panel, JMM, Phoenix, Arizona

2005

Barbara Lee Keyfitz becomes president With NAM, AWM co-sponsors Achieving Diversity in Graduate Programs panels, JMM, Atlanta, Georgia AWM response to Lawrence Summers is published in the New York Times5 Complexities: Women in Mathematics, published by Princeton University Press, includes the proceedings of the 1999 Taussky Todd Celebration AWM contracts with STAT Marketing for management services

2006

Teacher Partnership launched

2007

Cathy Kessel becomes president AWM begins to participate in the Recognition of the Achievements of Women in Science, Medicine and Engineering (RAISE) project, a precursor to the Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinerelated Professional Societies (AWARDS) project AWM and EWM launch Olga Taussky Todd Lecture at the International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Zürich, Switzerland First Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize, a fellowship for recently promoted associate professors, awarded

2008

Women in Numbers (WIN) Conference held at the Banff International Research Station. Although not an AWM-sponsored event, it becomes a model for RCCWs and Research Networks supported by 2015 NSF ADVANCE grant to AWM

2009

Georgia Benkart becomes president AWM becomes a partner in the Association for Women in Science’s AWARDS project Redesigned Newsletter with new AWM logo and glossier paper inaugurated

2010

Reciprocity agreement with SIAM approved Initiates “in cooperation” meetings and conferences Sponsors first AWM booth at USA Science and Engineering Festival Newsletter congratulates Ingrid Daubechies, first woman president of the International Mathematical Union (IMU) Issues Statement on Childcare

5 Several issues of the Newsletter discuss the controversial speculation of Harvard president Lawrence Summers on innate differences as an explanation for women’s underrepresentation in mathematics and science.

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years

9

2011–2020 2011

Jill Pipher becomes president AWM minisymposia held in honor of its 40th anniversary, JMM, New Orleans, Louisiana First Gweneth Humphreys award for mentorship of undergraduate women given AWM Facebook page announced Held 40th Anniversary Conference, Brown University Reciprocity agreement with Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences (KWMS) approved Newsletter announces Barbara Keyfitz as president-elect of the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics [She was its first woman president] Issues Statement on Fairness in Testing

2012

Sponsors Parenthood on the Tenure Track panel, MathFest, Madison, Wisconsin

2013

Ruth Charney becomes president First AWM Service Awards given AWM Noether Lecture renamed AWM-AMS Noether Lecture Research Symposium held at Santa Clara University

2014

Newsletter becomes open access First Sadosky Research Prize (analysis) awarded First Microsoft Research Prize (algebra and number theory) awarded Newsletter congratulates Maryam Mirzakhani, first woman Fields Medalist

2015

Kristin Lauter becomes president First Birman Research Prize (topology and geometry) awarded AWM Springer book series begins with Research in Shape Modeling: Los Angeles, July 2013 Regular AWM Congressional Hill visits initiated AWM Twitter feed announced Research Symposium held at University of Maryland NSF ADVANCE grant to support research networks and collaboration conferences awarded

2016

Sponsors Research Collaboration Conferences for Women panel, JMM, Seattle, Washington

10

J. L. Beery et al.

AWM-MAA regional partnerships initiated 2017

Ami Radunskaya becomes president First AWM Dissertation Prizes awarded With NAM, Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education (EDGE), Building Diversity in Science (BDIS), and AMS, AWM co-sponsors The Mathematics and Mathematicians Behind Hidden Figures panel, JMM, Atlanta, Georgia AWM Research Symposium held, UCLA First Wikipedia Edit-a-thon held, AWM Research Symposium, UCLA First AWM student chapter awards given

2018

Inaugural AWM Fellows awarded AWM contracts with AMS for management services Final report of AWM Diversity and Inclusion Task Force is produced Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College accepts AWM records

2019

Ruth Haas becomes president Sponsors panel on Promoting Inclusion in STEM, JMM, Baltimore, Maryland Research Symposium held, Rice University 20th volume published in AWM Springer Book Series AWM Instagram announced Issues diversity, inclusivity, discrimination, and harassment statements Responds to proposed Title IX changes Newsletter congratulates Karen Uhlenbeck, first woman Abel prize winner

2020

AWM sponsors Moving Towards Action workshop to address sexual harassment in the mathematical sciences, JMM, Denver, Colorado With Spectra, AWM co-sponsors Queer Families and Mathematical Careers panel, JMM, Denver, Colorado AWM responds to the pandemic with webpage COVID-19 and the AWM Community AWM responds to protests of systemic racism with endorsement of Solidarity with the National Association of Mathematicians and Newsletter calls for articles related to AWM’s Anti-Racism Initiative AWM prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary

Acknowledgments Thanks to Anne Leggett, Elise Catania, the anonymous reviewers, and the AWM presidents who reviewed an earlier draft of this article.

AWM Through the Decades: A Chronology of the First Fifty Years

11

References AWM. 2018. AWM Executive Committee Handbook. AWM. 2020. AWM Newsletter. https://awm-math.org/publications/newsletter/. Accessed 31 Dec, 2020. AWM. Association for Women in Mathematics Manuscript Collection 3PZ. Wellesley College. https://www.wellesley.edu/lts/collections/archives-and-special-collections/archives/ collections. Beery, Janet, Sarah Greenwald, and Cathy Kessel. 2020. https://sites.google.com/view/awmthrough-the-decades. Accessed 31 Dec, 2020. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–774. (Reprinted in this volume) Greenwald, Sarah J., Anne Leggett, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Mathematical Intelligencer 37(3): 11–21. Lorch, Lee. 1996. The painful path toward inclusiveness. In A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 85–101. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Schafer, Alice T. 1981. Women and mathematics. In Mathematics tomorrow, ed. Lynn Arthur Steen, 165–185. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Senechal, Marjorie and Jean E. Taylor 1992. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 22(1): 3–4. Taylor, Jean E. and Sylvia Wiegand. 1999. AWM in the 1990s: A recent history of the Association for Women in Mathematics. AMS Notices 46(1). Expanded version AWM Newsletter 29(1)–(4).

Part I

How AWM Began

When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President Mary Gray

When did it first occur to me that women were not being treated the same way as men in mathematics? Not through K–12—sure, sometimes I was the only woman in advanced math classes, but that was also true in second year Latin. Not as an undergrad—again there was at most one other woman in anything beyond calculus and my male physics lab partners wanted to set up the fun experiments while I did the relevant math, but I liked everything I took, from math to a midnight poetry reading in a local graveyard. Not working at the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) during the summer—I don’t think anyone was looking at gender in filling internships, but being from Nebraska was a definite asset. Maybe it was because I was the only woman around and the boss knew of World War II women coders, that one Friday I was handed a Fortran instruction booklet and asked to come back on Monday with a program to solve sixth-degree equations. It was a quick study since I had never used a computer before. These were the days of room-filling machines and decks of cards too often dropped, destroying a day’s work. I also got to do engaging things like rolling out the 10-foot-high solar furnace to demonstrate its potency to Congressional staff so that Congress would appropriate the funds to melt more UO2 . Not as a Fulbright student in Germany—I honestly don’t remember there being other women students in my math classes there, but the best known math professor was a woman, and there was a great course in German for foreigners with lots of interesting women and men from all over the world. Not when I went to graduate school in the US, courtesy of National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Defense Education Act (NDEA) fellowships, only

M. Gray () American University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_2

15

16

M. Gray

to be told by the instructor on my first day of class that I was occupying a place that should belong to a man. True, maybe I should have known what I was getting into as it was 30 years since the last woman (and maybe the only previous one ever) had earned a PhD in math at the university, but my male colleagues were happy to share the chess, bridge and homework sessions. I developed the motto, “Don’t get mad, just get even”—in this case by doing better than the men in the class. Not in my first professional position. When students or junior colleagues ask me for advice, one thing I always say is “Choose a good partner.” Yes, it leads to the notorious two-body problem, but I’ve been lucky. Since my husband Alfie was on the faculty at Berkeley, I could teach there only in the summer when he wasn’t teaching classes, but at the time much-better-qualified women than I were kept off the faculty at Berkeley and elsewhere by anti-nepotism rules then in place. But I had a great time at Cal State Hayward (now Cal State East Bay), except when Governor Reagan, in cost-saving measures, shut off the water for two hours a day and decreed that no files, including those of students, could be kept longer than three years. While in graduate school, I had engaged only in a small civil rights campaign, so I had to be just an onlooker at the start of the Free Speech movement on the Berkeley campus. I needed to gain some experience—trying to stop the trains delivering munitions by lying on the tracks, going to an event in support of the Black Panthers, and becoming a union activist. The administration at my university was none too happy with the emerging campus union; searching offices and tapping phones were bad enough, but their doctoring of my promotion file led to union assistance with the promotion and, I like to think, helped hasten the departure of the university president and certainly motivated my activism. Most influential for me from my Northern California sojourn was my role as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) representative on the Alameda County labor council. Again only one other woman (representative of the Ladies Garment Workers) was at the table, but since I was considerably younger than everyone else, the leadership adopted me as a novice to be trained. I learned a lot about solidarity, not all of it good, but much of it was, especially support and provision of supplies for Cesar Chavez’s organizing of the Central Valley grape workers. Although I couldn’t eat grapes again for many years, the experience eventually led to my current campaign to get better benefits for my university’s outsourced cleaning and dining services employees. Any professional difficulties on the Cal State job were because of union activity, not gender. Although JFK had used the term in 1961, “affirmative action” generally became a much-misunderstood employment policy years later. Jobs for those with PhDs in math were abundant in the 1960s; space race competition meant many more people were needed to teach the influx of students coming into math and the sciences, so it may have been that often hiring a woman was just the employers’ last resort, but we mostly got hired somewhere, if not maybe where we wanted to be. Also, pipeline issues meant the supply of qualified women was too low to be a threat—only 6% of those getting PhDs in math the year I did were women. I was very fortunate that no one ever said or implied that I was an “affirmative action hire,” a demeaning and discouraging sobriquet we still hear employed.

When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President

17

Not in my next job—the one I have now and have had for 50 years. After Berkeley we hunted for a place where there were at least two universities needing more mathematicians at the time; we feared that the marriage might not survive our being in the same department. At that time, jobs were still reasonably plentiful and we were able to choose among offers and live in Washington, DC. Any difficulties I have had at American University have probably been due to my being an agitator, though in fairness some of my campaigns for free speech, academic freedom, human rights, emphasis on standards, and diversity in faculty, students, and subject matter might have been better received coming from a man. And it did take 50 years for me to be admitted to the rank of the less than 1% of the faculty labeled “distinguished.” No offer during these years, particularly if administrative, looked as attractive as where I was. Maybe the existence of non-stop flights to Europe from DC as well as the excitement of being in DC was a factor. But along the way I had started to notice how hard it was at AMS meetings to join informal discussion in the corridors, how difficult it was to get a speaker to recognize me to pose a question. True, I had already observed that at gatherings at homes of Alfie’s colleagues I was expected to join the kitchen conversations and not the mathematical discussions, but at the meetings, weren’t we all mathematicians? Looking around at the meetings, I observed that there were very few other women there—certainly not among the officers, the plenary speakers, the session organizers. It became apparent that the other relatively junior women there were having the same problems as I, but as the activist Dorothy Day is known for saying, “No one has a right to sit down and feel helpless. There is too much to do.” Learning more about how the mathematics community organized itself seemed a good place to start so I went to where a meeting of the AMS Council was scheduled, only to be stopped at the door by the president, who told me that only Council members were allowed to enter. Even before I became a lawyer, I had always looked at the fine print, in this case the by-laws, which said on the contrary that Council meetings were open to all AMS members. To my pointing this out, the president responded “Oh, it’s a gentleman’s agreement.” My reply of “I’m no gentleman” has followed me ever since. To my disappointment, the Council meeting was rather dull, but members made pretty clear that they were not interested in our issues. So again, the remedy was to get even. Even though things have not been really hard for me personally, Alfie always said I was looking for battles to fight. So now I awoke— realizing that a lot of bad things were going on and determining to make things better. At the previous big math meeting, a small group had gotten together and decided to form AWM, originally the Association of Women Mathematicians, but “for” was the more appropriate choice as there were men interested in the same issues and potentially supportive of collective action for reform. It is not the case, as I have heard rumored, that we caucused in restrooms; we had men members long before we had unisex restrooms. One indication of AWM progress, however, was longer women’s room queues, a problem that may be resolved with the trend to unisex. Among the first members and faithful adherents to the cause were Alice Schafer, who, with other women in the Boston area had also come to the conclusion that

18

M. Gray

Fig. 1 AWM President-elect Sylvia Wiegand, NAM President John W. Alexander Jr., AWM President Chuu-Lian Terng, Mary Gray, Alice Schafer, NAM Executive Secretary Johnny Houston, Cora Sadosky. Terng is holding a certificate from NAM congratulating AWM on its 25th anniversary, 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

we should do something, Lee Lorch, and Chandler Davis, the latter two always being my inspiration for activism. African American mathematicians, faculty at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and others with similar interests and goals had recently formed the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM), subsequently forging with AWM an alliance on many issues of diversity and inclusiveness in the profession (see Fig. 1). But to me as a member of AWM and NAM, it became apparent that more effort would be needed for the profession to become more welcoming to all. We needed, literally, a seat at the table—some representatives of more progressive views on the AMS Council itself. I decided to run for election to the Council. Those championing the broader participation of women and minority mathematicians and promoting policies engendering that goal supported my election. But once there, it was an uphill struggle. For example, to the proposal of double-blind refereeing for AMS publications, the majority Council response was “But how do we know a paper is any good if we don’t know who wrote it?” On a more encouraging note, when the issue of reciprocity with the South African mathematical society came up (this was still in the days of deep apartheid), council members, strengthened in their resolve by an eloquent address by Jim Donaldson (see Fig. 2), said “No!” Denying reduced dues rates to representatives of an abhorrent regime doesn’t seem like very much, but it was a start. Much as many felt committed to international cooperation and openness, in a case so egregious, sanctions and boycotts seemed appropriate. Support also formed in the Council and the society at large for some action with respect to mathematicians unjustly arrested, imprisoned, and “disappeared”

When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President

19

Fig. 2 Jim Donaldson is seated on the right and Gloria Conyers Hewitt sits center back, AWM 20th anniversary banquet, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

by various dictatorships. The question not of gender but of whether she had any publications did arise when we discussed the case of one Argentinian woman graduate student. It was agreed that lack of publications—if that was the case— was not yet grounds for being disappeared by the authorities. In 1976, when the celebration of 200 years since the Declaration of Independence was also an occasion for Gauss’s upcoming bicentennial of birth, with appropriate mathematical community recognition, I went around the country speaking of a mathematician born in 1776 and legendarily linked to him. Learning of Sophie Germain doubled the number of women mathematicians known to many. In this year of 2020, 200 years after her birth, I am encouraging similar recognition of Florence Nightingale for her work as a statistician. The same year, I was elected vice president of the AMS. When a representative of the society was needed as part of a Brazil-France-MexicoUS delegation to try to get the distinguished mathematician José Luis Massera out of prison in Uruguay and the AMS president chose not to go, I represented the US. No one suggested that my gender was an impediment to the undertaking, although the US ambassador was not happy to see me in Montevideo after the Uruguay desk at the State Department had told me not to go. After all, Massera was a communist— the anti-communist feeling of the McCarthy era, which had had bad effects on the US mathematics community, was not yet over. The delegation was somewhat astounded to be told by the authorities while we were there that Massera would be released in a couple of months and even more astounded when he was. The AMS has employed less dramatic techniques in subsequent cases, such as a 2020 case

20

M. Gray

in Turkey, but continues to engage in support of human rights of mathematicians around the world. For me, the mission established friendships still strong today and ignited my compulsion to work for human rights for decades through Amnesty International and other organizations like Statistics without Borders. On the gender issue, AMS gains in developing policies more welcoming to those who previously may have felt marginalized have been small, but as of this writing the organization has had four women presidents since 1983 compared to none in the nearly 100 years of its existence before then. Most important, through AWM and AMS, there are more women and girls who are encouraged to study math and many—women and men—who provide encouragement and help when needed. AWM and now EWM (European Women in Mathematics) and other organizations for women are active participants in international events like the International Congress of Mathematicians and the World Statistics Congress. I have often been asked why AWM has continued to be an active force for women and girls in mathematics over our nearly 50 years of existence when many similarly dedicated groups in other professions have come and gone or sometimes been assimilated in a broad-base organization. In my opinion, the independence of AWM from AMS, rather than an existence as a special interest group within it, has been crucial. In the early years, through the invaluable assistance of Hope Daly of the AMS, a few dedicated volunteers staffed a strategically placed table at the annual AMS-MAA meetings, reaching out to passersby to explain AWM’s goals and activities and to draw in potential members. Panels early on were sometimes greeted with hostility or skepticism; an eminent algebraist once offered an explanation for the scarcity of women in mathematics: “We hired a woman at Chicago once but her research wasn’t very good.” But more recently participants came to learn about mathematics or social policy (see Fig. 3) or to recruit for faculty positions. Through the years the Emmy Noether lectures, the AWM awards, the presentations

Fig. 3 Ellen Kirkman, Mary Gray, Stephanie Singer, Richard Dudley, part of an AWM panel Lawrence Summers: one Year Later, 2006 JMM, San Antonio, TX. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President

21

by graduate students and new PhDs and, don’t forget, the parties, have become important parts of AWM and of the mathematics community in general. But it is not only on the national scene that AWM does good work. Many campuses have local AWM student chapters and Sonia Kovalevsky Days are a way to reach out to younger girls. One mark against my own university is a decision by a former president of AU to de-emphasize science by, among other things, cancelling PhD programs in chemistry, physics, statistics, and math education. A majority of my 33 PhD students are women and more than a quarter are from underrepresented minorities, making at least a small contribution to changing the future. Some have organized AWM activities at institutions where they hold academic positions, most noteworthy being Linda Hayden’s long-standing yearly Sonia K Day at Elizabeth City State University. With the loss of our PhD programs at American, we lost the organizing energy and enthusiasm of the graduate students for our Sonia K days, even though one year we had great publicity because Chelsea Clinton was a participant. The question of why AWM is still around is often founded on a perception that the “problem” has been solved. Of course, some problems have been partially solved—the percentage of women among math PhDs has risen to the twenties (just how high depends in part on whether statistics and biostatistics degrees are counted). The question of why the representation of women in statistics fields is greater than that in most other math specialties is often pondered, but so far as I know, in spite of various theories, not resolved. Women are winning major international awards, filling management as well as teaching and research jobs at major corporations, in academe, and in government (with the top position still an exception, of course). And at the same time, younger men are falling behind in such matters as college attendance if not in the Putnam contest. Women (and men) still are not embarrassed to claim a lack of interest, knowledge, or training in mathematics in a way that one would not hear, “Oh, I was never any good at reading.” Some women still drop out because they feel excluded or unwelcome or because there is inadequate support along the way, topped by the ongoing crisis in childcare. There are plenty of issues for AWM to work on, peculiar to mathematics and as part of society at large. There are still too many lawyers who confess they went to law school because they disliked or were no good at mathematics, too many reporters who have difficulty with quantitative issues. All of us bear some responsibility for a lack of clarity or enthusiasm in presenting our discipline in a way that may have turned people off along the way. It is only fair to note that support for AWM and its activities and philosophy has not been universal among women in mathematics. There are those who feel that no matter how badly they may have been treated, women should not be singled out for special attention, attention that may seem demeaning to women, or those who believe themselves always to have been treated fairly and think other women’s failure to achieve their goals was due to lack of ability or of dedicated effort. Others felt there was too much emphasis in AWM on policies, activities, and teaching and not enough on mathematics research. Some folks take a long time to wake up. Now we find dissenters who believe that with the special conferences that have become a

22

M. Gray

regular AWM feature, the emphasis is too much on research. AWM is a big tent, so I hope everyone can enter and feel welcome, but there are always some who choose to stay outside. I am also often asked why I now call myself a statistician rather than a mathematician. I knew early in my career that I was unlikely to make any mathematical discovery that would have an immediate impact on society, but I still wanted to help save the world. That led me to broaden my knowledge and interests to be involved through the use of statistics to further the rights of women and better health for all through research, teaching, lobbying and litigation. I confess that I had another awakening along the way when I was working in the Eugene McCarthy campaign and found that the men volunteers got the interesting jobs, and women were supposed to stuff envelopes. Now I can help design political surveys. Part of the evolution of my thinking—use your skills for the cause you believe in— felt validated last week when two of my former statistics students dropped by (not together), one to tell me that he now works on data analytics for one of the Democratic candidates for president and another to describe her work on voter registration for a different candidate, inspired she said by a course in which my students did some innovative polling. But again along the way I looked for the first time at a statement of the benefits I might receive from my university’s retirement plan. I noticed that if I were a man in the same circumstances my benefits would be 15% higher (you wouldn’t think it would need a statistician to observe that). In the era by then of discrimination in employment benefits being forbidden by federal law, I called to tell the pension company that what they were doing was illegal. “Oh,” they said, “this is discrimination on the basis of longevity, not gender. Women live longer than men, you know.” To my inquiry as to whether I could expect to live longer than my male colleagues in order to equalize our benefits I was told “You just don’t understand statistics.” Well, really I did, having earlier in my career given up on abstract algebra in favor of applied statistics, anticipating better opportunities to save the world. Getting engaged in litigation about this retirement plan, the great women’s rights attorney Ruth Weyand and I met with lawyers for the pension fund, who, after being confronted with my analyses conceded; “You might understand statistics, but you don’t understand the law.” Unwilling to let that stand I went to law school and by the time the case got to the US Supreme Court, I was able, as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, to write an amicus brief as well as work on the statistics of the case. This is one that we won! But only because of federal employment law; other forms of insurance not workrelated are generally regulated by state governments. Hence, absent the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) women would be charged more for health insurance than were men, not only during child-bearing ages but also when older and less expensive for the system than men. And men, especially young men, pay more than women for auto insurance, often far beyond what is justified by the statistics. At one time I spent a lot of time running around the country testifying about discrimination in insurance and still remember an instance of a young man with a clean driving record being charged twice as much as an older man with two DUI convictions.

When I Awoke: Reflections from AWM’s First President

23

Fig. 4 Mary Gray receiving an AWM award from Carol Wood, cited as “the one person most responsible for the existence of this organization; for years her name was virtually synonymous with AWM. She ran the organization almost single-handedly for its first two and a half years, serving as chair during that period and producing the Newsletter for the first four years. . . . Mary remains active in AWM and has served as General Counsel. As a former president, she participates in the deliberations of the Executive Committee, where her advice and perspective are of abiding value to the Association.” 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

Today many benefits may be facially gender-neutral but not, statistics will tell us, neutral in results (“disparate impact” in legal terms) if indeed everyone derives any benefit at all. Women with heart attacks get less attention than do men with the same symptoms, but at least now clinical trials include women participants—and increasingly women are in charge of the design, implementation, and analysis. So we struggle on. Now that I have been awakened, I hope to stay that way, supporting however I can the work of the present and future generations (see Fig. 4) through their skills and knowledge, through their enthusiasm and dedication.

Mathematicians Action Group and the Founding of AWM Chandler Davis

How Did AWM Come to Be? Recalling the formative stage of the Association for Women in Mathematics, I want to address especially readers who arrived on the scene much later, after it had gelled. In the early times, it wasn’t clear what a feminist organization of mathematicians should be like, it had to be invented. AWM at birth was rather unlike AWM at maturity. In order to nudge it from nonexistence into existence, it needed rather special circumstances. In the twentyfirst century, it is an established institution alongside the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical Association of America, the American Statistical Association, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the National Association of Mathematicians. Half a century ago, this panoply of organizations did not include one oriented especially toward women, nor did it include one oriented especially toward African Americans. Those remained to be invented. The mathematical profession included plenty of individuals open to the participation of women and minorities, even enthusiastic for it, but who would not demand it because they were not the sort to rock the boat. They were essential to the success of the new invention, but they had been around for decades without it happening. The enabling new element in the late 1960s was the appearance of a numerous population of rebels. For many of us, the AMS and MAA, though essential to our professional lives, were part of an establishment including even more massive organizations like the universities and the federal government. We felt increasingly estranged by the establishment, and moved to a critical stance. The Cold War didn’t sit well, or

C. Davis () University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_3

25

26

C. Davis

the demands for social conformity of the Eisenhower years, or the US military adventures, especially in Vietnam. Our critical movement, called the New Left, did not have a coherent organization, but the mood of criticism was powerful and pervaded all of our lives. We mathematicians in the New Left lived our mathematical lives in and through the AMS and MAA, so we organized unofficial sessions on the occasion of AMS meetings, or introduced counter-establishment motions at the AMS business meetings. We became a coherent community within the mathematical community; we got together and conspired. From this amorphous band of rebels coalesced three organizations, the Association for Women in Mathematics, the National Association of Mathematicians, and Mathematicians Action Group or MAG. As to AWM and NAM, the outcome is visible today, in stable organizations, one centered on women mathematicians, the other on Black mathematicians, especially those in Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These organizations do not rely only on rebels, they have and have always had a major segment much more comfortable with the establishment but equally dedicated to advancing the opportunities for once excluded populations. MAG, on the other hand, was rebellious through and through. Maybe it was inevitable it should fade away as the vigor of the New Left waned. I have to tell its story here, not just because it was the focus for me, but because it gathered the rebels, whose critical impetus was needed for the creation of AWM, and maybe of NAM as well.

Radicals Among the Mathematicians We knew who we were, even in the absence of an organization. We mostly knew what we were rebelling about, and it was not only the cause of feminism. The men active in the rebel band in many cases had mathematician wives just as active in it as they were or more so: think of Mary and Alfred Gray, Judy and Paul Green, Diane and Gary Laison. But for all the New Left men—like Ed Dubinsky, Steve Smale, Lee Lorch, Jim Donaldson, Anatole Beck, Marvin Shinbrot, and myself—women’s rights were a core value. And along with their feminism, women radicals—like Lenore Blum, Judy Roitman, Nancy Kopell, Rebekka Struik, and Linda Keen— were relentless social critics. As I’ve said, it was not a matter of AWM being conceived by some male radicals and donated to the world, or by our entire group of radicals for that matter. But the radicals supplied an essential spark at the outset; and among the radicals, the majority were male. Did we male radicals act bossy, or pay more attention to male than to female voices in discussion? I think we did pretty well in this regard, especially considering the society we came from—i.e., the society we were rebelling against. Were we even able to accept leadership from women? Well, yes, emphatically—on women’s issues and on all issues. Did the radicals clash with more conservative supporters of women’s rights? Less than you might suppose, and for this we can thank the women who got AWM started, for several of the active

Mathematicians Action Group and the Founding of AWM

27

left-wingers formed warm, enduring friendships with less radical leaders like Alice Schafer. The prehistory of MAG begins in July 1968. Using contacts made in earlier actions against the Vietnam War, a few of us called on mathematicians to assemble just before the AMS meeting in Wisconsin, to join the national protest outside the Democratic Party convention in Chicago. (The Democratic Party, remember, had been in power for the Vietnam War’s escalation.) We called ourselves the Bourbaki Brigade, we hoisted signs like “Troops out of Vietnam, Prague, and Chicago,” we had a little speechifying, and we marched on the convention hall. The reason you haven’t read about us in histories of those demonstrations is that, unlike some of the marchers coming after us, we halted when the troops ordered us to halt, and thus didn’t get hit with tear gas or nightsticks. But our unity against the War was solidified, and we felt total solidarity with the demonstrators who did suffer the brutal crackdown in subsequent days. Indignation against the violence visited on the Chicago protest was felt nationwide. Seeing that the AMS meeting for summer 1969 was scheduled for Chicago, some mathematicians called for the Society to register its outrage at the city’s brutal repression of the protest by moving the Summer Meeting to Cincinnati. This was brought before the business meeting in winter 1969 in New Orleans. It was contentious; the floor fight was led by Lee Lorch and other proto-MAG members; it succeeded. A considerable group of the peaceniks assembled outside the formal AMS sessions and, buoyed by the victory on the Chicago issue, declared the formation of a new organization, Mathematicians Action Group. It was an oddball. But by design. MAG never had formal membership, let alone officers. (I recall putting this in pseudo-mathspeak: “MAG is not a set.”) It had a mailing list so newsletters could be sent around occasionally, and it put together ad hoc committees for organizing sessions at major math meetings. No further structure. This very New Left anarchic behavior was meant as an anti-bureaucratic measure (can’t imagine that being made a matter of principle today). So you see, this ragtag congeries believed (in a rather cocksure way, all right) in a many-sided philosophy: opposition to the Vietnam War, support for rights of women and minorities, suspicion of establishments, and more. Though most of us were socialists of one sort or another, that wasn’t our unifying ideology, and maybe that helped us avoid antagonizing outsiders—and each other. We managed to escape the factionalism that crippled Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in those years. It wasn’t obvious whether AWM should be an organization of women only. A strong case was made for some meetings, explorations of painful experiences of discrimination, to be held with no men present lest the women be inhibited in telling their stories. I recall an early AWM session, again in the margins of an AMS meeting, where Lenore Blum and others asked to move to a women-only mode so that grievances would be aired more freely. (The notion of the Speak Bitterness session was familiar to readers of William Hinton’s Fanshen.) One man present objected that his mathematician wife had a traumatic experience to share with the group and she was unable to attend but wanted him to speak for her. Mary Gray was

28

C. Davis

Fig. 1 Cathy Kessel, Jenny Harrison, Rebekka Struik, Chandler Davis, Lee Lorch, Helen Moore, Beth Ruskai, Jean Taylor. AWM Business Meeting at the 1997 Joint Mathematics Meetings

in the chair; after general discussion, she ruled that his proxy statement would be heard but that all men then should leave. At another early meeting, when the issue of the role of men was being examined, Lee Lorch, one of the few men present, suggested convincingly that the name should be Association for—not of —Women in Mathematics, and men should be eligible for membership. This point of view carried the day, and many of us have been AWM members ever since (see Figs. 1 and 2). The MAG rebels’ suspicion of establishments extended to suspicion of entrenched mathematical eminences. Let society belong to all citizens, we believed, and let the Society belong to all mathematicians. One of Mary Gray’s most estimable exploits was sitting in at an AMS Council meeting, defying directions to leave: claiming her right as a member to know how the organization was being run. This was simply a demand for transparency, and seems just as valid in retrospect as it did (to us anyway) at the time. The dogged avoidance of any hierarchy within MAG was related but may seem exaggerated today. Also from the egalitarian mindset came some critique of élitism in mathematics. What might that mean? We were sure that there must not be an in-group of eminent fossils suppressing youthful outsiders, and assuming that nobody but white males deserved to be listened to; that much was easy. But beyond that our New Left philosophy did not give us the answers. We saw that some mathematics was better than some other mathematics, and though we might be skeptical about the criteria in fashion, we were daunted by the difficulty of creating new criteria. Our seminars on this did not light our way very far. I hope that future rebels within mathematics will carry on the very difficult task of criticizing inherited orthodoxies and their priesthoods.

Mathematicians Action Group and the Founding of AWM

29

Fig. 2 James Winslow, Lee Lorch, Chandler Davis. AWM Workshop Poster Session at the 1998 SIAM Annual Meeting, University of Toronto

And AWM Lives On Here is another line of activism by our little band. In advance of the International Congress of Mathematicians in Vancouver in 1974, we wrote around, soliciting contributions to fund a delegation to the ICM from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Repugnance against the War was by then very widespread, and contributions rolled in. One young mathematician, Joan Hutchinson, gave a very substantial amount, with the proviso that it was specifically for a woman mathematician. The donation, and the idea, were welcomed—and it worked! The delegation consisted of a senior man, Lê V˘an Thiêm, and a young woman, Hoàng Xuân Sính. Hoàng was in the first generation of fully qualified women research mathematicians in Vietnam; she would soon earn a doctorate from what is now the University of Paris with thesis research supervised (mostly long-distance) by Alexander Grothendieck. Among the North Americans who seized the occasion to talk with Hoàng and Lê in Vancouver were two staunch feminist friends of mine: Lipman Bers, who had fought successfully to get the AMS Council to protest Nixon’s “Christmas bombing” of Hanoi, and Neal Koblitz, who with his wife, historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, later founded a permanent organization, the Kovalevskaia Fund, encouraging growth of mathematical training and research by women in Vietnam. But now I’m getting outside the time frame of this reminiscence. I could go on about the later years (see Fig. 3), for I stayed around after the early days, happy to work with a whole generation of presidents of AWM; and to agitate within AMS,

30

C. Davis

Fig. 3 Chandler Davis holding an AWM mug, University of Toronto

along with them and Julia Robinson and others; and to help and collaborate with my women students and postdocs, including Barbara Keyfitz, Pratibha Ghatage, and Cathy Olsen. The story of AWM goes on long past the point where MAG, and indeed the whole New Left, sputtered out. But my emphasis here has been on the founding, and the distinctive role played in it by our rebel band.

A Caucus Is Born: Women in Mathematics Find a Formula for Solidarity Joanne Darken

“I suggest that the women get together after this meeting to form a caucus.” In 1971, I stood up at a meeting of the Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) at the Joint Meetings in Atlantic City and made that proposal. A number of us women did meet, plans were formed, and that was the beginning of AWM. The organization took off through the efforts of energetic women such as Mary Gray, who would become the first president of AWM. Besides providing the initial idea, my own part was to work with a group in the Philadelphia area to form a local chapter, active for several years. (Though that local chapter is no longer extant, at least one local institution has a chapter of its own.) My recollections of that day’s details have faded. I did not leave home in Philadelphia that morning with a plan to make such a suggestion, nor do I remember any particular remark at the meeting that provoked it. Several women at the meeting were colleagues of mine at Temple, where I was an instructor at the time, but as ever the attendees were mostly men, and perhaps that struck me more forcefully than usual. At some point after my suggestion, a man took it upon himself to advise the women how to proceed. Months later it was also a man who suggested the name be changed from “Association of Women Mathematicians” to “Association for Women in Mathematics.” I didn’t really like that change, because it seemed in the spirit of providing paternalistic guidance, but I thought it would be impolitic to object to it, and I didn’t. (It is perhaps also impolitic, and unkind, to imply a shortage of gratitude to men who wanted to help women but hadn’t fully risen above the attitudes with which they were raised. Mea culpa.) Like many women in mathematics, I’d had personal experiences that might inspire such a suggestion as I made. As an undergraduate I was often the only

J. Darken () Community College of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_4

31

32

J. Darken

woman in my mathematics classes, and I did feel uncomfortable about that—and more so about people expressing amazement and even grave reservations about my chosen major at Berkeley: it wasn’t “feminine,” like being an English major, or taking secretarial science in high school. I also had some memorably bad experiences. There was the time I gave a class presentation and within the first minute the professor said I was wrong. The smartest guy in the class (George Bergman, later a professor at Berkeley, to whom I am still grateful) straightened him out, explaining how I was right. Later, in graduate school at Wisconsin, I had a worse experience. It was my turn to give a presentation. The professor, as was his wont, thought of things he needed to say first, and about four class periods went by before I got my turn—so I was very well-prepared. I started; my classmates encouragingly nodded their understanding. The professor interrupted to say that what I’d said was wrong, and he went to the board to expand on that. Throughout the presentation he continually interrupted and “corrected” me at the board. It was very rattling and by the end I found myself starting a sentence not knowing how I would end it. I was the only woman in the class and the only student to be so thoroughly interrupted and criticized. The professor said at the end that I’d done a bad job. My view is that you’d need combat training to do well in the circumstances he created. I mention, for veracity and self respect, that during my graduate career a couple of the more prestigious visiting professors whose classes I took expressed a high opinion of my work and ability. The two professors whose behavior I’ve described were at the other end of the spectrum, and by no means typical, at either the graduate or the undergraduate level. There was more discrimination to come, of a financial nature. Needing money while I was in graduate school, I applied to teach a class at an area college. I went for an interview and was told I could have the job. But the salary named was less that the one in the ad. I thought I’d just misremembered the figure (typical woman of the time—“it must be my fault”) and I accepted the offer. I checked later and indeed I hadn’t misremembered. After I got my master’s degree I got a couple of unsolicited job offers from friends in a position to make them and they clearly expected me to work for less money than a man would. “Friends” indeed! Them I turned down. Besides personal experience, the spirit of the times was an impetus to action. If I hadn’t suggested what I did, soon someone else would have done so. Racial inequality had penetrated the country’s awareness, and gender inequality was not far behind. I had been a civil rights worker with the Congress of Racial Equality in Louisiana in the summer of 1964, and that was a crash course in the evils, and sometimes the violence, resulting from inequality. Whatever difficulties there were for women in mathematics, at least we were not risking our lives in organizing to improve our situation. After the national AWM was formed, we in the Philadelphia area formed a local chapter, and the participants bonded over common aspirations and struggles. To start the chapter I got a list of women in mathematics in the Philadelphia area; national AWM was instrumental in providing it. I mailed each person on the list a letter about the plan to form a chapter of AWM (this was before email) and there was a decent response. (Aside: I still remember one heart-breaking response from

A Caucus Is Born: Women in Mathematics Find a Formula for Solidarity

33

a woman who’d abandoned mathematics and felt ashamed about what to her was proof of her personal inferiority. I still feel badly I didn’t reach out to that fallen sister. My own experiences and feelings were not so different.) I met several kindred spirits with whom I still feel an important bond. I met Judy Green, who’s written a piece for this collection out of her own much more extensive experience in AWM. She and I still have good conversations. Early on we were fortunate enough to have a specific instance of discrimination to confront: a local professor published an article in the American Mathematical Monthly which alluded to women as the obvious candidates to do low-level tasks in mathematics. Our group got together and wrote a response, which was also published in the Monthly. A personal aspect of that experience still cheers me: I showed a draft to my biologist aunt. Her job was writing reports to the government about her drug company’s products. She would have preferred to work in the lab, but in her time that was regarded as an unsuitable job for a woman. (In fact, my mother had a similar experience in chemistry.) I showed my aunt the article we were rebutting; she was outraged by it and quickly put her writerly skills to work to enhance our rebuttal. I feel some satisfaction—and hope she did too—that those skills, which she’d had to hone for her “womanly” position, were employed to strike a blow against the prejudice that had forced her into it. In the half century or so since then, I’ve earned a doctorate in mathematics, done a bit of research in control theory, then switched gears and spent decades teaching at a community college, focusing on effective ways of teaching mathematics at that level. Since retiring, I sit in on classes and seminars in the mathematics department of an excellent university a short walk from my house. Without the pressure of grades or the need to publish, I find this very enjoyable. And I see a big difference between the old days and the present. Though the faculty and graduate students in the department are still mostly men, there are more women in the ranks than there used to be, and their presence is taken for granted. Indeed, one woman on the faculty told me her male colleagues go out of their way to be welcoming and helpful. Myself, I’ve changed (aged, for one thing) and that could be part of it, but as a visiting neighbor, I too feel accepted. And virtually no one has acted as if the sight of a woman around the department—who’s not a secretary—was giving him cognitive dissonance. Let us look forward to the day, hopefully well within the next half century, when there are plenty of women in the mathematics departments of all universities, equality reigns and everyone takes this for granted. Onward, AWM!

Part II

How It Was, How Should It Be? Inclusion, Diversity, Equal Opportunity

How It Was Judith Roitman

In which the author submits a list of events & grievances from the middish twentieth century to give a sense of What It Was Like and Why We Needed AWM. And, while she fervently wishes to believe the ample evidence that it is No Longer Like That, fears things may simply have gone underground and not gone away and can rise again.

Part I: Why I Almost Never Started It was the late 1950s. Math was boring. And even if a girl was good at it, all she could do with it was teach high school. It was the early 1960s. Women could not be orchestra conductors, composers, physicists, or mathematicians. Or if they did, they wouldn’t be any good at it. At least, that’s what a bunch of us boys and girls in the Oberlin College Chorus agreed in the spring of 1963. (The category of engineer did not come up because it was so unimaginable.) It was the late 1960s. I’d graduated from a women’s college (Sarah Lawrence) and was just starting graduate school when I looked in the mirror and thought very clearly: that is not what a mathematician looks like.

J. Roitman () University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_5

37

38

J. Roitman

Part II: Why I Started It was the late 1960s, my degree was in English, but I wanted to do something else, which needed a few math courses, and I fell in love with mathematics.

Part III: Why My Stomach Hurt Walking Up the Hill to Evans Hall on the Berkeley Campus The male student who asked me why I was in graduate school instead of being married. The professor who stared at my breasts whenever I talked to him. And the same professor, told that I would be working that summer as a math specialist in a posh boarding school with seventh graders, saying with delight: oh, you’re going to be a junior high school teacher! Wearing my boyfriend’s extra-large flannel shirts so nobody would notice my breasts and being asked by a male student if I thought wearing those large shirts would hide the fact that I was female. The countless times I said something in a small group of fellow (and they were fellows) students and was ignored, and when a man said it, everyone told him how brilliant he was. The professor in whose class I would whisper my questions for a fellow student to ask, because if I raised my hand, the question would not be taken seriously. Or I would not have a chance to ask it at all. The countless times someone assumed I was a secretary. (And now I flinch at the class distinctions that made this an insult.) The professor who would ask women to write on the blackboard because they had better handwriting. The professor who told me I’d gotten an extra-credit solution out of a book and another student had done original work, when in fact the other student had gotten it out of a book and I’d figured it out on my own, and more elegantly, too, I might add. The professor who started stroking my arm, and when I told him I already had a boyfriend, asked me why I was in his office anyway. (And no, it never occurred to me to report it.) The joke about how there were only two women mathematicians and one wasn’t a woman (Noether) and one wasn’t a mathematician (Kovalevskaya). When I spent a semester as a visiting fellow at Madison, and another visiting fellow, who had heard that two grad students were coming from Berkeley, assumed I was married to one of them. The comments about how, among the two women postdocs in the department, only one—the one who wore pleated skirts and sensible shoes—fit in, while the other—who wore leather jackets and makeup—didn’t.

How It Was

39

The grad student who got pregnant and had her TA-ship cut back because she wouldn’t need the money. I swear, this is what she was told. That Julia Robinson was an instructor and had a desk in the corner of her husband’s office and was, for whatever reasons, basically invisible within the logic group. The time I made out with a secret date at a math conference and, when I rushed into the next talk, a colleague pointed out that my blouse was less buttoned than it had been before lunch.

Part IV: Traitor to My Sex In women’s consciousness raising groups, I was told that I was a traitor to my sex; that mathematics was part of the patriarchy, part of the machinery by which men oppressed women.

Part V: What I Was Thinking I don’t belong here. I’ll never belong here. They think I’m another species. I will always be Other; they will never see me as simply human. (And the fact that this didn’t occur to me until grad school is clearly a function of white privilege.)

Part VI: What Kept Me from Bailing Out A visiting professor from the University of Wisconsin did not seem to notice my gender and seemed to take my existence for granted. That was in no small part because his colleague back home was . . . Mary Ellen Rudin. Mary Ellen Rudin. Mary Ellen Rudin. Who took in grad students and postdocs and made them family and didn’t pay attention to extraneous bullshit like gender or race or disability. Friends. Especially Lenore Blum. Love of mathematics. Every time a woman I knew left mathematics, men said: see, women can’t cut it as mathematicians. The community of other women mathematicians. I.e., AWM.

40

J. Roitman

Part VII: A Brief Glimpse of Power I would think: if I walked down this hallway with a tampon in my hand and opened my hand and a man saw it, this whole building would explode.

Part VIII: Suck It Up We were expected to suck it up. If we’ve learned anything since then, it’s that sucking it up might get you through, but it doesn’t help the other folks around you: not the women having a hard time sucking it up, and definitely not the men acting like assholes without realizing what assholes they are and how many women they’ve made feel awful in at least one of such a myriad of ways. If we suck it up, how are they finally going to be able to stop their destructive behavior and start treating women like full human beings?

My AWM Experience: A Lesson on The Relentless Pursuit of Inclusion Elebeoba E. May

From an organizational perspective, the relentless pursuit of inclusion often means developing training opportunities or implementing administrative policies aimed at increasing cultural and diversity awareness. However one could argue that inclusion is and should be a much more personal enterprise. The relentless pursuit of inclusion demands the persistent pursuit of the individual, cultivation of relationships, building and re-building trust, and expressing value through gratitude and recognition. A former colleague described inclusion as not just opening the door but also extending a hand. Relentless inclusion could then be deemed as continuously extending the hand until the person on the other side takes it. Whether serendipitously or purposefully, although I suspect it’s a combination of the two. My four-year participation in the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) Meetings Committee was for me an example of many acts of relentless inclusion perpetrated by an incredible community of women mathematicians.

Pursuit of the Individual My participation in the AWM was the first time I actively involved myself in an organization focused on advancing women in the mathematical sciences. While I was a Principal Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories, my colleague Karen Devine recommended me to serve on the panel for the Success through Transitions minisymposium, part of the AWM workshop at the 2010 SIAM

E. E. May () Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_6

41

42

E. E. May

Fig. 1 Elebeoba May, Gigliola Staffilani (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Mary Ann Horn (former program director, National Science Foundation) co-panelists for Success Through Transitions minisymposium, 2010 Annual SIAM Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA

Annual Meeting. As a panelist, I had the honor of sharing my story alongside notable mathematicians, including Gigliola Staffilani and Mary Ann Horn (see Fig. 1). My experience participating in the 2010 AWM workshop was quite different compared to most other workshops I previously attended. In my field, engineering and computational science, men predominated most professional meetings, both as participants and as presenters. So the AWM SIAM workshop proved to be an oasis of sorts within the larger SIAM meeting, like discovering the academic equivalent of Themyscira (the Amazonian home and origin of Wonder Woman). Female mathematicians and mathematical scientists were prominent and engaged in all facets of the workshop, both organizationally and in program activities. It was evident that AWM was a community with history and what I was privileged to join had been constructed on the efforts of trailblazers who themselves were the firsts, fews, or onlys in their respective fields and institutions. Among accomplished mathematicians and academic leaders, rarely did I find myself isolated or not actively engaged. As an African American woman, being a woman in the engineering and mathematical sciences was not a singularity that I had or could fully appreciate separate from my experience as an underrepresented racial minority. As I listened to the stories of fellow panelists and the robust conversations that the well-attended AWM panels infamously engendered, I encountered an open door and extended hands inviting me to join a sisterhood that I was unsure how to fully enter.

My AWM Experience: A Lesson on The Relentless Pursuit of Inclusion

43

Building Trust and Cultivating Relationships Following the AWM panel, Sue Minkoff, who at the time was editor of the SIAM News “Careers in the Math Sciences” column, asked me to contribute an article based on my panel presentation. It had been a while since I wrote a non-technical article, so the opportunity to have my voice included in this forum was welcome therapy. The article was appropriately titled “I Am Not Your Supermom—Balancing Family and Work” to capture what I felt was my minimally successful efforts to balance career and parenting. My hope was that the article would resonate with some in the AWM and SIAM communities. Little did I know how much more I would receive in the form of encouragement, shared stories, “Me Too” reactions, and even thank-you emails for sharing my experience. The response from women and several men was simultaneously uplifting and humbling, and reminded me that fundamentally we’re all individuals connected by a myriad of common human experiences such as trying to balance parenthood, career, and sanity. Another unexpected open door was the invitation to serve as a member of the AWM-SIAM Workshop Committee from 2011 to 2015. After being initially invited by Cammey Cole Manning, I served on the committee for four years. As a newbie in any group it takes time to learn group dynamics and norms. The learning curve tends to flatten if one has connections or existing relationships within the group. I had neither; this caused me to wonder at times why I was invited in the first place and whether I was the right person. My internal inquest was not about qualifications; such questions would have been resolved prior to the invitation. Rather my pensiveness was tied to a relatively common question, “Will I be fully welcomed?” Of course the irony was, that even within a group of women in the mathematical sciences, who were typically underrepresented in their field, I found myself underrepresented and wondering about inclusion. Fortunately, with the numerous workshops and events that the AWM Meetings Committee organized, I had little time to dwell on this question. The AWM Meetings Committee, led by fearless leaders, such as Bettye Anne Case (coordinator and chair of the Meetings Committee, 1984–2015) and Magnhild Lien (executive director, 2012–2018), was always an “all hands on deck” committee. “Many hands make light work,” as the saying goes, and joining in the work of planning the SIAM AWM panels, student paper competition, and oral presentation sessions helped pull me in to the group. Organizing workshop activities, coordinating reviews of conference submissions, and learning from and reaching out to the larger AWM community required reliance on colleagues on the Meetings Committee and particularly colleagues from the AWM-SIAM Workshop Committee (Hoa Nguyen, Sigal Gottlieb, Ching-Shan Chou, Chiu-Yen Kao, Misun Min). Conversely, committee members relied on me. Often times, mutual reliance, with or without intention, helps build trust and seed sustained relationship. As I served on the AWM Meetings Committee, I made connections with many women in the mathematical sciences, enabling me to expand my own professional network. In turn I contributed to enlarging the AWM network by inviting women in fields at

44

E. E. May

the intersection of engineering, computational sciences, and biology to participate in panels and workshop activities. The generosity of so many colleagues in academia, government, and industry who shared their time and experience as panelists and mentors during the AWM-SIAM workshops was inspiring. When individuals I had no professional or personal connection to, said yes to an invitation or agreed to review workshop submissions or serve as judges for poster competitions or mentor graduate and postdoctoral trainees, I realized they were not saying yes to me. They were saying yes to the AWM community, a community built on mutual reliance, trust, and friendship, where the whole seems to always be greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Leadership as an Expression of Value Although it seems to be common knowledge that female and underrepresented minority (URM) faculty typically have higher service loads, experiencing that reality as a URM female faculty in engineering can be suffocating with respect to my time. After serving on the AWM SIAM workshop committee for nearly three years, and considering the added service load I carried as a faculty member, I knew my plate was more than full. However, as the only African American woman on the Meetings Committee, it was important to me to contribute in a manner that helped increase the number of URM female mathematicians and engineers involved in AWM workshops. I recall attending a panel presentation where photos chronicled past AWM events and meetings. With each image, I searched for participants that looked like me because representation matters. As I speculated about the value of my continued participation and contemplated my exit strategy, the AWM executive leadership (Ruth Charney, AWM president, 2013–2015; Magnhild Lien) asked me to serve as the chair of the AWM-SIAM Workshop Committee. Why was this specific opportunity important or notable? The invitation to not only serve but to lead was an act of inclusion that demonstrated that my contribution was recognized and valued by my colleagues and the AWM. This event may seem minimally significant. Perhaps it seems routine or the natural outcome of service. But, I can count on one hand the number of times I have received such an invitation, and I’m guessing as a URM woman of color, I am not alone. When it comes to professional organizations that focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), oftentimes service by URMs is welcomed but opportunities for formal leadership roles are not routinely extended to or filled by individuals from underrepresented minority groups. So, the invitation to serve in a formal leadership role was an act of inclusion that said, “we see you” and an expression of value. Many people helped me learn and carry out the duties of a chair. I am grateful to all of them as well as the members of the committee that worked to make sure the events at the SIAM Workshop were successful. I’m particularly indebted to Bettye Anne Case, whose high expectations kept me on my toes but came with quite a bit of grace to learn and grow into my responsibilities. Although it would be my final year,

My AWM Experience: A Lesson on The Relentless Pursuit of Inclusion

45

this leadership experience was a rewarding and fulfilling way to end my service to a great organization that had embraced and relentlessly included me.

Reflections on Being Appreciated Service is part of the academic profession and for many of us part and parcel of our personal constitution. However, the lopsidedness of the service burden versus formal recognition for service rendered to our institution or professional societies is, particularly in STEM fields, a disparity disproportionately experienced by women and URMs. So naturally late in December of 2014, when I received an email from Ruth Charney informing me that I was selected as one of four recipients of the AWM Service Award, needless to say I was truly surprised and deeply touched. Throughout my service on the AWM-SIAM Workshop Committee, many people, from the AWM leadership to workshop participants, always expressed their appreciation. However, being officially recognized and appreciated demonstrated the AWM’s core value of service and the individual. While I don’t know who nominated me for the award (although I do recall Bettye Anne Case asking for my vitae around that time), I am so grateful to have been included not only in service and in leadership, but also in recognition and appreciation.

Final Thoughts . . . As I have reflected on my AWM experience, I realized that full inclusion was possible because I reciprocated inclusion. By accepting invitations to share my experience, by walking through doors to serve and to lead, and by clasping hands with my AWM colleagues in service to the community, I repeatedly and relentlessly said yes to being included. In the Robert Frost poem, “The Road Not Taken,” the phrase “. . . knowing how way leads on to way . . .” is a reminder that my career has been and remains a journey and not simply a destination. Even now, as I pause and look back, it’s not the achieved milestones that bring the greatest smile or sense of fulfillment. Rather it is the individuals who shared the way with me, for a short bend or for longer stretches, that are indelibly included in my story . . . And they have made all the difference in my AWM experience. While the specifics of my experience are uniquely my own, thematically my struggle with equity, inclusion, and recognition is not unique. Isolation, imbalances in service, scholarly acknowledgment and underrepresentation in leadership are experiences women and disproportionately women of color combat in STEM fields (Charleston et al., 2014; NASEM, 2020). Studies have highlighted challenges encountered by women navigating gendered networks (Viefers et al., 2006). Women of color, who simultaneously negotiate race, ethnicity, and gender disparities (Charleston et al., 2014; Leggon and Barabino, 2015), are not always fully

46

E. E. May

included in research and professional networks even when women predominate in those networks. The relative absence of URM scholars among the leadership of STEM-focused professional societies is a challenge many organizations, including the AWM, continue to grapple with. If progress is to be made in addressing this proverbial “elephant,” collectively we need to acknowledge the multifaceted systemic barriers related to access and inclusion. Part of that acknowledgement means humanizing the impact of inclusion or the absence thereof on all of us. It means moving beyond statistics as a requirement to credential the experiences of URM women in the academy, and accepting as credible the voices and experiential evidence of the individual. It means intentionally providing opportunities for women of color to not only be participants or engage in service, but also to lead, showcase their scholarship, and be formally recognized. And for those of us who are chronically underrepresented, it also means being willing to walk through the open door again, deciding to once again unclasp our hands and grasp the hand of another whose story may differ from our own. In being relentless and taking mutual steps towards those that don’t look like us, we begin seeding trust, we recognize our shared humanity, and we help build towards a fully inclusive academe.

References Charleston, LaVar J., Phillis L. George, Jerlando F. L. Jackson, Jonathan Berhanu, and Mauriell H. Amechi. 2014. Navigating underrepresented STEM spaces: Experiences of Black women in US computing science higher education programs who actualize success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 7(3): 166–176. Leggon, Cheryl B. and Gilda A. Barabino. 2015. Socializing African American female engineers into academic careers: The case of the cross-disciplinary initiative for minority women faculty. In Changing the face of engineering: The African American experience, eds. John Brooks Slaughter, Yu Tao, and Willie Pearson, Jr., 241–255. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. (NASEM) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Promising practices for addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine: opening doors (eds. Rita Colwell, Ashley Bear, and Alex Helman). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585. Viefers, Susanne F., Michael F. Christie, and Fariba Ferdos. 2006. Gender equity in higher education: why and how? A case study of gender issues in a science faculty. European Journal of Engineering Education 31(1): 15–22.

Reflection on Diversity from a Former National Science Foundation Program Officer Lloyd Douglas

Being atypical in many ways, it doesn’t surprise me that I am the only one of something on a panel, at a conference, or even in a room. I’ve actually gotten used to it. Many people talk about the importance of having someone who looks like you in a role that you are trying to achieve. While I don’t doubt that may be true for some or even many, I find that if that were always the case then many of us would never enter that role because we’ve never seen anyone who looks like us in that role. For me, the issue is really at the other end of the “telescope” where success is tied to not changing your own view but the view of others. I don’t know how many times I have told someone that I am a mathematician and gotten the response “You don’t look like a mathematician.” Well, since I am one, what does that say about the impression. of who a mathematician is? So, for me, we have gone far to resolve the diversity issue when we don’t get that reaction as a response (Fig. 1). I think about diversity along many axes even beyond the traditional ones. So while many justifiably focus on things like ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual orientation, I would include things like background, choice of profession, and economic status. So while I think it’s great to make people feel more welcome at conferences they attend, my concern is about people who don’t even go to those conferences because they feel that they don’t belong. I think the latter group of people is a much larger target audience. I’m sure that this is a bigger issue than I can handle even though I’ve tried to do my best to increase inclusion and opportunity by enabling the true champions who did the heavy lifting. I worked at the National Science Foundation from 1984 to 2008, the last fourteen of those years as a program director in the Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS). I worked in DMS’s Infrastructure and Workforce programs and was responsible for reviewing proposals and making

L. Douglas () Reno, NV, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_7

47

48

L. Douglas

Fig. 1 AWM workshop participants in a round-table discussion at the 2002 Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Diego, CA. Lloyd Douglas, a discussion leader, is second from the left

funding recommendations for non-disciplinary specific activities. Even outside of funding for AWM programs and projects, those recommendations include funding for programs like the Arizona State University Mathematical and Theoretical Biology Institute, the Carleton College Summer Mathematics Program for Women, the EDGE (Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education) program, the Miami University Summer Undergraduate Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, the National Alliance for Doctoral Studies in the Mathematical Sciences (the Math Alliance), the Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, the Women and Mathematics Program at the Institute for Advanced Study, and the Universidad de Puerto Rico Humacao Summer Institute in Mathematics for Undergraduates. The fact that all of them have received the American Mathematical Society’s “Mathematics Programs That Make a Difference” award over the years indicates the success of those programs. While I think that attracting diverse people in mathematics is important, keeping them in the field once they are there is as important. Simply making them feel that they belong can go a long way towards accomplishing that. Many view diversity as an equity issue. I suppose in many ways it is but to me it’s more of a capacity issue. People who can be successful in mathematics can be successful in other areas, so the ones who lose out when we don’t attract diverse people are us, even more than them. The lack of diversity issue isn’t just a problem for AWM but is a problem in general, well, at least for those who think it’s a problem. It’s often that way because many people want it that way and don’t see it as a problem. Ideally, we wouldn’t need organizations that address specific diversity issues but alas here we are.

Mathematicians for Equal Opportunity Alice Silverberg

Princeton’s AWM Newsletter Wars I first started reading newsletters of the Association for Women in Mathematics in Harvard’s Cabot Science Library when I was an undergraduate in the late 1970s. I wasn’t an AWM member, so I read the library’s copies of the AWM Newsletter. Harvard’s history of sexism and discrimination (see for example Silverberg (2006)) was blatant and persistent (in fact, though I attended Harvard, I wasn’t admitted to Harvard College, which only admitted men; women applied to Radcliffe College, which had a complicated and evolving relationship with Harvard), so the subjects covered in the AWM Newsletter, and the AWM’s efforts to end discrimination and counteract prejudice, struck a chord with me. When I was a grad student at Princeton in the early 1980s, the sexism and discrimination were worse and the formal barriers to women were more recent and more extreme, compared to Harvard’s (see for example Malkiel (2016)). Since the rent that Princeton charged me for graduate student housing was greater than the income from my graduate fellowship, I decided that I couldn’t afford the AWM dues ($5 a year for students, back then) that would have given me a free subscription to the Newsletter. I got the bright idea: “Harvard’s science library got the AWM Newsletter. Surely Princeton’s could too. That way, everyone can read it.” I went to Princeton’s math/physics librarian with my plan. He was furious. “The AWM is a union!” he exclaimed. He told me that subscribing to the Newsletter would support a union, so he wasn’t going to do that.

A. Silverberg () University of California, Irvine, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_8

49

50

A. Silverberg

Taken aback, I pointed out that his library received the Notices of the American Mathematical Society and all the AMS journals, and I argued that the AWM was no more a union than was the AMS. Perhaps overreaching (hey, I’m from Queens), I claimed that the AMS at the time was a union for men, in that speaker invitations, committee memberships, prizes, etc. favored men, so it was only fair to also subscribe to the AWM Newsletter. And the AWM Newsletter is much cheaper. I might have pointed out that it’s “for” and not “of” in “Association for Women in Mathematics,” and anyone can join. My arguments probably increased his anger. He was unswayed. Not giving up, I next went to the department chair with the suggestion that the math department get an institutional membership in the AWM and contribute its complimentary newsletters to the library. Some months later I saw him in the hallway and asked for an update. He told me that the faculty had decided against it, on the grounds that the department didn’t want or need it, and it was too expensive. In my last year at Princeton, a “visiting committee” of mathematicians came to the math department to gather information and advise the department. The department had to give grad students an opportunity to sign up to meet with the committee. (Afterwards, I learned that the chair sent some grad students to the meeting to report back to him on who complained.) Among my suggestions for improvement, I asked that the library or department get the AWM Newsletter, so that everyone would have access to it. When they said I should ask the department, I told them I already had, and explained why the request was denied. When they asked how much an institutional membership costs, I replied, “$25 a year.” They laughed at the low price, and several of them spontaneously and flamboyantly opened their wallets and threw bills on the table, in a symbolic gesture. But they soon picked up their money and placed it back in their wallets. I learned later that the Princeton library received the AMS Notices and Transactions not through a library subscription, but by piggybacking off the individual member subscription of a professor who gave his complimentary copies to the library (a practice frowned on by the AMS). Someone on the faculty was an AWM member and there was some talk of his giving his newsletters to the library, but I don’t think it happened, and I can’t imagine that the librarian would have accepted it.

Encouraging Fairness, Transparency, Professional Behavior, and Accountability Sometime in the 1990s, a colleague told me that she decided not to nominate me for a position in the AWM leadership because I didn’t support some of what the AWM does. Indeed, while I am very supportive of the AWM’s mission to promote equal opportunity, I have qualms about AWM programs that are restricted to or favor women or girls.

Mathematicians for Equal Opportunity

51

When I recently was made an AWM Fellow, I came across the citation for me on the internet. It began, “For her outstanding research in number theory and deep commitment to the promotion of women in mathematics . . .” My immediate thought was, “But that’s not accurate and I don’t want it on the website!” I asked for “deep commitment to the promotion of women in mathematics” to be replaced with “deep commitment to the promotion of fairness and equal opportunity.” Everyone graciously agreed to change it. The explanation I gave for my request was: I very strongly believe in and I have devoted much of my attention towards the AWM mission “to promote equal opportunity.” I have always had qualms about “the promotion of women and girls in mathematics,” and I have qualms about many women-only initiatives, since I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right, and I don’t believe in “separate but equal.” I’m also concerned that such initiatives will hurt women in the long run.

I would like professional organizations and communities to be more welcoming and inclusive, not less so. And does the AWM really want to be in the business of deciding who is female and who isn’t? The AWM’s programs and prizes that are restricted to or favor women or girls seem incompatible with the AWM’s commitment to equal opportunity and equal treatment, and incompatible with the AWM’s Statement of Welcoming Environment, announced in 2013, which says in particular, “the AWM is committed to the promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment for all AWM members and participants in AWM-sponsored events, regardless of gender, gender identity or expression, . . . , or any other reason not related to scientific merit.” How does favoring women hurt women? It breeds resentment that will eventually backfire against women, and it devalues women. It reinforces the pernicious stereotype that women are intellectually inferior, and can’t achieve at the same level as men without extra help. Especially problematic is when one favors one’s own group. Favoring people who remind us of ourselves has been part of the problem. It’s something that the AWM in its early days fought against. I think that all of us should be wary of promoting policies or advocating for programs that favor our own group, or that disproportionately favor ourselves. One justification for programs that are restricted to or favor women is that such initiatives will help women achieve a “critical mass” of at least 30% of the community, which will enable women to have a voice. However, there will always be groups that (unlike women) are only a small minority of the population as a whole. Shouldn’t we learn how to treat everyone fairly, even when they belong to a group that is too small a percentage of the general population to expect to achieve a critical mass? Small groups are at a disadvantage when larger groups get favored for whatever reason. I strongly believe in fairness. I support efforts to eliminate discrimination and artificial barriers, to make people aware of unconscious (and conscious) bias and help them counteract it, and to hold people accountable. When I give (wanted or unwanted) advice to people in positions of power, I sometimes say:

52

A. Silverberg

• Many problems could be avoided if people simply behaved professionally.1 • Train faculty in best practices for hiring, promotion, admission of students, and teaching.2 • Put in place good practices, policies, and rules, and hold people accountable when they violate them.3 • Make the rules of the game clear, don’t change the rules in the middle of the game, and ensure that we all have an equal opportunity to play the game and win (whether the game is a promotion, position, prize, grant, or other professional reward).4 The AWM and other organizations play an important role in helping the mathematical community achieve these goals. I would like such efforts to continue and to increase. By the way, despite my friend’s concerns about my compatibility with the AWM, in 2005 the AWM Nominating Committee informed me that I was “enthusiastically suggested as a candidate for the AWM Executive Committee.” I ran in the election, with the following statement: I believe that the reason I was asked to run for the Executive Committee of the AWM is my strong interest in working towards equal opportunity. We can work to accomplish this by increasing fairness and openness in our profession. We are not there yet, and have a long way to go. I believe that making information widely accessible will help the mathematics and academic communities move away from the traditional old boy network way of operating. I hope that the AWM will play a supportive role in helping the people in our communities learn to behave professionally, fairly, and legally. I would like to see the AWM become a helpful resource for departments and universities that would like to change the way they do business so as to insure that (1) the best people are selected, and women and minorities are not overlooked, and (2) all of their members are treated fairly, supportively, and with respect.

I was elected, and served. The AWM has been welcoming to diverse viewpoints, and I hope it stays that way!

1 We like to think that our colleagues are our friends. But we have a professional relationship with our coworkers, and we have an obligation to behave professionally. Sometimes, all it takes for people to improve their behavior is to ask themselves “Is this professional? Is this ethical? Is this legal?” 2 My university has “best practices” for hiring, but there are faculty, hiring committees, and department chairs who aren’t aware of them. 3 People need to have good options for how to get problems fixed. And they need convincing evidence that if they report a problem, things will get better rather than worse. 4 There is often an “inner circle” with access to information that the rest of us don’t have. The people in the inner circle know the rules, and know which rules they can break and which deadlines they can miss and get away with. That gives them an unfair advantage. I’ve often seen this with hiring, when the public criteria given in the job ad are quite different from the secret criteria, or the real criteria for the job. People in the right circles know the real criteria and have an advantage.

Mathematicians for Equal Opportunity

53

Mathematicians for Inclusion The 50th anniversary of the AWM might be an appropriate time to think deeply about the AWM’s purpose and goals, and revisit its programs, and perhaps even its name, as it moves into its next phase. With the proliferation of gender identities, I wonder whether “women” is still a useful label for a professional organization, and whether a more inclusive title should be considered. Should the name “Association for Women in Mathematics” eventually be replaced with “Mathematicians for Equal Opportunity”? Or “Mathematicians for Inclusion”? I would prefer that the AWM be about fairness and justice, not about being for one group. Is the AWM a union, or a social club, or a professional society? Was the Princeton librarian right? I’m not objecting to freedom of association. But I don’t think that government funding should go towards discriminatory practices, and I would like the universities, communities, and organizations that I’m a part of to be welcoming. Rather than making professional decisions based on who our friends are, or on who reminds us of ourselves, or on quotas, let’s figure out what we’re trying to achieve, and what will get us there. Acknowledgments I thank the editors and reviewers, and Melanie Matchett Wood and Jens Groth, for helpful feedback on earlier versions.

References Malkiel, Nancy Weiss. 2016. “Keep the damned women out”: The struggle for coeducation. Princeton University Press. Silverberg, Alice. 2006. Women at Harvard. Remarks at the AWM Panel “Lawrence Summers: One Year Later.” AWM Newsletter 36(3): 17–20. https://www.math.uci.edu/~asilverb/bibliography/ awmharvard.pdf.

Part III

How AWM Grew: Membership, Meetings, and the Newsletter

How AWM Changed My Life Judy Green

Maryland In January 1971 I was a graduate student at the University of Maryland, College Park, where my husband, Paul Green, was an assistant professor of mathematics. At the annual Joint Mathematics Meetings in Atlantic City I attended the meeting of the politically progressive Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) where Joanne Darken, then an instructor at Temple University, suggested a caucus of women. That caucus resulted in a new organization, the Association of Women Mathematicians, whose formation was announced in the Notices of the AMS (News Items, 1971). Although not on a continuous basis, AWM became an important part of my life. AWM started as the Association of Women Mathematicians with Mary Gray of American University as its chairman. The first issue of the Newsletter1 was dated May 1971. It was written by Mary and reproduced with the assistance of the University of Maryland’s mathematics department where Mary’s husband, Alfred Gray, was on the faculty. Those present at the summer 1971 AWM meeting “decided to change the name of the organization to the Association for Women in Mathematics to relieve any discomfort the male members of the association might have felt. Since women are a minority in mathematics, the support of males is needed to improve the status of women” (Gray, 1971, p. 1). As is well known, AWM developed as it did because of all the work done by Mary, including serving as treasurer as well as editing and writing most of the

1 All

issues of the Newsletter are available online at the AWM Newsletter Archive 2020.

J. Green () Marymount University, Arlington, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_9

57

58

J. Green

Newsletter. The second issue, dated September 1971, contains the first list of job opportunities, which then became a regular item.2 Since our husbands were both on the mathematics faculty at Maryland, I had known Mary since she and Alfred came to the Washington, DC, area in 1968. Although I wanted to help her, in 1971 I had two young children and was working on my dissertation, so I did not really get active in AWM until later the next year. My dissertation advisor was Carol Karp and at least one man in the department, with no evidence at all, commented on the likelihood of my being given an easier time because I was a woman. In fact, she treated me no differently than she had treated her male students. Unfortunately, about a year after I became her student, Carol was diagnosed with cancer.3 Nonetheless she met with me on at least a weekly basis until I finished my dissertation and she tried very hard to find me a job. However, when graduation day came in June 1972, neither I, nor six of the other seven who got their PhDs in mathematics from Maryland that year, had secured a job for the fall. Not only were there few jobs, but at that time all gender discrimination was still legal.4 It is, therefore, not surprising that an all-male school that had a job did not even bother to respond to my letter5 of inquiry about the job. Because of the scarcity of jobs I looked far from our home in Silver Spring, Maryland, knowing that my husband could arrange his schedule to coincide with the school day of our children, a daughter who was seven and a son who was almost five and would be attending an all-day kindergarten. Soon after Carol died I was offered an assistant professorship in the mathematics department at the Camden campus of Rutgers University, about 150 miles from where I lived. Len Bidwell, the chair of the Rutgers Camden mathematics department, kindly allowed me to arrange my teaching so that I could leave our home in Maryland after my children left for school on Monday and be home for dinner on Friday.

Early Years of Commuting As the Camden campus is just across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, I got a small apartment within walking distance of the Philadelphia Amtrak station as well as the subway line that had a stop a few blocks from the Rutgers campus. Paul would drive me to and from an Amtrak station about a half hour from our house, making 2 The first indication that the list of job opportunities had become a list of advertisements appeared in the March 1975 Newsletter. 3 Carol Karp died on August 20, 1972. Her death was announced in the September Newsletter (Gray, 1972) and an obituary appeared in the January issue (Williams, 1973). 4 Title IX, the federal legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex at federally funded educational institutions, was not signed into law until late in June 1972. 5 Since this was several years before the first personal computers were introduced, all communication concerning jobs was done by letter or telephone.

How AWM Changed My Life

59

it possible for me to commute by train on a weekly basis. In addition to spending all weekends with the children, we decided I would never teach summer school so I could spend more time with them. In 1974 Rebekka Struik asked me to comment on my experience as part of a family with jobs in two cities that required one member of the family to commute. What I wrote for her Newsletter article6 focused largely on the reasons my children accepted the situation. These included “the fact that the children had never had me as a full-time mother and my husband had been accepting increased responsibility in terms of time spent at home in charge of them. Also, while I was typing my dissertation,7 my husband started doing virtually all of the cooking and has just never stopped” (Struik, 1974, p. 10). In January 1977 I spoke at an AWM panel, Choosing Our Lives, about how we handled the fact that I was living in two places and explained our views of raising children that contributed to making it easier for me to work far from where my husband and children lived. The first year, when the kids were young, we had babysitters come in after school and on evenings when my husband wanted to go out. The second year their standard babysitters happened to be going off to college and they didn’t want to break in new babysitters so they said they would have babysitters only in the evenings. By the third year when the youngest one was seven and the older one was nine and a half they said: no more babysitters. So they don’t have babysitters. They’re very independent children because of this and I think it’s very good for them. To a large extent they take care of themselves. My husband . . . says he has a typical suburban mother’s existence with driving carpools, making dinner, etc. (AWM Panel, 1977, p. 2)

The Philadelphia Chapter Jo Darken, who had suggested that the MAG women get together in 1971, was also responsible for the formation of the Philadelphia Chapter of AWM. Soon after AWM was formed, she contacted Mary Gray to ask for a list of members in the Philadelphia area and then contacted them. The first meeting of the Philadelphia Chapter took place at Temple University, where two other attendees of the Atlantic City MAG meeting, Harriet Lord8 and Diane Laison, were also based. One of the first things that the Philadelphia Chapter did was to reply to an article by Murray Gerstenhaber that described what undergraduate mathematics would be like in 1984. His predictions were based on assumptions including that “Future

6 My response was anonymous, most likely because, as I wrote, “Many people [had] expressed their negative feeling about our living situation in front of the children” (Struik, 1974, p. 10). 7 I typed the dissertation (127 pages in all, including lots of mathematical symbols) on a typewriter in the Maryland math department. I included a statement acknowledging my family’s “desire to encourage a wife and mother to work without guilt.” 8 Although Harriet was at the MAG meeting, she was unable to stay for the caucus.

60

J. Green

undergraduate mathematics’ [sic] programs will be molded in part by three of the strongest forces in modern society: economics, computers, and women” and “the Mathematics Department will be the natural home for basic programming because it will also be a shelter for the largest single group of future computer users, namely women. For this we shall have to thank both women’s lib and that rock on which women’s lib arguments frequently founder, women’s biology” (Gerstenhaber, 1972, pp. 658, 660). The section on predictions began, “As professional mathematicians and teachers, how would we react to this apocalyptic convergence of economics, computers and women? In the only way possible—by omitting proofs!” (p. 660). The Philadelphia Chapter reply started by describing the article as presenting “stereotyped, derogatory and negative views of women in the mathematical, academic and professional world” (AWM Phila. Chap., 1973, p. 903). Its conclusion was that “Mathematics departments may be expected to offer courses to those of both sexes who desire only to be trained for computer applications, but we feel that no self-respecting mathematics department will ever feel the need to lower its standards in order to educate its women students” (p. 904). As noted above, circulating job opportunities was important to AWM from its outset. In September 1972, a year after the first list of jobs appeared in the Newsletter, Mary Gray announced that Judith Molinar Elkins, then at Ohio State, would be in charge of the AWM employment activities. Judie sent letters to mathematics departments at schools with graduate programs asking for the names of female students who would be getting their doctorates and also asking if they had positions to be filled. In the next issue the Employment List was followed by a request that she be sent vitas, thus allowing her to send letters to the women who were seeking jobs whenever she learned of an appropriate job opportunity. At the beginning of the 1973–1974 academic year, the Philadelphia Chapter volunteered to help run the AWM employment services and in the spring of 1974 the chapter took over running them. That summer I replaced Judie Elkins on the AWM Executive Committee. The chapter members soon realized that there was no evidence that women who got jobs got them through the Job Register. Therefore, in early 1975 we changed our mode of operation and, since the Newsletter appeared only seven times a year, we started sending job seekers monthly lists of the jobs for which ads would be appearing in the next issue. My work with AWM concerning employment during a time when there were more mathematicians than jobs for them led me to organize a meeting of “Forgotten Mathematicians” at the 1974 Joint Mathematics Meetings. I reported on that meeting of graduate students as well as the untenured and unemployed in the Newsletter (Green, 1974). My public concern about the job crisis of that time may have led to my appointment to the newly formed AMS Committee on the Emergency Employment Situation and may also have been the reason that I was able to run

How AWM Changed My Life

61

successfully that year as a petition candidate for the Council of the AMS. All of this kept me quite busy for the next few years.9

Early Leadership In February 1972, when Mary Gray was acting as chairman, newsletter editor, and treasurer, she asked readers of the Newsletter to think of women who could be nominated for offices at the AWM meeting that summer. In September she reported that there were no nominations but she, Judith Elkins, and Alice Schafer would serve on a nominating committee and that there was also a proposal to form an executive committee. The members of that committee were announced in the November Newsletter and included Alice Schafer, who was listed as chairman-elect. While Mary referred to herself as chairman, at first Alice used the term chairperson. However, when formal titles for officers were needed for the incorporation of AWM she suggested “that Mary Gray be declared to have been the first President of the Association, as well as its Treasurer and Secretary, and that now she be known as Treasurer and Editor of the Newsletter . . . and I be called President rather than Chairperson” (Schafer, 1973, p. 2). In her President’s Report in the March 1975 Newsletter, Alice reported about election procedures set by the Executive Committee. Specifically, there would be no nominating committee, but any member could volunteer to run or nominate any other member. Only those who were willing to serve would appear on the slate of nominees for president, newsletter editor, and elected members of the Executive Committee representing four regions of the country. It was also at this time that the offices of president-elect and past president were added so that running for president became a four-year commitment. The March 1975 issue ended with a request to submit nominations for president and “Treasurer/Editor of the Newsletter” as well as one of the representatives, all of whose terms would start July 1. While it was expected that ballots would appear in the next issue in April, results for president and treasurer/editor of the newsletter were announced instead. They indicated that Lenore Blum “was the unanimous choice of the [sic] those making nominations for the office of President” and that “There was only one nomination for Treasurer/Editor of the Newsletter and that person prefers not to be a candidate for the post for next year” (Schafer, 1975, p. 1). Ballots appeared and the results announced in the May–June issue indicated that Judith Roitman and Mary Gray had been elected co-treasurer/editors. While Lenore was elected for a two-year term, 1975–1977, she served as President until 1978. In her 1991 article about the history of the AWM from the perspective of the presidents (reprinted in this volume), she noted that I had “often

9 At about this time, my general concerns about employment issues also caused me to become active in the Rutgers faculty union.

62

J. Green

played the role of political advisor, telephone consultant, as well as AWM liaison to . . . MAG and . . . NAM.” She quoted my responses to various questions she had asked me before writing the article and in doing so explained how Judy Roitman became the next president and why I never ran for AWM president.10 “Even though you were never president, you very well could . . . have been. How come we never could get you to ‘run’? You were doing a lot of the work de facto anyway.” To which she replied “. . . I’m much better helping people than being in charge. I really don’t like being out there in front. Judy Roitman and I were co-Vice Presidents since neither one of us would say we’d be President-elect. At the end, she gave in before I did!” (Blum, 1991, p. 745).

A Change in My Area of Research Had I been the one to give in I might never have switched my area of research from logic to the history of mathematics. In early 1977 a graduate student at the University of Maryland learned about a woman whose mother, Mary Winston (later Newson), had received a PhD in mathematics from Göttingen in the late nineteenth century. Knowing that I was involved with AWM, he asked my husband if I knew anyone who might be interested in the letters her mother had written to her family while she was there studying with Felix Klein.11 I contacted the daughter and the description she wrote me of her mother’s life fascinated me. However, as I knew nothing about history and little about the mathematics involved, I tried to find someone who would be interested. Although I was unsuccessful, I did meet with the curator of mathematics at the Smithsonian’s Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History), Uta C. Merzbach, whom I had not previously known. She volunteered to help me become familiar with doing research in the history of mathematics. At the January 1978 Joint Mathematics Meetings I gave a talk at the AMS Special Session on the History of Mathematics about American women who had earned PhDs in mathematics before World War I.12 At that meeting I met Jeanne LaDuke, who taught at DePaul University in Chicago and had independently become aware of Winston Newson through Newson’s other daughter. Uta suggested that we work together and write a book about the American women who had earned PhDs in mathematics before World War II. We agreed and soon Uta, Jeanne, and I became

10 The

pronouns in the quotation are somewhat confusing since I am referred to as “you” when Lenore is quoting herself, “I” when she is quoting me, and “she” when neither of us is being quoted. 11 The letters are part of the “Mary Frances Winston papers” in the Sophia Smith Collection of Women’s History at Smith College. 12 The substance of the talk was published as Green (1978a), with corrections as Green (1978b).

How AWM Changed My Life

63

lifelong friends. However, it turned out that there were 228 such women13 so the project occupied us for the next 30 years, and the resulting book (Green and LaDuke, 2008),14 was not completed until we had both retired.

Return to Maryland After 17 years of commuting between Maryland and New Jersey, I was hired by Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia. It is likely that the reason I was offered the job was because I had the support of Alice Schafer, who had by then retired from Wellesley and was teaching at Marymount. About three years after changing jobs I again became active in AWM. In 1991 my sister-in-law, Carol Wood, became president of AWM. As Wellesley College, which had provided AWM with free office space since 1973, was no longer willing to do so, Carol had to find AWM a new home. Eventually space was offered by Richard Herman, the dean of the College of Computer, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences at the University of Maryland. However, there were other problems. During 1991 not only did AWM have four different treasurers, but Carol was forced to act “as de facto treasurer for some months” (Wood, 2020, p. 3). It was then that Carol asked me to take over the position. At the urging of AWM’s first two presidents, Mary Gray and Alice Schafer, as well as the then president-elect, Cora Sadosky, I accepted. Since Cora and I both worked and lived in the same metropolitan area as the new office, we were able to participate in the hiring of staff and, in general, in helping the transition from the office at Wellesley. I served as treasurer for four years and then resigned so I could have more time to continue my work on the history of American women mathematicians.

My Friend, Cora Sadosky Although I hardly knew Cora before I became treasurer, we soon got to know each other very well (see Fig. 1). Moreover, Cora, her husband Daniel Goldstein, my husband Paul, and I very quickly became very close friends, including vacationing together. In fact, in the too short time we knew each other we came to feel more like family than friends. Not long after Cora died in December 2010, her husband and daughter decided to sponsor an AWM prize for an early-career woman who

13 AWM

recognizes one of these women annually through its Gweneth Humphreys Award for Mentorship of Undergraduate Women. 14 The companion website to the book contains a link to supplementary material that includes the sources we used, expanded biographies and, except for the most prolific women, complete bibliographies for each of the 228 women.

64

J. Green

Fig. 1 Cora Sadosky and Judy Green, 1995 AMS-MAA MathFest, Burlington, VT

had already made a significant contribution to Cora’s area of research, analysis. Since 2014 the AWM-Sadosky Research Prize has been awarded in even-numbered years. While Paul and I contributed to the funding of the prize, that comes nowhere near enough to thank AWM for our friendship with Cora and Daniel; we miss them both15 greatly. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Jo Darken, Harriet Lord, and, especially, Carol Wood for their comments and for refreshing my (lifelong unreliable) memory of their and my contributions to AWM.

References Association for Women in Mathematics, Philadelphia Chapter. 1973. Remarks on women in mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly 80(8): 903–904. AWM Newsletter Archive. 2020. https://www.drivehq.com/folder/p8755087.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2020. AWM Panel: Choosing our lives. 1977. AWM Newsletter 7(4): 2–8. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–54. (Reprinted in this volume)

15 Daniel

Goldstein died in March 2014.

How AWM Changed My Life

65

Gerstenhaber, Murray. 1972. Undergraduate mathematics training in 1984—some predictions. American Mathematical Monthly 79(6): 658–62. Gray, Mary. 1971. The Penn State Meeting—chairman’s report. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1972. In memoriam. AWM Newsletter 2(5): 6. Green, Judy. 1974. Forgotten mathematicians. AWM Newsletter 4(3): 8. Green, Judy. 1978a. American women in mathematics—The first PhDs. AWM Newsletter 8(1): 13–15. Green, Judy. 1978b. Corrections to American women in mathematics—The first PhDs. AWM Newsletter 8(2): 9. Green, Judy and Jeanne LaDuke. 2008. Pioneering women in American mathematics: The pre–1940 PhDs. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Companion website: http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/books/postpub/hmath-34-PioneeringWomen.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2020. News Items and Announcements: Association of Women Mathematicians. 1971. Notices of the AMS 18(2): 334. Schafer, Alice. 1973. Report from the chairperson. AWM Newsletter 3(5): 1–3. Schafer, Alice T. 1975. Report from the president. AWM Newsletter 5(3): 1–2. Struik, Ruth Rebekka. 1974. The two city problem. AWM Newsletter 4(6): 8–11. Williams, Mary B. 1973. Obituary. AWM Newsletter 3(1): 2–3. Wood, Carol. 2020. 1991–1992 plus and minus . AWM Newsletter 50(3): 3–5. (Reprinted in this volume)

Starting and Early Days of AWM Patricia Clark Kenschaft

I believe I may have been the second person to join AWM: Mary Gray was the founder, and I responded the same day I saw her invitation in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (see Fig. 1). In the outgoing mail (this was before the internet) that very day I sent a check and told her I was joining the Association. I was so glad! It wasn’t that I had a bad time with men; it was just that I wanted companionship with women. I am one of the few women who have never experienced sexual harassment. The men I met in those early days were always kind to me . . . but they were MEN! AWM has meant a great deal to me. There had been very few women mathematicians in my life, and I was very glad to meet more. I went to all the AWM meetings when I was attending national math meetings (see Figs. 2, 3, and 4). I am VERY grateful to AWM!

P. C. Kenschaft () Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_10

67

68

P. C. Kenschaft

Fig. 1 1971 announcements of National Medal of Science winners and the new AWM organization, Notices of the AMS 18(2): 334

Fig. 2 AWM President Barbara Keyfitz and Patricia Clark Kenschaft. Kenschaft received the Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics Education, 2006 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Image courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

Fig. 3 AWM Workshop dinner participants, with Patricia Clark Kenschaft third from the right, 2006 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Image courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

Starting and Early Days of AWM

69

Fig. 4 Patricia Clark Kenschaft and Fred Chichester, 2006 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Image courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The Presidents’ Perspectives (The First Twenty Years) Lenore Blum

Preface (2020) In January 1991, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) held its 20th Anniversary Celebration at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in San Francisco. At the Anniversary Banquet, I gave a talk on the first 20 years of the AWM from the perspective of the AWM presidents. In talking about each president’s term, I highlighted characteristics of the times and significant issues addressed. The talk was later published in September (Blum, 1991) in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (AMS)1 and reprinted in two parts in the November– December 1991 and January–February 1992 issues of the AWM Newsletter. For historical preservation, accuracy—and authenticity—I have only slightly edited the original printed version. [New footnotes or comments are prefaced by “LB:” and square bracketed.] Many thanks for permissions from the AMS and the AWM. I have added my current (2020) perspectives at the end.

1 [LB: The AMS is the main mathematical research-focused society with some 30,000 individual and 570 institutional members world-wide (AMS, 2020c). Its monthly Notices goes out to all members.]

L. Blum () Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_11

71

72

L. Blum

Preface (1991) The Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) held its 20th Anniversary Celebration at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Francisco, January 16–19, 1991.2 The festivities included: a symposium entitled “The Future of Women in Mathematics,” highlighting 10 young women mathematicians (within 10 years of PhD) who talked about their current research; a graduate student workshop featuring 10 women graduate students who presented their dissertation results; a workshop luncheon where dozens more students and AWM members met to discuss “Is there life after graduate school?”; the 12th annual Noether Lecture (by Alexandra Bellow);3 the presentation of the first annual Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics Education (to Shirley M. Frye); and the AWM Anniversary Banquet (see Fig. 1) followed by an open party complete with disc jockey and everyone’s favorite dancing music.4 It was truly a joyous occasion. For those of us who were around during the early years of the AWM, yet still imagined ourselves somewhat youthful, at least in outlook and perspective, any initial disbelief about the prospect of celebrating our 20th quickly gave way to feelings of deep emotion and pride—pride on having clearly made it in our own way, and on our own terms. The numbers of women at the meeting, from old-timers to young faculty, graduate students, and even undergraduates, were staggering. As one woman put it, one did not have to look far to see female faces amongst the sea of faces in every session of the Meetings. Having been on the committees that picked the young women for the symposium and graduate workshop, as well as the Alice T. Schafer Prize committee that awarded the first prizes last summer to two outstanding women undergraduates (Linda Green and Elizabeth Wilmer), I can testify to the elation we felt on seeing the large pool of extremely talented young women mathematicians. Clearly, these awards and invitations are viewed with great respect in the mathematics community, for we witnessed department heads and thesis advisors vying with each other to position their candidates well. Our only dismay was that we could not award all those deserving. The following article on the history of the AWM is based on an after-dinner talk I gave at the Anniversary Banquet. Shortly after having agreed to give such a talk, it dawned on me that, unlike mathematics—which to some extent one can create

2 The AWM was established in 1971 to serve and encourage women to study and have active careers in the mathematical sciences. 3 [LB: The Noether lecturer is a woman who has made “fundamental and sustained contributions to the mathematical sciences.”] 4 Symposium speakers were: Carolyn Dean, Bernadette Perrin-Riou, Mei-Chi Shaw, Jiang-Hua Lu, Ruth J. Williams, Laurette Tuckerman, Lynne M. Butler, Joan Feigenbaum, Elise Cawley, and Jill Pipher. Graduate student speakers were: Andrea Bertozzi, Jill Dietz, Ellen Gethner, MiiljaRiita Hakosalo, Deanna Haunsperger, Kitty Holland, Diana Major, Susan Schwartz, Melanie Stein, and Julia Yang. Debbie Lockhart and Hugo Rossi led the luncheon discussion.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

73

Fig. 1 Alexandra Bellow, Christel Rotthaus, Alberto Calderón, Lenore Blum, AWM 20th anniversary banquet, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA. Photo courtesy of Lenore Blum

in one’s head—for history, one needs to have the facts. And, although for a certain period of my life I was intimately associated with the AWM, I certainly did not have total recall nor even near complete knowledge of all that had happened during the past two decades. So I decided to enlist the help of all AWM presidents. I wrote each of the other presidents (Mary Gray, Alice Schafer, Judy Roitman, Bhama Srinivasan, Linda Rothschild, Linda Keen, Rhonda Hughes, Jill Mesirov, Carol Wood) asking “. . . if you could provide me a brief review of what happened during your term, perhaps discuss its special character . . . and also comment on questions such as: How you feel AWM has made a difference, areas where we need work, ideas and hopes for the future. . . . (Any humorous/insightful anecdotes would be welcome.) I would then try to compile and interweave these stories [in my presentation]. . . .” The history I compiled is in large part a history as seen through the presidents’ eyes, a uniquely personal vision, culled from the many letters and email responses I received. It also comes from the AWM Newsletter,5 and the Notices6 of the AMS, my personal files, and correspondence with Judy Green about the origins of the AWM. Her article with Jeanne LaDuke on “Women in American Mathematics: A

5 [LB: I make a number of references to articles in the AWM newsletters. These articles can be accessed from the AWM Newsletter Archive on the AWM website.] 6 [LB: Issues of the Notices from 1954 to the present can be accessed on the AMS website.]

74

L. Blum

Century of Contributions” (WM) (Green and LaDuke, 1989) as well as the book More Mathematical People (MP) (Albers et al., 1990) were also helpful. I have also incorporated some of my own memories and experiences, not just as AWM president, but as a woman mathematician “growing up” during that time. “Brief” in the title is meant as a disclaimer acknowledging my many omissions. In planning the talk, I decided to quote people directly rather than paraphrase or synthesize. This turned out to be an extremely fortuitous decision for a number of reasons, including the fact that it helped provide the eloquence and humor, in addition to substance, necessary for an ideal after-dinner talk. But even more, by reading the quotes directly, I, along with the audience, could thoroughly enjoy what everyone had to say. In uncharacteristic fashion, I could even ham it up a bit and add some dramatic effects of my own. Some of the humor was so infectious—we were in stitches—that a couple of times I had a hard time completing a sentence I was reading. The audience was terrific. It comprised old friends and new. The students and postdocs were there as were very many AWM members whose involvement and support over the years had been so vital to our continuing successes. All AWM presidents except Judy Roitman (whose semester had begun) and Linda Keen (who was in Helsinki) were present as were Bettye Anne Case (longtime AWM meetings coordinator) and Anne Leggett (longtime AWM Newsletter editor), who both earlier in the day had received AWM citations at the business meeting. There was MarieFrançoise Roy of the European Women in Mathematics, Hope Daly, and her Joint Meetings arrangement staff who had worked so closely with us over the years, Debbie Lockhart our program officer at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Mike Dooley of the Exxon Education Foundation, and AWM Executive Director Patricia Cross—the person behind-the-scenes orchestrating this happy event. Jill Mesirov had suggested that I recognize everyone who had been involved in founding the AWM at the beginning, asking them to rise, and then as I went through the talk (see Fig. 2), those who joined AWM in five-year intervals (Eileen Poiani had done something similar at the Mathematical Association of America’s 75th), and this turned out to be great fun. I think by the end everyone had a chance to stand. Since I had never given an after-dinner talk before, I was really somewhat apprehensive beforehand. I suspect others felt the same apprehension, for the only public announcement I could find of my talk was in the banquet menu. At dinner, Mike Dooley who was sitting next to me offered little reassurance when he warned that such talks should never last more than 15 minutes. So I knew I probably did OK when afterwards Mike said I really could have gone on for another 15. I glanced at my watch and much to my surprise I had talked for over 45 minutes! And then Hope Daly came by to say how she had relived every minute of all the past meetings with me. But most of all, I felt the seal of approval when Judy Green, our consummate historian, came over beaming, gave me a hug and said “You did real good!” (see Fig. 3). Here is my attempt to recapture the magical spirit of that evening . . .

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

75

Fig. 2 Lenore Blum’s after-dinner presentation, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

Fig. 3 Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Judy Green, Lenore Blum, Chandler Davis, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA. Photo courtesy of Lenore Blum

76

L. Blum

How It Was . . . I would like to begin my talk by recreating some of the atmosphere in 1971, the year AWM was founded. So I must start with a warning: the next few minutes [i.e. this section] may be a bit depressing, perhaps even somewhat hard to take. But bear with me, I promise it really will get better. First, for my journey back in time, I went to the library and checked out the Notices of the American Mathematical Society for 1971. The Joint Mathematics Meetings that year were held in Atlantic City; the program in the January issue was quite revealing. Of the more than 15 invited hour speakers—AMS, MAA, and ASL7 combined—none was female (i.e. 0%); of the more than 300 AMS 10-minute talks, about 15 were given by women (5%). I became curious and looked at the Personal Items section. This contains short descriptions of individuals’ professional activities and achievements as well as job promotions and appointments. Only five of the approximately 145 blurbs seemed to mention women (less than 4%). Of the 31 promotions listed, three were female (10%); at the instructorship level, women seemed to do relatively better, getting three of the nine appointments (33%). Here I used the well-known mathematical technique (which has served us so well over the years) of counting and dividing to calculate the telling percentages. And sure enough, as I went down the list—as the positions became less prestigious—the percentage of women increased (see Table 1). As if to confirm this trend even more dramatically, I noticed further on that, of the four deaths reported in that issue, two were women (50%)! In the February 1971 issue I found a letter from Elizabeth Berman, pointing out some “advice” on how to find employment, recently published by the Mathematical Sciences Employment Register: Women find the competitive situation in the government somewhat more advantageous to them, since it is relatively hard to secure a well-qualified mathematician for many higher-

Table 1 How it was: January 1971 (AMS Notices 18(1))

7 [LB:

# women JMM Invited speakers 0 10-minute talks 15 Personal items in Notices Blurbs 5 Promotions 3 Instructorships 3 Deaths 2

The Association for Symbolic Logic.]

# total

%

∼15 ∼300

0% 5%

∼145 31 9 4

3.5% 10% 33% 50%

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

77

level government jobs. In many such cases women are welcomed if their qualifications are better than those of the available men.

Need I say more. A gloomy picture of the status of women in academia was painted by Ruth Silverman in a letter that appeared in the June Notices that year. I quote excerpts: Editor, Notices: As a result of surveys on many campuses it becomes apparent that there is a pattern of discrimination against women in all fields . . . 1. Women are predominantly at the bottom of the pyramid, irrespective of qualifications . . . and suffer a substantial salary inequity. 2. Many academic departments have no full-time female faculty at all. In many . . . the percentage of female faculty is far below the percentage of females among qualified applicants. 3. In many departments women with PhDs hold positions below the rank of assistant professor and are kept at these low ranks without promotion or significant salary increase. 4. Women tend to be hired on a marginal, temporary, or one-year basis. . . . Often women teaching part-time have the same teaching load as men teaching full-time. 5. There are departments which make it a policy not to appoint women who are married to members of the faculty . . .

Silverman goes on to recommend that “in the forthcoming annual AMS salary survey data be collected . . . comparing salary levels by sex.” This practice was initiated by the AMS some years later. Now, if you were a female graduate student at the time, there were certain departments where you probably were not. For example, Princeton did not start admitting women to their graduate program in mathematics until the fall of 1968. Marjorie Stein (Princeton PhD, 1972) was the first woman to complete her degree requirements there, although a Japanese woman had been admitted some years earlier by mistake. Apparently the admissions committee, unfamiliar with Japanese first names, did not recognize hers as female. But wherever you were, you may very well have been told the following “joke” by the head of your department or your thesis advisor: “There have only been two women mathematicians in the history of mathematics. One wasn’t a woman and one wasn’t a mathematician.” Thus, it may not be so surprising that in those years we were often accused of not having a sense of humor. (Ms. magazine addressed that issue with a famous pop art cover depicting the wry feminist humor typical of the 1970s: A young man earnestly asks his woman friend “Do you know the women’s movement has no sense of humor?” to which she answers straight-faced “No . . . But hum a few bars and I’ll fake it!”) It must be said however that, sometimes at least, this mathematical in-joke was told well-meaningly (if not misguidedly)—as it were, a friendly gesture to break the ice. Certainly, that’s how I had interpreted it several years earlier at a party given by my department chairman when I was a graduate student at MIT. And it clearly was a manifestation of the time, of the awkwardness everyone felt with the few women

78

L. Blum

around. (It did not occur to me until some years later that it was also a callous dismissal of two of the most important mathematicians in recent history.) The effect was nevertheless to help alienate us from our history, to reinforce self-doubts, and keep us mostly unaware of the strong women contemporaries who could very well have served as important role models and mentors had we known their existence early on: Evelyn Boyd Granville, Cathleen Morawetz, Marian PourEl, Mina Rees, Julia Robinson, Mary Ellen Rudin, Jane Cronin Scanlon, and Olga Taussky Todd are a few such examples of mathematicians at that time who come to mind. I do not want to give the impression that all professors and thesis advisors were hopeless. Some of us were fortunate to have supportive advisors during those important years. Lipman Bers is a stunning example of a professor who did much to encourage young women in mathematics. As he put it (in MP), “It never occurred to me that women can be intellectually inferior to men.” Among his many female PhD students are Lesley Sibner, Linda Keen, and Tilla Milnor.

What We Did . . . (In the Beginning) Atlantic City I think it is fair to say that the AWM had its birth at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in Atlantic City in 1971. As Judy Green remembered (and Chandler Davis, early AWM friend, concurred): The formal idea of women getting together and forming a caucus was first made publicly at a Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) meeting in 1971 in Atlantic City. Joanne Darken, then an instructor at Temple University stood up at the meeting and suggested that the women present remain and form a caucus. I have been able to document six women who remained: me (I was a graduate student at Maryland at the time), Joanne Darken, Mary Gray (she was already at American University), Diane Laison (then an instructor at Temple), Gloria Olive (a senior lecturer at the University of Otago, New Zealand who was visiting the US at the time) and Annie Selden. Harriet Lord (then a graduate student at Temple) was at the MAG meeting but unable to stay for the women’s caucus. It’s not absolutely clear what happened next, except that I’ve personally always thought that Mary was responsible for getting the whole thing organized. . . .

What I remember hearing about Mary Gray and the Atlantic City Meetings, indeed what perked my curiosity, was an entirely different event, one that was also to alter dramatically the character of the mathematics community. In those years the AMS was governed by what could only be called an “old boys’ network,” closed to all but those in the inner circle. Mary challenged that by sitting in on the AMS Council meeting in Atlantic City. When she was told she had to leave, she refused saying she would wait until the police came. (Mary relates the story somewhat differently: When she was told she had to leave, she responded she could find no rules in the by-laws restricting attendance at Council meetings. She was then told it was by “gentlemen’s agreement.” Naturally Mary replied, “Well, obviously I’m

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

79

no gentleman.”8 ) After that time, Council meetings were open to observers and the process of democratization of the Society had begun.

Boston Meantime, in the Boston area, women mathematicians had already been meeting. As Linda Rothschild writes: My involvement with AWM began in the late 1960s, before it formally existed. In 1969, Alice Schafer, then at Wellesley, and I (a graduate student at MIT) organized a group of women mathematicians and students to meet every few weeks to discuss common problems and goals. Bhama Srinivasan joined when she started teaching at Clark in 1970. [According to Alice Schafer, the original group also included Bernice Auslander, Kay Whitehead, Caroline Series (then a graduate student at Harvard), Eleanor Palais, and, Linda Almgren Kime. Kime lived in Cambridge and that made an easy place for the group to meet.] When AWM was officially launched, our little group became the Boston area mafia of AWM. Through Alice’s boundless efforts, an office was established for AWM at Wellesley, and it has been anchored there ever since. . . . 9

Berkeley and Me In the beginning, I was quite ambivalent about the emerging women’s movement in mathematics. As I replied to Linda Rothschild, Thanks for the information. I was glad to have more details about the early days of the AWM in Boston. Things seem to have started up after I left (in 1968) and it’s not clear that I would have been involved . . . I was pretty “unconscious” about such things at that time. It didn’t hit me until I got to Berkeley.

The good thing about being “pretty ‘unconscious’ about such things” in those days was it left you free to do your mathematics. The bad thing of course was that either you internalized every negative message from society, subtle or overt, or else naively dismissed them as not meant for you. While I did not completely escape the former mode, I fit more naturally into the latter—which served me well up to a point, the point being that I also made important decisions naively. A naive decision was for me to go to Berkeley. After receiving my degree, I had an excellent job offer (assistant professorship) on the East Coast (Yale), my husband on the West Coast (Berkeley). We also

8 [LB:

Page 2 of the September 1971 AWM Newsletter says this occurred at Penn State: “When I arrived at the Council meeting at Penn State to protest against the undemocratic nominating procedures, the Council did agree to depart from tradition to open its meetings to observers so that they need not throw me out.”] 9 [LB: AWM moved its offices to the University of Maryland in the early 1990s. Starting in 2005 AWM was managed by STAT Marketing and in 2018 by AMS.]

80

L. Blum

had various joint offers, moderately good for each of us. We were up against the famous two-body problem, classic for women mathematicians as I was to learn later (from the AWM Newsletter10 ). But at the time, we knew of no one who might offer some wise, even sympathetic advice. I ended up accepting a lectureship at Berkeley11 being quite assured (by the department chairman and vice-chairman) that the position was competitive in practice (if not in title) with my other offers, and that things would work out. Of course, they did not. The spring of 1971 was a particularly bleak time for me professionally. But, then again, I was in Berkeley. It was the era of People’s Park, Cambodia, and Vietnam. I would have had to have been totally unconscious not to be affected by the political events around me. But also, in truth, I found it quite exciting, reminding me of a much earlier period in my life. In the math department, Moe Hirsch, John Rhodes, and Steve Smale had organized a colloquium series on “Social Problems Connected with Mathematics.” When Steve asked me to chair a colloquium on “Women in Mathematics,” I quickly agreed. Since I didn’t know much about women in mathematics, I found three women who did: Ravenna Helson, a research psychologist who had done a study on women mathematicians and the creative personality; Sheila Johannsen, a historian knowledgeable about the history of women in mathematics; and Betty Scott, chair of the Statistics Department at Berkeley, who had recently co-authored a report of the Academic Senate on the status of women on the Berkeley campus (Scott et al., 1970). The colloquium panel was a great success. The lecture hall was packed with men and women (though I recall mostly men, not surprising given the makeup of the math department at the time). And it was quite an eye-opener for me. For one, it had never occurred to me that there might be common personality traits amongst women mathematicians, except perhaps that we were each unique.12 It had never occurred to me how statistics could be a powerful political tool. I found Betty Scott’s study a masterpiece, fleshing out cold data with poignant case studies. And then there was data that spoke clearly for itself, for example, her data on faculty positions in the Berkeley math department (tenure-track positions, see Table 2): But also, it was the first time I had heard about Hypatia (born in Alexandria, c. 370 AD, wrote and lectured on Diophantine arithmetic, butchered to death at the age of 45 by religious fanatics), Maria Agnesi, Sophie Germain, and more. Sonya

10 See

for example, Rebekka Struik’s article, “The Two City Problem,” in the AWM Newsletter (Struik, 1974) or Marian Pour-El’s article in Mathematics Tomorrow (Pour-El, 1981). 11 Here I was in illustrious company. Before me there was Julia Robinson who, from time to time, was a lecturer at Berkeley until she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 (and then immediately promoted to full professor). With me as lecturer was Karen Uhlenbeck. After that, there was a long line of prominent women mathematicians and AWM members [LB: including future AWM presidents Chuu-Lian Terng, Jill Mesirov, and Ruth Charney]. 12 Although, when I thought back, the three women in my class in graduate school all had been born in New York City, all were Jewish (at least in part), all studied at women’s schools, married in college, had babies while in graduate school, and all studied logic.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics Table 2 Percentages of Women in Tenured or Tenure-eligible Positions at Berkeley (Scott et al., 1970, p. 28)

81 Academic year 1928–29 1938–39 1948–49 1958–59 1968–69

% Women 20 11 7 3 0

Kovalevsky’s motto, “Say what you know, do what you must, come what may,” which many of us immediately adopted as our own, told me that this was a woman who could not be cursorily dismissed.13 After that event, I became known as the expert on women in mathematics, on the West Coast at least. More importantly, I started to meet regularly with some of the women math graduate students: Laif Swanson, Joan Plastiras, and Judy Roitman. And, to use Linda Rothschild’s expression, this little group was to become the Berkeley “mafia” of the AWM.

The First Decade (1971–1981): Building the Foundations, a Time of Many Firsts Mary Gray (1971–1973): The Mother of Us All Without a doubt, Mary Gray is the founder of the AWM and the “mother of us all.” As Carol Wood (who became AWM president in January 1991) put it: My overwhelming sense . . . is that AWM would not have existed when it did, if at all, without the energy and vision of Mary Gray. That is probably too obvious to say, and of course there are others who shaped, changed, nurtured, etc. in critical ways . . . But I was always struck by Mary’s vision, and I think that our birthday party is an excellent opportunity to honor Mary . . .

I first remember seeing a small announcement for the new organization, the Association of Women in Mathematics,14 placed by Mary in Notices, February 1971. The first issue of the AWM Newsletter (clearly written by Mary) appeared that May listing Mary Gray as chairman. By the second issue, “of” was changed to “for,” but I don’t recall when “chairman” was replaced by “president.”

13 There

is an interesting story here which I heard then for the first time. In 1888, Kovalevsky submitted her paper, “On the Rotation of a Solid Body about a Fixed Point” to the French Academy of Sciences to compete for the Prix Bordin. Papers had to be submitted anonymously with signatures coded by the author. That motto was Kovalevsky’s code. Her anonymous paper was deemed so exceptional that the prize money was increased from 3000 to 5000 francs. 14 [LB: the name listed on the announcement was the Association of Women Mathematicians. See the announcement in Pat Kenschaft’s article in this volume.]

82

L. Blum

The Newsletter has since become the very embodiment of the AWM. From the start, it was our forum for discussing the role of women in mathematics, for exposing discrimination, for exchanging strategies, encouraging political action and, affirmative action, for informing, supporting, honoring, and of course, for job listings (which first appeared in the February 1972 issue). It has been our key linkage with each other, with credit due largely to Mary and subsequent editors, Judy Roitman and Anne Leggett.15 Mary set down goals and agenda for the early AWM. In an article (“Uppity Women Unite!”) in the January 1972 MAG Newsletter she wrote: We have some plans to improve the status of women in mathematics . . . There are two categories of problems, those involving the general female population and those involving professional women mathematicians. We must go back to the elementary schools—rewrite textbooks, use films, etc., and retrain the teachers and counselors. The goal is to show girls and boys that girls can and should learn mathematics . . . As a small first step, careful attention must be given by the mathematical community to the mathematical training of elementary schoolteachers, to see that they learn to like mathematics as well as learning mathematics . . .

Mary goes on: What do women want? Let me be specific as far as women mathematicians are concerned: 1) Equal consideration for admission to graduate school and support while there, 2) . . . for faculty appointments at all levels . . . , 3) Equal pay for equal work, 4) Equal consideration in assignment of duties, for promotion and for tenure, 5) . . . for administrative appointments at all levels in universities, industry, and government, 6) . . . for government grants, positions on review and advisory panels and positions in professional organizations. Because of past injustices, special efforts will have to be made for some time to find women to consider. AWM is ready to help. Now is the time for discrimination to end.

What seems quite amazing now is that these were considered radical demands! Mary Gray informed us (sometimes in far greater detail than many of us cared to know) of legislation on discrimination and affirmative action and urged us to become involved. She was not afraid to say things straight, to take on the establishment single-handedly. Challenging the system, she successfully ran in 1976 as a petition candidate for vice president of the AMS. As Bhama Srinivasan said, “Mary had the courage, and willingness, to take the initial steps and the initial hostility . . . [charting a course] which eventually wiped out the ‘old boys network.”’

But to the Contrary Not all women mathematicians were enthusiastic about the AWM in the beginning. For example, as Cathleen Morawetz puts it in MP, “I did not want the Association for Women in Mathematics to speak for all women mathematicians. I joined them later, but at that time they were terrible attackers. . . .”

15 [LB:

Anne Leggett was still Newsletter editor in 2020!]

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

83

Nevertheless, Cathleen played an important role herself in changing the consciousness about women in mathematics. “I was on a committee for disadvantaged groups in the Math Society [AMS], and I thought there should be a separate committee for women. I was terribly afraid when I went before the Board of Trustees—or it may have been the Council. Anyway, when it came my turn to speak, I said ‘There’s a problem with women. You may not have noticed that there are not many women mathematicians.”’ Cathleen continues, “At that point Saunders Mac Lane16 said, ‘Well, mathematics is a very difficult subject.’ I was not up to coping with that, but Is Singer picked up the ball. The committee [on women] was formed and I was made chairman . . .” In 1973, the Committee on Women published the first Directory of Women Mathematicians.17

Alice Schafer (1973–1975): AWM Incorporated, CBMS, 1974 ICM In terms of its organizational structure, I picture AWM as an evolving continuum, built with boundless energy and grass-roots networking. There is considerable overlap between one presidency and the next. Indeed, the boundaries between terms often seem quite hazy with each subsequent president building on what came before—as well as each preceding president continuing to stay actively involved. Nobody seems to take a back seat and nobody seems to retire. This dynamic was already in evidence in the first transition from Mary Gray to Alice Schafer: “When I took over the presidency, Mary sent me a box with all sorts of papers, checks, etc. . . . When I asked her what I could do, she suggested getting AWM incorporated.” Alice then goes on to relate her struggles setting up an official structure for the fledgling organization. That was done through a lawyer in Boston, who I had been told would charge very little, so I was amazed when he charged $500, which was really big money for AWM, and so, in the Newsletter, I asked for a contribution of a dollar from each member. Some gave and AWM did finally pay the bill. When it came to obtaining tax exemption status from the IRS, the lawyer said he would do it and I said first I would try. He said I could not do it, but I did . . .

In the early days, money was indeed a problem. And so Alice continues: “Do you recall that one time the March Newsletter was printed in such small print in order to save money that many people could not read it? I think that was during my

16 [LB:

Saunders Mac Lane was president-elect of the AMS at the time.] In 1995, Cathleen Morawetz became the second woman to become president of the American Mathematical Society (AMS). Twelve years earlier, in 1983, Julia Robinson was the first. After Morawetz, it took 25 more years for two more women to serve as president of the AMS, Jill Pipher in 2019 and Ruth Charney in 2021.]

17 [LB:

84

L. Blum

presidency. However, I do not recall that anyone sent in a contribution because of it [to help us out], but I may be wrong.” For those of you who were not around during those years, and for those of us who may have forgotten, Alice goes on to paint a colorful, and almost slapstick, picture of what we were up against and how she handled it: One of the . . . funny things that happened, that I recall, during my presidency is that when the meeting was in San Francisco [January 1974] AWM was still being harassed by the male mathematicians. Lee Lorch, friend of AWM, came to tell me that some of the men were going to attend the AWM meeting, which I was chairing of course, and were going to break it up. He thought I ought to be warned. I was glad of the warning and told him that teaching in high school for three years (before I had enough money to start graduate school) ought to prepare me for that! Actually, what is interesting, historically, is that meeting was the first time AWM had ever sponsored mathematical talks; before that it had all been consciousness raising. I had invited Cathleen Morawetz and Louise Hay to give short talks on mathematics . . . and had scheduled them ahead of the consciousness-raising part, and of course, their talks were good. The men, who were for the most part sitting in the last two rows in the audience, never said anything. I never knew who they were, and it didn’t matter . . .

During this period, in addition to building its own internal structure, the AWM was also beginning to establish itself as a legitimate professional society, to be reckoned with amongst its peers, i.e. other mathematical organizations. To the consternation of the men who were “sitting in the last two rows” (whose shenanigans were once again foiled by Alice), by the end of Alice’s term AWM was about to be admitted as an affiliate member of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), the umbrella society of mathematical organizations.18 By the time I became president, all I had to do was put on the finishing touches, and there we were, on the same council (and on the same CBMS letterhead) with such organizations as the AMS, ASL, IMS, MAA, NCTM, SIAM, ASA, ACM, and ORSA, among others. An amazing feat for an association that was only four years old! In its first venture into internationalism, AWM sponsored a panel at the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Vancouver, the summer of 1974, to compare the situation for women in mathematics worldwide. Speakers included: Sheila Brenner (England), Michèle Vergne (France), Bhama Srinivasan (India), and Xuân Hoàng (North Vietnam). Other firsts in the mathematical world during this period included Barbara Osofsky’s AMS Invited Address in Dallas, January 1973— the first such address at a national meeting by a woman since Anna Pell Wheeler’s

18 As

I recall, shortly after the AWM applied for affiliate membership in the CBMS, a mysterious math society, apparently originating in the midwest, decided it also was worthy of CBMS membership. Its application caused something of a commotion, prompting the CBMS to reevaluate its membership criteria. This delayed AWM’s entrance for about a year, but in the end, AWM was able to meet the stiffer requirements.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

85

Fig. 4 Vera Pless, Mary Gray, Vivienne Malone Mayes, Lenore Blum, Alice Schafer, 1975 Joint Summer Meeting, Western Michigan University. Reprinted from the Kalamazoo Gazette, August 22, 1975. One-time usage courtesy MLive Media Group

Colloquium Lectures in 192719 —and Sloan fellowships awarded to Joan Birman and Karen Uhlenbeck in 1974.

Lenore Blum (1975–1978): Exploring New Territory In August 1975 at the JMM in Kalamazoo (see Fig. 4), I became president of the AWM (and served in that capacity for three years). Since Mary had already captured the attention of the mathematics community head on, and Alice had set up the foundation for a working organization, I was mostly free to explore new territory. It seemed clear that the provincial view of mathematics—including who a mathematician was, and what a mathematician did—was a prime factor in the exclusion of women, as well as others, from the field. It also seemed clear that the provincial view was potentially limiting to the discipline itself. So, to make this “statement,” as well as to further educate myself, I decided to use the public forum which had proved so successful in Berkeley. In those years, the academic job market for mathematicians was very tight. Many young people were in a terrible bind, given the prevailing view that the only respectable work for a mathematician was in academia. Since women mathematicians had been finding creative alternatives to academic employment for years, their

19 In

the interim, women had been invited sporadically to speak at local meetings: Pauline Sperry (1933), Emmy Noether (1934), Olga Taussky Todd (1959), Cathleen Morawetz (1969), Mary Ellen Rudin (1971), Mary Elizabeth Hamstrom (1972).

86

L. Blum

experiences could be particularly useful, perhaps even change an image. I organized a panel on “Women Mathematicians in Business, Industry, and Government” for the January 1976 Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in San Antonio (and a similar one in Seattle, the summer of 1977). Here I met for the first time: Marjorie Stein, a mathematician working at the US Postal Service (Statistical Service Requirements Division); Jessie MacWilliams, a coding theorist at Bell Labs; Mary Wheeler of Rice, also a consultant for oil companies, working on numerical solutions to PDEs; Marijean Seelbach, a topologist and functional analyst working on optimal control theory at NASA-Ames. These energetic women had clearly found unusual and challenging career paths for themselves utilizing their mathematical training and skills. It was quite inspiring. Many of us were eager to explore further our history. I decided to organize some panels at the Joint Math Meetings on the history of women in mathematics with AWM members as speakers. What was so powerful about these sessions, even historic in itself, was that for the first time women mathematicians were talking about women mathematicians (their lives and their work) to women mathematicians. By understanding their work, possibly even identifying with their lives, the speakers were able to convey uniquely meaningful, deeply personal portraits of the women who had come before us. The sessions were charged! In Toronto (summer 1976), Mary Gray talked about Sophie Germain and her work (a bicentennial perspective), Linda Keen about Sonya Kovalevsky (her extraordinary life and mathematical achievements), Martha Smith about Emmy Noether (her work and tremendous influence). As an added treat, Emiliana Noether came to talk about her aunt (-in-law). In St. Louis (at the infamous cold winter meeting of 1977), Teri Perl told us about the Lady’s Almanac, a popular women’s magazine published in England from 1704 to 1841, devoted in large part to mathematical questions and solutions.20 But perhaps one of the most moving occasions was when Sylvia Wiegand spoke of her grandmother, mathematician Grace Chisholm Young. Because women were not admitted to graduate schools in England at the turn of the century, Grace went to Germany and became the first woman to receive a formal degree in mathematics in Göttingen—indeed the first woman PhD in Germany in any field.21 When she

20 See

AWM Newsletters and also, Math Equals by Teri Perl (1978). A number of biographies of women mathematicians by women mathematicians have appeared in the Newsletters over the years. As an example, in the July 1978 issue, Bhama Srinivasan writes about Ruth Moufang (1905–1977), dedicating her article to the many mathematicians who have exclaimed, “You mean Moufang is a woman?” 21 [LB: ‘Formal” summarizes requirements similar to a modern PhD: attending courses, writing a dissertation, and passing an oral examination, In contrast, Kovalevsky received a Göttingen PhD two decades earlier in absentia, after submitting her dissertation, but without attending lectures or taking an oral exam there. See Sylvia Wiegand’s article in this volume for more details.]

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

87

returned to England, she married William Young, her former tutor. Sylvia read a poignant letter from her grandfather to her grandmother, written some years later: I hope you enjoy this working for me . . . I am very happy that you are getting on with the ideas. I feel partly as if I were . . . setting you problems which I could not quite do myself but could enable you to . . . The fact is that our papers ought to be published under our joint names, but if this were done neither of us get the benefit of it. No. Mine the laurels now and the knowledge. Yours the knowledge only. Everything under my name now, and later when the leaves and fishes are no more procurable in that way, everything or much under your name. This is my programme. At present you can’t undertake a public career. You have your children. I can and do.

An historic panel, Black Women in Mathematics, organized by Pat Kenschaft and Etta Falconer, was held in Atlanta, January 1978. Of the 12 Black women in the US holding PhDs in mathematics at the time (more held degrees in mathematics education), six were on the panel: Geraldine Darden, Elayne Idowu, Eleanor G. Jones, Evelyn Roane, Dolores Spikes, and Etta Falconer.22 These AWM sessions at the national meetings were immensely popular. We were clearly identifying and addressing subjects of interest and issues of concern to the mathematics community-at-large (well before these issues were recognized by the establishment as legitimate, even critical). As a consequence, we began to broaden our constituency, attracting people who had perhaps felt uncomfortable with the more political tone of earlier days. But political issues were nevertheless still very much on our minds. We provided testimony for congressional investigations, wrote university presidents and newspaper editors and letters (often signed jointly by the three presidents Mary, Alice, and me) protesting objectionable images of girls and women in textbooks, the media, and advertising. (In school math books, girls were still calculating the perfect recipe, while boys calculated the time to get to the moon. Flyers depicting a naked woman contemplating a calculator were still being distributed at the Math Book Exhibits in 1976.) In 1978, a masterful combination of teamwork and old girl networking resulted in decisions by the AMS and MAA not to hold national meetings in states that had not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). At the International Congress in Helsinki, a special meeting was called by the AWM to protest the absence of women speakers. Over 500 people attended. I introduced a resolution (amended by Lee Lorch) urging this situation be rectified by the next Congress.23 The resolution passed by a near-unanimous vote (only three dissenters). 22 Their stories are published in the September 1978 and May–June 1980 Newsletter. Also see Pat Kenschaft’s article “Black Women in Mathematics in the United States” (Kenschaft, 1981). Lee Lorch plays an important role here. Three women who studied with him at Fisk (during the period 1950–1955) went on to get PhDs in mathematics: Etta Falconer, Vivienne Malone Mayes, and Gloria Hewitt. 23 [LB: We note the absence of women from the list of invited speakers at the 1978 ICM, from the IMU general assembly, and from the IMU committees, despite the large number of internationally distinguished women mathematicians. We urge this situation be rectified by the 1982 ICM.]

88

L. Blum

It was a time of heady issues, but also a time of great excitement and great fun. It was a time of newly found camaraderie, of friendships, of support and respect among women mathematicians.

Benefits of Sisterhood I was clearly a beneficiary of this “sisterhood” during my presidency. Besides the two former presidents to guide me, Judy Roitman was Newsletter Editor and Judy Green, AWM Employment Officer (a title deemed appropriate since she had taken it upon herself to analyze employment data and monitor the legitimacy of job advertisements). Both Judys were co-vice-president. Judy Roitman and I had become great friends during the early Berkeley days, and as I wrote in the November 1978 Newsletter welcoming her presidency, “. . . our friendship has grown with, indeed, has been intertwined with, our involvement in . . . the AWM.” She was (and is) a great—and speedy—writer, and since writing was not one of my better skills, many a President’s Report was told (I can hardly say dictated) to her over the phone the night before the Newsletter went to press. Judy Green often played the role of political advisor, telephone consultant, as well as AWM liaison with the Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) and the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM), the association for Black mathematicians. In preparing this history, I queried her: Even though you were never President, you very well could . . . have been. How come we never could get you to “run”? You were doing a lot of the work de facto anyway.

To which she replied: I’m much better helping people than being in charge. I really don’t like being out there in front. Judy Roitman and I were co-vice-presidents since neither one of us would say we’d be president-elect. At the end, she gave in before I did!

That reluctance also helps explain why my term lasted as long as it did!

Twin Issues: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Before going ahead, I would like to take out a few moments to address directly a few aspects of the twin issues of discrimination and affirmative action that were so central to our lives in those years. The AWM gave women mathematicians courage to speak out publicly, even file complaints and charges about their own situation. As a consequence, our files were overflowing with correspondence from women documenting discrimination, seeking assistance and advice. Mary Gray, being the most knowledgeable, handled most of these cases throughout the 1970s, but we all did some. Affirmative action rulings often produced backlash and many abuses. For example, in order to satisfy affirmative action guidelines, many math departments

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

89

resorted to “papering the files,” inviting women to apply for jobs that didn’t exist or had already been offered to men. A related practice is illustrated by the following letter from a woman mathematician on the East Coast to the vice-chairman of the Math Department on the West Coast. The names have been removed, not so much for anonymity, but rather to stress genericity: Dear Professor X, “This is the third consecutive year that I have been invited to apply for the position of Assistant Professor in the Mathematics Department of [West Coast University]. I assume it is the third year of [WCU]’s Affirmative Action program. As I mentioned in my last response to such an invitation, I have been Associate Professor24 since the first year. It is hard to believe that [WCU] is serious about its Affirmative Action program if it makes no attempt to match the experience of the candidate considered with the positions available. Would you be interested in a job as Assistant Professor? Sincerely, Y25

Indeed, while many in the mathematics community believed that there was an influx of women faculty as a result of affirmative action, the data in the early years showed quite the contrary. As an example, between 1973–1974 and 1974– 1975 the percentage of women in regular math faculty positions, in most instances, actually went down; and no significant rise became evident until very much later. (See Judy Green’s article in the April 1975 AWM Newsletter, mine in the May–June 1976 CBMS Newsletter, and Mary and Alice’s in Notices, October 1976 (Gray and Schafer, 1976).)

Judy Roitman (1978–1981): A Summing Up The early years of the AWM were a time of activism, of speaking out, of politics, of confrontation, of heroes and villains–when issues seemed almost black or white. Judy Roitman provides a perspective on the decade: I can summarize my time in AWM office by saying that I was one of the last—perhaps the last—president of an amateur AWM. What do I mean by this? The AWM grew out of the feminist movement of the 1970s, which was marked by confrontation, attention to, and expression of, personal feelings and individual incidents, and ignorance of history. Having finally read some of this history (Margaret Rossiter’s excellent book on American women scientists)26 I suspect that had we known how

24 [LB:

The position of associate professor is higher than assistant professor. It often comes with tenure.] 25 Y, a pioneer in the application of non-linear mathematics to understanding chemical and biological phenomena, is recipient of numerous honors and awards, including a Sloan, a Guggenheim, and a MacArthur “genius” award. 26 [LB: Margaret Rossiter, a MacArthur awardee, has written several books on American women scientists: Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Rossiter, 1982); Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action: 1940–1972 (Rossiter, 1995); Women Scientists

90

L. Blum closely we were following in the footsteps of earlier feminists, and how little change their tremendous efforts made, we probably never would have bothered. So the early job of the AWM was just to look around us and report the obvious—the situation for women was terrible—and the apparently not-so-obvious—it didn’t have to . . . be that way. We spent a lot of time popping up at meetings (departmental, local, national) saying over and over again that women could be perfectly good, even great, mathematicians if given the opportunity . . . and that there were several steps the mathematical community could take to improve things for both women and minorities. It was an easy kind of agitation—you just had to look around you and report what you saw . . . But while this style had its successes, it was based on a sort of shooting from the hip. That is why I characterize it as being amateur . . . 27

A Time of Growth, Many Firsts (the AWM Noether Lectures) and Solid Program Developments It was also a time of lassoing people in. In addition to national meetings of the AWM, members were organizing and meeting regionally: Sue Montgomery and Ruth Afflack in Southern California, Rebekka Struik in the Rocky Mountain region, Jessie Ann Engle, Judith Longyear, and Vera Pless in the Midwest, Pat Kenschaft in New Jersey, Linda Keen in New York, to mention only a few. In the mid1970s, AWM instituted an Open Council, encouraging the participation of members representing a wide range of self-identified constituencies and areas of interest.28 By 1981, AWM had grown to over 1000 members (from the US and 15 other countries), its influence and political power ranging far beyond these numbers. For example, then and over the years, AWM-supported candidates in AMS elections have been quite likely to win. The 1970s were certainly a time of increased consciousness about women in mathematics. It was also a time of many firsts. Two notable additions to those already mentioned are Julia Robinson’s election to the National Academy of Sciences29 and Dorothy Bernstein’s election as president of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), both in 1975. During Judy Roitman’s term, the

in America: Forging a New World Since 1972 (Rossiter, 2012). Since Judy wrote me in 1990, I suspect Judy was referring to the first.] 27 Not completely. It should be noted, for example, that the AWM bylaws were written and passed during Judy Roitman’s term. Creatively, they stipulated both formal structure and procedures for AWM’s governance, while at the same time leaving room for flexibility. 28 An impressive list of such Council members, contained in the September 1978 Newsletter, indicates broad AWM membership interests and affiliations: pure and applied mathematics research; colleges, universities, and research institutions; math education; career counseling; teacher education; four-year state colleges; two-year community colleges; high school math teachers; history; and retired women. 29 According to (MP), “when the University [of California at Berkeley] press office received the news [of Robinson’s election], someone from there called the mathematics department to find out who Julia Robinson was. ‘That’s Professor Robinson’s wife.’ ‘Well,’ replied the caller, ‘Professor Robinson’s wife has just been elected to the National Academy of Sciences.”’

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

91

AWM Noether Lectures (chaired first by Karen Uhlenbeck) were inaugurated by Jessie MacWilliams at the San Antonio meeting in January 1980.30 But also, it was a time of solid program development and achievements. During those years, many of us were involved in designing and implementing educational programs to increase the participation of girls and women in mathematics. Other organizations such as the Math/Science Network, headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Women and Mathematics (WAM), founded by the MAA—to which many AWM members belonged, were also very much part of this effort. Since the old system was clearly not working for us, we were motivated to explore new paradigms in teaching: developing hands-on activities and materials stressing problem solving skills, promoting team teaching and cooperative learning, providing role models and information to students (as well as their parents and teachers) about why mathematics was important for their future.31 Of course, all this made sense in general. And indeed, educational programs we developed in the 1970s are now models for educational reform in the 1990s. A stellar example is Nancy Kreinberg’s EQUALS teacher training program at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley.32 (Many articles describing successful educational programs and strategies can be found in AWM Newsletters.)

The Second Decade (1981–1991): A Coming of Age The second decade in the life of the AWM can be characterized variously as a period of maturing, of coming of age, of increased self-assurance, of establishing and strengthening institutional mechanisms, of gaining acceptance by the mathematics community. It was a time when AWM grew up. Indeed, these are the themes and phrases that kept recurring in my conversations and correspondence with the AWM presidents of the 1980s.

30 The

Emmy Noether Lecturers (from 1980 to 1991) were: F. Jessie MacWilliams, Olga Taussky Todd, Julia Robinson, Cathleen S. Morawetz, Mary Ellen Rudin, Jane Cronin Scanlon, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, Joan S. Birman, Karen K. Uhlenbeck, Mary E. Wheeler, Bhama Srinivasan, Alexandra Bellow. 31 In 1979, at the summer meeting in Duluth, Judy Roitman organized an AWM panel, Mathematics Education: A Feminist Perspective, to discuss these new programs and strategies. Speakers included: Deborah Hughes Hallett, Diane Resek, and myself. 32 See the January–February 1984 AWM Newsletter, pp. 5–6. [LB: EQUALS print materials (including Family Math) are available today from the Lawrence Hall of Science shop. For more about the Math/Science Network, see the November–December 2004 AWM Newsletter, p. 5.]

92

L. Blum

Bhama Srinivasan (1981–1983): Noether Symposium, Speakers Bureau On one of those gorgeous Berkeley afternoons last fall [i.e., the fall of 1990], Bhama Srinivasan and I met at a picnic sponsored by the women graduate students in the Berkeley Math Department. Bhama had been visiting as part of the algebra year at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI). Being the two senior mathematicians at the picnic, it was natural to chat with the students about the usual issues that come up about women and mathematics. Much to our surprise, they knew very little about the AWM! We talked about the upcoming 20th Anniversary and reminisced about AWM’s 10th (also held in San Francisco at the beginning of Bhama’s term). I’m not sure we made any new recruits, but the students did arrange to keep meeting weekly. And so, the process renews itself. During Bhama’s presidency, AWM sponsored its first major mathematical conference, the Noether Symposium at Bryn Mawr College. Bhama credits Rhonda Hughes with the idea. The Symposium, in honor of Emmy Noether’s 100th birthday, was held in March 1982, appropriately at the institution where Noether held her last position. There were nine scientific lectures as well as a panel discussion. The event “was not only scientifically successful but a specially moving occasion,” Bhama remembers. Three of the women who had studied with Noether at Bryn Mawr spoke at the Symposium. They painted a picture of a mathematically-charged, particularly precious time, dominated by Noether and fully integrated with women: “Meeting Emmy Noether was one of the great things in my life,” said Olga Taussky Todd who, in 1934, had come from a research post in Göttingen to study with Noether at Bryn Mawr. She was a teacher and she had a great urge to make people see her methods and to understand them. At Bryn Mawr it was particularly easy for me to profit . . . from her school. There was her thesis student Ruth [Stauffer McKee]. There was Marie Weiss who worked on a problem explicitly suggested to her, namely units in cyclic fields, using ideas of Latimer. For this we had to thank Grace [Shover Quinn].

“We not only studied together, attended Miss Noether’s and Mrs. Wheeler’s lectures also,” recalled Grace S. Quinn, “but we really played together, walking down Gulph Road with Miss Noether in the lead discussing mathematics intensely all the while unmindful of the traffic . . .” Ruth McKee recalled how it was to be in Noether’s classes. The strange phenomena was that from our point of view, she was one of us, almost as if she too were thinking about the theorems for the first time. There was a lot of competition and Miss Noether urged us on, challenging us to get our nails dirty, to really dig into the underlying relationships, to consider problems from all possible angles. It was this way of shifting perspective that finally hit home . . . suddenly the light dawned and Miss Noether’s methods were the only way to attack modern algebra . . . 33

33 McKee

went on to stress how Noether’s methods were directly applicable to her own work and living. Her remarks seem particularly relevant today, as the math community seeks words

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

93

The Symposium proceedings, Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr (edited by Bhama and Judith Sally) were published by Springer-Verlag in 1983.34 Also during this period, the AWM Speakers Bureau—funded initially by grants from Polaroid, then Sloan, and directed by Judy Wason—became fully functional.35 The Speakers Bureau provides lists of speakers and topics appropriate for high schools and colleges. This highly successful AWM activity has proved to be one of the best ways to improve the visibility of women in mathematics.

Tensions Surface: Research vs. Education? As we drove from the picnic, Bhama and I talked more about the AWM. She reminded me of the tensions that had begun to surface during the early 1980s: Were we an organization of research mathematicians or did we represent the interests of all women in mathematics, particularly in education? Now that we were not as preoccupied with political issues as in the early years, it seemed we were having an identity crisis! Bhama recalls, I was concerned about how to balance our various (and sometimes conflicting) constituencies and interests. So I set up a number of new committees [including the Committee on Mathematics Education, chaired first by Evelyn Silvia and then by Sally Lipsey, and the Maternity Committee, chaired by Anita Solow] to address these issues and involve many more women in the workings of the AWM.

and ways to communicate to policy makers, and the public, the value of mathematics: “Miss Noether’s methods of working and thinking became the basis for my analytical work at the research agency of the Pennsylvanian State Legislature for almost 30 years. It is probably heresy for me to mention this in front of so many theoretical mathematicians but there is a great need in government for abstract imaginative thinkers to help solve all sorts of problems. For example: What are the basic cost factors in a given government funded program? What is the taxpayer’s money really accomplishing? During my career we searched for answers to these questions in such areas as the construction of public school buildings, the operating of State mental hospitals, the faculty workload at various levels of education, highway engineering as directed toward traffic safety. We chewed over the characteristics and searched for the basic independent variables when considered from all possible points of view. Other times the problem was to find the relevant variables to determine an equitable distribution of appropriations. What was the most important factor? population density? financial need? or simple geography? . . .” (See the Symposium proceedings, Srinivasan and Sally, 1983.) 34 Contributors to the Noether proceedings include: Armand Borel, Walter Feit, Nathan Jacobson, Jeanne LaDuke, Marguerite Lehr, Ruth S. McKee, Uta C. Merzbach, Emiliana P. Noether, Gottfried E. Noether, Grace S. Quinn, Judith D. Sally, Richard G. Swan, Olga Taussky, Karen Uhlenbeck, Michèle Vergne. 35 Special credit for securing funds is due Eleanor Palais, longtime chair of the AWM Fund-raising Committee, and to Mary Gray and Alice Schafer.

94

L. Blum

Linda Rothschild (1983–1985): A Period of Transition, The White House, A Mathematical Mentor Linda Rothschild speaks of her presidency as “a period of transition: AWM was becoming established as a ‘serious’ and ‘respectable’ mathematics organization at that time (for better or for worse!) . . . Even the White House recognized AWM as a serious organization by inviting its president to a luncheon for women’s professional group leaders in honor of Women’s Business Day.” Keeping with AWM tradition, Linda organized a panel (at the January 1983 Meetings in Denver) addressing issues of “Mathematics and Computers” well before this topic became fashionable in the larger mathematics community.36 She also took care to balance research/education concerns by organizing panels on grantsmanship (“Grants: Getting them and keeping them,” Albany, August 1983)37 and, with Kay Gilliland of EQUALS, on how teachers of mathematics can encourage girls in their classes (Eugene, August 1984). But “of the various panels I put together for the national meetings,” Linda writes, “perhaps the most applauded was the one honoring Lipman Bers on his 70th birthday [at the Louisville Meetings in January 1984] for his contribution to nurturing the success of so many female graduate students.” Echoing the sentiments felt by many of us, she adds, “If only there had been ten others like him, think how many more women mathematicians there might be!”38 Linda described the session in the March–April 1984 AWM Newsletter: The lecture hall was filled with people who wanted to find out the secret of the “Bers” mystique. We learned first hand that the statistics are truly remarkable. Professor Bers had had 40 PhD students of whom 16 were women. The panelists, Tilla Milnor, Irwin Kra, Jane Gilman, Jozef Dodzuik, and Linda Keen (moderator), all former Bers students, told fascinating stories about their experiences in graduate school . . .

What was it that made Bers such a good advisor of women students? Linda Keen provides some insights. “He gave us all, and probably the women needed it more, a confidence in our own abilities. He took it for granted that we would expect to have families and that we would continue anyway.”

36 The

panelists (Nancy Johnson, Louise Hay, Lucy Garnett, Marci Perlstadt, and me) talked about personal computing, running a math department with computers, evolution from mathematician to the field of computers, and computers in, and influence on, mathematical research—all quite novel topics at the time. 37 Speakers included Judith Sunley, Alice Schafer, Rhonda Hughes, and Cora Sadosky. 38 For remarks on previous mathematical mentors of women in the US, see Green and LaDuke (1987). Of their group of 229 pre-1940 PhDs in mathematics, more than a third were advised by eight mathematicians: Charlotte Angas Scott and Anna Pell Wheeler (at Bryn Mawr) and six men—Frank Morley (at Johns Hopkins) and A. B. Coble (at Johns Hopkins and Illinois), Aubrey Landry (at Catholic University), Virgil Snyder (at Cornell) and Gilbert Ames Bliss and L. E. Dickson (both at Chicago where together they advised 30 women PhDs). It is not hard to surmise that each of these men felt secure in their position in mathematics. Like Lipman Bers, all but one was at one time president of the AMS!

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

95

Linda Keen (1985–1987): Kovalevsky Symposium, Kovalevsky Days, Robinson Memorial, 1986 ICM Linda Keen recalls highlights of her stint as AWM president. “The first highlight was the Sonya Kovalevsky celebration run by the AWM at Radcliffe together with the Mary Bunting Institute (in October 1985). This was a two-part affair. The first was a program for high school seniors, held on the campus—organized by Bernice Auslander and Pamela Coxon with help from the whole Boston group. There were talks about mathematics as well as talks about careers. The students had lunch together and had a chance to talk informally to a number of women mathematicians.” This event was to become the model for the many Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days sponsored since by the AWM.39 “The second part of the affair,” Linda continues, “was more ‘my baby.’ It was a serious mathematical conference on the theme of mathematics that had grown out of Kovalevsky’s work. There were about ten speakers, more than half women.” Three special sessions (organized by Jane Cronin Scanlon, Lesley Sibner, and Jean Taylor) in conjunction with the Kovalevsky Symposium were held at the AMS meeting in Amherst two days earlier. The Legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya, a collection of papers40 presented at both events and edited by Linda, was published in 1987 in the AMS Contemporary Mathematics series (Keen, 1987).41 “Then there was the Julia Robinson Memorial session sponsored jointly by the AWM, the AMS, and the MAA [New Orleans, January 1986]. It was really a super affair with great talks.” Constance Reid, Julia’s sister and biographer of mathematicians, spoke about Julia’s life.42 Lisl Gaal gave a brief description of Julia’s thesis, and Martin Davis a

39 In

the spring of 1987, Alice Schafer ran a SKHS Day at Simmons College, where SKHS Days were held for many years. (Alice taught at Simmons after retiring from Wellesley—hence the connection; never one to retire, she subsequently became head of the math department at Marymount University!) [LB: Kovalevsky’s name has been transliterated in various ways. Here, I use the spelling attached to AWM’s SK Days.] 40 Contributors to the Kovalevsky proceedings include: Patricia Bauman, Enrico Bombieri, John W. Cahn, Roger Cooke, Dennis Deturck, Jozef Dodzuik, Hans Engler, Carolyn Gordon, Ann Hibner Koblitz, Tilla Klotz Milnor, Richard Palais, Thea Pignataro, Emma Previato, Burton Randol, Michael Shub, Dennis Sullivan, Jean Taylor, Chuu-Lian Terng, Alphonse T. Vasquez. 41 In this volume, Ann Hibner Koblitz (“Changing Views of Sofia Kovalevskaia”) presents an alternative, perhaps more plausible, perspective on the Prix Bordin story mentioned earlier. “Anonymity would not have been easy to achieve in the relatively small European mathematical community of the time,” she contends. Furthermore, there is “overwhelming evidence that the French academicians decided to make the motion of a rigid body the topic of the 1888 Prix Bordin contest precisely because they knew that Kovalevskaia was working on the problem.” Koblitz contends further that Felix Klein and Eric Bell are two of the people most responsible for the “fictionalization” of Kovalevsky as a “frivolous creature on the fringe of the mathematical world.” Koblitz is particularly pointed in her criticism of Bell, claiming that “it is to him that mathematicians are largely indebted for distorted impressions of their predecessors.” 42 See “An Autobiography of Julia Robinson by Constance Reid” in MP. [LB: See also, Julia: A Life in Mathematics (Reid, 1996) and my review of it (Blum, 1998).]

96

L. Blum

retrospective of her mathematics. Lisl quoted Julia: “When I am dead I hope I shall not be remembered by anecdotes, but for my work.” Julia Robinson was a great mathematician. Her work was instrumental in the solution of Hilbert’s tenth problem. She was the embodiment of firsts for contemporary women in mathematics: the first woman president of the AMS, the first woman mathematician elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the first woman mathematician to receive a MacArthur award. Julia was not an active AWM member, but supportive in private ways. As she became more involved in public life, her support increased. As vice president of the AMS, she intervened when the Council would not consider a motion to move a meeting from a non-ERA state because the motion was not already on the agenda. Julia pointed out this was an emergency situation. The motion passed and the meeting was moved. Linda recalls that when Julia was AMS president “she really made sure women were placed on important committees—and was very supportive to me, both as Council member and as president of the AWM.” Julia Robinson was a “role model” for many of us long before we understood what that expression meant. She will continue to be a source of inspiration for a very long time.43 A final highlight of Linda’s term was the 1986 ICM in Berkeley. “Our program at that meeting was a real success as you know,” Linda writes. There were nine panelists from ten countries and five continents.44 “The forming of the European Women in Mathematics was a longrange aftereffect. . . .” “There was also the Sturm und Drang about the number of women invited to the ICM.” At the AWM panel, Linda read a resolution she had earlier presented to the ICM Executive Committee concerning the selection of women (and those in other groups) as Congress speakers. This resolution was endorsed by the 400 attendees at our meeting.45 “This brought us to the attention of the international community and as you saw [at the 1990 ICM in Kyoto] many are now more sensitive to the issue.”

43 [LB:

The Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) in Berkeley held a Symposium in Honor of Julia Robinson’s 100th Birthday on December 9, 2019. The video is available on the MSRI website.] 44 Panelists were: Josefina Alvarez (Argentina), Bodil Branner (Denmark), Marie Françoise CosteRoy (France), Consuelo Flores (Nicaragua), Gudrun Kalmbach (Germany), Maria Jose Pacifico (Brazil), Jennifer Seberry (Australia), Caroline Series (England), and Joséphine Guidy-Wandja (Côte D’Ivoire). Although the panel was large, we had no representation from a large part of the world—indeed from Eastern Europe through Asia. This was partially rectified at the 1990 ICM in Kyoto where panelists included: Rajinda Hans-Gill (India), Hu He-sheng (China), Maria T. Lozano (Spain), Aiko Negishi (Japan), Kati Tenenblat (Brazil), Gillian Thornsby (New Zealand), and Asia Weiss (Canada). 45 As a personal protest, Marina Ratner had taken the more extreme position of publicly boycotting the Congress. (See Blum 1987.)

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

97

Gender, Mathematics, and Science In the mid-1980s, there was a flurry of work by a group of feminist theorists on gender and science. In commentary fairly critical of this work, Ann Hibner Koblitz succinctly summarized the main ideas behind the theory. “Put in its most general guise, the new ‘gender theory’ says that centuries of male domination of science have affected its content—what questions are asked and what answers are found— and that ‘science’ and ‘objectivity’ have become inextricably linked to concepts and ideologies of masculinity.” She then lists eight criticisms of which I will mention only two, namely that gender theorists “seem unaware of the increasing numbers of women who have had satisfying lives as scientists” and “employ cartoon-character stereotypes of science, scientists, men, and women.” See “A Historian Looks at Gender and Science,” AWM Newsletter, July–August 1986 (Koblitz, 1986). A letter from Mary Beth Ruskai in the May–June 1986 Newsletter expressed concerns felt by many of us “that a few very vocal and visible sociologists are succeeding in promulgating opinions that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science.” In the letter, Ruskai discusses a rash of articles in the popular press where arguments presented by gender theorists invoke a number of stereotypical misconceptions. For example, she points out that “instead of being concerned that women with an aptitude for computing, science, and mathematics were going into other fields” some advocates of the theory see this as a virtue—women are not interested in science because it does not deal with subtleties. Ruskai is critical of the dichotomous distinction between “artistic” and “technical,” the cures for math/physics anxiety devoid of proper math preparation, the recurrent idea “that women are more intuitive than men, where intuition and logic are perceived as opposites.” She calls for AWM to take a stand. Ruskai’s letter generated more response than anything else that had ever appeared in the AWM Newsletter—a number of responses are contained in the November–December 1986 issue. Here, for example, Marianne Nichols expresses an alternate point of view. Namely, she argues, if we understand “the biases that do exist in math and science today,” then we can “see how they limit what we can know and understand. From there one perhaps can begin to expand and enrich these fields.”46

46 For

a thoughtful and well-articulated account of this viewpoint by one of its key theorists, see Reflections on Gender and Science by Evelyn Fox Keller (1985). In this book, Keller calls for a science “in which difference, rather than division, constitutes the fundamental principle for ordering the world . . .”

98

L. Blum

Rhonda Hughes (1987–1989): AMS Centennial, Travel Grants, Schafer Prize “By the time I became AWM president,” writes Rhonda Hughes, “the organization had clearly gained the acceptance of the mathematics establishment (whether we wanted it or not). I could tell, because all sorts of people began to talk to me who had never done so before. (This sort of thing should not, however, go to one’s head. As soon as my term ended, some of these same people started calling me ‘Jill’ . . . ).” While very much a participant in establishment activities, AWM was still mindful of its unique perspective and role in the mathematics community during Rhonda’s term. The AWM “Response to the David Report” panel (San Antonio, January 1987) focused on initiatives for women and minorities [LB: see May–June 1987 AWM Newsletter]. Panelist Fern Hunt emphasized the need to increase the diversity of people doing mathematical research, not only from a political or social point of view, but to promote the “diversity of ideas—one of the prerequisites for progress in mathematics.” So to the famous (or infamous) line from the film Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects!” she would add, “And round up the unusual ones too!” Louise Raphael discussed NSF initiatives for women and minorities and also shared a key factor which helped her reenter mathematical research. “Namely, it is essential to find collaborators who share the same mathematical interest.” Other panelists were John Polking and Barry Simon; Lida Barrett moderated. AWM’s presence was very much in evidence at the AMS Centennial Celebration, held in Providence in August 1988.47 The AWM panel, “Centennial Reflections on Women in American Mathematics,” focused on a century of contributions and experiences of women mathematicians. Judy Green and Jeanne LaDuke discussed their findings on the substantial presence of female PhDs in American mathematics before World War II—and the dramatic decline after the war—as well as more recent history. Mabel Barnes, Olga Taussky Todd, and Vivienne Malone Mayes reflected on their own experiences, giving us a rare and personal accounting of this history as well as a unique glimpse into their own lives. Mabel Barnes (Emerita Professor at Occidental College and mother of algebraist Lynne Barnes Small) told of her experiences in the early 1930s at the newly established Institute for Advanced Study: Even in remote Nebraska I heard about a place called the Institute for Advanced Study opening up in Princeton. I applied for admission and was accepted . . . Soon after I arrived, the Director of the School of Mathematics took me aside and warned me that Princeton was not accustomed to women in its halls of learning and I should make myself as inconspicuous as possible. However, otherwise I found a very friendly atmosphere and spent a valuable and enjoyable year there. Had I not gone East, I would not have met Olga Taussky as early as I fortunately did.

47 At

the formal ceremonies, Rhonda presented the AMS with congratulatory wishes from the AWM and in appreciation was presented a silver bowl from the AMS (which now ritually gets passed down from one AWM president to the next at inauguration time).

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

99

Olga Taussky Todd cited the time in 1958 when she was invited to give a onehour lecture at an AMS meeting, the first woman since Emmy Noether in 1934. “At such an occasion the chairman usually says a few kind words by way of introduction. I trained myself to say ‘thank you for your kind words,”’ she recalled. “However, he only mentioned my name and Caltech and I almost thanked him for his ‘kind words.”’ The fact that she studied and worked in several countries allowed Olga to observe a number of facts about “the behavior” and “treatment” of women over the years. “Now we live with Women’s Lib and it has not only changed the opportunities for women, but also their behavior towards each other. Women are now friends of women colleagues . . .” Vivienne Malone Mayes (see Fig. 4), the only Black math professor at Baylor, spoke of being a Black woman graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin in the late 1950s. This was a time when Blacks could not be TAs nor join their classmates for discussion at segregated cafes. “I can personally vouch that my personal isolation . . . was absolute and complete . . . At times I felt that I might as well have been taking a correspondence course,” Vivienne recalled. “The history of Black women in mathematics (based upon the parameter of PhDs) . . . is only recent history in comparison with the centennial of years since the first white female PhD,” she pointed out. The first white woman to be awarded a PhD in mathematics in the US was Winifred Edgerton Merrill (Columbia University, 1886). The first Black women to be awarded math PhDs were Marjorie Lee Browne (at Michigan under G. Y. Rainich) and Evelyn Boyd Granville (see Fig. 5; at Yale under Einar Hille), both in 1949.48 “It should be noted,” Vivienne added, “that many of the dissertation advisors received criticism for sponsoring these Black female doctoral candidates. Their courage must be acknowledged as an important factor in the careers of these mathematicians . . .”49 Reflecting on her presidency, Rhonda points to growing pains as well as significant achievements. “In my time, we still seemed plagued by the research– education tension in our membership. This appears to be less of a problem now, with the wide range of programs and activities we’ve taken on.” On the positive side she concludes, “I am most pleased with the establishment of the Travel Grant program, and the Schafer Prize. Seeing all those bright undergraduate women receiving awards in Columbus [Joint Mathematics Meetings, August 1990] symbolized for me the whole point of AWM. And once they become mathematicians, the Travel Grant program might further help their professional development.”

48 [LB:

It was later that we found an earlier PhD—Martha Euphemia Lofton Haynes in 1943 at the Catholic University of America under Aubrey Edward Landry.] 49 See WM and the November–December 1988 AWM Newsletter for more on these fascinating stories and an account of the centennial history.

100

L. Blum

Fig. 5 Isabel Beichl, Evelyn Boyd Granville, and Tammy Kolda, AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI, 1999

Louise Hay Award It seems most fitting here to make special mention of the Hay award, established by the AWM to recognize contributions to mathematics education, but especially to talk about Louise, who was very much part of the foundation and fabric of the AWM. Indeed, she was slated to have become AWM president in 1991. Louise Hay died on October 28, 1989 at the age of 54. She had been a faculty member and head of the mathematics department at the University of Illinois at Chicago for many years and had a profound effect on women students there like Rhonda Hughes. At the AWM meeting in Louisville, January 1990, Rhonda delivered a deeply moving testimonial. As Rhonda spoke, I thought of the time I first met Louise. It was the year I started to work on my thesis and Louise was visiting MIT on an NSF postdoctoral fellowship. I remember being startled to see a woman’s name on a math faculty door, but even more startled to see Louise. Since I had never seen a woman mathematician before, I had imagined her to fit the common stereotype of the time—and certainly that was not what I saw! As Rhonda, I too was impressed by “her unusual combination of youth, vivacity, and mathematical reputation.” She was a living role model. Louise was intimately connected with the origins and growth of the AWM, particularly in the Chicago area (see Fig. 6). In “Fond Remembrances of Louise Hay” (Hughes, 1990), Rhonda recalls Louise’s support and encouragement from the beginning: “Inspired by AWM’s founding, Nancy Johnson (Louise’s PhD student)

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

101

Fig. 6 Louise Hay, slated to have become AWM president in 1991. Photo courtesy of Lenore Blum

and I organized the women graduate students and faculty in the department for the general purpose of raising our own consciousness, and that of the men around us. We had a huge crowd at our first meeting (those were heady days!), and one woman who had been on the faculty for many years expressed the hope that we wouldn’t make waves. ‘And what’s wrong with making waves?’ Louise retorted . . .” Over the years, Louise supported all facets of AWM activities. “I last saw Louise in Atlanta in January 1988, when I invited her to speak in the AWM panel discussion, Is the Climate for Women in Mathematics Changing?,” Rhonda remembers. “She always seemed to say things you wouldn’t hear others say. I can’t imagine anyone but Louise paraphrasing Virginia Woolf, ‘Women will not achieve equality until they have earned the right to be hacks . . . not everyone is a genius.”50

50 Louise

Hay’s autobiographical article, “How I Became a Mathematician (or How It was in the Bad Old Days)” appeared in the September–October 1989 issue of the AWM Newsletter (Hay, 1989). “If there is a moral to this tale of how I became a mathematician,” she concludes in the article, “it is that sources of inspiration and opportunities to change your life can come

102

L. Blum

Jill Mesirov (1989–1991): Looking Outward, the Twentieth Anniversary In her President’s Report in the AWM Newsletter (January–February 1991), Jill Mesirov presents an impressive list of AWM activities developed during her tenure and the past decade: panels, Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days, graduate student outreach, Schafer Prize, and Hay Award, Resource Center development, 20th Anniversary celebration, Noether Lectures, outreach to other societies, Speakers Bureau, Travel Grant program. This multifaceted array of activities represents a truly remarkable testimony to Jill’s presidency as well as to the cumulative work and accomplishments of the AWM during its first 20 years. We seem to have resolved our identity crisis by doing it all! “I think of the past two years as a time when the AWM began to look outward to the rest of the mathematical sciences community,” Jill writes in one of our many email conversations. “Our major success in this was the beginning of an ongoing presence at SIAM [Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics] National Meetings . . . My goal in these efforts was to broaden our representation, influence, and activities beyond the AMS and MAA. And I think this is happening.” “I also think of the last two years as a kind of ‘coming of age”’ she continues. “We have really expanded the scope of our activities . . . I think that our relationship with NSF has become quite strong and vital over the past couple of years. They really view us as giving lots of value for the money they invest in our programs and are very keen these days to fund programs to encourage women and minorities in the sciences.51 Exxon has also been an important partner for us, giving us yearly grants towards our operating expenses as well as to support the complete revision of the Resource Center.52 Tricia [Cross, AWM Executive Director] has really been vital in building up this relationship.” But, as is characteristic of all super achievers, Jill sees projects yet undone, some very close to home. “One area that I wasn’t able to make progress on (directly or indirectly),” she points out “is the two-career family and children issue. One can’t do everything, I guess. It’s funny because in many ways this is something that is really important to me because it really has an impact on my life every day.” Nevertheless, Jill’s enthusiasm is hardly dampened. “It’s been a crazy two years, exhilarating, overwhelming, frustrating, rewarding. Believe it or not, I really enjoyed it!”

unexpectedly and should not be ignored; and that you should not neglect the dictates of your own career, taking some risks if necessary, since you never know what the future will bring.” 51 The AWM Travel Grant program was initially funded by the NSF; the postdoc and graduate student workshop program was funded jointly by NSF and ONR. 52 Resource materials included a booklet Careers that Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences and a brochure highlighting the Noether Lecturers (both written by Allyn Jackson). [LB: For these and many other resources, see the publications and resources pages on the AWM website.]

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

103

How Things Are . . . (An Assessment at the End of the Second Decade) Did the AWM make a difference? “My God yes,” responds Judy Roitman. “It was not uncommon for major women mathematicians to be unemployed; young women were routinely discouraged; the few who persevered were usually treated badly; and role models were few and far between.” One need only look at the program for this Joint Meeting (see Notices, December 1990) to sense the very real involvement of women in the mathematical world today—a stark contrast to Atlantic City 20 years ago! As Carol Wood puts it, “women are everywhere dense.” Invited speakers include: Christel Rotthaus (AMSAWM-MAA), Rebecca Herb (AMS-MAA), Maria Klawe (AMS), and Jill Mesirov (MAA). Dusa McDuff is the first recipient of the AMS Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize, established by Joan Birman in memory of her sister to recognize an outstanding contribution to mathematics research by a woman.53 In the professional organizations and institutions, we are no longer on the outside but rather play key roles within the internal power structure. Witness Deborah Haimo taking over the presidency of the MAA from Lida Barrett as Marcia Sward, MAA executive director, looks on!54 In the AMS, women are vice presidents, trustees, council members, and chairs of important committees; Julia Robinson was AMS president (1983–1984). Cathleen Morawetz has been director of the Courant Institute, Judith Sunley is director of Division of Mathematical Sciences at the NSF. Women mathematicians have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, received MacArthur “genius” awards, Sloan fellowships, Guggenheims, Presidential Young Investigator awards, and routinely, NSF fellowships and research grants. At the 1990 ICM in Kyoto last summer, six women gave 45-minute invited talks55 and Karen Uhlenbeck gave the first of fifteen plenary addresses. Of the five US delegates56 to the International Mathematical Union General Assembly, three were women—all AWM members. During the past 20 years, the percentage of US women receiving PhDs in mathematics has increased dramatically, from about 6% to over 20% per year. (See the Annual AMS-MAA Survey, Notices, November 1990.) But curiously, although there was a significant jump in the number of new female PhDs in mathematics during the early 1970s, we find since then that the number has stayed amazingly

53 Dusa’s

moving and very personal response appears in the Notices (McDuff, 1991). Highly recommended reading. 54 For information on women in the MAA and much more see Winning Women Into Mathematics, produced by the MAA Committee on the Participation of Women and edited by Pat Kenschaft (1991). 55 Invited Speakers at the 1990 ICM included Lenore Blum, Shafi Goldwasser, Dusa McDuff, Colette Moeglin, Mary Rees, and Éva Tardos. In addition, Joan Birman presented the account of the work of Fields Medalist Vaughan Jones. 56 The US delegates were Alice Chang, Andy Gleason, Ron Graham, Linda Keen, and myself.

104

L. Blum

steady (except for a peak of 102 in 1980–1981), averaging at 86 per year. What has happened is the number of US male PhDs in mathematics during this period has dropped by more than half (from 658 in 1974–1975 to 312 in 1989–1990). While a number of far-reaching conclusions and speculations may be drawn, suffice it to say that, relatively speaking, women have gained ground in this domain. How much of the changes are due to the AWM and how much to the times in general? “This is a false question,” Judy Roitman contends. The AWM is the expression in the mathematical community of the broader feminist movement . . . But without the AWM or some similar group (and I think it was an act of brilliance to form it outside of the existing mathematical organizations rather than a caucus within . . . ) the changes for women would have been fuzzier and less specific, driven by affirmative action necessities (which are pretty minimal) and vague changes in public perception, and not directed by our own understanding of what has to be done.

Acknowledgments and Appreciation In this brief account, I have only been able to mention a small fraction of the people, institutions, and events that have been so vital in creating and shaping our history. We owe our successes to the AWM officers (both official and unofficial) over the years, the AWM staff at the Wellesley office,57 the many committee members, the speakers and panelists at AWM sessions, the Noether lecturers, the numerous contributors to the AWM Newsletter (which makes for such fascinating and insightful reading one is tempted to quote it all!), the organizers and participants of AWM outreach activities—particularly the Speakers Bureau and the Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days—and mostly to our enormously supportive and participatory membership. I would like to acknowledge specially all those who were involved in planning and organizing this Anniversary Celebration.58 Funding for the Symposium and Workshop has been provided by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Office for Naval Research. Our sister organizations, the AMS, the MAA, and more recently SIAM, have been truly that; we greatly appreciate the support and recognition they have shown their younger sibling.

57 In particular, special acknowledgment is due Ruth Samia and Margaret Munroe, who ran the AWM office for many years. 58 Symposium Program Committee: Jill Mesirov and Carol Wood (co-chairs), LB, Alice Chang, Linda Keen, Maria Klawe, Susan Montgomery, Bhama Srinivasan, Karen Uhlenbeck, Mary Wheeler. Graduate Student Workshop Committee: LB (chair), Ruth Charney, Pam Cook, Leslie Federer, Martha Nesbitt. Louise Hay Award Committee: Rhonda Hughes (chair), Sylvia Bozeman, Mary Ellen Rudin. Resource Center Committee: Jenny A. Baglivo (chair), Rosemary Chang, Martha K. Smith, Judy Roitman, Margaret Wright.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

105

Finally, on behalf of the AWM, I would like to express our deep appreciation to Wellesley College for its support over the years, and particularly for providing space for the AWM headquarters office and Resource Center [until 1992]. For its ongoing funding of the Resource Center as well as general support, we are grateful to the Exxon Education Foundation.

Postscript (1991): The “Trickle Up” Effect Just as I was finishing this article, a reporter from Science magazine phoned. He wanted to talk about the dearth of women in the top US mathematics departments. I wanted to talk about the active presence of women in the American mathematics community. Implicit in our conversation was the (seemingly paradoxical) question: If women are doing so well in mathematics today, then why are they not represented in the top departments? Obviously, the answer is complex. In the 1970s, when affirmative action came into being and government was enforcing the laws, we saw changes for women, not so much in academia, but in industry. In those years, government was putting pressure on industry to hire women. Industry in turn tried to hire women in technical fields and found there were not many. To remedy this situation, both government and industry started supporting educational programs to increase the participation of women in mathematics-based fields. These programs were remarkably successful, and women started becoming more visible in technical areas, particularly in the fledgling computer industry. In the 1980s, when the political pressure let up, industry continued to hire women in technical fields. Why was this? For one, they had already had the experience of working with competent women. For another, it was in their interest: With the drop in Americans entering technical fields and the balance of technological expertise and industry shifting to other parts of the globe, increasing the numbers of women could help the US maintain its technical edge. What happened in academia? While government was enforcing affirmative action legislation in industry, it basically maintained a hands-off policy towards universities, responding to strong arguments of academic freedom and autonomy. One of the strengths of American institutions of higher education has been their long history of self-governance. So universities experienced minimal pressure from government to change. Then why did big changes take place in the mathematics societies and at many departments, but not in the top departments? During this period, the AWM and its members were certainly an omnipresent force within the math societies, both raising the consciousness of the community as well as wielding a fair amount of political influence. In the 1980s, many math departments were directly affected by the decline in Americans studying mathematics (and now in the 1990s, by the crisis in the job market for mathematicians). Thus, the problems of the larger society hit home, and these groups responded to the situation in much the way that industry had. That is, it was viewed as in everyone’s best interest to increase the participation and visibility of women in mathematics. On the other hand, the top

106

L. Blum

departments have been buffered by and large from the changes in society. Even in tough times, they have first pick of the top students (and in the current tough times, their students do better on the job market). These departments are not as viscerally aware of the problems affecting the rest of the community. And in the main, they have not taken a leadership role in changing the situation. This has come from elsewhere. And changes have indeed occurred. The large numbers of active women researchers attest to that. The large numbers of women giving invited talks at national and international meetings attest to that. The large numbers of women in leadership positions in the mathematics societies attest to that. Before, when the numbers were small, the few women mathematicians available could not always satisfy all the criteria (not all professional—and not always as objective as might be claimed) for getting a position: Are they the top person in the particular field the department is hiring? Are they in the right professional circles? Are they at the right age or stage of their professional careers? Does their personal circumstance allow them to move? And so on. Now there is a near critical mass and an excellent pool of women mathematicians. I predict that within five years there will be vast changes in the top departments reflecting (and benefitting from) changes already in place within the wider mathematics community. One might call this the “trickle up” effect.

Postscript (2020): The Numbers Still Speak Volumes; Ever a Time of Firsts Ever the optimist, I added an upbeat postscript to my 1991 history. While I had predicted much progress in five years’ time, it seems it’s taken almost 30 years for significant change! And still a way to go. Recall, for AWM’s 20th Anniversary, I had gone back to the 1971 Notices of the American Mathematical Society to report on the situation for women mathematicians the year AWM was founded. The situation was dismal, exemplified, for example, by the fact that no women were invited speakers at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) that year. Anticipating much progress, I looked at the program for the January 2020 JMM (AMS, 2020a). Now half of the invited speakers (Joint AMS-MAA, AMS, MAA, ASL) were women with the AMS outdoing itself,59 and all the others: four of the seven AMS invited speakers were women, including Ingrid Daubechies (see Fig. 7), the AMS Colloquium Speaker. Fantastic! More good news: In 2021 former AWM presidents Ruth Charney and Jill Pipher, will be respectively, the current and immediate past presidents of the AMS. And the

59 For

the earlier period, 2009–2018, only 28% of the AMS invited speakers at the JMM were women.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

107

Fig. 7 Barbara Keyfitz, Ingrid Daubechies, Lenore Blum, 2006 JMM, San Antonio, TX. Keyfitz was AWM president and Daubechies was the AWM Noether Lecturer. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

March 2020 Notices is chock full of articles by and about women (as was the March 2019 Notices). Awesome!60 I then decided to check out employment data. Given that the percentage of women awarded PhDs in the mathematical sciences in the US during the past 30 years has been around 30% each year, I had high expectations. Yet, from the most recent employment data I could find (2018, see Golbeck et al. 2020), the percentage of women doctoral faculty in tenured positions over all PhD-granting departments in the mathematical sciences was 15%. If one adds tenure-track positions to the mix, the percentage increases to 17%. However, non-tenure-track and part-time percentages in these departments go up to 30% and 32%, respectively. How about awards? Now we go down the rabbit hole. Only three of the 19 AMS prizes given at the 2019 JMM were awarded to women (including the Satter Prize, which is designated for women, see AMS 2019). In 2020, the numbers were 4 out of 21 (AMS, 2020b). Maryam Mirzakhani, was awarded the Fields Medal at the 2014 International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Seoul. Yet, none of the eight awards given at the 2018 ICM in Rio de Janeiro (including four Fields Medals) went to women (Kehoe, 2018). But then, in 2019 Karen Uhlenbeck was awarded the Abel Prize, an award given by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters modeled

60 March

is Women’s History Month, so one would expect no less.

108

L. Blum

on the Nobel Prize (Chang, 2019). The award cites “the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics.” Congratulations, Karen! In sum, the results are mixed. On some fronts, we are well on our way—on other fronts, not so much. As we head towards our 50th, we still cheer our ever “firsts.” Still the optimist, I expect (can’t a girl hope?) that the “trickle up” effect will kick in by the 50th and we celebrate the “many.” I leave the challenge in the good hands of current and future AWM presidents61 and the awesome members of the AWM.

Addendum (2020): Fresh Eyes I was delighted to get feedback on my article from three young mathematicians who (probably) weren’t even born when I wrote it 30 years ago. While my afterdinner talk at AWM’s 20th Anniversary Celebration (and the subsequent write-up) was nominally a “history,” I had viewed it more a recap of what we had experienced and accomplished during the prior 20 years. So it is heartening to hear that the story is viewed today as an informative, even emboldening, history. From one reviewer: “Overall, I think it’s fantastic, and there are many stories I hadn’t heard before and absolutely loved! It’s absolutely thrilling to hear about the history of women in math as I start my career as a mathematician, and as someone not well-versed in the history, massively informative. . . .” The reviewers also pointed out where my article needed clarification. This caused me to reflect on how some things have changed over the years, others perhaps not so much. Issues that were smack in our faces in the early years of the AWM needed no amplification at the Celebration. A word or phrase would conjure up our collective experiences. Today some of these experiences may seem like quaint relics of a bygone era, perhaps not of much consequence now. On the other hand, the reviewers pointed to issues that are as relevant today as ever and exhibited a sophistication in their analyses and understanding that we may not have fully comprehended early on. One reviewer pointed out that demands that seemed radical in those early years (see, e.g., the quotes from Mary Gray’s 1972 article, “Uppity Women” in the section “The Mother of Us All”) “are still radical—at least nowhere near achieved and (shockingly) still the topic of debate.” Based on this feedback, I made a few changes in the main article. Here I clarify and address some others. Terminology was an occasional issue for the reviewers. What we called the “old boys’ network” seems to have been replaced today by “old boys’ club.” “Consciousness raising,” “Women’s Lib,” and pushback about the nascent AWM, also caused some puzzlement. The “Women’s Liberation” movement of the late 1960s and 1970s, now often referred as “second-wave feminism,” aimed at changing

61 In

2020, Ruth Haas is AWM president and Kathryn Leonard is AWM president-elect.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

109

the role of women in society. “Consciousness raising” meetings were often held to raise awareness of issues, discuss causes of women’s diminished roles and what to do about it all. The early days of the AWM might be considered the math community’s “Women’s Lib.” As there was considerable backlash against the rise of “Women’s Lib” and their “radical” demands, particularly in the math establishment, it is not so puzzling that some women mathematicians were reluctant to be associated with the AWM at first (see subsection “But to the Contrary”). Hence their pushback. In the subsection “Berkeley and Me,” I mention the “two-body problem.” I was asked to elaborate on this as well as the issue of “nepotism rules” in order to help the general audience, especially younger ones, better understand what it was like then. Since the two-body problem is still relevant, and the effects of nepotism rules still reverberating, here is a telescopic discussion of these twin issues: The two-body problem refers to couples seeking academic employment in the same geographic area and often in the same discipline. In the past, the man in a heterosexual couple was generally offered a tenure-track position and the woman a lectureship or some other temporary position. The two-body problem still poses a career challenge for many young women mathematicians whose partners are also academics. Historically, the two-body problem was directly connected to nepotism rules at universities. Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. Nepotism (or more precisely, anti-nepotism) rules at universities prescribed that no more than one member of a family be hired into regular positions in the same department or sometimes college. The term, coming from the Latin root nepos, originated with the assignment of nephews to important posts by Catholic popes and bishops. I never heard nepotism rules in academia used against nephews, no less male spouses. Notable female mathematicians affected by nepotism rules include Julia Robinson and Emma Lehmer at Berkeley, and Mary Ellen Rudin at Wisconsin. It took five more years after nepotism rules were rescinded at UC Berkeley in 1971 and two years after her husband, Raphael Robinson, retired as a Berkeley mathematics professor, and her election to the National Academy of Sciences, for UC Berkeley to offer Julia Robinson a professorship. My take-away? It was never about nepotism. Nepotism in academia, no matter what its rationalization, was an institutionalized means to discriminate against women, a convenient excuse to not hire women in regular academic positions, deeply entrenched in the system with consequences that has reverberated over the years. Fifty years ago there were hardly any women in regular mathematics faculty positions in the US, none at Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford.62 While the notion of nepotism in academia may seem quaint, 62 A

notable exception was Rutgers University which by the late 1960s, “had practically cornered the market on women mathematicians.” 22% of its senior mathematics faculty were women, compared to less than 1% nationally. They were Katharine Hazard, Barbara Osofsky, Helen Nickerson, Jacqueline Lewis, Joanne Elliott, Jane Scanlon, and Patricia Tulley McAuley, “[t]hus 7 of the 32 senior faculty . . . were women” (Weibel, 1995). This was the result of a concerted effort

110

L. Blum

Fig. 8 Cora Sadosky, Lenore Blum, Bhama Srinivasan, Carol Wood, Georgia Benkart, Cathy Kessel, six AWM presidents in 2008, MSRI 25th anniversary celebration, Berkeley, CA. Photo courtesy of Lenore Blum

perhaps some insignificant long-gone historical fact and not relevant today, this is far from the case. With slow turnover in faculty positions, and ongoing sexism, its repercussions go far in explaining the slow change for women in academia. For my younger colleagues in mathematics and colleagues-to-be, I’d like to amplify some thoughts I relayed to Amanda Glazer, a Berkeley graduate student, when she interviewed me last spring (Glazer, 2020a,b): It’s important to follow your passions and do what you love—and love what you do. But it’s also really important to have mentors and be in a community supportive of your work (see Fig. 8). You can’t do it on your own. Nobody does it on their own. That’s a myth. Mathematics is not done in isolation. It’s done in social/professional communities. . . . Role models, networking, and social/professional and leadership opportunities are examples of implicit, yet critical, professional advantages available for the majority. If you are in the minority, you have to work to make these explicit for yourself. The Association for Women in Mathematics was established to provide these important professional opportunities for all and to move the mathematics community forward. As we celebrate AWM’s 50th Anniversary, I look forward to your being a vital part of AWM’s (next-50-years’) future.

by the department head, Ken Wolfson, and the fact that the New York metropolitan area had a wealth of women mathematicians, in part due to nepotism rules at other institutions.

A Brief History of the Association for Women in Mathematics

111

References Albers, Donald, Gerald Alexanderson, and Constance Reid, eds. 1990. More mathematical people. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (in this chapter, we sometimes use MP to denote this reference). AMS. 2019. Joint Mathematics Meetings 2019 Prizes and Awards. http:// jointmathematicsmeetings.org/meetings/national/jmm2019/2217_prizes-all. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. AMS. 2020a. Joint Mathematics Meetings 2020 Invited Addresses. https://www. jointmathematicsmeetings.org//meetings/national/jmm2020/2245_invited.html. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. AMS. 2020b. Joint Mathematics Meetings 2020 Prizes and Awards. https://www. jointmathematicsmeetings.org//meetings/national/jmm2020/2245_prizes-all. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. AMS. 2020c. Meet the American Mathematical Society. https://ams.org/about-us/about. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Blum, Lenore. 1987. Women in mathematics: An international perspective, eight years later. The Mathematical Intelligencer 9(2): 28–32. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the AMS 38(7): 738–754. Blum, Lenore. 1998. Review: Julia, A Life in Mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly 105(10): 964–972. Chang, Kenneth. 2019. American is first woman to win Abel prize for mathematics. The New York Times Mar 20, Section A: 14. Glazer, Amanda. 2020a. Accidental activist: An interview with Lenore Blum part 1. https:// berkeleysciencereview.com/2020/05/an-accidental-activist-part-1/. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Glazer, Amanda. 2020b. Accidental activist: An interview with Lenore Blum part 2. https:// berkeleysciencereview.com/2020/05/an-accidental-activist-part-2/. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2020. Fall 2018 Departmental Profile Report. Notices of the AMS 67(10): 1615–1621. Gray, Mary and Alice Schafer. 1976. Has affirmative action affected the composition of doctorate granting mathematics department faculties in the USA? Notices of the AMS 23(6): 353–356. Green, Judy, and Jeanne LaDuke. 1987. Women in the American mathematical community: The pre-1940 PhDs. The Mathematical Intelligencer 9(1): 11–23. Green, Judy, and Jeanne LaDuke. 1989. Women in American mathematics: A century of contributions. In A century of mathematics in America part II, ed. Peter Duran, 379–398. Providence, RI: AMS (in this chapter, we sometimes use WM to denote this reference). Hay, Louise. 1989. How I became a mathematician (or how it was in the bad old days). AWM Newsletter 19(5): 8–10. Hughes, Rhonda. 1990. Fond Remembrances of Louise Hay. AWM Newsletter 20(1): 4–6. Keen, Linda, ed. 1987. The Legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya: Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics and the Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute, held October 25–28, 1985. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Kehoe, Elaine. 2018. 2018 ICM Awards. Notices of the AMS 65(11): 1437–1443. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kenschaft, Patricia. 1981. Black women in mathematics in the United States. American Mathematical Monthly: 88(8): 592–604. Kenschaft, Patricia, ed. 1991. Black women Winning women into mathematics. Washington, DC: MAA. Koblitz, Ann Hibner. 1986. A historian looks at gender and science. AWM Newsletter 16(4): 10–12. McDuff, Dusa. 1991. Response to being awarded 1991 Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics. Notices of the AMS 38(3): 185–187.

112

L. Blum

Perl, Teri. 1978. Math equals : biographies of women mathematicians+related activities. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley. Pour-El, Marion. 1981. Spatial separation in family life: A mathematician’s choice. In Mathematics tomorrow, ed. Lynn Steen, 187–196. New York: Springer-Verlag. Reid, Constance. 1996. Julia, a life in mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Rossiter, Margaret. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret. 1995. Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940–1972. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret. 2012. Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Scott, Elizabeth, Herbert Blumer, Frank Newman, Susan Ervin-Tripp, and Elizabeth Colson. 1970. Report of the subcommittee on the status of academic women on the Berkeley campus. ERIC ID: ED042413. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Srinivasan, Bhama and Judith Sally, eds. 1983. Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr: Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics in honor of Emmy Noether’s 100th Birthday. New York: Springer-Verlag. Struik, Rebekka. 1974. The two city problem. AWM Newsletter 4(6): 8–11. Weibel, Charles. 1995. A history of mathematics at Rutgers. https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~weibel/ history.html. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020.

Reflections from AWM’s Fourth President Judith Roitman

I became president of AWM in 1978, in my fourth year as an assistant professor. Looking back, this seems ridiculous—such a newbie to the field! given such a responsibility! But I’d already been in charge of the newsletter (taken over around that time, to my relief, by the estimable Anne Leggett). And AWM was a small operation back then—no grants, no conferences, no national programs such as Kovalevsky Days. Somehow it worked. I am quoted in Lenore Blum’s 1991 Notices article (reprinted in this volume) as saying, I can summarize my time in AWM office by saying that I was one of the last—perhaps the last—president of an amateur AWM. . . . I suspect that had we known how closely we were following in the footsteps of earlier feminists, and how little change their tremendous efforts made, we probably never would have bothered. . . . It was an easy kind of agitation—you just had to look around you and report what you saw . . .

I.e., AWM functioned by a combination of consciousness raising (remember that? probably not) wedded to political action. And here I need to insert an explanation of consciousness raising. Basically it meant bringing to consciousness the insidious ways the patriarchy operated both externally on society and internally on our psyches. It was a double-edged sword. Within the women’s research community it was energizing; outside it, women scientists and mathematicians— there were hardly any women engineers back then—were often attacked as wannabe men because everyone knew back then how linear and oppressive mathematics was to true feminist beliefs. In some circles this belief still holds. And so AWM organized (if you could call it organization) in small local groups to provide support for each other and to call out the patriarchy. If we saw something,

J. Roitman () University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_12

113

114

J. Roitman

Fig. 1 Carol Wood, Cora Sadosky, Anne Leggett, Lenore Blum, Alice Schafer, Judith Roitman, AWM’s 25th anniversary, 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

we said something—for example, as AWM president I spent untold hours writing letters (yes, we wrote letters back then) trying to improve the way girls were treated in the Math Olympiad training camps. We were not the only folks calling for change. AWM was part of an informal coalition of organizations (such as the National Association of Mathematicians, which worked for African American mathematicians) and experienced individual agitators (such as the exemplary Lee Lorch and Chandler Davis and our very own co-founder Mary Gray). What we did not generally do was set up institutions or programs, with the exception of the Noether Lectures (the founding committee was chaired by Karen Uhlenbeck), which began in 1980. The vibrant AWM ecosystem of conferences and awards and research support that now exists took a long time to develop and is wonderful to see (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2). We have a space to flourish that didn’t exist before. We have a space to do mathematics freely without the subtly destructive, almost invisible social constraints that exist in the broader community. Outside of that ecosystem, how much of a difference have we made? Is my 1991 despair at how little things have changed still valid? Whenever I get the Notices of the AMS I look at the folks who’ve won research awards (other than those restricted to women) and the major AMS officers. Until the last few months, they were almost always men. Why look at awards and officers? Because they are an indicator of how a community is perceived. The Notices can put out a special issue on mathematicians who have green skin and purple hair, but until you see officers and award winners with green skin and purple hair appear with some regularity you know that their community is still not fully accepted. So it is with great delight that I note that in 2020, Jill Pipher is the president of the AMS (and, added after submission, in 2021 Ruth Charney is the AMS president), Karen Uhlenbeck is the 2019 Abel Prize winner, Ana Humphrey’s mathematical modeling project won the top award in the Regeneron Science Talent

Reflections from AWM’s Fourth President

115

Fig. 2 Judy Roitman is standing at the AWM panel Affirmative Action: A Look Back and a Look Ahead, 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

Search, and among the nine 2019 AMS research awards, Ilse Fischer was one of the winners of the David P. Robbins Prize and Marsha Berger won the Norbert Wiener Prize. Women are far more normalized in the mathematical research community than they were 40 years ago when I was AWM president. The fact of gender is far less prominent in how mathematicians are perceived. AWM did not do this single-handedly, of course. I would give special credit to the people—I don’t know exactly who—involved in the Notices who over the years have given special attention to communities outside the mathematical mainstream—women and socalled minorities, graduate students (imagine!), non-academics . . . This effort has done much to change the perception of “what a mathematician looks like” and I deeply appreciate it. The attentive reader will note that I have focused almost exclusively in this piece on the research community; AWM’s programs for adults focus largely on this community. The mathematics community is of course much larger—education, industry, government. In some sense I am biased because the research community has been my home. But perhaps it is not just bias that makes me think that, in our hierarchical society, it is the research community that sets the tone for full acceptance. We seem to be moving towards full acceptance, and the AWM has been crucial to this movement. Things are not perfect but they are much, much better. AWM has been and continues to be an important factor in the lives of women mathematicians.

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett

As of late 2020, I’ve been AWM Newsletter Editor for 43 years now, and an AWM member for 46 years.

Early Days In 1974, I joined AWM while I was an instructor at MIT. It’s been too long for me to remember who thrust the membership form into my hands, but likely it was Alice Schafer or Judy Roitman. In January 1975, I attended my first JMM (then called the winter meetings), as I was looking for a tenure-track job. I stayed at Mary Gray’s house with a number of other young female AWM members. I can’t remember if I knew her before showing up at her home, but probably not. Through her I met Lee Lorch and Chandler Davis, both very active in AWM and the Mathematicians Action Group (see Davis’s article in this volume), and I’m not sure who else. I already knew Carol Wood from my time at Yale, and I met her sister-in-law, Judy Green, either at that meeting or at some earlier time. One evening I ended up typing petitions that had something to do with AMS politics or the AMS election, as one of a couple of us who admitted that we knew how to type. Such different times, when we didn’t just type up one petition and make a gazillion copies on a photocopier, when we had to correct errors or just rip up the page, because we weren’t on a computer. Anyhow, I ended up seriously exhausted by the time a bunch of people appeared around 3 a.m., full of political vim and vigor. It was a heady experience.

A. Leggett () Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_13

117

118

A. Leggett

I did get a tenure-track job, at the University of Texas at Austin, and continued to see my AWM friends at winter meetings, summer meetings, regional meetings, whatever. I was involved on the periphery of various activities. Then in fall 1977, Judy Roitman called me up and asked me to take over from her as newsletter editor, as she was becoming president in 1978. I was somewhat taken aback, whereupon she told me that I had to become either the newsletter editor or president after her (In the recollections of various presidents, there are similar peremptory declarations!). So I figured, I’ll be newsletter editor for the next two years, because I for sure never want to be the president. She gave me some helpful ideas about how to put an issue together, and mailed me some files that now required my attention. R. H. Bing was the immediate past chair of the department at the time, and he sent a dittoed1 notice out to the department, congratulating me on my new AWM office. Some of my departmental colleagues were quick to inform me that this was a bit disingenuous, as he was really doing it to warn the department of my dangerous radical tendencies (many of them were already rather suspicious!). My first issue was Volume 7, Number 5, September–October 1977. At that time, the dates represented the months the issue was under production. It included statements from candidates for AMS Vice President and AMS Council, along with AWM Executive Committee (EC) endorsements for those offices. I remember that I had to call (yes, use the telephone) all the members of the EC to see who they had endorsed, and as not all of them knew who I was yet, this was a strange experience, both for them and for me. My second issue was Volume 7, Number 6, November–December 1977, where I had to correct an egregious typo I had made in putting together the preceding issue (which I found both embarrassing and funny, having turned Anna Pell Wheeler into Annabelle Wheeler). Don’t worry, I won’t recount every issue from then to the present, but I’m leading up to explaining what looks like a large production gap, as the next issue, Volume 8, Number 1, is dated April 1978. Partly this was due to changing the date on the newsletter from production month(s) to mailing month, partly because there was a lot of activity going on related to math meetings and the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment . . . in the news again just this year!!) which included an AMS Council meeting in March. Due to this change in nomenclature, there were only 5 issues in 1978. For 1979, in consultation with Alice in Wellesley, where the newsletters were printed, I switched us to the bimonthly production schedule that has been in use ever since. But rather than having a tidy schedule to hand over to the next Newsletter Editor, Judy persuaded me to agree to continue in that position. And somehow or other, I’ve kept on agreeing. There have certainly been times when I felt like quitting, due to the time load or the stress in working to deadline every two months, even while teaching, or because I thought I’d done my share already. But then AWM would do something really nice for me (see Fig. 1), like buy

1 A ditto machine (aka spirit duplicator) was much cheaper to use than a photocopier at that point in time. Documents printed on a ditto machine had purple-colored text.

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor

119

Fig. 1 Anne Leggett and AWM President Suzanne Lenhart. AWM celebrated Anne Leggett’s 150th newsletter at the 2003 JMM, Baltimore, MD

me a new typewriter or printer, or give me an award, and I’d get over it and say “yes” again. Or I’d decide I really wanted to put in 25 years, now that I’d come this far . . . and of course it has all been a labor of love for causes I believe in deeply. Having newsletter chores every month of my life is sometimes irksome, but I’ve had plenty of time to get used to that. Occasionally, a president might be really annoyed with me for some reason or other, but she would either have recovered by reappointment time, or she knew I was doing too much work to get rid of me.

Tenure-track Job #2 I didn’t get tenure at Texas, I wasn’t publishing enough theorems to meet their standards. I had no quarrel with that, but they changed the rules on lengths of terms for assistant professors more than once in my four years there, which was hard on me and others at that rank. And of course I wasn’t treated the same as the men who were on the tenure-track with me. In 1979, I was hired by Western Illinois University (WIU). I had put my membership in AWM and my AWM office on my resume, which some people advised me to remove. My answer then was that if this was going to cause some department not to hire me, it wasn’t a department that I wanted to be part of. Some of the time I was at WIU, I hired a department staffer to type the final copy for me (to be reimbursed by AWM), as I had also done some

120

A. Leggett

of the time in Texas, but most of the typing during the years 1977–1983 was done by me. I should also mention that the ad section has always been the responsibility of the AWM office, those pages were added on to the editorial pages by various staffers. My late husband Gerard McDonald was hired at the same time I was, and we were married in January 1982. He was always a big support to me, in terms of getting the newsletter taken care of. He did believe some of the nonsense about “women getting all the jobs” he had been fed before he met me, but we managed to get that straightened out! Our original tenure applications were denied in 1981, but after going through all channels at WIU, there was a union case in 1982 about the two of us and a few others, and we did win tenure (not that the resolution of our case said that, but . . . ). However, we were already on the job market, and I just wanted out of there, so we went (plenty of our friends thought we were nuts, but I could only take so much). We moved on to Loyola University Chicago in 1983.

Technology Changes 1983 was a time of considerable development in the computer world. Computer science was included in the math department at that time, and the department received a grant for a departmental network of AT&T 6300s. That was exciting for everyone, and in 1985 we acquired our home machine, also an AT&T 6300. Having the same machine at home and on our desks at Loyola was helpful. I produced camera-ready copy on a variety of printers: dot-matrix, daisy wheel . . . and then laser printers. Actually, the earliest issues I produced via computer (beginning with Volume 14, Number 3) were word processed on our Commodore 64 using a longextinct program. It was in Volume 15, Number 4, that I announced our acquisition of the 6300 and that I would now be using Word to produce the newsletter. I think we had been using Word in the department all along, but there was no version of that for the Commodore! In 1986 we were both awarded tenure, and I think we had already spent an outrageous sum of money for a laser printer. I had buyer’s remorse while we waited for the printer to arrive, but as soon as it was installed at home, I was giddily happy about it. I might still work on the newsletter until 3 in the morning while on deadline, but we could be home while doing so. More and more people were on email as time went by, so I rarely ended up taking dictation over the phone any more. I still ended up doing certain amounts of typing, but a lot more material could now be included by using copy and paste. Oh, the wonders of the Internet, which at first Loyola piggy-backed onto at the University of Chicago via the operating system UNIX. The math department helped out when Information Services (or whatever it was called at the time) was lobbying the administration for Loyola to get its own connection to the Internet. At home, we upgraded to a 9600-baud modem in late 1989 (90(1): 1 Jan–Feb 1990), which was

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor

121

a miraculous improvement in terms of speed (back in the day, modems transmitted data at 300 bits per second). I hesitate to guess how many different ways we logged onto the Internet through the years, and how many variations there were on the home network. No matter how much I may complain about connection problems when I have them (and I do), my current home network of two computers and various peripheral devices is incalculably better than what we had in 1983.

Newsletter Layout Early newsletters looked pretty utilitarian. In an effort to make things look nicer, with Volume 8, Number 3 (Nov 1978), we began using a header on the first page saying Association for Women in Mathematics in an italic script. This was accomplished by cutting a header from a sheet of stationery that AWM had had designed so that our correspondence would look more professional, and then taping it to the front page. Literal cut-and-paste. This was the last step required in producing the camera-ready copy. Sometimes I did it, sometimes someone at the AWM Office did it for me. This continued throughout, to the end of 1990. People had been asking for two-column format for a while. We introduced this with fanfare in the January–February 1991 issue; the first paragraph of president Jill Mesirov’s report read: It is a great pleasure to write this report on the occasion of our 20th Anniversary celebration. It is also a pleasure to inaugurate the new format of our Newsletter which Anne Leggett, Patricia Cross, and Lisa Gallo worked hard to produce.

We also added a partial table of contents called In This Issue, which people had been asking us to add for years. This design was used for many years, through the March–April 2009 issue in fact, with only minor changes. At some point we made In This Issue much more complete. In 2005, Cindy Dyer took over newsletter production as AWM transitioned from using an independent office to employing a management company, and I was (very happily) no longer required to produce camera-ready copy. No more frenzied attempts to finish an issue in time to make it to FedEx while they were still open. I could send off copy electronically any time of day or night. That was indeed a major relief (for both me and Gerry, who was always a willing chauffeur as I filled out FedEx slips while he drove). Cindy also began the use of spot color, our AWM signature green, in January–February 2006. She continues her work for us as graphic designer and newsletter-layout person to this day. In the May–June 2009 issue, the new AWM logo designed by Cindy and a more modern style of layout was introduced. We continue to use this redesigned style (e.g., see Fig. 2).

122

A. Leggett

Fig. 2 Anne Leggett’s 260th AWM Newsletter was published in January–February 2021 and marked 50 years of AWM

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor

123

Newsletter Team Through the years, I would receive suggestions that I should have my “staff” write certain articles or investigate certain issues or the like. I suppose it was flattering that my correspondents thought I might actually have reporters on staff, but nope. But I did have various column editors, without whom the newsletter would have been much less rich on content. The first column to appear regularly was the Education Column. Jackie Dewar, who has been in charge of this column since 2009, has written an article in this book about its history, including the tangled early years, beginning in 1982, so I will not recount those details. I developed warm friendships working with former editors Sally Lipsey and Ginger Warfield, and the friendship I already shared with Jackie has both broadened and deepened. The next regular column was the Book Review column, with Martha K. Smith of the University of Texas at Austin as its first editor. Her first column (and her first review) appeared in the March–April 1988 issue; she served through November– December 1989. Cathy Kessel took over in 1990 and served midway through 1995. Marge Murray served 1995–2002, and Marge Bayer took over in 2003 and has been going strong ever since, collecting suggestions and maintaining a long list of books related to AWM’s mission, which she sends every year to interested people. The Media Column began in 2009. In 2008, Constance Reid remarked to Cathy Kessel (the president at the time) that the AWM newsletter had not reviewed the movie about her sister Julia Robinson. At the time, there had also been email discussion among AWM members of media depictions of women in mathematics. Alice Silverberg and Sarah Greenwald had a strong interest in this topic and had been mathematical consultants for shows and movies, so asking them to be in charge of a Media Column was an easy choice. I think that Barbara Keyfitz is the first AWM president with whom I had a serious conversation about (a) taking more of the work off my shoulders and (b) thinking about the day when I, for whatever reason, would retire from the editorship. AWM Presidents Cathy Kessel and Georgia Benkart, Executive Director Maeve McCarthy, and I continued the conversation at the JMM in January 2009, and we agreed that a Newsletter Team should be formed. We acted on this quickly. In May–June 2009 (which had an editorial deadline of March 24) we announced the team and also introduced the Media Column. This was also the issue introducing the most recent design of the newsletter, so it was good timing. The Newsletter Team has had the consistent membership of Marge Bayer, Book Review; Jackie Dewar, Education Column; and Sarah Greenwald and Alice Silverberg, Media Column. The system has evolved so that the column editors ask to receive copy by the 10th of odd months, so that the editors and authors have time to confer before the editors send me copy by the 24th. Georgia and I also talked about appointing an associate editor, likely to be chosen from these four women. It was even better timing than I mentioned above, that I had a team that was in existence by March, as in May my husband was diagnosed with cancer. Having their

124

A. Leggett

backing during his illness was priceless for me. He had chemo, surgery, more and more chemo, but it was stage 4 cancer and the process was brutal. I found working on the newsletter to be a useful distraction, but went on leave from teaching, which seemed like a bridge too far. Gerry died in September 2010. Cindy Dyer’s mother died of cancer a month later. I don’t remember if the November–December issue was mailed on time, but for sure production started late. Luckily we somehow managed to get it the printer only about 10 days later than usual. But this experience was scary for everyone. Georgia and I conferred and agreed that it would be good to appoint an Associate Editor sooner rather than later. I had been sending the first proof of each issue back from Cindy to the team, other officers past and present, and executive director, asking for corrections and feedback, so I had interacted a fair bit with all four members of the team, and thought for various reasons that Sarah Greenwald was the best fit. Happily, she agreed to be appointed, which was announced in the January–February 2011 issue. We’ve had a wonderful time working together. After being on leave for two years, one family leave, the second family leave turned bereavement leave, I decided to retire from Loyola. But not from the Newsletter! I wanted to maintain my connection to the community of mathematicians, especially of women mathematicians, and what better way to do that, than to continue working for AWM. So here I still am. Sporadic articles about our student chapters appeared in various issues, but in the September–October 2012 issue a Student Chapter Column was inaugurated, which again appeared only sporadically. In 2016 it was rechristened the Student Chapter Corner, which has appeared somewhat more regularly. The Corner is supervised by whomever is chair of the Student Chapter Committee. We’ve had two regular interview columns that were very well received. Mathematics, Live! ran from May–June 2013 through November–December 2017, although not in every issue during that time frame. Attempts to find new interviewers have been unsuccessful. Mathematics + Motherhood, with interviewer Lillian Pierce, ran from May–June 2013 through January–February 2014, with further contributions from 2018–2020. She intends to send us more as her schedule allows. Another regular (but not permanent) column inaugurated for the leadup to the 50th Anniversary celebration and beyond is Presidents’ Reflections, with all living past presidents asked to write a contribution. It began in the January–February 2019 issue and will continue until most likely sometime in 2022. The column editors and their affiliations are: Janet Beery, University of Redlands; Francesca Bernardi, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Kayla M. Bicol, Sysco; Eva Brayfindley, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; and Cathy Kessel, consultant. Versions of these reflections are in this volume; they have been thoughtful, provocative, and heartwarming.

This and That: My Times as AWM Newsletter Editor

125

Editorial Reflections Editing the newsletter and serving on the Executive Committee (see Fig. 3) have been and continue to be profoundly important parts of my life. Seeing so many of the same old battles coming back to the forefront over the past several years has been dispiriting, but keeping on fighting the good fight is thus ever more important. Keeping up with current trends in gender issues, racial issues, and the like is not easy, but essential. Luckily, I work with people like Sarah, who teaches me all the new gender terminology, and others who will help us learn what it means to be truly anti-racist. The pandemic year has been challenging, but the issues raised are important ones that deserve our attention. I’ve been to many AWM parties over the years and always enjoy meeting old friends and making new ones (e.g., see Fig. 4). I’m looking forward to a really great time at the 50th Anniversary Symposium, postponed to 2022 so that we can meet in person.

Fig. 3 AWM Education Committee member Tom Roby and Anne Leggett, AWM Executive Committee meeting, 2020 JMM, Denver, CO

126

A. Leggett

Fig. 4 AWM President Kristin Lauter is at the podium and Anne Leggett stands behind the rightmost table. AWM 45th anniversary reception, 2016 JMM, Seattle, WA

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator Bettye Anne Busbee Case

Foreword After its birth at the 1971 Atlantic City winter mathematics meetings, the Association for Women in Mathematics, a precocious toddler, thrived with very minimal and sporadic staff assistance. Volunteers and few resources were the reality during AWM’s childhood through young adult days. In these challenging pandemic times, it is fortunate that today’s volunteer leadership has the support of a mathematician executive director and specialized staffers. My AWM memories begin in 1976. After a couple of years of volunteering, I was elected to the Executive Committee effective July 1978. I continued on the Executive Committee and in 1984, I was officially appointed Meetings Coordinator after a revision of the bylaws that added that appointive office to the Executive Committee (see Fig. 1). I served in that office through 2014. I was proud to be a part of and see a wide variety of activities in many settings initiated by AWM. My own work was in facilitating AWM’s participation in mathematical meetings, conferences, and symposia, working with cooperating societies and institutes to schedule events. These included panels, lectures, receptions, and workshops. In my 30 years as meetings coordinator, I provided continuity, as officers with term limits can not. It was fascinating to work closely with each new AWM president. I thought each was brilliant. When I began as meetings coordinator, the expectation was that each president not only support ongoing activities, but would also plan meeting program content following her own intellectual and scientific interests and career

B. A. B. Case () Olga Larson Professor of Mathematics Emerita, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_14

127

128

B. A. B. Case

Fig. 1 AWM Executive Committee Meeting. Left side of table: Bettye Anne Case, Fern Hunt, Ann Trenk, Abigail Thompson; right side: Cathy Kessel, Holly Gaff, Krystyna Kuperberg, Rebecca Herb, Jennifer Lewis, Sylvia Wiegand. Barbara Keyfitz has her back to the camera. 2007 JMM, New Orleans, LA. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

experiences. This provided a regular infusion of outstanding new ideas. To most effectively help implement and showcase these, I learned about each incoming president’s special interests. I found being the meetings coordinator to be a good way to meet and understand mathematicians on this continent and around the world. Within large multi-day conferences such as annual meetings and international meetings, AWM wanted to offer programs that gave information, support, and encouragement for women building careers as mathematicians. For stand-alone conferences, we wanted to provide new ideas for specialists, a space for sharing ideas, and useful information for all participants. Always our focus was on women doing mathematics and supporting each other. We watched and learned, and our activities expanded and became more productive. We cheered whenever doors opened or glass ceilings broke! Although it is beyond AWM’s scope to undertake direct action regarding difficulties girls and women mathematicians face in schooling, or in the workplace, or in the fair evaluation of their accomplishments, those larger challenges were always our motivation. The stories here depict a vital part of the life of AWM between ages five and forty-five. Some are fresh in my memory, some spread over many years, and others a moment. I have frequently checked my memory with contemporaneous records. In telling these stories, I try to show the beauty of the time and thought given by AWM

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

129

volunteers with written snapshots of the pictures that live in my mind of officers and members as they struggled to develop programs and effectively implement them. I describe AWM successes, and women1 and men that made them happen. So many heroes! It was necessary to learn new skills and to do ourselves whatever needed doing—we were do-it-yourselfers, learning as we went along. I invite you to page through my mental photo album; I hope that some of the pictures will show you what AWM looked like as it “grew up.”

The First Presidents: Mary, Alice, Lenore Pre-1971 scientific society records in the US show there were capable women in their ranks back to their early days, although the societies made little help available to girls and women as they tried to become educated and forge careers. Publications of historians support this, e.g., Margaret Rossiter (1982, 1998, 2012), Judy Green and Jeanne LaDuke (2009), and Marge Murray (2000). Despite full understanding of how the Allies depended on the brains and dedication of “Rosies” during World War II, whether riveters or code breakers, most professional societies acquiesced afterwards in limiting women’s participation in mainstream careers, including science and academia. It was not a high priority to assure proper preparation and encouragement for schoolgirls to become educated suitably for employment in universities, government and industry. There appears to have been little interest in providing a nurturing environment where contributions from our half of humanity could be reaped. But, by the 1960s, effects of Sputnik and the Cold War, along with emerging social considerations, dramatically illustrated the need for change. Protest actions and employment needs prompted calls for action within some professional societies. Other societies had begun to move, others were restless, yet the patriarchal actions persisted in 1971 in mathematics. And then, in our mathematics world, along came Mary Wheat Gray. By the time I met her, Mary was already legendary and recognized as AWM’s founding mother. She had done her work and then stepped back from the AWM spotlight. Yet she continued then, and continues at this writing, to make herself available to AWM officers for wise counsel, even direct intervention, when an issue of the moment demands her unique blend of wisdom, expertise and judgment (see Fig. 2).2 I first encountered AWM at the 1976 joint AMS-MAA winter meeting in San Antonio. A formidable schoolmarm voice echoed in an otherwise-empty restroom: 1 The form of name that a woman prefers, or is referred to by authors and editors, may vary over forty years. Therefore, I try to use the name form from a contemporaneous account or from a source of authority in the particular context. Because it is how we addressed each other, I often put just the first name if the full name is clear in context. 2 See also Greenwald et al. (2015) and writings in this volume, in particular by Mary Gray and Lenore Blum.

130

B. A. B. Case

Fig. 2 Mary Gray and Bettye Anne Case, AWM Noether lecturer dinner, 1997 JMM, San Diego, CA

“Do you have a PhD?” To my “Yes, uh. . . .” she admonished, “Well you belong across the hall. It’s an important meeting—I’m late but I’ll see you there.” The back rows were well filled but two men smiled and moved over to let me quietly sit down. As AWM’s third president, Lenore Blum, expertly guided, listened to others, and filled in background, the concerns expressed were familiar to me. The resolutions suggested were possible ameliorations of problems I had seen or experienced. It was my first understanding that these were near universal to women trying to build careers in scientific teaching and research. This group proposed to make it easier for women to succeed, and they were reaching out for new recruits who wanted to work toward that goal. I knew I was home. At the end of the meeting, I turned to exchange introductions with Lee Lorch and Chandler Davis, and then Alice Turner Schafer found us and quickly took over! Her inner Southern belle came out in full force. She apologized for her earlier brusqueness and said “tell me all about yourself,” and she really listened. Hearing my response—teaching, Tallahassee, newly blended family—Alice wasted no time in giving me my marching orders for the next couple of years beginning with “AWM is having a lot of trouble organizing in the South.” I said I’d like to help. Alice said she would “write to Lida tonight.” And thus she was to introduce me to the formidable Lida Kittrell Barrett.

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

131

Learning To Organize: Lida After that January 1976 meeting, Lida Barrett’s call came quickly—with a series of orders that befit her title of department head: In less than a month, the Florida section of MAA would meet and I was to organize a way for the women who attended to get together. I was to do likewise at as many future meetings as possible of mathematicians and mathematics educators within my driving area in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and North Carolina. I was to do the same at any other mathematical conferences that I attended. She said she would let me know of opportunities, mostly at regional AMS or sectional MAA meetings. Lida continued with very general organizing directions: Contact the meeting organizers early, get a room or other space, find examples for activities in Newsletter accounts. Beforehand, get handouts with membership forms from the AWM office. Afterward, send the office a list of addresses for the participating women. Lida told me “the office” was Margaret Munroe, a retired Wellesley staffer for whom Alice had arranged a small office for AWM; working part-time, Margaret kept records and supplies—and cared very much that we succeed. Lida instructed further that arranging a well-known woman to give a short talk would be icing on the cake. However, it turned out that cake was scarce and it was very rarely iced. Approaching local meeting organizers, there was always some combination of obstacles to work around. Program time slots were full; this “activity” must not compete for time or space with “mathematics”; printed programs followed strict formats that sometimes precluded a notice of the time and place of whatever informal out-of-program-hours activity might be allowed. Once, after a meeting, I was admonished to call a host college administrator to apologize about having “defaced” a wall. (I had used clear cellophane tape to post mimeographed sheets with time and place.) When I called and apologized, the woman assistant delegated to handle such miscellanea quickly said it was absolutely no problem—and, by the way, what a good idea our meeting was! On the national level a similar air of encouragement, often with very welcome specific help, came from AMS Director of Meetings Hope Daly, later Penny Pina, and the meetings staffers at the AMS. The regional meeting efforts in those years typically yielded a dozen or so women faculty members who would pull a few tables together in a lunchroom, cafeteria, or nearby small restaurant. One or two women from nearby colleges and universities joined me to lead a discussion of the special professional challenges women face. The comments with which each woman introduced herself were always fascinating and provided many ideas for follow-up. I told them about the newly formed AWM and its goals, activities, and challenges. Often a few men friendly to our concerns joined and encouraged the group; we never had hecklers, although there were skeptics. By 1978, I had learned to navigate the protocols of the organizers of annual and regional meetings. The lunch meeting we planned at the November AMS meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, “did not conflict with any meeting sessions and was listed in the AMS program.” My AWM Newsletter report summarized “. . . We are not sure just how to involve a larger percentage of the

132

B. A. B. Case

AMS meeting attendees, especially in an area so conservative that an organization encouraging women in mathematics is viewed as somewhere between suspect and unnecessary. . . .” (Case, 1979). During those same years, I was picking up some organizing techniques from volunteering of another type—political and human rights campaigns—and I was learning to deal with a few wins, a bit of progress, and sometimes losing ground.

Collaboration: Anne Among my peers in volunteer activities, both locally and for AWM, are women that I go back with over 40 years. Notably at AWM there is Anne Leggett. As an AWM member beginning in 1974, an MIT postdoc in the Boston hotbed of action on women’s concerns, she recalls that in January 1975 she typed petitions at Mary Gray’s Connecticut Avenue home, where she stayed while on the job market at the winter meetings. In 1977 Anne, although then with a tenure-track job, was urged by her AWM friends to be the editor of the Newsletter. That ongoing major commitment she fulfills splendidly to this day. After the 1984 bylaws were instituted, both the meetings coordinator and the newsletter editor were officers on AWM’s Executive Committee. When I was responsible for assuring suitable program components for meetings, Anne and I shared a chunk of the time of the same AWM staffer and found that sharing information helped us both with our responsibilities. After the 1999 Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women there were small amounts of unspent funds from several agencies. The organizing committee, which I chaired, wanted to see a conference proceedings; thinking of AWM’s upcoming 30th anniversary, I wanted to include with the proceedings updated versions of some of the excellent original material from Anne’s AWM Newsletters. Each agency agreed that the pooled pennies could be used for such a project. Anne agreed to help. At that time it was not yet clear just what we had gotten into—but I knew that Anne’s talents were essential to bring the project to fruition and am grateful for the collaboration (see Fig. 3). We cowrote introductions, bridges, and articles to unify the collection that would become Complexities: Women in Mathematics (Case and Leggett, 2005). We added sections in response to good suggestions from our publisher’s reviewers. In the resulting volume, our dual goals were to provide information for women mathematicians that was needed and useful, interesting and inspiring, and also to tell as much as we could about “all things AWM.” A decade later, Anne was co-author of “The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and Why It Was Founded and Why It’s Still Needed in the 21st Century” (Greenwald et al., 2015). These publications, along with the Newsletter archive, represent Anne’s unique sustained contributions in support of AWM’s mission. Anne has been recognized several times over the years by AWM, albeit inadequately, for her contributions.

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

133

Fig. 3 Anne Leggett and Bettye Anne Case signing Complexities at the Princeton University Press book exhibit, 2005 JMM, Atlanta, GA. Photo courtesy of Vicki Kearns

Judy, Karen, and the ERA The 1978 and 1979 winter mathematics meetings occurred at the height of the period of initial state ratifications of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). By 1977, AWM involved itself with the ERA efforts, joining other professional groups in taking direct action and in urging affiliated societies not to hold large meetings except in states that had ratified. Lenore Blum, then AWM president, recounts that at the January 1978 AMS Business Meeting in Atlanta, Karen Uhlenbeck proposed and I seconded that the AMS try to hold all future meetings in states that had ratified the ERA. It passed by 173 to 99. AMS President R. H. Bing ruled that the motion did not constitute “final action,” but was “proposed as a statement of sentiment.” When the issue was brought up at the spring 1978 AMS Council, they refused to consider it because it was not on the agenda. Julia Robinson, then AMS vice president, pointed out this was an emergency situation and she moved that the matter be discussed at a spring AMS Executive Committee meeting. It was, but no action was taken to change the site for the annual winter 1979 AMS-MAA meeting from Biloxi, in Mississippi, a non-ratified state (Blum, 1978). In fall 1978, as newly elected AWM president Judy Roitman jump-started planning for Biloxi activities, another Executive Committee member commented

134

B. A. B. Case

to me, “good to have your experience in the trenches.” This was in reference to our Florida efforts, including repeatedly going office to office trying to convince legislators to vote to ratify. It is inappropriate to write here the terminology, that, as friendly staffers confided to us, some Florida legislators used about us. Florida did not ratify. In Biloxi, we needed action that would put pressure on the Mississippi legislature to ratify the ERA, and thought the best way to do that was through local pocketbooks. Our exhibit table had bushel baskets of fragrant apples and a sign “have an ERA apple—boycott local cafes at lunch time!” Our ERA-green armbands were visible in town as well as throughout the convention center. Our message was heard by at least some locals: The Executive Committee met after a pay-for-your-own-dinner at legendary favorite Mary Mahoney’s Restaurant; Judy Roitman presided at the large round antique table in a small meeting room. Even those with special requests were happy with the meal. As we left I thanked Mary Mahoney herself and I started to explain our group to her; she interrupted, “Oh yes, everyone knows about your apples.” And she wished us well. Since AWM was now considered a participant organization at the joint AMSMAA meeting and thus assigned a panel time and room, Judy Roitman suggested that our ERA focus be sharpened by using the AWM panel to explain the ERA. Mary Gray and Judy Green were joined for The ERA and the Mathematical Community by two concerned men, Chandler Davis and Jack Quine (my mathematician husband). Chandler’s talk went beyond “fairness” to practical issues such as broadening career opportunities for women and pay equity (Davis, 1979). Handouts of that time publicized the issue of pay disparity between women and men and decried “the 59cent dollar.” The audience at the panel appeared convinced of the merits of the ERA and the discussion focused on the practicalities of how to get ratification (Roitman, 1979a). For the short drive to Biloxi across the Florida panhandle, Jack had helped load our car with ERA-information handouts and armbands that I tore from yards of green cotton fabric. Our car smelled of bushels of New York apples. At the table, Evelyn Silvia and other AWM volunteers were very busy—every apple taken. My happiest snapshot from Biloxi was the daily early-morning line at our exhibit table with AWM’s friends tying on green armbands: Joan Birman and Cliff Earle were more than once at the head of that line.

Early Days: Events at AWM Meetings Would today’s fifty-year survival and vigor of AWM have been a reasonable projection based on the activities of AWM during its first decade? This section describes an amazing diversity of AWM content and activities; in addition to panels and short talks, AWM initiated a lecture series by women who have made fundamental and sustained contributions to the mathematical sciences, named in honor of Emmy Noether, one of the best known creative mathematicians. The

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

135

1980 summer activities included rejoicing that, after a 53-year gap, a woman presented in the distinguished AMS Colloquium series. All this wealth of activity and information! The answer is emphatically “yes,” that projections from those early activities are consistent with today’s visible successes. AWM continues to provide new information and contribute to the intellectual quality, diversity of ideas, and ethical values of the mathematical community.

Panels From early days the topics discussed in AWM panels broadened horizons of thought in the mathematical community to include important societal concerns. There is name recognition today for many speakers involved in AWM’s first presentations; they are now much better known for their accomplishments than they were prior to AWM. AWM’s first planned program is documented as a panel on “women in mathematics” at the summer 1971 AMS-MAA meeting. Mary Gray had arranged that the MAA would sponsor a panel including herself and AWM members Mary Ellen Rudin and Gloria Hewitt with Christine Ayoub chairing. Mary reported the “audience response was quite sympathetic . . . hostility is being repressed . . . [although] Prejudice is much harder to counteract if it is not admitted openly” (Gray, 1971). In 1973, at the annual joint meeting in Dallas, the panel discussed aspects of employment and affirmative action. R. D. Anderson, chair of the AMS committee on employment, gave an overview and stated some opinions that got audience objections; Vera Pless discussed legalities; Tilla Milnor brought in some implications for department chairs; Judith Elkins offered AWM employment assistance. Last, Diane Laison gave the perspective of a new PhD. The panel was taped and made available on request (Gray, 1973). In 1975, the AWM Kalamazoo, Michigan, summer panel presented very diverse career paths as described by five women mathematicians. (AWM was described in the local Kalamazoo Gazette, complete with a picture of some of the panelists! See the photograph in Lenore Blum’s article in this volume.) Vivienne Malone Mayes titled her talk Black and Female; she vividly depicted the teachers in precollege education for Black girls and discussed a prevalent family culture where economic necessity motivated the search for desirable and well-paying work for women. About her graduate school experience at the University of Texas, she said: This was my first experience attending school in a vacuum. My mathematical isolation was complete. . . . For years I felt this . . . was because I was a Black attending a predominantly white school in the south. However, other Black women have told me they received similar treatment in northern schools. Was my vacuum created because I was Black or female or both? (Mayes, 1975)

Vivienne Mayes served on the Executive Committee from 1984 to 1988. Along with Etta Zuber Falconer and Gloria Conyers Hewitt, she was one of three Fisk

136

B. A. B. Case

University undergraduates in the early 1950s mentored by Lee Lorch and much influenced by Evelyn Boyd Granville. (Evelyn is counted as the second US Black woman mathematics PhD; her doctoral advisor was Einar Hille at Yale.) All three were active in AWM from early days. Gloria, at the University of Montana, and Etta, at Spelman College, were both chairs of their departments; they could be counted on when there were special projects for which their administrative skills (and ability to deal with bureaucracy) were of special value. Vivienne’s question, “Was my vacuum created because I was Black or female or both?,” was asked by other women over the years. It echoed a comment of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman to seek the nomination for president of the United States as a candidate from one of the two major political parties. She often said, as at a 1972 presidential campaign event where I was ushering, “. . . I met more discrimination as a woman than for being Black.” AWM’s panel at the 1976 winter San Antonio meeting, was titled Women Mathematicians in Business, Industry, and Government; and had an attendance of 200. The six speakers each represented breathtaking individual accomplishment, and among them a century of applied experience: Jessie MacWilliams, Bell Labs; Patricia Mallion, Addison Wesley publications; Vera Pless, University of Illinois at Chicago (previously Air Force Cambridge Research Labs); Marijean Seelbach, NASA; Marjorie Stein, US Postal Service; and Mary Wheeler, Rice University and oil company consultant. The common thread, as summarized by Lenore Blum, lead organizer of the panel, was “. . . a flexible and open attitude with a willingness to work on a variety of problems, and with other people” (Blum, 1976). Presentations and talks about historic figures among women mathematics are important for understanding the lives and work, and obstacles faced, by women mathematicians. At the 1976 summer meeting in Toronto, a panel focused on sketches about some of the better known women mathematicans; it included a niecein-law of Emmy Noether who was herself an academician. A winter 1977 panel continued history considerations with More History of Women in Mathematics: British Women Mathematicians. At that same St. Louis meeting, Judy Roitman organized a panel discussion Choosing Our Lives. It included Judy Green, about her two-city marriage; Elizabeth Berman, on surviving after losing a job; and Judy Roitman, on surviving while looking for a job (Blum, 1977). The Atlanta 1978 panel discussion, Black Women in Mathematics, organized by Patricia Kenschaft, included five panelists: Eleanor Jones, Geraldine Darden, Evelyn Roane, Elayne Idowu, and Dolores Spikes. This panel was an eye-opener in several ways. First, that these problems took so long just to be discussed in the mathematics community is an example of why barriers to learning mathematics, barriers rooted in prejudice, are so slow to be removed. This was over 20 years after the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Also, reactions to the panel showed that the group of Black women mathematics PhDs— which Pat described, introduced, and tried to count—were a small group, almost invisible, but that they needed to be noted and nourished (Kenschaft, 1978, 1981; Williams, 2008). I met Eleanor after Pat’s panel and especially enjoyed participating in projects with her after she was elected to the Executive Committee in 1990 (see

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

137

Fig. 4 Eleanor Jones is on the right, Dijen Ray-Chaudhuri is on the left, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

Fig. 4). Eleanor recalled situations from her Virginia youth that day—in particular, Virginia not permitting Black students into their graduate mathematics programs, but rather funding tuition out of state. For Eleanor that was Syracuse. The Virginia background that Eleanor recounted reminded me of parallel situations I knew from growing up in the southern US; I recalled my favorite uncle, a small town doctor, railing with anger in post–World War II Alabama because “a smart Black boy cannot be educated to be a doctor in this backward state.” (Similar to the Virginia situation for graduate school, the state of Alabama would pay tuition if he went to medical school in Tennessee.) The winter 1979 meeting brought the panel organized by Judy Green and Mary Gray, The ERA and the Mathematical Community. (See the section on Judy, Karen, and the ERA above.)

First AWM Noether Lecturers As the AWM met in 1979 to discuss future plans, it was still a fresh memory with many that there were no women among more than 15 invited hour lecturers in 1971. Mathematical talks were included in early AWM sessions at national meetings: In 1974, Alice Schafer was presiding at the AWM session and had invited short talks by Cathleen Morawetz, Mary Gray, and Louise Hay. As Alice tells the story, Lee Lorch

138

B. A. B. Case

had warned her that AWM’s scheduled listing in the program could attract male participants who might try to break the meeting up. As planned, the session began with the talks, Cathleen reported to the AMS Committee on Women in Mathematics, Mary talked about the history of AWM, and Louise gave a talk on indices of Turing machines (Schafer, 1974a). The “. . . men . . . in the last two rows . . . never said anything. I never knew who they were. . . .” (Blum, 1991). Each subsequent year, increasing numbers of women talked about their mathematics, both in sessions and in smaller groups as they engaged in useful networking. When Karen Uhlenbeck suggested that AWM should establish a lecture series by women mathematicians highlighting their mature work (and thus indirectly emphasizing that AWM was a mathematical organization), there was enthusiastic response. Karen pointed out that in the past women mathematicians, despite having done strong work, had not often been invited to give lectures and had not received very much recognition beyond a small group of mathematicians who knew and used the woman’s work. These women often completed their PhDs later than the average age, and had different career trajectories, compared to those typical of men. In the hope that the first Emmy Noether lecture could be presented in 1980, Karen was appointed to chair a selection committee, Judy started to raise funding, and I was to figure how to get good space and time at the annual joint meetings (Roitman, 1979b). Karen Uhlenbeck’s first Emmy Noether lecture selection committee moved quickly to choose a speaker—F. Jessie MacWilliams; the AMS-MAA committee scheduled her talk appropriately for January 1980 in San Antonio. Jessie’s contributions were well known to coding specialists and a few others, but they were less widely known because hers was an “after childcare” PhD with employment by Bell Labs, not as the traditional academic. Jessie was a prototype of a generally underrecognized woman with remarkable accomplishments in her research area. Hearing her lecture, we saw that her work was important and were proud of her accomplishments. Visiting with her at dinner, we learned more about her. Many of us were meeting her for the first time. For us, it was exotic that she was a guru to this whole coterie of coders that cut across several academic areas. The first five Noether lecturers were an impressive honor roll (AWM, 2021a): After Jessie, the next were Olga Taussky Todd, Julia Robinson, Cathleen S. Morawetz, and Mary Ellen Rudin! We wanted the graduate students to become acquainted with these Super Heroes and really feel like they knew these Wonder Women, so in the early years we chose inexpensive eating places that graduate students could afford. All the speakers cooperated with this goal and lavished attention on the young mathematicians. Quite a number of graduate students were at Mary Ellen Rudin’s dinner; I marveled that she didn’t just move from table to table and leave. Gracious and lovely, she stayed long after it would have been reasonable to call it a night. She managed to make it natural to focus informally on pairs or threesomes, discussing both concepts and careers and answering all questions.

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

139

Summertime: With Julia (and Anna, and Emmy) The site and format of the 1980 summer meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan were somewhat in the traditional mode: many participants were housed in dorms (ladies’ bath on the second floor and men’s on the third). A new joint meeting tradition was that AWM, near the beginning of national mathematics meetings, would host a party open to all friends. In the earliest days they were in someone’s hotel room. We often tried to offer an adult beverage even though it was years later before we could afford to pay for a “cash bartender.” The budget at that time necessitated that volunteers do as much of the set up for our parties as possible. Etta Falconer was a frequent summer volunteer; she did not fly, but in the summer with her husband she often drove from Atlanta, and we set up the summer refreshments together to have a rare chance to chat. The AWM party was at an outdoor University of Michigan site; their foodprovider contracts required us to order punch and cookies to be delivered. I thought I had a clever idea by asking them for one punch bowl at each end of a long table, so that I could surreptitiously spike one of them. I expected punch in jugs and accompanying bowls of ice; however, the helpful workers filled several dozen cups as I tried to stop them. Plus, I had failed to take into account how quickly mathematicians find anticipated food and drink! As I remember it, Etta, despite a considerable waiting audience, with the authority of a department chair, calmly poured cups of punch back into one of the bowls; a quick learner, I dumped a half bottle of cheap cognac into the other bowl and put a Sharpie sign by each bowl, one saying “without” and the other “with.” The crowd pounced. The first talk of Julia Robinson’s Colloquium Lectures was scheduled for the next afternoon. Founded in 1896, this series is the most prestigious of AMS invited lectures. There would be a full auditorium. I had no particular responsibility but I went very early. Just as I spotted Julia already at the podium, I heard: “Oh it’s you, good, come up here and help me. I don’t understand this . . . stuff.” Nor did I: they had new state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment. I tried to encourage confidence that we would figure it out (like when you tell your good-swimmer child that they can jump in at the deep end and swim the length, all the while petrified yourself). Thankfully, the meetings tech saved the awkward moment. He fixed things and quickly had Julia smiling and assuring him all was well. And it was a beautiful lecture. Julia earned many “firsts” as a woman mathematician, among them being elected to the Mathematics Section of the National Academy of Sciences and becoming president of the AMS. In 1983, she and Karen became the first two women mathematicians to be awarded a MacArthur “genius” Fellowship. Constance Reid, Julia’s sister, was a talented writer, including biographies of many mathematicians. In 1996, Constance described some of the fullness of Julia’s life in a dinner speech at the AWM conference to honor Julia at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute. She spoke of Julia’s activities, some new to many of us. The stories of her fighting injustice resonated with us, including stories of Julia’s extensive volunteer

140

B. A. B. Case

political efforts in a dark time in American politics—the era of Joseph McCarthy and the infamous Loyalty Oath. And especially for the pleasure of AWM members, Constance set up our favorite line in Julia folklore. The Berkeley press office, having just heard that “Julia Robinson” was elected to the NAS, phoned the mathematics department office. Something like the following ensued (Reid, 2005). Press office: Who is Julia Robinson? Mathematics department: Professor Robinson’s wife. Press office: Professor Robinson’s wife has just been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. As we planned those summer 1980 AMS activities, we knew that Julia was the second woman to present the Colloquium Lectures, and that the first woman, Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler, spoke 53 years earlier. The year 1927 seemed so long ago that it was a surprise when Alice Schafer said she thought she could find people who knew Anna. With Alice’s help, I agreed to try to organize some sort of “symposium” in the place of our usual panel discussion. Alice and her contacts at Bryn Mawr were remarkably successful and even though I had negotiated for more time than the usual panel discussion it was woefully short. Anna’s scientist-grandniece flew in from California, Ruth Stauffer McKee (Anna’s PhD student) also talked, and they were joined by mathematical historians. The Symposium brought as bonus stories of Emmy Noether’s short time at Bryn Mawr. Mathematicians who knew Emmy as well as Anna were present and made remarks or sent comments to be read. Olga Taussky Todd, Emmy’s Bryn Mawr postdoc, attended and contributed a letter she had received from Anna. Together they painted a rich picture of mathematics at Bryn Mawr in the time of Anna—and of the two short years with Emmy. In the Symposium, you felt the reality of Emmy’s hat (rejected and sailing into the back seat of a car), lectures at Bryn Mawr and nearby colleges, dinners together, walking with Emmy explaining a tricky point, Anna’s tutorials about the local flora and fauna, and joy in countryside drives (Case, 1996b).

Meetings Evolve with the Times Though it may seem that the national mathematics meetings of professional societies always repeat types of program features and always offer the same types of living arrangements, change is forced over time to better fit the needs of the current participants. The fact that more spouses and partners of mathematicians now maintained careers had many types of effects. Department chairs in less metropolitan areas too often heard from faculty recruits, “I like xyz University but my partner cannot find local career opportunities.” Organizers, to maintain the popularity of mathematical professional meetings, adapted structures and activities to be compatible with a

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

141

variety of participant family situations. For example, for those who might bring nonmathematicians along, social gatherings might be desirable; for those participants who are not accompanied, shorter meetings might be more desirable. Below is a description of a summer meeting at the end of AWM’s second decade. At this meeting, some participants were housed in dorms, a feature more common in earlier days. In order to attract more participants, the summer 1991 meeting in Orono, Maine, was termed a “Mathfest” and the timing of events was modified so that presentations were mostly mornings and evenings, with afternoons left open for those who wanted sightseeing or excursions, perhaps with accompanying family (Ross and Tattersall, 2015, p. 43). The University of Maine campus was literally home as well as meeting site for those of the participants who lived in residence halls. There was a banquet nearly every night (MAA, 1991, pp. 10–11); the Lobster Cookout was amazing. The MAA Committee on the Participation of Women presented a forwardlooking panel on climate change. The AWM-MAA panel discussion, Careers that Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences, introduced a new AWM publication of the same name. The speakers were examples of very diverse employment with mathematics degrees: Allyn Jackson was a staff writer for the AMS—and was the author of the new Careers That Count booklet. Sharon Chapman taught at a junior high, Jacquie Callahan was an applied mathematician at NASA, and AWM past president Jill Mesirov worked at Thinking Machines (Baglivo, 1991). At the same meeting, we in AWM had the excitement of the awarding of our second Alice T. Schafer Mathematics Prize, for excellence in undergraduate mathematics. (Presentation of this ongoing award was later shifted to the winter meeting.) There was relaxed time to enjoy chatting with the winners, whose stories are always surprising and interesting. The prize description “for excellence in undergraduate mathematics” is too narrow a statement; clearly these women would succeed in whatever path they chose. It is with somewhat selfish pride, that over the years, I’ve noted that a good number of the Schafer winners chose to continue in mathematics and complete the PhD (see Joseph Gallian’s article in this volume). Picking a leisure activity, Jack and I passed on the moose watch and the whale watch, but the choice of whitewater rafting on the Kennebec River brought more excitement than we intended. The rafting adventure was advertised: . . . a day of miles and miles of whitewater . . . six- to eight-foot waves . . . some of the most challenging and beautiful rapids in the east. . . . Class 4 (moderate) . . . (MAA, 1991, p. 18)

We reasoned that if the activity was appropriate to offer the mathematicians who attend meetings, then surely we could manage it. What arrogance! What ignorance! And it seemed we were not alone in that: As we prepared to board the raft, we were all asked about experience with rafting; a woman volunteered to take the upper right position in the boat, agreeing to steer; alas, steering was not her talent! Jack happened to be sitting at second and, it turned out, had some idea from Boy Scouts what was needed. Soon after we pushed off I was clinging to the side of the boat and repeating over and over what we were cautioned: “feet ahead,” “never get under

142

B. A. B. Case

boat.” It was harrowing but with our good guide we managed to keep the raft on a straight path; we lived to enjoy the riverside steak dinner. In 1996, midway in AWM’s first fifty years, the last joint AMS and MAA summer meeting was held (Ross and Tattersall, 2015, p. 45). The winds of change blew and AWM followed course as the nature of national meetings evolved. Thus in 1997, AWM turned 26 years old to an altered landscape of national meetings that were important to its membership. AWM now followed a calendar of presentations at three national meetings: a winter meeting called the Joint Mathematics Meetings (sponsored jointly by AMS and MAA through 2021), and summer meetings with each of SIAM and MAA. (International meetings, typically at four-year intervals, may have caused modifications to these schedules.)

Mathematics in the Family: Cathleen, Rebekka, Bryna, Cora, Sylvia It is not surprising to see several mathematicians, even generations of mathematicians, within a family. In addition to role model influences, children may be directly prompted to learn background for a career in the discipline that their relative loves and practices. That likelihood is heightened when there are multiple mathematical relatives. The women of this section are examples of women with careers in mathematics for whom that is a family tradition, and volunteer service is also a strong tradition. In 1994, three of these headliners assisted with the program of the celebration of the 100th annual meeting of the AMS in Cincinnati, Ohio; two of their fathers gave talks. Comments about meetings from several long-time AMS members comprised the after-dinner talk at the celebration banquet; I included some of these in A Century of Mathematical Meetings. Cathleen Morawetz, AMS president-elect and daughter of Canadian mathematician John L. Synge, told of going by train, as a child with her family, to AMS annual meetings with her father “at a time when family values dictated that you took your family to live in the dorms and everyone was happy” (Morawetz, 1996). Cathleen Morawetz was long involved in AMS and AWM activities that she believed would help women mathematicians. Twenty years earlier, she had chaired the first AMS Committee on Women. She had heard “we’d like to find a woman mathematician (to speak, perhaps even to recruit) but none of us know of any.” To rectify that problem, she published as an early committee project, a Directory of Women Mathematicians (Schafer, 1991). By 1987, Rebekka Struik had taken on, as an AWM responsibility, updating the directory (AWM, 1987). Rebekka’s parents were both mathematicians; they immigrated to the US from conflicts in Europe, and she had grown up involved in social causes. She followed them into mathematics and added her early AWM efforts to her own social advocacy. Another service of Rebekka’s was her investigation and description of “The Two

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

143

Fig. 5 Jean Taylor, Dirk Struik, Gloria Phoenix, after Dirk’s talk. The background shows a National Association of Mathematicians slide. 1994 JMM, Cincinnati, OH. Photo courtesy of Rebekka Struik

City Problem”—a serious analysis of one solution to the two-mathematics-jobsin-one-family problem. She recounted the stories of five couples willing to share their experiences. This still reads well today; I was much impressed with the solid information along with Rebekka’s opinions (Struik, 1974). Rebekka was among the first I contacted to give me advice about the celebration program; she later helped with book editing and pictures. Her 99-year-old father Dirk Struik (see Fig. 5) gave an impressive talk—for which he quickly grabbed the spotlight (Struik, 1996): As I offered him a chair facing the audience, everyone heard him exclaim that he would stand so that he “could speak freely” (Case, 1996a). Irwin Kra, likely in 1978, told me he had a daughter, Bryna (named for her grandmother), who was “very smart.” In that conversation it seemed to me that Irwin had some reservations about the newly visible AWM. I had met Irwin because I was interested in the mathematics within a loose group of students and collaborators of Lars Ahlfors and Lipman Bers. Kra later described this group in his 1994 talk at the celebration (Kra, 1996). Bers’ students included a good proportion of women, a number of them involved with AWM over the years. By the time Bryna was about 16, Irwin informed me that she was very good in math—and I know dads aren’t wrong when they tell about their daughters. By then, Irwin further commented to the effect that the AWM was “doing some good things.” A few years later still, Irwin sounded almost in awe saying, “Bryna is really serious about her math.” In 1996, Bryna, then a postdoc, gave a talk in the AWM workshop in Orlando. (I heard good things about it, but had not gone because I was pinch-hitting meeting logistics due to weather travel delays of Dawn Wheeler from our College Park office, Carolyn Gordon, the workshop organizer, and many participants.) By 2019, perhaps Bryna

144

B. A. B. Case

exceeded even dad’s expectations—she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in mathematics. AWM’s 11th and 13th presidents, Cora Sadosky and Sylvia Wiegand, each have mathematics in their blood. Cora’s parents were both mathematicians (and militant activists together for political and social causes). Her mother, Corina Ratto de Sadosky, was an Argentine research mathematician, educator, and textbook writer. Both Cora’s parents engaged in political activities against fascism and repression and also advocating on a world-wide basis for the education of girls and women and for assuring their rights. As Cora told of her mom’s adventures and accomplishments, it seemed a real-life but better version of film character Indiana Jones (Sadosky, 2005). Sylvia Wiegand, born Sylvia Young, is the daughter, niece, and granddaughter of mathematicians, and the wife of mathematician Roger Wiegand. In 1977, she gave a talk at the winter meetings titled My Grandmother, Grace Chisholm Young. Sylvia first described her grandmother’s early academic accomplishments, her travel for the PhD, and her subsequent marriage to mathematician William Henry Young. She documented with quotations from family members the story of the remarkable collaboration of those paternal grandparents, in life and in mathematics, as well as the depth of her grandmother’s contribution to that effort. I was not the only one in Sylvia’s audience with tears—tears both for the joy of Grace Chisholm Young’s successes and the sacrifices required to achieve them (Wiegand, 2005). As occurs in most professions, there are a sizeable number of couples where both are mathematicians. Sometimes both leave academia to solve the two-jobs problem. Especially in earlier days, and due to sometimes-restrictive hiring policies (e.g., “anti-nepotism rules”) and always affected by job-geography availability, it seems that, where both wish to establish careers, more women than men of such couples at some time period accept a less prestigious career track. Their bios show that several of AWM’s early presidents experienced this. With advocacy from AWM and other socially concerned organizations, and certainly aided by the retelling of stories of egregious examples such as that of Julia Robinson’s election to the National Academy of Sciences before having a professorship, these barriers to women’s careers have lessened over AWM’s fifty years. Statements of Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler and Mabel Barnes reveal that each felt negative career effects of the socalled anti-nepotism rules—and times those rules were ignored. Anna said, “Mr. Pell was sick and they were practically forced to take me for they could not get a man. . . . The math men at the Univ. of Chicago were very much pleased that at last a woman had a chance to show her ability in such a place as Armour Inst. But I know it will take a great number of years . . .” (Grinstein and Campbell, 1978, p. 15). Barnes, recounting an incident from 1946: “. . . no man could be found . . . my being a woman was overlooked. Desperation again overcame prejudice” (Barnes, 1988).

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

145

Opportunities for AWM at Meetings and Conferences The officers of AWM seized opportunities for AWM to sponsor events by finding a role for AWM at programs primarily organized by other entities and to organize events with partners who could provide a site for the program, such as a university. These are further examples of some of the opportunities AWM has seized to amplify our message. Did we miss opportunities? Yes! Sometimes we were short-sighted. Sometimes we lacked adequate funding or people, or thought we did. Two organizations with which we have much common cause are the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM) and SACNAS (Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science). We had many members in common and kept in touch with leaders in both groups. However, I believe it would have furthered our common goals if we had formally co-sponsored more activities.

AWM Conferences in Memory of Women Mathematicians An independently organized national conference was only aspirational for AWM until opportunity knocked in AWM’s tenth year. The AMS had scheduled a meeting at Bryn Mawr for March 1982. That was 100 years after the month of the birth of Emmy Noether (AMS, 1982). Rhonda Hughes, department chair at Bryn Mawr, with strong urging by Alice Schafer and AWM president Bhama Srinivasan, determined AWM would seize the opportunity to present a research symposium in celebration of the anniversary. They set up a committee, and began to assemble the impossible: AMS cooperation, speakers who worked with Emmy, funding, Bryn Mawr facilities, publicity, . . . (AMS, 1982). The successful symposium Srinivasan (1982) was followed by publication of a proceedings volume edited by Bhama with Judy Sally (Srinivasan and Sally, 1983). AWM organized and hosted, at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI), three conferences in memory of four women mathematicians: Julia Robinson, Olga Taussky Todd, Olga Ladyzhenskaya, and Olga Oleinik. Because, in the 1980s and 1990s, I had heard all four speak, and each of them had been featured in activities AWM organized, attending and working on conferences in memory was very joyful, though sometimes bittersweet. We are proud of their mathematics, and the lucky among us who met them cherish memories of these gracious women. These symposia, associated AWM workshops for recently graduated PhDs and advanced graduate students, poster sessions (see Fig. 6), and topical panels such as grant writing, were facilitated by funding and logistic support from staff at MSRI, as well as by major funding for participants and speakers from several government agencies. Part of the AWM 25th anniversary events, the Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference was July 1–3, 1996. I enjoyed participating in

146

B. A. B. Case

Fig. 6 Helen Moore and Tanya Leise presenting their posters, Bettye Anne Case ringing the bell, 1999 Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI, Berkeley, CA. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

the conference without some of the responsibilities I had as a meetings coordinator; because of the efficiency of the organizing committee, I noted no visible seams or bumps. I was glad I had paid close attention at MSRI when I was tabbed to chair the organizing committee for the 1999 Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women. John Todd, “Olga’s Irishman” as he was often called, added personal touches no one else could have. Afterward, John sent each of the committee a trinket that had been Olga’s, mine a broach rather heroically proportioned, accompanied by a note that he thought I deserved a medal for pulling everything together. Because of the government and industry mathematicians speaking—following Olga’s own employments—AWM got nice notice in the scientific press (Davis, 1999; NIST, 1999). In 2006, Susan Friedlander, Irene Gamba, and Krystyna Kuperberg joined the AWM president, Barbara Keyfitz, to organize a conference related to the work of Olga Ladyzhenskaya and Olga Oleinik. From Barbara, I heard snippets of plans and followed eagerly; she urged me to attend. Since a number of men always attended the MSRI conferences, and since my husband Jack had attended the 1996 and 1999 conferences and said they were fun for ordinary participants, and since our daughter had moved to Los Angeles, the stars aligned for a California symposium-plusvacation. The committee had planned to have pictures taken of each speaker but something happened about the scheduling of their photographer. As a result, I was asked to take some of them. Krystyna’s posting of Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of The Legacy of Ladyzhenskaya and Oleinik, carries the one and only photo credit I have gotten, or will ever, get (Kuperberg, 2006).

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

147

International Meetings At international meetings, AWM and other women’s groups sponsor panel discussions (often women comparing the working conditions and societal constraints across countries), poster sessions, lectures and special events. Lectures and other activities are competing for time and space with others that might be presented by host and other guest organizations. It is because of the quality of the programs and the audiences they draw that the organizations paying the rent recognize that lectures and activities of women’s organizations enrich their overall programs, and so give the space and publicity for them.

AWM at ICM Beginning with the 1974 International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Vancouver, Canada, AWM has had formal involvement in quadrennial programs of the ICM; in 1974, AWM presented panels on employment in North America and on the status of women mathematicians around the world (Schafer, 1974b). For the Helsinki 1978 ICM, there was a discussion attended by 500 participants that was occasioned by the lack of invited women speakers (Roitman, 1978). In 1986, the ICM came to the Berkeley campus of the University of California. AWM was very busy with its part of the program; since it was a meeting in the US, our custom of having a party was in place. It was on the campus and we had use (presuming we left it clean) of the math department common room on the top floor of the ten-story math building. Lisa Goldberg was local and offered to buy and organize the food; I said I’d help and I suggested that California fruit would be a treat for visitors (and me). There were drinks and pick-up snacks, but it’s the strawberries we remembered. Lisa, expecting that the large numbers at the ICM would mean a big crowd, went to a wholesale market. She negotiated to borrow and then somehow transport to campus a commercial rack six feet tall with perhaps 10 or 12 levels of flats of strawberries and got them up to the top floor. Perhaps we ran water over them and called them washed? They were delicious and people walked around talking and grabbing another strawberry; we were rather smugly pleased. As we cleaned up we realized our mistake. They had eaten all but the stems and there were “little green things” in every conceivable nook and cranny. We cleaned a while, but Lisa sent us to get sleep, saying she’d check again in the morning and return the rack. I flew home. A month later, Lisa remarked, “We’re still finding little green things.” At the 1994 ICM in Zurich, a poster session with many established women mathematicians was in the halls; my friend Krystyna Kuperberg’s was under a staircase. Russian mathematician Olga Ladyzhenskaya, presented the first lecture in an international Emmy Noether series, numbering seven as of this writing. The assigned room was uncomfortably intimate and would-be listeners had to be turned away.

148

B. A. B. Case

I was tasked to arrange the joint women’s events at the 1998 ICM in Berlin, the next ICM after the crowded Zurich situation. We needed space for three activities: a panel discussion entitled Events and Policies: Effects on Women in Mathematics; a remarkable film produced by European Women in Mathematics, Women and Mathematics Across Cultures; and the Noether lecture of Cathleen Synge Morawetz. Martin Grötschel, president of that ICM, knew Cathleen and replied with enthusiasm about scheduling her lecture, saying she should have a plenary time slot and he would see what he could do. A few days later an email offered evening times on the fifth (of ten) days for the panel and film with a plenary hour at 11 am on the sixth day for Cathleen. When I arrived in Berlin and saw the spaces, I fully realized the extent of his courtesy to Cathleen and to the organizations of American and European women that I represented: the evening panel and film were in Room H 104 which was the overflow room nearest to Auditorium Maximum H 105, the site of all the plenary lectures (IMU, 1998). The attendance in that cavernous auditorium was large enough to make us proud and happy for Cathleen. Irene Gamba’s introduction of her postdoctoral advisor was elegant and gracious (see Fig. 7). Since 2010, the Emmy Noether lectures, jointly arranged and sponsored by women’s groups from around the world, are a regular part of the ICM program. ICMs themselves are now very large and made more so by many topical conferences with dates coordinated to be just before or after the ICM. These satellite conferences are at sites, usually universities, within a few hours travel of the main site. Associated with the 2014 ICM in Seoul, I was to be a participant of one at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, a historic town in the south of Korea (IMU, 2014). I imagined I could hear Lida Barrett telling me, as she had 38 years earlier, that I should plan a session with the women. I emailed the main organizer, a former PhD

Fig. 7 Martin Grötschel, Cathleen Morawetz, Irene Gamba, 1998 ICM, Berlin, Germany. Photo courtesy of Sylvia Wiegand

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

149

student at my university; he thought my suggestion of a get-together of the attending women was a good idea and copied his reply to a woman participant that he knew to be a member of Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences. She and I each made some contacts to get the word out that women attending were invited to meet one of the evenings at reserved tables far back in the cavernous dining room. She offered to start the meeting; I put together some handouts about AWM to give out. Most of the (relatively few) women at the conference did join us. Just as through the years in so many places, I found we heard the most interesting things during the selfintroductions, and that the problems women faced as mathematicians were much the same everywhere.

AWM at SIAM and ICIAM AWM members with involvement in the Canadian Mathematical Society, London Mathematical Society, Korean Mathematical Society, and other national groups were often instrumental in arranging AWM-organized events at their meetings. Over an extended time, Barbara Keyfitz negotiated for the AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Lecture to be presented at some quadrennial ICIAMs. After a 2006 board meeting in Shanghai of ICIAM (Keyfitz, 2006), Barbara told the AWM Executive Committee that she had discussed ICIAM hosting some AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky lecture presentations. The 2007 presentation by Lai-Sang Young was already arranged for May at a SIAM activity group meeting in Snowbird, Utah (Kessel, 2007). The 2006 discussions came to fruition in 2011: As part of AWM’s 40th anniversary meeting embedded in the Vancouver ICIAM, Susanne Brenner lectured and received her Kovalevsky award there (Manning, 2011). The tradition was further solidified as the Kovalevsky lectures were given in 2015 and 2019, respectively, by Linda J. S. Allen and Catherine Sulem (ICIAM, 2015; Yuan, 2019).

National Meetings The AWM celebrated its 50th birthday anniversary in January 2021 via pandemicformatted virtual events at the last Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) jointly sponsored by AMS and MAA. The JMM will continue to be sponsored by the AMS with an impressive array of program contributors, and AWM will continue to contribute, just as we did at the MathFest summer meetings after the MAA assumed full responsibility. Because AWM plans program elements and services within the meetings and conferences of organizations that our members belong to, AWM is well positioned to adapt when these organizations evolve. Described next are some of the AWM contributions at the winter JMM and the summer meetings of both MAA and SIAM.

150

B. A. B. Case

When a young woman mathematician attends one of these annual national meetings, she has an opportunity to hear a distinguished woman mathematician talk in a popular lecture series initiated by AWM. Through 2020, 41 Emmy Noether lectures, described as recognizing “fundamental and sustained contributions,” have been presented at the annual winter mathematics meetings; they will continue, and are now jointly sponsored with the AMS. Through 2020, 25 Etta Zuber Falconer lectures have been sponsored jointly with the MAA. From 2003 through 2020, the AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky lectures have been presented at the summer SIAM meeting. These are opportunities to hear three very special lectures, which are presented each year in a large room and well attended. The young woman of 1971 did not have this type of encouragement from a highly visible role model. Sometimes a particular activity is sponsored for many years—often with funding help from another entity. One long-running activity, AWM workshops, which serves advanced doctoral students and recent PhDs, has enjoyed funding through a number of mostly government agencies. NSF has funded many winter workshops; as of 2020, the main funding is from an NSF ADVANCE grant. Over the years additional private funding has been especially welcome since use of government funds is sometimes restricted, for example, excluding receptions or picnics. The workshops offer career guidance and an opportunity for postdocs to talk about their work. The participants have the very large advantage that most of their expenses are paid to attend the meetings. Workshop leaders were often involved for several years, but even as new ones came along, they got quickly up to speed, learning from past good practices, and adding some of their own new ideas; some were then relatively early in their careers and in later years used those skills in their employment or in volunteer responsibilities, for example, Catherine Roberts, the present AMS executive director, and Carolyn Gordon who was AWM’s 16th president. There are special benefits for graduate students and established researchers in topical sessions of short talks (“special sessions”) sponsored jointly with a host organization. The first such sessions for AWM were in topics related to the Emmy Noether lecture for that meeting. These are popular and often attended by some of the top researchers in the area. AWM works to include new PhDs and advanced doctoral students who are ready to talk about their work. At AWM’s social and scientific events, the undergraduates awarded the Schafer prize have the opportunity to meet more senior students, such as the graduate students, recent PhDs, and postdocs who attend the workshops and special sessions. At the summer 1999 SIAM meeting, I chatted with Margaret Wright, who had accepted an invitation to present the next Emmy Noether lecture slated for January 2000. She is an applied mathematician and past president of SIAM. I was not sure she had noted the possibility of a special session to go along with her lecture. When I told her, she was immediately delighted with the idea and we decided it should have three sponsors, AMS, AWM, and SIAM. And then came her big surprise to me: Margaret commented, “It will be such fun to get the women together.” Yes, she meant that she and Diane O’Leary would invite only women as presenters in the special session on linear algebra and optimization! All women, a first for these special sessions—why not? Afterward, with the headline “AWM—A Vivid

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

151

Presence at the Joint Mathematics Meetings,” her session rated a nice article in SIAM News with several pictures of the participants and also one of Margaret with AWM president Jean Taylor (SIAM, 2000). With this all-women session, Margaret made a new and lasting contribution to the evolution—and improvement—of AWM’s activities. Fast forwarding twenty years to examine the JMM 2020 program for AWM’s special sessions we see that her then-innovative idea thrives: There were five AWM-organized special sessions including the Noether lecture–related session; three of the five sessions were entirely women (“Women in Mathematical Biology,” “Women in Symplectic and Contact Geometry,” and “Women in Topology”).

Glass Ceilings From the beginning, AWM has sought to inspire and assist girls and women building careers as mathematicians. One way to do this is to encourage members to participate in activities of other mathematical societies. AWM members watched and hoped for more women to receive prizes and lecture invitations, and to be elected to professional society offices. Generous private or governmental benefactors with interest in mathematics sponsor some of these; professional societies award prizes, lectureships and there is opportunity to be elected to offices. Very importantly, the women who receive these recognitions become role models encouraging other women to follow.

Prizes There are various types of recognition of extraordinary achievement for mathematicians, many awarded by the mathematics professional societies. Two major awards in mathematics, each sometimes compared with the Nobel prize in other fields, had very strong glass ceilings broken once each, and that only in 2014 and 2019. As each quadrennial ICM year, beginning in the 1970s, drew near, AWMers eagerly speculated and watched to see who the Fields medalists would be. Some years later, we knew about women we hoped would be considered, and were sad about women recognized for very strong work shortly after they were too old for a Fields. Generally, we thought the age restriction was a disadvantage for women. The deliberations of each selection committee were supposed to be secret, and so far as much of the mathematical world thought, they were. However, by 2018, results of careful examination of committee archives and other sources produced surprising information and raised questions. It is very good to know that Olga Ladyzhenskaya (mentioned above as the first ICM Emmy Noether Lecturer, 1994) was on the short list of the 1958 committee. See Barany (2018), also Barany’s article in this volume.

152

B. A. B. Case

Maryam Mirzakhani was the first woman to break the Fields glass ceiling; after the announcement at ICM 2014 in Seoul, there was much celebration. In years past it was sometimes difficult to find information about important women in mathematics outside of AWM conferences and publications. In contrast, the Fields website includes biographical information and a short video featuring Maryam herself, making it easy for people to see her as a role model. In fact, each year on May 12th, her birthday, we celebrate that Maryam Mirzakhani was awarded a Fields Medal. My first memory of Maryam came from my Florida State colleague Erico Hironaka, who, when asked to suggest women mathematicians from outside the US for an ICM 2006 panel, mentioned a young Iranian woman, a former International Olympiad winner who had been the student of her friend, Curtis McMullen. A souvenir somewhere in my old UNIX files is Maryam’s reply to the effect she was moving and did not plan to go to Madrid but was sure I would find interesting speakers. The Abel Prize was established by the Norwegian government as recognition for outstanding scientific work in the field of mathematics. Karen Uhlenbeck, already quite adept at breaking glass ceilings, did so spectacularly in 2019. She was named the twentieth Abel Prize Laureate, and the only one of that year. It is easy for us to view her as a role model through the biographical information, interviews, and film provided on the Abel Prize website. As mentioned earlier, Karen’s support and participation began in AWM’s first decade; her early initiatives helped cement AWM’s reputation for accomplishing goals. She backed up her “we ought to” ideas with the work to accomplish those goals and has been generous with help when asked.

AMS Colloquium Lectures Being invited to present one of the prestigious lectures is a recognition of accomplishment and a measure of visibility. The oldest mathematics lecture series in the US is the AMS Colloquium Lecture, continuous from 1896 (Archibald, 1988, pp. 72–73).3 After an initial 23 men, Anna J. Pell Wheeler broke that glass ceiling in 1927. It was 53 years before another women was invited, Julia Bowman Robinson in 1980. Between Anna and Julia there are 59 successive men. Of the 132 sets of lectures, seven have been given by women: Anna; Julia; Karen K. Uhlenbeck, 1985;

3 There are schedule irregularities for various reasons, including the quadrennial summer International Congress of Mathematicians. Through 1975, some offerings consisted of several sets of lectures by different mathematicians. In 1976 through 1989, there was one set of lectures in winter and one in summer; presentations continued thereafter at the winter JMM (Pitcher, 1988, pp. 35– 67). There was also one summer colloquium lecturer at an international joint 1993 meeting (AMS, 2021a).

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

153

Sun-Yung Alice Chang, 2004; Alice Guionnet, 2013; Dusa McDuff, 2014; Ingrid Daubechies, 2020 (AMS, 2021a). The lineup of 132 AMS colloquium lecturers: 23 men; Anna; 59 men; Julia; 9 men; Karen; 21 men Sun-Yung Alice; 8 men; Alice; Dusa; 5 men; Ingrid The 2021 AMS colloquium lecture was cancelled due to the pandemic; we are delighted that the selection of Karen E. Smith had been posted earlier (AMS, 2021b, p. 19).

Presidents of AMS, MAA, and SIAM AWM activities provide a wide range of useful information for women building careers, and as a side benefit, opportunities to network with mathematicians who are members of several other professional societies. One indicator of full acceptance of a subgroup (here, women) within a larger group (here, a mathematical society) is that members of the subgroup are elected as officers for the larger group. President of a scientific society is a prestigious position where historically women’s numbers have been small. Since I have been organizing AWM’s many activities in conjunction with national meetings of the AMS, MAA, and SIAM, I am especially conscious of their presidencies. The oldest of these societies, the AMS, founded in 1888, first elected a woman as president nearly 100 years later. Julia Bowman Robinson became president in 1983. Next was Cathleen Synge Morawetz in 1995. After eleven more men, we are proud of Jill Pipher, AMS president in 2019 (and AWM president in 2011) and Ruth Charney, AMS president in 2021 (and AWM president in 2013). The lineup of 66 AMS presidents (AMS, 2021c): 46 men; Julia; 5 men; Cathleen; 11 men; Jill; Ruth The first of these societies to elect a woman president was the MAA, founded in 1915. In 1979, Dorothy Lewis Bernstein became its first woman president; after Dorothy finally broke that glass ceiling, there have been no extreme gaps. The next women presidents were Lida Baker Kittrell Barrett in 1989, and Deborah Tepper Haimo in 1991; Ann Esther Watkins followed in 2001. Next were seven men but then we see Deanna Haunsperger in 2017 and Jennifer Quinn in 2021. The lineup of 59 MAA presidents (MAA, 2021): 37 men; Dorothy; 4 men; Lida; Debbie; 4 men; Ann; 7 men Deanna; 1 man; Jennifer SIAM, the youngest of these three large mathematical societies, dates from 1951; its first woman president was Margaret H. Wright in 1995. After eight men, there were two successive women, Irene Fonseca in 2013 and Pamela Cook in 2016. In 2021, the president and past president were both women from Louisiana universities: Susanne Brenner and Lisa Fauci. The lineup of 40 SIAM presidents (SIAM, 2021):

154

B. A. B. Case

26 men; Margaret; 8 men; Irene; Pam; 1 man; Lisa; Susanne Through 2020, the AMS, MAA, and SIAM have had a combined 15 women of 165 presidents; the first women to preside for those societies were, respectively, in 1983, 1979, and 1995. Women will preside during 2021–2022 for all three of the societies!

Epilogue In 2019, a woman was first awarded the Abel Prize. In 2014, a woman was first awarded the Fields Medal. A woman gave the most recent AMS Colloquium Lectures. There are women presidents of AMS, MAA, and SIAM. Many glass ceilings have been broken along the way. Enough women mathematicians have strong accomplishments that they are no longer seen as scarce, but as a highly visible part of the mathematics community. A fundamental challenge from the earliest days of AWM, and still persisting at this writing, is described as more women than men leaking from the career pipeline in mathematics. There are declining percentages of women that move from high scores in secondary school mathematics, to bachelor’s degrees, to higher degrees, and to mathematical employment (AWM, 2021b; Golbeck et al., 2019, 2020). Despite decades of sincere effort to patch these leaks, sometimes these efforts helped only the individual girls or women directly involved or identified what does not help. The issues are complicated, start at a woman’s infancy, and their effects may persist lifelong. A next accomplishment along the pipeline of particular interest to many of AWM’s members is productivity and recognition for researchers which also shows declining percentages of women. One effect is that women are underrepresented among prestigious faculty appointments. This is seen using data from US, Northern and Western Europe, and Great Britain (Mihaljevi´c-Brandt et al., 2016). The details vary across national boundaries but there is similar evidence of declining percentages of women at various career stages across the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields. Systematic sexism is so deeply rooted in many cultures that it recurs across those boundaries. Cooperation across those boundaries to advance women academically is the best way to mitigate its effects. AWM is already involved in STEM-wide activities and is committed to “. . . developing and delivering programming that supports women to become anchored in their field— often overcoming institutionalized infrastructures, behaviors, and beliefs” (AWM, 2021b). A woman won the Abel. A woman won a Fields. Women broke many other glass ceilings. AWM has been a part of this and has helped many girls and women along their career paths, but still the pipeline leaks. Finding effective remedies, perhaps by joining forces with others, is the most important task to begin the second 50 years of AWM.

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

155

Acknowledgments The referees for this volume have been helpful to me in telling these stories. I am grateful that the AWM Newsletter archive is available online from the AWM website thanks to Jean Taylor’s foresight and generosity. Staff of AWM and also AMS, MAA, and SIAM, advised and taught me how to get ideas implemented. Some of the AWM associates that showed me personal kindness related to my own jobs, travel, or sabbaticals were Mary and Alfie Gray, Anne Leggett and Gerry McDonald many times and places; Cora Sadosky relative to IAS; Judy and Paul Green, and Alice Chang and Paul Yang in College Park; Martha Smith and Karen Uhlenbeck in Austin; Suzanne Lenhart in Knoxville; Barbara Keyfitz here and there; Jill Pipher at Brown; colleagues in the Department of Mathematics, Florida State University.

References AMS. 1982. Bryn Mawr, March 16–17, Bryn Mawr College. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 29(2): 175–176. AMS. 2021a. Colloquium lectures. http://www.ams.org/meetings/lectures/meet-colloquium-lect. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. AMS. 2021b. AMS council minutes. April 25, 2020. https://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/ council-meetings/council-minutes0420.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. AMS. 2021c. AMS presidents. http://www.ams.org/about-us/presidents/presidents. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. AWM. 2021a. Emmy Noether lectures. https://awm-math.org/awards/noether-lectures/. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. AWM. 2021b. About the AWM. 2021. https://awm-math.org/about/. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. Archibald, Raymond Clare. 1988. A semicentennial history of the American Mathematical Society 1888–1938. Providence: American Mathematical Society. (First published 1938) AWM. 1987. Questionnaire request for the Directory of Women in the Mathematical Sciences. AWM Newsletter 17(2): 1. Baglivo, Jenny. 1991. Careers That Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences. AWM Newsletter 21(6): 4. Barany, Michael J. 2018. The Fields Medal should return to its roots. Nature 553: 271–273. Barnes, Mabel. 1988. Centennial reflections on women in American mathematics. AWM Newsletter 18(6): 6–8. Blum, Lenore. 1976. AWM panel. AWM Newsletter 6(3): 1–2. Blum, Lenore. 1977. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 7(2): 1–2. Blum, Lenore. 1978. Math meetings and the ERA. AWM Newsletter 8(1): 1. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–54. (Reprinted in this volume) Case, Bettye Anne. 1979. Charleston—Nov. 4, 1978. AWM Newsletter 9(2): 3–4. Case, Bettye Anne. 1996a. An overview. In A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 3. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Case, Bettye Anne. 1996b. Reminiscences about Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler. In A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 311–319. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Case, Bettye Anne and Anne M. Leggett, ed. 2005. Complexities: Women in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Davis, Chandler. 1979. The ERA and the mathematical community. AWM Newsletter 9(4): 7–9. Davis, Philip J. 1999. What’s in it for women? What’s in them for math. SIAM News 32(9). Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2019. Report on the 2016–2017 new doctorate recipients. AMS Notices 66(7): 1151–1160.

156

B. A. B. Case

Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2020. Report on the 2017–2018 new doctorate recipients. AMS Notices 67(8): 1200–1206. Gray, Mary. 1971. AWM Newsletter Gray, Mary. 1973. Report from Dallas AWM panel. AWM Newsletter 3(2): 1–3. Green, Judy and Jeanne LaDuke. 2009. Pioneering women in American mathematics: The pre-1940 PhD’s. Providence and London: American Mathematical Society and London Mathematical Society. Greenwald, Sarah J., Anne Leggett, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Mathematical Intelligencer 37(3): 11–21. Grinstein, Louise and Paul Campbell. 1978. Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler, 1883–1966, part one of two. AWM Newsletter 8(3): 14–17. ICIAM. 2015. International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Program. http:// www.iciam2015.cn/Program.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. IMU. 1998. International Congress of Mathematicians. Program. https://www.emis.de/mirror/ ICM98/D/1/program.ps Accessed 15 Sep 2020. IMU. 2014. International Congress of Mathematicians. Program. Satellite conferences. http:// www.icm2014.org/en/program/satellite/satellites.html Accessed 15 Sep 2020. Kenschaft, Patricia C. 1978. Black women in mathematics. AWM Newsletter 8(3): 8. Kenschaft, Patricia C. 1981. Black women in mathematics in the United States. American Mathematical Monthly 88(8): 592–604. Kessel, Cathy. 2007. President’s report. AWM Newsletter. 37(2): 1. Keyfitz, Barbara. 2006. President’s report: AWM and world affairs. AWM Newsletter 36(4): 1–3. Kra, Irwin. 1996. Creating an American mathematical tradition: The extended Ahlfors-Bers family. A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 265–279. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Kuperberg, Krystyna, ed. 2006. Extended abstracts. Proceedings of the workshop women in mathematics: The legacy of Ladyzhenskaya and Oleinik. http://topo.math.auburn.edu/pub/ 2Olgas-proceedings/. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. MAA. 1991. The Orono Mathfest: Exposition, explanation, and examples. Focus 11(2): 9–31. MAA. 2021. MAA officers. https://www.maa.org/about-maa/governance/maa-presidents/maaofficers. Manning, Cammey and Jill Pipher. 2011. ICIAM 2011: AWM marks 40th anniversary with embedded meeting at ICIAM. SIAM News 44(9): 1. Mayes, Vivienne Malone. 1975. Black and female. AWM Newsletter 5(6), 4–6. Mihaljevi´c-Brandt, Helena, Lucia Santamaria, and Marco Tullney. 2016. The effects of gender in the publication patterns in mathematics. PLOS ONE 11(10): e0165367. Morawetz, Cathleen S. 1996. Informally speaking. A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 5–6. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Murray, Margaret. 2000. Women becoming mathematicians: Creating a professional identity in post–World War II America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. NIST. 1999. Former NBS mathematical pioneer honored at Berkeley math institute symposium. https://math.nist.gov/mcsd/highlights/awm.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. Pitcher, Everett. 1988. A history of the second fifty years, 1939–1988. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Reid, Constance. 2005. Being Julia Robinson’s sister. In Complexities: Women in mathematics ed. Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett, 8–18. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Roitman, Judy. 1978. Letter from the president. AWM Newsletter 8(4): 1. Roitman, Judy. 1979a. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 9(2): 1–2. Roitman, Judy. 1979b. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 9(3): 1–2. Ross, Ken and Jim Tattersall. 2015. Meetings of the MAA. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/ pdf/ABOUTMAA/centennial/maa_meetings.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2020. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Reminiscences: 30 Years as AWM Meetings Coordinator

157

Rossiter, Margaret W. 1998. Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940–1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 2012. Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sadosky, Cora. 2005. Cora Ratto de Sadosky. In Complexities: Women in mathematics ed. Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett, 24–26. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schafer, Alice. 1974a. Report of the president. AWM Newsletter 4(2): 1–2. Schafer, Alice. 1974b. Report of the president. AWM Newsletter 4(6): 1–3. Schafer, Alice T. 1991. Mathematics and women: Perspectives and progress. AMS Notices 38(7): 735–737. SIAM. 2000. AWM—A vivid presence at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. SIAM News 33(3). SIAM. 2021. Leadership. https://siam.org/about-siam/leadership. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1982. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 12(3): 1–2. Srinivasan, Bhama and Judith Sally eds. 1983. Emmy Noether at Bryn Mawr. New York: SpringerVerlag Struik, Dirk J. 1996. Some mathematicians I have met. In A century of mathematical meetings, ed. Bettye Anne Case, 251–257. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Struik, Ruth Rebecca. 1974. The two city problem. AWM Newsletter 4(6): 8–11. Wiegand, Sylvia M. 2005. My grandmother, Grace Chisholm Young. In Complexities: Women in mathematics ed. Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett, 39–45. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Williams, Scott W. 2008. History of Black women in mathematics. http://www.math.buffalo.edu/ mad/wohist.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. Yuan, Ya-xiang. 2019. A word from the incoming president. ICIAM Dianoia 7(3–4).

Part IV

Organizing AWM Workshops, Panels, Regional Meetings, Research Networks, and Research Symposia

Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place Sue Geller

I joined the AWM in the 1970s as a young assistant professor hoping to find other women mathematicians to see if what I was experiencing was happening to others and to help me to deal with it. This worked well as I met other women mathematicians at receptions run by AWM at the JMMs, and received both the confirmation and suggestions I craved, both at JMM and through future correspondence. It was really the start of an old girls network, which I consider still valuable. I continue to be a member of the AWM because I still want to change the mathematical culture so that the things that made my professional life harder for me than for the men don’t keep happening. Thus, I start with some of what happened to me and go on to what I did. I include my view of how things are now as I go along. I received my PhD in 1975, a year in which I believe 103 women received PhDs in math from US institutions. Thus, I have a long, albeit personal, perspective on how the mathematical community has changed or not.

Some of What Happened to Me My treatment as a girl who loved math and science in the 1950s and early 1960s was typical—at best ignored, at worst told I couldn’t succeed, but it didn’t stop me as I taught my last class in fall 2019 and am still writing papers and doing research. No one told me about engineering; technology as we know it didn’t yet exist. In many ways, this situation has not changed, at least from the anecdotal evidence gleaned from students by me and my friends. My women students often said that

S. Geller () Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_15

161

162

S. Geller

they were not given help or encouragement when they had trouble with math yet the boys were. Girls were allowed to do poorly and told it was okay to hate math while boys were given extra help and told they could, indeed had to, learn math. This differential treatment of girls has changed a bit in that some high school math teachers now encourage talented women. Unfortunately, many guidance counselors still frequently discourage girls from pursuing STEM, telling them that it is too hard for a woman to be accepted and succeed. My unpleasant experiences in college were overt enough for me to notice that things were wrong. For example, I received two Bs because the professors openly stated that they were not going to give an A to a woman under any circumstances, including my being near, or at, the top of the class and men who did worse than I receiving As. I protested each grade to the relevant department head, who told me that there was no way to appeal a grade and that the professor could do what he wanted. I’m glad that students can now appeal grades, at least in all the departments of which I am aware. In retrospect, the funniest mistreatment I received was having my math advisor call me Mr. Geller for two and a half years. The guys in math all found this funny too and made up various stories about why he did it. The most common was that his wife was a mathematician who left him, which was totally false. Years later I met that former advisor while interviewing for a job and asked him why he called me Mr. Geller. He said that, when I asked to become a math major in the option for students wanting to go to graduate school, he looked at my record and discovered that I was currently first in my class. He had a problem. Dear to his heart was having a math major be the valedictorian, but, back then, he was convinced that women could not succeed in graduate school in math and so refused to allow them into the math major option I wanted. Thus, he decided to call me Mr. Geller so that he didn’t have to acknowledge me as a woman. He had the decency to apologize and to say that my subsequent career had proved him wrong. By then he was long retired, so there was no need to take action to protect other women. Graduate school was interesting. Trouble started when I first entered the math building to be stopped by a professor who asked me what I thought I was doing there. When I said that I was starting graduate school, he replied, “The fuck you are. No women succeed in our program except for the wives of our faculty.” He was correct that the only women to earn a PhD in the past 15 years in that department had been two wives of faculty members. Some department members tried to run me off during my first year despite the fact that I had an NSF graduate fellowship. I took my written qualifying exams during the second week of class, earning a 100 on the algebra exam and a 96 on the analysis exam. Orals were scheduled for the next week. Men with high scores were asked to do the problem(s) they missed, a brief and pleasant experience. During my two hour oral, one of the men on the committee objected to the definition of continuous I chose to use on a written problem, one for which I had received full credit. He asked me to redo the problem using a different, unspecified, definition. I proceeded to be stubborn, chose a different definition, and proved it was equivalent to the one I used. At his request, I repeated this exercise with a third definition. I knew he wanted me to start with the standard –δ definition

Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place

163

but I chose not to. I rather enjoyed infuriating the guy. The other two men in the room said nothing. Finally he demanded I start with the –δ definition. I did and then proved it equivalent to all the other definitions I had used. At this point, the chair, who was my first-year advisor and who had his feet on his desk, put his feet down and told the other guy to stop as I clearly knew the material. The one who hassled me tried to demand that I be forced to retake undergraduate analysis. He claimed I should do so because of a notational ambiguity in the coefficients I had correctly computed on a Fourier series. I had interchanged notation for the coefficients of sine and cosine, had clearly identified my usage, and correctly computed them. The rest of the committee simply laughed at him. I was not asked any more questions on this oral exam. After my first year during which I passed all the written prelims, one of only 4 out of 20 to do so, I was left alone. Unfortunately, that was almost literally true. My first-year advisor never spoke with me other than to approve my course schedule for the next semester during which he steered me towards algebra despite my desire to study mathematical physics, his field. I knew he spoke with his other first-year student every two weeks, so concluded he didn’t want to advise me. I wish I had asked him as he later told me that he was confused as to why I switched. He was shocked when I told him why and apologized. In the second semester of my first year, I took an advanced algebra course. I loved the course so much that I asked that professor to be my PhD advisor. Another first-year student, Bob, did as well. For the rest of our time as graduate students, the advisor met with Bob every two weeks to discuss math. He met with me only if I made an appointment and then listened to me but did not say anything useful. It took me 7 years after I graduated to ask him why he did this. He apologized but pointed out that I didn’t really need his help. That did not make it right, and I told him so. My second year was better than my first. There was a new assistant professor in K-theory. He told me he was intimidated by the senior algebraists, and started working with me as an equal during my third year. We’d meet at least weekly to present to each other what we had done, enjoying the repartee and having fun poking holes in the other’s “proofs.” We ended up writing a paper together because he asked me if I could prove something for K0 and K1 after which he quickly extended the result to K2 . I was not working in K-theory at that time. When I was writing up my dissertation in commutative algebra, my advisor received a preprint with a slightly weaker version of my result. He told me that he expected the big boys to soon finish off the big question to which our results were a stepping stone, so I needed to start over. For a man, simultaneous discovery would have been fine, however I could not have published my result, would not have problem to work on after I graduated, and would have had a lot of trouble getting a job. So I started over. I thought something in K-theory might help me with my new problem and proved it. When I showed the K-theory result to my research buddy, he threw a book at me, not hard enough to get anywhere near me, but enough to show his frustration. He dragged me to my advisor and told him that I had a dissertation. Unwittingly, I had solved a conjecture that my research buddy had been working on for five years. Others had been working on it even longer. At this point my advisor became helpful. He worked with me on where

164

S. Geller

to apply for jobs and taught me how to write up mathematics by making me rewrite and rewrite and . . . until he was satisfied. I learned that what seemed to be a disaster could turn out to my benefit and that someone who seemed not to care could turn out to be really wonderful. As I continued in my career and got to the point that I was senior enough to try to make a difference, I remembered the positive effects these two men had on my career. The really amazing turnaround is that the man who swore at me as I entered the math department for the first time and told me I wouldn’t make it paid to have my dissertation typed by his administrative assistant, the best technical typist in the department, in her off time. My first job after my PhD was a tenure-track assistant professorship at a top-tier, research-focused institution. The person with whom I went to work left before I got there; the most senior algebraist openly hated me for being a woman; and the rest of the algebraists ignored me, probably due to fear of the most senior one. Halfway through my first year, something terrible happened. A mentally unstable tenured faculty member came into my office and sexually assaulted me. I successfully defended myself by hitting him hard enough to break his jaw. I called a friend, a statistics professor, who insisted I stay locked in my office and call the interim department chair. I did and got the help I needed. The interim chair first told me that the assault was not my fault, took me home, and picked me up the next morning. He never left me in a place in which I would be vulnerable until my assailant was caught and kept from returning to campus. No mention was made of calling the police about the assault. A further bummer happened the morning after the assault when we got off the elevator to hear three full professors talking about how I had no right to break the jaw of a tenured faculty member under any circumstances. Fortunately, the interim chair and my friends assured me that I had every right to protect myself from assault. Getting tenure in a PhD-granting department was really hard for a woman in 1980. To demonstrate the difficulty, in fall 1979, I was nominated by the provost of my university for a Mary Ingraham Bunting Non-Tenured Women’s Fellowship at the Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College, Harvard University. The nominator must provide evidence that the nominee is the finest non-tenured researcher on campus. There were about 600 applicants. I won one of the four fellowships awarded and started my fellowship in July 1980. In October, on my birthday, the recently elected department chair called to tell me that, not only was I turned down for tenure, but that I was so poor a mathematician that I should find another career. I was devastated. I thought about suing but realized that I didn’t want to continue working in a department that would act this way. It was rather fun to apply for jobs on Harvard Department of Mathematics letterhead and to answer queries as to why I was denied tenure with “You’ll have to ask them. I wasn’t there.” I later found out that the main arguments against granting me tenure were that I fought back when sexually assaulted and that the students preferred me to the new department chair with whom I had team taught in the spring. I then got a job at Texas A&M University, becoming the first woman associate professor in mathematics but at a lower salary than most of the assistant professors. Repeatedly I would prove I was badly underpaid, but little was done. In only one of

Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place

165

my 29 years as a full professor at A&M did I actually make more per month than the highest-paid associate professor in my department. I believe that pay inequity is still one of the great unsolved problems for women in mathematics. The year before I was hired, my university had recategorized the math department from “service department” to “research department.” For several reasons my hiring didn’t go down well with many senior faculty, all of whom were men. They were not comfortable with a woman who had a good research reputation and federal funding. I became the first woman associate professor, first tenured woman, and, eventually, first woman full professor. I had to go up for full professor in three consecutive years during which nine men were promoted to full professor, none of whom had federal funding which I did. I was finally promoted administratively but not with the required support of two-thirds of the (all men) full professors. In addition, there were the then usual comments like “there will be a female full professor over my dead body.” The second time I went up, I was on an NSF Visiting Professorship for Women. I received a call from a full professor who had treated me well. He proudly stated that he had defended my honor. He reported that, during the meeting to discuss my case, the consensus was that I simply slept with my men coauthors instead of earning co-authorship by contributing essential research results. He pointed out to those claiming I received co-authorship in exchange for sexual favors that all knew me and so knew better, that no man in his right mind would sleep with me. Thirty-three years later I’m still trying to decide which was more insulting: that my research collaborators had insisted on sex with me in exchange for co-authorship—or that no man would want to sleep with me. I have heard many candidates for promotion, men as well as women, evaluated negatively for having too many joint papers. As time has gone by, I hear fewer complaints about joint work. But since then I have not heard the assertion that co-authorship was a reward for sexual favors. I did deal with a lot of other harassment for being a woman. The most common was being treated as if I were invisible and inaudible during meetings. Two of my men colleagues made good reputations for themselves by simply repeating my suggestions. They continued to get credit despite starting their remarks with “As Sue just said, . . .” One of the funnier times was when a man faculty member famous for using foul language responded to a comment of mine with “Fuck you!!!” After a stunned silence, I simply said, “No thank you, X; you are not my type.” Everyone else laughed and the tension was broken. It took me decades to learn the trick of responding with humor, often taking something literally, instead of getting angry. Hostile speech or action is still wrong, but using humor often makes the perpetrator look bad even to those who don’t see at first that anything wrong was said or done. I have probably gone on too long about what happened to me that made my life harder than the lives of the men in my department, but even in 2017–2018, my last year before retirement, some men faculty members still hassled me. The most I can say is that, for the most part, I managed to stop much gender-based harassment of the other tenure-track women. We now have a large cadre of teaching faculty, most of them women. I am sad to say that teaching faculty members of any gender are not respected by many of the tenure-track men. Given how many research-oriented

166

S. Geller

schools are hiring teaching faculty, I consider this a serious problem and hope that my readers will try to solve this.

How I Tried to Change the Climate in Mathematics As I said, I have worked hard to improve the climate in math, frequently focusing on helping women and learning that some of what I did helped men too. I should not have been surprised. I’ve found that, when people realize that certain behaviors towards women are wrong, they treat everyone better, possibly because they are more conscious of their behavior and thoughtful about its likely effect. My first work at the national level was serving on the Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences from 1985 to 1991 and as chair the last three years. This committee was, to the best of my knowledge, the first committee charged with studying the status of women in the mathematical sciences and making suggestions to the various organizations as to how to improve the professional lives of women mathematicians. As chair, I did a study of how many women were plenary speakers, special session organizers, speakers in special sessions, or speakers in contributed sessions at the winter and summer national meetings. This was before MathFest was instituted, when the summer meeting was also a joint meeting of the mathematical societies. I simply took the program listings and guessed each gender, when possible, and listed as unknown when not. The unknowns were the largest group except for plenary speakers who were overwhelmingly men. In fact, in five years for which I collected data, there were no women plenary speakers as near as I could tell. The Joint Committee considered my data, wrote a report, and sent it to the seven organizations represented on the committee, but it was never published. I believe several of the organizations tried to diversify the speaker lists after that. My first official duty for AWM was serving on the executive committee from 1989 to 1991, so I was the one who brought the report mentioned above to the executive committee and urged action. I am proud to say that the AWM executive committee ran with this; every year for many years, long after I left the executive committee, AWM reminded AMS, MAA, SIAM, NAM, and ICM of the need to have women represented at all levels. It took a lot of work and vigilance on the part of AWM, but this issue is now fairly close to resolved and has been for about ten years. Occasional reminders are still necessary. Credit needs to be given to Tina Straley, a long-time executive director of the MAA, for aiding and abetting this effort within the MAA. The other time I served on the executive committee of the AWM, I was the clerk (read secretary) from 1999 to 2002 (Fig. 1). Of course, AWM has done many things to support women in math and to help change the culture, most without my help. In particular, I point to the Noether lectures, which guarantees there will be at least one woman plenary speaker at JMM. The evening reception provides time and space for networking. The workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs provides visibility and mentoring for some of our new women mathematicians. Many of the AWM programs, e.g., travel grants,

Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place

167

Fig. 1 Dawn Lott, Elizabeth McMahon, Catherine Roberts, Deborah Lockhart, Sue Geller, AWM panel on launching a career in mathematics at the 1999 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Photo courtesy of Gail Ratcliff

would not be possible without the support of NSF and NSA, among others. For more information on when what programs were started, see “A Brief History of AWM” in this volume. For a more comprehensive list of current activities, see the AWM website. The AWM, not the only math professional society supporting women, works well with others. For example, in the 1980s, the MAA established a Committee on the Participation of Women (CPW). I was a member ex officio while chair of the Joint Committee on Women discussed above. The CPW organized panels at each winter and summer JMM to raise consciousness on the issues facing women in math. In the summer of 1989, we were told the time for our panel in January would be 7:30 Friday night in San Francisco. After much discussion, we offered skits instead of a panel in hopes of getting an audience. I composed skits based on situations we had talked about before learning of the Friday night slot. Pat Kenschaft and I found and rehearsed actors. Since the skits were well received, we continued to produce new skits each year, and switched off as to who was the emcee. The skits are posted on my web page under the heading Trying to Make the World a Better Place. I have written more about the skits in Women in Mathematics: 100 Years and Counting. Tina Straley was instrumental in getting us larger and larger venues. I suspect that having a woman executive director of MAA had a large impact on changing the climate for women within the MAA but also, to some extent, making the leadership of the AMS aware of the issues. One of the major, continuing projects of AWM is the workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs put on during the JMM. I’ve been involved in a variety of ways. I was on the committee to select graduate students from 1995 to 1998, chair 1995 and 1998, and on the Workshop Program Committee from 1999 to 2002. The

168

S. Geller

Fig. 2 Sue Geller leading discussion at AWM workshop, 2002 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Diego, CA

job I liked best was to be a mentor to graduate students or recent PhDs, something I did officially from 1997 to 2005 (see Fig. 2) and continued to do informally after that. One of my earlier mentees was Judy Walker, now Associate Vice Chancellor for faculty and academic affairs, as well as the Douglas Chair in the department of mathematics at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Making Lemonade out of Lemons If gender-based harassment and outright misconduct were the lemons, then learning to cope led to the lemonade of resistance and mentoring. I had been mentoring faculty members at Texas A&M since my second year when my first mentee was an engineer. I then mentored every woman mathematician hired as a postdoc or on tenure-track until about 2015, when some women I had mentored took over mentoring the new hires. I still was available to the new hires, just not the first woman they met. I continued to mentor women outside of math as well. Mentoring across department lines is something I recommend because one can talk more freely to someone not in the same department and so not voting on one’s promotion. In 2014, I was honored to receive the mentoring award from the Texas A&M’s Women’s Faculty Network. In the 1990s, I started mentoring graduate students in bulk, as it were. I was already one of the two official advisors for incoming grad students when the department started a new masters program for people who wanted to teach. That got me dealing one-on-one frequently with the students in the program because I not only was their first advisor, I also taught them a fall and a spring course, A Survey of Mathematical Problems I and II, usually in their first year. These courses went from 6:00 to 9:00 pm one night a week. We’d gather before class to eat supper together and chat. Also, class time was primarily spent solving problems in groups. I didn’t lecture on the course content, but I would show them a solution to a problem

Trying to Make the Math World a Better Place

169

no student or group of students had solved. Actually, the most fun came in the first three years when Harold Boas and I co-taught the courses while we wrote the book for both semesters. Harold specializes in several complex variables, I in algebra, so we usually solved a problem totally differently. This was great for the students to see that there really isn’t just one correct proof and to see a man and a woman working together with great respect and great fun. The book, A Survey of Mathematical Problems, also useful for a senior seminar class, can be downloaded from my web site. Anyway, the weekly contact, especially while eating supper, led many of the students to ask me to be their official chair for their masters degree and, more importantly, to continue to be my mentees. In December 2019, my 116th, and last, masters student in mathematics graduated. In addition, I chaired two PhD committees in Math/Math Ed as specialty and two thesis masters degrees in the Veterinary College in which I held a joint appointment. I consider these four to be mentees as well. Another group I mentored were students I took to conferences, starting with the Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics. Since we traveled together, including driving between the Omaha airport and Lincoln, we spent lots of time talking. It was natural for them to keep coming to me with questions. Also, I obtained an NSF grant to take students to not only the Nebraska Conference but also MathFest and the MAA Texas Section meeting. I took men and women to the latter two and was careful to include prospective high school teachers who showed research promise. They adopted me too. My largest source of undergraduate mentees was the mathematics honors programs, which I started in 2004. For the first 8 years, I was the only honors advisor in the math department and helped match undergraduates to faculty members for undergraduate research. The program grew so much that we added an advisor who quickly took over the undergraduate research program. Continued growth over the years required the addition of more honors advisors. Officially I continued to have about 25 advisees each year, but actually had more because the ones with non-standard situations were also passed on to me. About two-thirds of my official and all of the unofficial advisees became mentees. As Director of Honors Programs in Math, I continued to take students to conferences. The Texas Section of the MAA honored my dedication to students by awarding me the 2014 Ron Barnes Distinguished Service to Students Award. I also won the 2015 Texas A&M University Association of Former Students University Award for Individual Student Relationships. But the honor that means the most to me is that the math department created the Sue Geller Undergraduate Research Lecture Series, a yearly talk given by an outstanding researcher with interest in undergraduate research and who is an outstanding expositor. Judy Walker was the first speaker in the series. As you might imagine, I became known for providing a willing and often helpful ear. Sometimes I think there was a neon sign outside my door that was visible only to those who needed it. I did a booming business with students who were abused in some way: physically, emotionally, or sexually. One reason I could help is that I was abused in so many ways as a child and later as a professional mathematician that almost always I had experienced whatever happened to a student who came to

170

S. Geller

me. In fact, I think I survived the mistreatment and abuse I received through my years in math partly because I didn’t recognize it was wrong and partly because it was actually mild compared to my youth. Another help in surviving professionally was how much difference a few encouraging people made in my life. Their support amidst the pervasive sexism and abusive climate I encountered taught me that one person can help to change the culture for the better, can make a big difference in another’s life, and inspired me to help others. I think that a way to sum up a lot of my mentoring, both professional and personal, is • what awful things people do to us are not right nor acceptable; • don’t quit; • it is up to us to choose what kind of person we will work to be. I hope others not only will take up the job of improving mathematical culture but also will take up the task of helping people who have been hurt or abused to heal then flourish. Each of us can make a positive difference.

Intertwining Paths: AWM, AMS, and Me Catherine A. Roberts

I first became involved with the Association for Women in Mathematics when completing my doctoral studies in Engineering Sciences & Applied Mathematics at Northwestern University. In 1991, the AWM started a new program to embed workshops for graduate students and postdocs inside of larger math research conferences. These AWM workshops not only offered mentoring support to help early-career women launch their careers, they also dramatically increased the visibility of women at these large conferences. The AWM provided me with $275 in travel funding to present a research poster at one of its inaugural workshops. The 1991 International Congress for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, where this event took place, was my first math conference. There were thousands of attendees. I remember stepping into the women’s restroom in the convention center, leaving the bustling hallway to enter into an unsettling silence. There were so few women at the conference that the cavernous restroom stood in quiet contrast to the public meeting spaces teeming with mathematicians. The AWM workshop provided a real boost to me psychologically. It helped me believe that I had a bright future ahead. I remember sitting with Alice T. Schafer, either then or at the following year’s AWM workshop at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. I’d never heard of her before, but paid attention after seeing others treating her like a superstar. I’ve since learned much more about this amazing woman and her role in founding the AWM, but at the time, for me, my reaction to meeting her was much more personal. This was the first time I’d ever met and spoken with a female mathematician. Before then, I wasn’t really sure any existed. I had never had a female math professor, and only knew of one female statistics professor from my undergraduate college. Alice and other established

C. A. Roberts () American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_16

171

172

C. A. Roberts

Fig. 1 Front row: Danielle Carr, Catherine Roberts, Cheryl Hile, Beth Bradley; back row: Reza Malek-Madini, Debbie Lockhart, AWM President Cora Sadosky, Jagdish Chandra, Shubbe Radopadhyye, Mary Pugh, Elinor Velasquez, Andrea Bertozzi, postdoctoral participants and AWM panelists at the 1993 AWM Workshop, SIAM Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA

research mathematicians were generous and supportive to the early career travel grant recipients. Several made opening remarks, saying we were the leaders of tomorrow and that we deserved every opportunity. It was also exciting to meet other early-career women. In Northwestern’s applied math program, in addition to an all-male faculty, the graduate student men outnumbered women something on the order of ten to one. This all had seemed normal to me, like I was destined to be pretty much on my own as a female mathematician. That is, until I attended these AWM workshops (see Fig. 1). Ultimately, I spent six years as a co-organizer for the AWM workshops at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. Helping showcase and launch early-career mathematicians became one of my primary activities, which has endured throughout my career. My involvement with the AWM early in my career was when I recognized the power of a professional society to influence careers through networking, training, and advocacy. Professional societies like the AWM have provided opportunities for me throughout my career. This has allowed me to contribute to my profession and develop my leadership skills. I served on the AWM Executive Committee from 2002 to 2006. I recall being asked to write a nomination statement for the AWM Newsletter, which ended up being inspired by my frustration with what I took away from an AWM career panel. For the life of me, I can’t recall who spoke in this panel or exactly when it was. I do remember that three esteemed female mathematicians shared their personal journeys with an audience of anxious job-seeking graduate students. The intent was to provide evidence that we, like them, could lead successful careers. But, I

Intertwining Paths: AWM, AMS, and Me

173

recall one woman saying her career wouldn’t have been possible without a spouse willing to stay home with their children. And another woman said she chose not to have children at all because she felt it was incompatible with her career. And another suggested we choose a life partner who could easily relocate, because of the inevitable institution-jumping we’d find ourselves facing in a tough job market. I didn’t find these stories very encouraging—it seemed to me that these women had paid quite a price in their personal lives in order to have successful professional lives. Why couldn’t I have my choice of partner, my choice of children (or not), my choice of career? I didn’t want to play by rules where women were being forced to make sacrifices to fit into our patriarchal society. I wanted to change the system, so that anyone coming behind these trailblazing women would enjoy new freedoms and new levels of control over their destinies. So, my time on the EC was driven by a desire to move the needle on this topic. This also manifested itself in other ways—I served on three AWM career panels (see Fig. 2), wrote articles for the AWM Newsletter, and volunteered for many AWM projects over the years. I admit that I didn’t even try to find academic positions at places where I thought I would have to sacrifice too much. I regret this now, and wish I’d been braver. I’ve dedicated much of my energy toward improving the system. There were choices I made during my career in order to make things work in my dual-academic marriage. Compromise turned out to be necessary for me, as it had been for so many who came before me. In hindsight, I think those three panelists from years ago had been making fair points. I have an admittedly foggy recollection of my years on the Executive Committee. And, why would that be? Because I had two small children and moved institutions three times in a decade. See what I mean? Those panelists who got me all riled up had been spot on, after all. And, yet, when I think about my younger self, I would tell her to forge her own path and ignore any advice that didn’t

Fig. 2 Catherine Roberts, Jill Dietz, Rachel Kuske, Patty Anthony Ashford, Ruth Gornet, AWM panel on Launching a Career in Mathematics, 1998 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

174

C. A. Roberts

ring true. I would tell her that she was right to start her family pre-tenure, in spite of the strong advice to wait. I’d encourage her to make peace with the compromises she might choose to make along the way. Over the decades, things have improved, yet we must continue to agitate for more supportive work environments. Some of the barriers that slowed down my career progress are gone, or at least aren’t as high as before. For example, I only took two weeks off after bearing my first child because there was no maternity leave available. I now see decent parental leave policies in place at many institutions. The work climate for women is demonstrably better now, even though we still have more to do. For example, I would like to see more workplace childcare. I would like to see more women being nominated for and selected for major math research awards. I would like to see more women, particularly women of color, in leadership positions throughout academic and our professional societies. Moreover, the current generation of activist mathematicians aptly calls out barriers that I wasn’t previously seeing. I am proud to have pushed on the generation before me, and now I feel the next generation pushing me forward. Good. I continue to learn and have my eyes opened. And this gives me tremendous hope that the world can, and will, continue to get better. During my term on the Executive Committee, the AWM made the decision to restructure the organization and its leadership. I chaired the 2005 search committee that hired Jenny Quinn as a half-time AWM Executive Director. I was extremely supportive of AWM President Carolyn Gordon’s efforts that led the organization to contract with STAT Marketing for management services. The AWM was growing. It was no longer a kitchen-table organization of volunteers. The AWM was launching new initiatives left and right. It now had multiple federal grants to manage, a burgeoning membership, and a growing stable of prizes, awards, and programs. Each new volunteer showed up with ideas for even more things the AWM could do to support women in math. The organization was too complex to rely only on volunteers who cycled in and out. For longevity and continued success, the AWM needed to take this important step. The relationship between STAT and the AWM lasted 13 years. There were frustrations with this management arrangement, but I still see the decision to engage a professional management company as a pivotal step in the AWM’s growth as a professional society. In 2017, the relationship between AWM and STAT reached a breaking point. The AWM Executive Committee sought bids to engage a new management firm. At this time, Bryna Kra was serving on the AWM’s Executive Committee, as well as the Board of Trustees of the American Mathematical Society. She proposed that AMS might be able to provide management services to the AWM. As the Executive Director at the AMS, I recognized immediately that this was, indeed, a big ask. The AMS is a large operation, with over 200 employees overseeing MathSciNet, journal and book publication, multiple meetings and conferences, as well as extensive programs and services for our members and the wider mathematics community. Clearly, we had the infrastructure and the expertise to provide management support to the AWM, but could this really work? I reviewed the history of the formation of the AWM, which started in part due to women’s frustration with the American

Intertwining Paths: AWM, AMS, and Me

175

Mathematical Society. Was this an opportunity to help repair this decades-old rift? Could the AWM and AMS trust each other enough to have each other’s best interests at heart? Lengthy negotiations ultimately led to a two-year agreement (2018 and 2019) for the AMS to serve as the management company for the AWM. While the AMS Board of Trustees was eager to share our infrastructure with a smaller sister organization, it was crucial that the AWM maintain its independence as a distinct professional organization. The AWM insisted on paying its own way and not being beholden to the AMS, which was a critical component to finalizing our services agreement. The transition from the old management company to the AMS was complicated—more complicated than anyone involved could have anticipated. The AMS did have to underwrite some incurred costs simply because we all underestimated the extent of the messy records from STAT and did not anticipate the (surprise!) grant audit from the National Science Foundation. Nonetheless, the AWM and AMS have pushed ahead and are now in our second two-year agreement. The management fee is currently covering all AWM management needs. The first AMS employee to liaise with the AWM was Steven Ferrucci, who was replaced by Robin Nelson in early 2020, who was then replaced by Samantha Faria in early 2021. I’d like to think that the management services from the AMS have helped the AWM understand their financial picture with more clarity and have helped them manage their records more professionally. My hope is that Bryna Kra’s idea, as put into action by Ami Radunskaya and me, has played a small role in increasing cooperation between the two organizations.

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics Christina Sormani

I first learned of the AWM as a senior math major at New York University (NYU) in 1991. At the time, I hadn’t realized there were any concerns for women in mathematics. My parents, teachers, and professors all strongly encouraged me to become a mathematician. My mother had chosen not to complete her doctorate when I was born, but my father worked in a department with two women mathematicians: Mabel Szeto and Antonia Foldes. There were women mathematicians working at NYU at the time, including Cathleen Morawetz, who had four kids. Half the math majors in my year were women and they were among the top in the class too, including my best friend Regina Rotman. I figured the AWM existed because it had been needed in the past and that soon all universities would be as welcoming to women as NYU was. I stayed at NYU for the doctorate. In my entering group of students, three of 18 were women, and only two of 18 had a bachelor’s degree awarded in the United States. I felt much more out of place for being from the US than for being a woman. I quickly befriended my fellow doctoral student, Connie Chen (who had a daughter), and masters student Nechama Katan (who had two kids while pursuing her doctorate elsewhere). Both now work in industry applying their advanced knowledge of partial differential equations and probability as do most of the men who studied with us. While I had faced sexism and sexual harassment in my youth, it had never been directed against me as a mathematician. If anything, doing mathematics was an escape from sexism.

Christina Sormani’s research is funded in part by NSF DMS 1612049. C. Sormani () Lehman College and CUNY Graduate Center, New York City, NY, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_17

177

178

C. Sormani

Encountering Sexism in the Mathematics Community I would say my first real experience with sexism in the mathematics community was searching for a job in 1996. My advisor, Jeff Cheeger, ensured I had enough results before applying for a job. My mentor, Irene Gamba, helped me write my research description and cover letter. Despite the fact that my research was good enough to later be published in a top journal, I had not a single job offer before May. It was a bad year, but I had good friends landing excellent postdoctoral and industry positions. Luckily in May, I was invited to speak at MIT by a former NYU professor, Gang Tian. Shing-Tung Yau attended the talk and a week later I was offered a one-year postdoc at Harvard to work with him. Upon receiving the offer, two of my friends accused me of landing a job at Harvard “just because I was a girl.” It’s not only that the remark was annoying and hurtful, but that they truly saw me as unfairly benefiting from the system despite the fact that they had both been offered multiyear postdocs months earlier (one at U Penn and the other at NIH). This resentment against successful women is one of the strongest things holding us back. When I attended the Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference at MSRI that July, I learned sexism might have been a factor in not landing a single job until I gave my talk at MIT (AWM, 1996). I decided to face the problem practically and learned everything I could about job hunting from the panels at the conferences. Indeed this advice and other advice I found in the AWM Newsletter was very useful during my job hunt the following year. I still had no idea how bad sexism could be; I thought it was a matter of letters (accidentally being written with not quite enough enthusiasm) and committees overlooking women (because one of the male applicants just seemed so much more stellar). I believed it was unconscious bias before I knew the term. I assumed that with enough effort, good advice, and the support of mathematicians who read our papers and attended our talks, all would be well. I started my first postdoc at Harvard and discovered sexism and bias could be not only conscious, but quite deliberate. For the first time I was told directly to my face that I could not be a mathematician because I was a woman, that women didn’t have geometric intuition, and that I was a low-class New Yorker. I was informed of these “facts” by both faculty and students. The general attitude around Harvard was that women’s lack of success in academia resulted primarily from “issues of intrinsic aptitude” as the president of the university, Larry Summers, later stated publicly. Nevertheless I was lucky to work with ShingTung Yau, who treated me with respect and who had multiple women working with him, including Nina Zipser and Christine Taylor at the same time that I was there. My second postdoc at Johns Hopkins was equally uncomfortable. Again I worked with good men who treated me with respect, Joel Spruck and Bill Minicozzi, and I met more women, Lenore Cowen and Marianne Korten, but I also had to deal with men who openly voiced how “women wasted positions men could use.”

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

179

Some faculty members, defending the existence of women as doctoral students, pointed out they “made good wives” because they understood the quality of their husbands’ research and admired them. One, however, warned that “a man should never alter his career for his wife.” This was said by someone who knew my husband had relocated, even taking a significant pay cut, to follow me to Johns Hopkins. Apparently the existence of women faculty and students was worthwhile only insofar as we would benefit the lives of the male faculty there. They did not care for us as mathematicians: never was it mentioned that a woman doctoral student or postdoc might have a scientific result that would do credit to Johns Hopkins. Lenore Cowen, Marianne Korten, and I all had papers of importance during our time there together, but few faculty even noticed or cared. There was also sexual harassment occurring in the math department. It was nothing too dangerous but students were feeling very uncomfortable with some faculty members. One professor made a crude remark about me off campus in front of my husband, who had to restrain himself from punching the creepy old mathematician. When a student in the department actually filed a formal complaint, I had to attend a miserable sexual harassment training class with my colleagues, some of whom openly blamed me for the course. I was furious that the lawyer leading the session gave explicit instructions as to how faculty could continue bothering women students and colleagues without crossing any legal lines. The creepy old mathematician made a point of reminding me “I had once asked him out to lunch,” indicating that (as per the rules we were being taught) I’d “shown interest.” Besides, his voiced actions were “off campus” and only his “eyes couldn’t resist following me around” on campus. How was I supposed to be an active member of the department if I had to avoid even asking a colleague to lunch to discuss a paper? Since then I’ve never asked only one person out to lunch; I’ve always sent an email to an entire group. This is not meant to be a tale of my personal troubles. My career was going very well thanks to the mathematicians directly working with me. I was able to land to postdocs at top institutions and a tenure-track job at a university back home in New York City. I had all the advantages many mathematicians could only dream of when it came to building a research career. I’m just describing how my eyes were opened to see problems other women had faced much earlier than I had. I’m attempting to explain why I know that bias is often explicit and conscious, not just implicit and unconscious. I would also like to take this time to emphasize how certain mathematicians supported my career not because they always necessarily said exactly the right thing or even helped me deal with the bias, but because they treated me with respect as a mathematician: inviting me to speak, challenging me with exciting problems in mathematics, and writing strong letters in support of my mathematical career.

180

C. Sormani

Turning to Women for Advice I turned to women I met at AWM meetings (see Fig. 1) for informal advice with regard to sexual harassment that went beyond the old New York approach: avoid being alone in an office together and carry a tape recorder to collect evidence for a report. None of us ever wanted it to reach the level where one had to file a report. We felt that would be a career ending move or at least one that would make us miserable even if we succeeded. At the time, none of us knew anyone except Jenny Harrison who had confronted sexism head on, successfully fighting in the courts for a second review of her tenure decision (Selvin, 1993). Yet she was derided by even some prominent women mathematicians for doing so. We all knew women who’d suffered sexual harassment in every career and even women who had been raped and never dared report any of it. So we sought advice as to how to avoid and deflect sexual harassment: • What to do if a senior colleague proposes that you go out for drinks with him. Invite more people along and reschedule if they are only available another day. • What if he becomes persistent. Pretend you have no idea what he’s suggesting. • What about the letter you were hoping he’d write. Forget it, he was unlikely to write a serious letter anyway. Seek letters from senior mathematician experts in your area by introducing them to your work by email and this will also land you an opportunity to speak.

Fig. 1 Christina Sormani speaking at the AWM workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs, 2000 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Washington, DC

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

181

All this amazing informal advice has worked better for me than handling things through official channels. No accusations were needed: there was no need to directly confront a problem if we could slip past it. Although we knew there were levels of harassment that cannot be escaped in this way and that there was some moral obligation to do something to stop it, we felt it was safer to advocate at a more national level through organizations like the AWM, AMS, SIAM, AAAS, AAUW, AAUP, and the US government itself. Also invaluable to me was advice given at the AWM meetings as to how to navigate the sexism in mathematics specifically. I began to regularly attend AWM events primarily for the panels which taught tricks to make it through the system. Some of the best advice from those years that worked well for me then still seems effective to this day: • How to get a fair reading from a referee or panel. Hide that you are a woman: use a male nickname like Chris on papers and grant proposals. • What to do when a paper is rejected because the results are of “no interest to anyone.” Send it to a better journal that specializes in the area where the referees will understand and recognize the importance of the work. • How to find mathematicians that will support your career with letters and invitations to speak. Contact mathematicians at the highest levels that are far above the promotion you seek: they will not be intimidated by a successful woman rising beneath them. Also introduce yourself to senior women in your field by email and ask them which men supported their careers and who held them back so you can benefit from their experience. The AWM also supported my research career in a very essential way. In 1998 I was awarded an NSF-ICM Travel Grant to attend the ICM in Berlin and in 1999 I was awarded an NSF-AWM Travel Grant. These grants allowed me to report “prior support” in a successful proposal for an individual NSF research grant two years later. Perhaps even more important: I met Guofang Wei in Berlin. She became a mentor and collaborator for a decade to come. In addition to our wonderful projects together she was also a mother, and was sympathetic with the strange hours I kept as a collaborator when my children were young. In fact she would collaborate with me in intensive email exchanges in the middle of the night when I was up nursing one of my babies. Our collaboration got me through the most difficult years of being tenure track with small children. One key piece of advice I was given at this time was to organize my tasks according to mood and ability: • • • •

Tasks to do when Mathematically Inspired Tasks to do when Ready to Write Tasks to do when Feeling Organized Tasks to do when Tired or Depressed

When I am sitting down ready to work, I decide which set of tasks to approach. This way I am always working on something effectively. Today, I am writing this instead of doing mathematics or organizing a conference, because I am Ready to

182

C. Sormani

Fig. 2 AWM Service Award winner Christina Sormani and AWM President Ruth Charney, 2015 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Sormani was awarded for being “the driving force behind the AWM panels . . . With great energy and dedication she suggested topics for the panels, invited the panelists, created a webpage for each panel and moderated the panels”

Write. I might also choose to write up a paper or a grant proposal in this mood. My Mathematically Inspired moods creep up on me, often in the middle of the night or right after a seminar. They are especially hard to predict and so I have to be able to immediately drop everything else when it happens. Since it is a huge part of my job, I do so. I am often Tired and Depressed, and that can be caused by actually being tired or by dealing with sexism or being sick. The tasks listed there are more uplifting (selected to improve my mood): sending a short email introducing a young mathematician to a senior one, checking in on mentees to see how they are doing, encouraging people to apply to speak at a conference, offering extra assistance in the tutoring center, or watching a video of a talk somewhere. Finally there’s Feeling Organized, a truly rare mood for me, but (with enough webpages and files keeping track of things) I do seem to manage. Yes, I organize many events (see Fig. 2) but I’m not well organized!

Organizing JMM AWM Panels There is only so much an individual can do to improve her own life. While I earned tenure at a research university, it seemed very few other women had made it to that level. Most of my friends had left academia for industry. It seemed there was always more than one difficulty beyond direct sexism, parenting, or sexual harassment.

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

183

Fig. 3 Elizabeth Bradley, Elizabeth Stanhope, Cleopatria Martinez, Helen Moore, AWM panel on supporting the diverse lives of mathematicians, 2004 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Phoenix, AZ

Illness, loss, divorce, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and race were all strongly affecting women’s careers as mathematicians. At the 2004 Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM), Marianne Korten, Helen Moore, Carolyn Gordon, and I organized the AWM panel on supporting the diverse lives of mathematicians (AWM, 2004). We invited Elizabeth Bradley, Robert Bryant, Jerome Dancis, Dawn Lott, Cleopatria Martinez, and Elizabeth Stanhope to serve as the panelists (see Fig. 3). All the contributors were asked to address the following two basic questions after providing a brief description of their personal life as related to their mathematics careers: • In what ways has this aspect of your personal life affected your career as a mathematician and how did you choose to deal with it? • In what ways could/did your department/institution provide support? In what ways could the mathematics community provide support? I continued this panel with even more contributors online, dividing the responses into the categories including: • • • • • • • •

Race, religion, and ethnicity Background Sexuality Being a single parent Being single Caring for family members Illness Loss

A mirror of the full panel, including responses from a diverse variety of mathematicians (some of whom contributed anonymously), is online (AWM, 2004).

184

C. Sormani

There are also links to related articles that were recommended by contributors who preferred to suggest a link to an article rather than writing responses themselves. Liz Stanhope wrote “An Out Job Search” about seeking a mathematics position as an openly lesbian woman with a partner including the information on her vita. Leigh Nobel wrote “A Transsexual Mathematician’s Story” about transitioning and the support of his department. Anonymous Jewish and Chinese mathematicians wrote about trying to maintain their cultures in isolation. Hortensia Soto discussed being Hispanic and her parents’ influence on her education. There were anonymous posts by a man who’d had a brain tumor and woman who had a very difficult pregnancy, both completely unable to concentrate due to medications for months on end, and yet their careers had survived. Mary Elizabeth Bradley wrote about parenting a child with Down Syndrome that was full of useful advice as to how to handle collaborators and colleagues when it is difficult to be reliable. Marianne Korten wrote an entry with parenting suggestions for fellow single mothers: “How to Teach Your Child to Sit Quietly Through a Lecture” that I found invaluable when travelling with my kids at times when my husband couldn’t take a week’s vacation to come along and babysit. Everyone has a different way of handling young children, working with them around or not, using nannies or daycares or relatives to help watch them. I myself took three-semester-long unpaid maternity leaves for two of my kids and worked with them around. I used daycare and relatives to watch the kids part-time during the leaves and summers, and full-time when teaching. My university had a stopthe-clock policy which allowed me to postpone going up for tenure by one year for each child. However, I ended up going up for tenure early because I was able to do research well with the kids around. Indeed, with my high teaching load, it was difficult to do research during the semester without taking a leave. In fact I later took another unpaid leave in order to focus on an important research project. The full story of how my kids affected my research can be seen in a webpage I wrote in between 2007 and 2010 (Sormani, 2010). By the time I became a full professor in 2010, I had learned how lucky I had been to have supportive collaborators like Guofang Wei. I had begun to hear more and more terrible stories about broken collaborations from friends. So in 2012, Ruth Haas, Jennifer Lewis, Ami Radunskaya, and I organized an AWM JMM panel, Maintaining an Active Research Career through Collaboration (AWM, 2012). The live panel was moderated by Ami Radunskaya with panelists Ruth Haas, Trachette L. Jackson, Jill Pipher, and Ulrica Wilson (see Fig. 4). We divided the questions into three major categories: • Collaboration, coauthoring and one’s Career. The basics of collaboration and questions regarding collaboration as a postdoc and tenure track faculty member, coauthoring with undergraduates, and obtaining funding. • Building collaborations to achieve mathematical goals. The exchange of ideas and building of collaborations where the goal is to solve a mathematical problem. • Collaboration difficulties. Specific difficulties that may arise during the collaboration process and how they may be addressed.

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

185

Fig. 4 Trachette Jackson, Ruth Haas, Ami Radunskaya, Ulrica Wilson, and Jill Pipher, AWM Panel on maintaining an active research career through collaboration, Joint Mathematics Meetings 2012, Boston, MA

I continued the panel online encouraging mathematicians to send me additional questions (AWM, 2012); 15 mathematicians answered close to 30 questions posed by anonymous mathematicians. Nowadays these kinds of questions and advice are often sought on social media. However the disadvantage is that the questions and advice are not well organized and permanently located anywhere. For those considering creating an online panel: it is very easy to create a webpage and invite panelists. What I did was apply to the AWM Program Committee the summer before the JMM when I wanted to organize a live panel as well. Adding questions anonymously was also simple. Seeking the answers was harder but it helped to have an initial panel and to promise anonymity to the panelists. The most difficult part was handling angry emails where someone assumed a question is about them. I would always reassure the angry mathematician it had nothing to do with them (which incidentally it never did). I would ask the angry mathematician if they disagreed with the solution or they preferred some sort of formal process to address the problem. There are formal processes to handle collaboration disagreements: most common is to recruit senior mathematicians in the field to mediate the situation. Those processes were also discussed in the forum. The angry emails demonstrated the necessity for an online forum by revealing that incredibly similar situations arise in more than one collaboration. In 2013, Ami Radunskaya and I organized a JMM AWM panel, The Retention of Women Faculty in Mathematics with moderator Julie Bergner, and panelists Andrea Bertozzi, Estela Gavosto, Douglas Haynes, Marianne Korten, and Lisette de Pillis (AWM, 2013). The AMS helped us invite chairs of mathematics departments to attend and we proposed three key questions:

186

C. Sormani

• What can a university do to attract, retain and support women assistant professors? • What can a department do to attract, retain and support women assistant professors? • What can an individual faculty member do to attract, retain and support women assistant professors in their department? Many of the ideas we discussed had already been published in the 2006 report on the BIRS Workshop on Women in Mathematics which is still worth reading today (Keyfitz, 2006). In 2014, Bettye Anne Case and I organized a JMM AWM panel, Building a Research Career in Mathematics, aimed at early-career women mathematicians (see Fig. 5). Our moderator and panelists were Ruth Charney, Joan Hutchinson, Delaram Kahrobaei, Tanya Leise, Chikako Mese, and Judy Walker (AWM, 2014). The goal of the discussion was to discuss ways in which junior mathematicians can develop a serious research program at any institution. We invited panelists with highly successful research careers who had worked in a wide range of mathematics departments over the years, including: liberal arts colleges, twoyear tech colleges, well known public universities, and leading private research universities. Most of our panelists had switched positions after tenure to find a better research environment. They served as role models and had a number of ideas as to how to build a research program in a department with high service and teaching requirements including the following: • • • •

Visit nearby universities to attend seminars and to collaborate. Work in the library a couple days a week to avoid interruptions. Focus 100% on research in the summer and winter breaks. Communicate with one’s chair and dean about reducing teaching or service requirements.

Fig. 5 Bettye Anne Case, Christina Sormani, Joan Hutchinson, Chikako Mese, AWM panel on building a research career in mathematics, 2014 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

187

I later solicited an article that appeared in the AMS Notices, “Negotiating for Release Time and Leave,” by Maura Mast and Nathan Tintle which gives invaluable advice as to exactly how to communicate these needs to a dean (Mast and Tintle, 2016).

Fighting for the Next Generation of Women By 2014, I had become quite disheartened. I was a new American Mathematical Society Fellow and I was being invited to give plenary addresses, but I had never landed a position at a top-tier university with a reasonable teaching load. It struck me that I had needed to have a nearly perfect career to make it where I was and yet, despite all my advantages, I was only just barely achieving the same ranks Antonia Foldes and Linda Keen had achieved 30 years earlier. I was a full professor but there were no women younger than me in my own department! The next generation of women was going to have to work just as hard and be just as lucky to make it only to the same level I had. It seemed nearly impossible to go further. So I organized my last JMM AWM panel, Breaking the Glass Ceiling Permanently, jointly with Bettye Anne Case, Delaram Kahrobaei, and Kathryn Leonard (AWM, 2015). This time I was the moderator and our panelists were Lenore Blum, Estela Gavosto, Susan Hermiller, Megan Kerr, Joan Leitzel, Maura Mast, Jill Pipher, and Marie Vitulli (see Fig. 6). We broke the discussion into the following topics: • Inspiring your undergraduates via AWM chapters, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), mentoring, Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD), and Professional Enhancement Program (PREP) • Assisting women doctoral students by maintaining contact with former undergraduates and helping them transition into doctoral programs, providing a supportive cooperative environment, providing professional development beyond the curriculum, and Title IX • Adopting postdoctoral women and keeping them in academia as a mentor or collaborator • Inviting women mathematicians to research conferences and institutes as an organizer • Guiding junior colleagues through tenure by assisting with funding, awards, and recognition by actively enrolling senior faculty to support them • Breaking through more ceilings yourself: Submit to top journals, apply for funding, ask for prize nominations, become an editor, apply for the next promotion • Changing policies to guarantee fair hiring and promotion: Raise awareness of best practices and ensure transparency, note the differences between policies and practices, recruit allies on the hiring and promotion committees, and watch for those who will veto each woman by finding a fatal flaw in her application. Work with faculty unions, use AAUW guidelines, ADVANCE. Ensure your department

188

C. Sormani

Fig. 6 Susan Hermiller, Estela Gavosto, Megan Kerr, Christina Sormani, Joan Leitzel, Marie Vitulli, Maura Mast, AWM panel on breaking the glass ceiling permanently, 2015 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX

has a mentoring plan in place and that the mentors are trained. Disseminate best practices for annual evaluations. Monitor the effects of new policies. • Recruiting support and involving men: Actively enlist the support of both men and women, both within the department and externally, for tenure, promotion, mentoring, and prize nominations. Change the department culture if needed, involve administration and strong women from other departments. Work with other scientific societies like AMS, MAA, SIAM, AWIS, and AAAS Since that panel I have been working to implement what I learned there. I took advantage of my new rank as an AMS Fellow (see Fig. 7) to influence things at the American Mathematical Society. I accepted an appointment to the AMS Committee on Meetings and served as an associate editor for the AMS Notices. While I have not had the opportunity to serve on hiring and promotion committees at my own university, I was able to solicit an opinion article on “Advocating for Diverse Hiring” by Darryl Yong and Sumun Pendakur that was published in the Notices (Yong and Pendakur, 2017). Even following the advice in articles such as these, it can be incredibly difficult to get anything to change at the institutional level. While many women are earning doctorates in mathematics today, there is a leaking pipeline: In 2015, 31% of mathematics PhDs went to women, only 25%

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

189

Fig. 7 Sormani is an AMS Fellow cited for “Contributions to geometry . . . and for mentoring activities, especially for young mathematicians from underrepresented groups.” Here she stands with her 2017 LSAMP (Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation) undergraduate research team: Shanell George, Ulysses Hernandez, Fifonsi Lantonkpode, Vanessa Ortiz, Amanda Rodriguez, and Benjamin Arthur

of postdocs went to women, 19% of newly hired faculty at doctoral institutions were women, and only 12% of newly hired faculty at the top 50 departments were women (AWM, 2020). I myself made it to a doctoral department by completing two postdocs. Last year a new woman hired in my department completed four postdocs in three different countries. Although my husband relocated to follow me to my second postdoc, many women cannot relocate as easily. How indeed did the women in the past survive these crucial years? I investigated this while writing an article on my role model, Cathleen Synge Morawetz, with Irene Gamba, Terence Tao, Leslie Greengard, Tonatiuh Sánchez-Vinuet, and Kevin Payne (Gamba et al., 2018). Here was a woman mathematician who not only served as the director of the Courant Institute for Mathematical Sciences and the president of the AMS, but whose results were so deep and profound that she won the National Medal of Science in 1998 and the Steele Prize for Lifetime Achievement in 2004. We found a quote by Cathleen Morawetz in which she thanked Richard Courant: for supporting and encouraging me when I was between the crucial professional ages of twenty-three and thirty-five. I worked part-time on my PhD, part-time as a postdoc, and I had four children.

190

C. Sormani

At the end of our article, my collaborators and I wrote, It is truly rare for any department to support a woman’s career in this way: with parttime research positions and a long term commitment that does not require the woman to relocate every few years to eventually obtain a tenure track position. Many women leave academia after completing their doctorates, switching to jobs in industry, while others land in teaching positions and never have the opportunity to develop a research career. It is a great loss of talent. Imagine a world in which Morawetz had never developed her paramount results. . . . Imagine a world in which more women’s research were supported as well as hers was. It would be a better place.

While I cannot change the modern expectation that a mathematician needs multiple research postdocs to build a research career, I have been able to dedicate energy to support junior mathematicians in my field regardless of their locations. Since many do not have research postdocs with supervisors, I have organized a number of workshops to enable them to collaborate with each other. It is not difficult to apply for funding to run a workshop at a math institute and I highly recommend doing so and then making the extra effort to bring in women even if they can only participate virtually. Bringing teams together to work on a project and helping them negotiate the collaboration can greatly benefit a junior mathematician’s sense of belonging. This can be done by organizing a meeting for women at BIRS or MSRI, but I enjoy organizing meetings at the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics and other institutions with many women invited, using funding that might otherwise go to a workshop with no women at all. Even without funding, we can organize virtual workshops. In 2020, Hang Chen, Lan-Hsuan Huang, Pengzi Miao, Paolo Piazza, Blaine Lawson, Rick Schoen, and I held an asynchronous workshop with an open call for papers that attracted over 200 participants. While only 20% of our plenary speakers were women, we hoped that by prerecording the talks and hosting a discussion board rather than holding live meetings we made it easier for parents juggling children at home to participate (Sormani, 2020). We first decided to organize this asynchronous online workshop in fall of 2019 for environmental reasons, but also to give women the opportunity to speak who could not easily arrange to travel. I recall all too well what it was like to scrape together babysitting arrangements for three kids to attend a week-long conference: either leaving them with their grandparents or bringing my husband along to spend his two-week annual leave babysitting them. I cannot envision what it is like for parents to struggle to work without any childcare available for months on end during a pandemic, but I hope that this workshop made it a little easier. I will admit there is another secret reason why I suggested the idea of prerecording talks for this workshop, and this was to allow speakers the opportunity to complete their presentations without interruption. How often have we all seen an audience member interrupt a woman speaker to explain her own research to her? It is so disruptive that over the years I came up with a collection of suggestions to help young mathematicians prepare for a talk the way one prepares for a battle. The advice builds upon old suggestions my advisor Jeff Cheeger gave me before that fateful talk at MIT years ago. The webpage I created with this advice has been supplemented through conversations with many women over the

Seeking Advice Through the Association for Women in Mathematics

191

years, combining what we’ve learned from decades of experience speaking before aggressive audiences (Sormani, 2019). I realize that much of the advice I give online and here in this article is about how to navigate sexism rather than how to fight it or advocate for change. Occasionally this angers the recipients of the advice: Why should they have to face a battle when trying to give a talk? I agree there should be positive environments and welcoming departments where this battle need not be fought, and there are some. Certainly we should strive to organize friendly seminars and workshops when we are the organizers. But women still need to be prepared to defend ourselves because there will always be people out there threatened by us who are consciously sexist and will work to deliberately hold us back. The AWM has been a great resource to women mathematicians for 50 years. There is so much women can learn from one another and so much we can do to support each other. We need to come together in all our diversity respecting one another despite our differences. Some of us may be mothers and others may not be, some are married and some are single, some face racism and others face homophobia, each of us faces our own challenges at work and at home. Through the AWM panels we have been able to see the many diverse perspectives of women in mathematics. I hope all these unique and powerful voices will continue to be heard at AWM events for years to come.

References AWM. 1996. Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics at MSRI July, 1996. https://awm-math.org/about/history/julia-robinson-celebration-of-women-in-mathematicsconference/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2004. AWM JMM Panel 2004: Supporting the Diverse Personal Lives of Mathematicians. Mirror Site: https://sites.google.com/site/awmpanel2004/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2012. AWM JMM Panel 2012: Maintaining an Active Research Career through Collaboration. Mirror Site: https://sites.google.com/site/awmpanel2012/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2013. AWM JMM Panel 2013: The Retention of Women Faculty in Mathematics. Mirror Site: https://sites.google.com/site/awmpanel2013/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2014. AWM JMM Panel 2014: Building a Research Career in Mathematics. Mirror Site: https://sites.google.com/site/awmpanel2014/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2015. AWM JMM Panel 2015: Breaking the Glass Ceiling Permanently. Mirror Site: https:// sites.google.com/site/awmpanel2015/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. AWM. 2020. About the AWM. https://awm-math.org/about/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. Gamba, Irene, Kevin Payne, Leslie Greengard, Sánchez-Vinuet, Christina Sormani, and Terence Tao. 2018. The mathematics of Cathleen Synge Morawetz. Notices of the American mathematical Society 65(7): 764–778. https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201807/rnoti-p764.pdf Keyfitz, Barbara Lee et al. 2006. Women mathematicians in the academic ranks: A call to action (BIRS Reports 2006). http://www.birs.ca/workshops/2006/06w5504/report06w5504.pdf Mast, Maura and Nathan Tintle. 2016. Negotiating for release time and leave. Notices of the AMS 63(5): 562–564. https://www.ams.org/publications/journals/notices/201605/rnoti-p562.pdf Selvin, Paul. 1993. Harrison case: No calm after storm. Science 262(5132): 324–327. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.262.5132.324.

192

C. Sormani

Sormani, Christina. 2010. Papers and Children. https://sites.google.com/site/professorsormani/ papers-children. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. Sormani, Christina. 2019. How to Present your Research. https://sites.google.com/site/ professorsormani/home/outreach/how-to-present-your-research. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. Sormani, Christina. 2020. Virtual Workshop on Ricci and Scalar Curvature 2020 in honor of Misha Gromov. https://sites.google.com/site/professorsormani/2020-virtual-workshop-on-ricci-andscalar-curvature. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. Yong, Darryl and, Suman Pendakur. 2017. Advocating for diversity and inclusion in faculty hiring. Notices of the AMS 64(8): 897–902. https://www.ams.org/publications/journals/notices/ 201708/rnoti-p897.pdf

My Journey Alongside the Association for Women in Mathematics: A Reflection Donatella Danielli

The Beginning: An AWM Student Membership My first encounter with the Association for Women in Mathematics occurred when I was a graduate student at Purdue University. I was offered a free membership, and having only vaguely heard of the Association before, I was intrigued to learn more about it. At any rate, it was free, and it sounded like something I wanted to be a part of. From there, an almost 30-year-long journey alongside the AWM blossomed. I could have not imagined the deep influence that such a seemingly inconsequential act would have had on my professional growth. I had arrived in the United States from Italy a couple of years prior. Not only was I trying to adjust to a new country, with quite a different culture and educational system, but I was also a wife and had recently become a mother. Our eldest son was born after my first semester at Purdue, and two more kids followed before I finished my PhD. A fourth child would join us during the first year of my tenure-track appointment. Quite honestly, the status of women in mathematics and partaking in an association dedicated to it, at the time, were not my most urgent preoccupations, and not only because I was consumed by more practical day-to-day issues. During my college experience in Italy I had not observed underrepresentation of women in the mathematical sciences, quite the contrary indeed. In my college cohort, the women vastly outnumbered the men, and women were fairly well represented even among the faculty. There were other issues, such as the existence of a glass ceiling for women in academia, especially in the STEM disciplines, but I was not aware of them at the time.

D. Danielli () Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_18

193

194

D. Danielli

In the math department at Purdue there were both a group of women graduate students and a small number of women faculty, including senior ones, so I did not suffer from a lack of peers or role models. This is not to say that I felt I belonged, though. I did not know of any women who had raised a family while working through their doctorate. In fact, the general consensus was that one should wait until after securing tenure to have children. This consensus made me question myself— was my career jeopardized before it even started? My fellow graduate students seemed to march through the typical milestones (qualifying exams, advanced topic exam, and thesis defense) with a lot of hard work, but without apparent setbacks, delays, or disappointments. In contrast, my progress was slow, despite the constant help and support of my husband and the unwavering encouragement of my advisor. I was second-guessing my choices, questioning whether my goals were too ambitious or unattainable. Was I sacrificing my family’s well-being, especially during my children’s early formative years, my husband’s career progress, and my advisor’s valuable time, all for nothing? Only my determination (some would call it stubbornness . . . ) and unwillingness to concede defeat prevented me from quitting, multiple times. One episode from those years is still vivid in my mind. On a Monday morning, I was riding the elevator with a senior faculty member (man) and another graduate student (also a man). The professor asked me what I had done over the weekend. Perhaps naively, I answered the plain truth, that I had graded some quizzes for a calculus class (I was a teaching assistant), and the rest was family time. I was halfway through my sentence when I realized that the professor had already lost interest in the conversation. He turned to the other graduate student, and asked the same question. The answer he received this time was quite different: the student had read some papers related to his thesis problem, and had made significant progress on it. This led to a lively discussion between the two of them. I was perhaps looking at this exchange through the lens of my own insecurities, but I felt inadequate and out of place. I decided then and there that it was vital that I began to project an image of professionalism, and would not reveal what others might perceive as weaknesses. How do these personal reflections relate to the AWM? In short, the Association gave me the sense of community and belonging I was lacking. Through its newsletter at first, and with the networking opportunities it provided later on, I became aware of all the struggles women faced, and were still facing, while pursuing a career in mathematics. This altered my perspective in numerous ways. First of all, I had a seat at the table, a seat that had been denied to many others. Even when women finally did have one, they had to fight discrimination, harassment, and inequities. Thankfully, this was not my case. Reading stories of women who overcame all sorts of obstacles to turn their dreams of becoming a mathematician into reality helped me subside my own worries. I discovered that some paths to a career in mathematics may be longer and more winding than others, but not less rewarding, and that setbacks are an inevitable part of the process. I learned that the very definition of success is not univocal, and it does not necessarily coincide with a tenured position at a research university. Even if that is the trajectory my career ended up following, knowing that there were

My Journey Alongside the Association for Women in Mathematics: A Reflection

195

alternatives relieved the enormous pressure I was under. I was not alone with my doubts and insecurities, and I did not need—nor was it healthy—to constantly hide them behind a mask. Since then, the AWM has been a constant presence, and has helped me find my own voice. It has provided invaluable resources to expand my own network of friends and mentors, whom I have often turned to for advice and support throughout my career progression.

The AWM Student Chapter at Purdue University As the years went by, it became natural for me to involve myself in the initiatives the AWM created to foster a sense of community. In what follows, I will describe the ones that I cherish the most. One of the most rewarding activities in my whole professional life has been serving as the faculty sponsor for the AWM student chapter at Purdue. The Chapter was established in the fall of 2011, and it started with a seemingly simple goal: to support all graduate students (but especially women and underrepresented minorities) by providing a vehicle for their questions, with answers given by people who are not only experts, but who at some point had been there themselves (see Fig. 1). The chapter’s first activity consisted of organizing monthly meetings where the students are joined by postdocs or visitors. These informal chats typically cover a variety of topics, from graduate life to career development and work–life balance. The chapter also started town hall–style forums with the department’s administrators to promote transparency and communication. A further initiative created

Fig. 1 Donatella Danielli and the AWM student chapter at Purdue University, 2012

196

D. Danielli

by the chapter is the Basic Skills seminar series. To become a successful mathematician, it is necessary to acquire a number of tools not taught in the classroom, such as writing a CV, preparing a job application, creating a website, etc. The chapter invites professionals each month to give presentations about these technical and practical skills. Finally, the chapter’s signature program is the Math Mentor Network. Each year, the chapter matches prospective graduate students in the mathematics department (regardless of gender) with current ones to assist with the transition to graduate life. The network has become so effective in recruiting and retaining graduate students that the mathematics department at Purdue has implemented a similar mentoring program, mirroring the chapter’s. The Purdue chapter’s innovative efforts were recognized with the 2018 AWM Student Chapter Award for Professional Development “for their outstanding work in promoting the goals of the AWM in their own institution.” I should emphasize that all of the chapter’s activities have been completely student-led. It has been inspiring to see these budding mathematicians (primarily women) broaden their program year after year, and grow into the leaders of tomorrow.

WoAN: Women in Analysis—An AWM ADVANCE Research Network Apart from community, the AWM also provides opportunity. The AWM ADVANCE grant has been a tremendous resource for career development through researchfocused networks. Under its sponsorship, Irina Mitrea and I have created WoAN— the Women in Analysis network. We are an international network of women analysts, who aim to establish effective collaboration groups, develop new interdisciplinary research activities, train junior mathematicians, and increase visibility and professional connections for its members. Our first event consisted in a week-long conference at the Banff International Research Station in June 2019 (see Fig. 2), organized into collaborative research teams including both junior and senior mathematicians. Activities during the week included introductory lectures, research time in breakout rooms, a poster session for junior participants, a professional development panel, and concluding sessions where the groups reported on their progress. The presence of unstructured times in the schedule allowed for spontaneous exchanges of mathematical ideas and professional experiences. Existing collaborations emerged strengthened and reinvigorated, and new ones were formed. Both continued and expanded past the end of the conference. In fact, follow-up events are already planned for 2021 (at the Joint Mathematics Meetings) and 2022 (at the AMS Sectional Meeting at Purdue University).

My Journey Alongside the Association for Women in Mathematics: A Reflection

197

Fig. 2 Participants in the inaugural WoAN Conference, June 2019, Banff, Canada

Looking Ahead As the Association approaches its 50th anniversary, it is about to, once more, take on a new challenge. The AWM is in fact about to launch its first professional journal. La Matematica will be a high-quality mathematics research journal aiming to promote the advancement of all mathematicians, and whose processes reflect current knowledge on equitable practices in STEM publishing. La Matematica will publish a variety of article types (including original research, surveys, computational studies, and book reviews) in all fields of mathematics. A fundamental goal of the journal is to set out a vision for mathematics that includes a broad range of voices, with a commitment to inclusivity and to a positive review experience. It has been an honor and a privilege for me to be part of the initial planning and execution of this journal, together with Kathryn Leonard, Michelle Manes, and Ami Radunskaya. While working on this endeavor, it gave me pause to realize how much larger, more close-knit, and accomplished the community of women mathematicians has grown since I first joined it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Association has played a fundamental role in this. Such accomplishment is even more extraordinary in light of the fact that the AWM is a volunteer-based organization, and it almost exclusively relies on the time and energy of its members. While much progress has been made, many challenges remain. I am certain that the newest generations of women mathematicians, and those who support them, will work hard to make our profession even more inclusive and equitable for all.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community Jacqueline A. Jensen-Vallin

Getting Involved I attended the University of Connecticut (UConn) as an undergraduate and the University of Oregon as a graduate student. At UConn, I was one of two female mathematics majors, and we were the only two women in mathematics courses primarily populated by male engineering majors. There was one female faculty member, but I was never in her class. At the University of Oregon (U of O), Marie Vitulli was a faculty member the entire time I was there, and a couple of other female faculty drifted in and then out again to move on to other positions. I was grateful to find a cohort of women in the graduate program at U of O, and so had gotten used to having supportive women around. My first academic job had me joining a department that was hiring another woman at the same time, and there were at least two other women on the faculty in the mathematics department when I arrived. I anticipated that I would seek out the type of supportive community of women that I had been part of in graduate school. When starting that job, I was pleased to also be accepted as a 2002 Fellow in Project NExT (New Experiences in Teaching). Project NExT is a professional development program of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA): for new or recent PhDs in the mathematical sciences. It addresses all aspects of an academic career: improving the teaching and learning of mathematics, engaging in research and scholarship, finding exciting and interesting service opportunities, and participating in professional activities. (ProjectNExT, 2021)

J. A. Jensen-Vallin () Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_19

199

200

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

As part of a cohort of about 90, I had an opportunity to meet and connect with faculty from across the country, many of whom are still part of my group of peer mentors. Being a Project NExT Fellow meant that I was required to attend MathFest and the Joint Mathematics Meetings during the first two years of my professorial career. At my very first MathFest, I enthusiastically attended some AWM events. I was excited as I walked into the room and listened to the talk, and during the break was comfortable enough to introduce myself to some other women in the room. We exchanged names and institutional affiliations; each of them seemed to dismiss me when they saw that I was working at a regional state school with a heavy teaching load. I had hoped to be a part of this community. Instead I felt unvalued because I had not taken a research-intensive position at a Research 1 (R1) university.1 R1 faculty members have light teaching loads because of heavy research expectations, so (as I understand better now) the women I met then had their own concerns, worries, and priorities. At the time, I felt that I was being judged either as unable to get an R1 position or, later, as though I had disappointed the AWM by focusing on teaching instead of research when choosing my first (and second and third) jobs. Now I think that the women I met that day were forming a safety net for themselves in what was a not always open and welcoming academic environment. At that MathFest, through some connection or other (which seems too long ago to remember correctly), I ended up attending panels and other events sponsored by the Young Mathematicians Network (YMN). YMN sought to provide students and junior faculty with support through networking and mentoring opportunities. The group was founded in 1993, but has recently become mostly replaced by the MAA Mentoring Network sponsored by the MAA Committee on Early Career Mathematicians (ECM). ECM continues to sponsor social and networking events at national mathematics meetings (like the Joint Mathematics Meetings and MathFest). However, during my early career days, YMN events were often co-sponsored by the MAA and, when appropriate, AWM. I attended several such panels in my first few years and was invited to be on the panels Tips on Interviewing in 2004, You Have a Job, Now What? in 2006, and Promotion and Tenure: You Know You Want It in 2010. In 2011, I was asked to coorganize and moderate an AWM panel (see Fig. 1), and I continued to co-organize AWM panels for the next several years, serving officially on the AWM MathFest programming committee from 2013 through 2018. Organizing panels allowed me to gather a group of individuals who could answer questions I had, questions that I felt were relevant to a large group of individuals (especially in my academic cohort), and to meet new people. It was fun to have someone suggest a panelist who was famous. (Perhaps “eminent” is better here, but when we are young and new to the field, “famous” seems more honest, like

1 A doctorate-granting university with very high research expectations as measured by the Carnegie classification, which awards 50 or more doctoral degrees per year.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community

201

Fig. 1 Dora Ahmadi, Steve Kennedy, Maura Mast, and Jacqueline Jensen-Vallin, AWM panel Moving Up the Career Ladder in Academia, 2011 MathFest, Lexington, KY

a rock star.) Knowing I would never have had the fortitude to meet such eminent mathematicians on my own, it was exciting to have a reason to contact them, to hear their thoughts and advice, and have them share with the community. I would never have considered inviting some of our panelists without the suggestions and support of my co-organizers. Panel discussions also gave the community a chance to interact with people they might not have otherwise. The questions from the audience were often thoughtful, helpful, and deep. Frequently the panelists and members of the audience would linger after the completion of the panel discussion to continue to discuss a response, ask more questions, or just talk more. Organizing these panels was also a chance to talk to AWM leadership about my experiences (and those of several of my cohort) and to voice my concerns (sometimes quietly and sometimes loudly) that AWM was too focused on supporting only women in research-intensive positions. Being involved in the planning of the AWM-sponsored panels at MathFest gave me a voice in the association, and a chance to shape its planning. I was able to extend the representation on panels to people at small liberal arts colleges and at small regional state schools. While we still wanted to have women working at R1 schools present at and on the panels, those of us involved in planning argued (again, sometimes loudly) that many of the people in the audience wanted to hear from people in a variety of positions. So while the University of Wisconsin was represented on the panel about parenthood, so was Hope College. While Ohio State University was represented, so was Franklin & Marshall College. And I learned a great deal from so many of the panelists, regardless of their institutional affiliation. As I mention above, I began helping to organize panels in 2011, and was named to the AWM MathFest Committee and officially charged with planning AWM events

202

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

for that conference in 2013. By contributing to the work before I was officially named to the committee, I felt that I had earned my place on that committee, a phenomenon that seems also to occur on my university campus and in other academic settings. I was also sometimes invited to write summaries of these panels for the AWM Newsletter (e.g. Jensen-Vallin, 2001). These types of articles counted as professional development for my first tenure-track job, and therefore supported my application for tenure and promotion. Plus, they were fun to write! The following recollections draw heavily on those articles, but also on the panels and experiences which were most impactful and helped me connect to the AWM community.

Behind the Scenes I was lucky enough to work with many different groups of co-organizers, including Magnhild Lien, Alissa Crans, Candice Price, and many that I am sure that I am forgetting, especially from the early years when I was learning about the AWM community and getting to know its members. Each of the women with whom I organized panel discussions asked me challenging questions about my priorities, helped me be more aware of the larger community, and, therefore, improved any ideas that I had. Many of the panel discussion planning meetings and emails began with a question one of us wanted answered. One meeting that I remember clearly started as a conversation where we were discussing how overcommitted we were, how women are often asked to carry the brunt of service work in their college or university department, and how many projects we had committed to. We, therefore, wanted to know, “How do we say ‘no’ gracefully when being asked to do too much?” Then one of us drafted a very rough and narrowly focused abstract proposing the panel. First drafts almost always strongly reflected the narrow theme that one of the organizers wanted to learn more about. The co-organizers would then suggest (frequently drastic) edits to broaden the scope, interest, and draw of the panel. This changed the “just say no” panel into the 2016 Prioritizing Your Career and Professional Goals panel. The abstract, which is included below, demonstrates how the co-organizers managed to construct a much more viable topic from the original question. Having a team of co-organizers who communicated well, provided and accepted constructive criticism, and added balance to the proposal was essential for the development of interesting panels. Having a diverse group of co-organizers also meant a diverse network of people to invite as panelists. Collectively, we knew many people, so could put together a strong group to discuss whatever topic we settled on. It’s easy to see now how implicit bias affected our choices, and how increasing the diversity of our group increased the diversity of our panels. This shows how careful any group should be when forming committees for programming at any meeting.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community

203

Parenthood on the Tenure Track (MathFest 2012, Madison, WI) Although we held this panel in 2012, a flurry of articles about parenthood on the tenure track appeared in 2013, and the conversation continues today (and is being revisited because of the COVID-19 pandemic). Articles such as Flaherty (2013), Mason (2013), and Williams and Ceci (2012) discuss reasons why women more often choose life sciences than other STEM fields or leave the academy after graduate school or before earning tenure. Our panel planning began with the idea of Motherhood on the Tenure Track, a discussion of challenges facing women who have children while trying to attain tenure. I knew women who waited until they were tenured (or applying for tenure) to try to get pregnant, women who struggled with infertility, women who miscarried and never missed a day of work, women who were single parents, women who had children in graduate school, women who were told they shouldn’t get a PhD because they had children while in graduate school, and so on. I myself was almost tenured before trying to have children; eventually I had twins. At the time of this panel, my children were three years old, and I desperately wanted advice on what to expect next, and wanted to be able to talk more openly about any and all of these issues. One of my co-organizers said, “OK, but remember that AWM is an inclusive organization. Therefore, we would like more than just women in the room to benefit from the discussion, and we would argue that there are challenges for all parents in academia.” The result of these conversations was Parenthood on the Tenure Track. We discussed whether to have a father on the panel (and I think we invited one), but we ended up with an excellent slate of women panelists with children of various ages (see Fig. 2). Our panel was intended to explore topics such as: What challenges do people face when having children on the tenure track? What did they find most helpful in terms of institutional and other support? How can we do better? The panelists came from different types of institutions: Deanna Haunsperger was at Carleton College, a small liberal arts college of about 2100 students in Minnesota; Stephanie Edwards was at Hope College, a small liberal arts college of about 3100 students in Michigan; and, at the time of the panel, Melanie Matchett Wood shared a position with her husband at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an R1 institution. We wanted the panel to encourage faculty members to address issues that were still, at the time, difficult to discuss in public. Many women were trying to navigate these challenges without support and without an opportunity to discuss parenthood openly. We are still being told that we are supposed to be full-time parents and fulltime faculty members, leading to many challenges (and much guilt) while trying to do both well. This panel was a beginning, for many of us, of a discussion of these challenges and of trying to navigate them in isolation and without the support of the larger community. Topics addressed by the panelists included interviewing for permanent positions while having a newborn, navigating tenure, and balancing job responsibilities with

204

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

Fig. 2 Jacqueline Jensen-Vallin, Stephanie Edwards, Melanie Matchett Wood, Deanna Haunsperger, AWM panel on Mentoring Matters, 2012 MathFest, Madison, WI

those of spouses. Each panelist had found her own solution, but noted that it was specific to her situation since departments may have different policies and cultures; we should be careful translating to other situations. They noted that leave of absence policies could be different for those in postdoctoral positions than for those in tenure-track positions, so reminded us to check leave policies carefully. It is becoming much more common at conferences to see parents with children, participants sitting on the floor in the back of large lecture halls with their children while listening to invited addresses, and mothers looking for places to nurse their children. However, these evolutions are all relatively recent. For instance, my husband, children, and I were highlighted in MAA FOCUS when we wrote an article about navigating mathematics conferences with children (Jensen-Vallin, 2014). We noted that there are challenges to having the kids at meetings with us (we don’t get to attend all of the talks we would like), but also benefits (not the least of which is to make it more acceptable for others to also bring their children). While advice for how to manage having children at conferences is reasonably concise (plan ahead, have snacks, bring activity books and quiet toys, be prepared to step out of talks when necessary), advice on how to manage the day-to-day requirements of academia and parenthood is much more complicated. One overarching theme of the panel was that many creative solutions exist to help people balance work and parenthood. Some departments allow faculty to bring their children to campus, while other universities forbid this (I’ve experienced both). Stephanie talked about how she and her then-husband could alternate teaching and childcare by bringing their children to campus. This was especially helpful on snow days or days when one child was too sick to go to school, but not too sick to go to campus for a few hours.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community

205

Melanie described how her university split a position between spouses so that each could work half-time and fill a full tenure-track or instructor position. This allowed her and her husband to get jobs at the same institution, and to have some flexibility in their schedule and their workloads. Some colleges and universities have childcare available on campus, or near campus. Some colleges and universities also have charter schools associated with them, or swim lessons or other family-supporting resources for a reasonable fee. Questions asked of our panelists included: When do you let your department know that you are pregnant? How do you manage applying for jobs while pregnant or nursing? Conversations at and since the panel indicate that answers to these questions are difficult and very person- and department-specific. At the very least one has the right to ask for extended breaks and a private place when nursing or needing to pump either when returning to work or on a job interview. For an interview, this may mean disclosing the existence of a young child, but many colleges and universities are starting to make these arrangements more accessible. There is no obligation to divulge a pregnancy or plans to have children during the campus visit, however. Department chairs appreciate knowing about pregnancies as soon as one is comfortable sharing that information since faculty plans to take a leave (or not) involve paperwork and a need to coordinate with others to cover classes. All panelists acknowledged that balancing parenthood while on the tenure track (whether in a first job, a postdoctoral position, or earning tenure for the second time!) is a challenge and is best done with departmental support. Here are pieces of advice from the panelists from an article I wrote (Jensen-Vallin, 2012) and a few I’ve gathered since: • Be sure to know the institutional policy on family medical leave. • Ask whether the tenure clock will be extended because of a leave and what the repercussions of an extension might be. • Know the department and talk to many people. Some of the repercussions of taking leave or taking an extension of the tenure clock are subtle and can only be determined by talking to colleagues. • Try to balance tasks with others involved in the childcare. This will not always mean having an equitable division of tasks, just that everyone is happy with the division of labor. • There are no universally correct choices. Whether or not to take leave, return to work, stop the tenure clock, and so on, are all individual choices. • Each family must do what is best for them. This sometimes includes redefining what a successful career is. Each of the panelists chose to embrace her life as a parent and decided to be happy with the situation she created for herself and her family. • Try to find someone on the campus who is trustworthy, preferably not directly involved in hiring, who can help provide advice on the atmosphere and policies, e.g., a friend of a friend, someone in women’s studies or in an LGBTQ+

206

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

group, etc. Ask them about family leave policies, nursing facilities, or any other questions. Many families have made such decisions before and have valuable experience. To make more informed decisions, look for colleagues who have met the challenges of family on the tenure track. Talk to them and ask many questions. Everyone will have different experiences and different perspectives.

Mentoring Matters (MathFest 2014, Portland, OR) The National Research Council’s report Gender Differences in Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty recommends mentoring as a way to ease transitions. While that report did not explore causes for underlying discrepancies, it noted: We do know that there are many unexplored factors that play a significant role in women’s academic careers, including the constraints of dual careers; access to quality childcare; individuals’ perceptions regarding professional recognition and career satisfaction; and other quality-of-life issues. In particular, the report does not explore the impact of children and family obligations (including elder care) or the duration of postdoctoral positions on women’s willingness to pursue faculty positions in R1 institutions. (NRC, 2010)

That report further stated (p. 9): There were no differences between male and female faculty on two of our measures of inclusion: chairing committees . . . and being part of a research team. . . . And although women reported that they were more likely to have mentors than men (57 percent for tenure-track female faculty compared to 49 percent for men), they were less likely to engage in conversation with their colleagues on a wide range of professional topics, including research, salary, and benefits (and, to some extent, interaction with other faculty members and departmental climate). This distance may prevent women from accessing important information and may make them feel less included and more marginalized in their professional lives. The male and female faculty surveyed did not differ in their reports of discussions with colleagues on teaching, funding, interaction with administration, and personal life.

This lack of departmental conversation about issues such as research, salary, and benefits could make it difficult for women to have information necessary to navigate their departments and their professional lives. It has recently been pointed out to me that our unwillingness to discuss “sensitive issues” like salary, benefits, and access to necessary lab and computing equipment means that members of traditionally underrepresented groups may be more likely not to have enough information about what support others are receiving to be successful advocates for themselves. The Mentoring Matters panel (see Fig. 3) offered several perspectives on mentoring, from individual experiences to programs supported by organizations such as AWM and NSF. Additionally, the panel addressed the process of finding a mentor and the idea of having multiple mentors; and best practices for institutions interested in developing and training mentors.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community

207

Fig. 3 Carol Schumacher, Stan Yoshinobu, Courtney Gibbons, Helen Wong, AWM panel on Mentoring Matters, 2014 MathFest, Portland, OR

The four panelists had a variety of mentoring experiences, both as mentee and mentor. At the time of the panel, Stan Yoshinobu of the California Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo was the Director of the Academy of Inquiry-Based Learning (AIBL), which has a mentor-matching program for faculty engaging in inquirybased learning techniques. Carol Schumacher of Kenyon College had been involved in Project NExT since 1998, serving as a mentor for Project NExT Fellows. Both Carol and Stan were able to speak about what it means to be a good mentor, and to provide information on established mentoring programs. Helen Wong was a faculty member at Carleton College. In 2009, she became a Project NExT Fellow and had received a Mentoring Travel Grant from the AWM to travel and spend one month with a research mentor. Courtney Gibbons was a faculty member at Hamilton College. In 2013, she participated in the AWM Workshop at the JMM as a graduate student and became a Project NExT Fellow. She had served as a mentor for the Willamette Valley Mathematics Consortium Research Experience for Undergraduates. All good panels give lots of advice. The best panels give advice that is remembered years later. While there were lots of pieces of helpful advice given at this panel, this one most stuck with me: Have many mentors for many different aspects of life and career. There are people to email when trying to figure out which journal to submit a specific article, people to email when trying to negotiate a first

208

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

job contract, and people to reach out to about work–life balance. No one mentor is going to be best about giving helpful advice in all of these categories. How to find mentors?: “Look for people who are doing things that you would like to do, and start asking them questions” (Jensen-Vallin, 2014).

Prioritizing Your Career and Professional Goals (MathFest 2016, Columbus, OH) As mentioned earlier, this panel was first imagined as “How do we say ‘no’ gracefully when being asked to do too much?,” but this was rejected by our group of organizers as being too negative (though it was definitely a question we wanted to ask). After much conversation and many, many edits, it became the more positively presented panel named above. The abstract from the 2016 MathFest program said: Whether first-year faculty or senior members of the department, we often struggle with balancing the three aspects of our careers: teaching, research, and service. Successfully doing so requires identifying our goals and priorities, which then help us choose which opportunities to embrace and which are not best-suited to our interests, time frame, and talents. Panelists will discuss strategies for identifying goals and priorities and share their experiences of being confronted with such situations, including how they made their decisions and how they said “no” when appropriate. In particular, panelists will address these questions: How does one accomplish the goals on a priority list? How does one determine what will be valued? What is the best way to say “no” when that is called for?

Three excellent overextended panelists discussed this topic and answered our questions. Jenna Carpenter was the Founding Dean of Engineering at Campbell University and a president of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network. Before that, she was Wayne and Juanita Spinks Endowed Professor, associate dean for undergraduate studies, and director of the Office for Women in Science and Engineering at Louisiana Tech University. She traveled frequently, and provided tips on how to stay productive with so many obligations. Annalisa Crannell had twice been the chair of her department at Franklin & Marshall College, a private liberal arts college of about 2400 students. In 2016, she finished her terms as section governor of the Eastern Pennsylvania/Delaware Section of the MAA and a member of the AWM Executive Committee. At the time of the panel, Niles Johnson was an assistant professor at Ohio State University, Newark, a satellite campus of approximately 2700 undergraduate students. Niles won the Service and Teaching Excellence Awards (tenure-track category) in 2016 for the Newark Campus. Like the Mentoring Matters panel, some advice from this panel stuck with me for years. One panelist talked about how to be organized and work more efficiently. They have a “planner of life” which includes necessary lists, but also thoughts, ideas to follow up on, and contact information. Before this panel, I had a (much underused) planner, but now, after several iterations to find my planner method, I understand the panelist’s comment that their life is in their planner.

How AWM Panel Discussions Brought Me to the AWM Community

209

One panelist talked about organizing space. They said that if we are distracted by things in our space, or lack what we need to work effectively, this will slow us down (or stop progress altogether). When I got home from the meeting, I realized that my family needed to reorganize our living space since I was constantly finding books in my daughter’s closet even though she had a perfectly nice bookshelf in her room. It turned out that she liked to read in the closet and even brought her cushion into her closet. We moved her bookshelf, left the cushion, and created a reading haven for her in one corner of her closet, and her books were much more likely to end up back where they belonged! One panelist offered the advice to work on mathematics for exactly 10 minutes every day. They said that if we aren’t making progress, this gives us an excuse to stop. If we are making progress, we’ll look forward to getting back to the work the next day—a win either way! One panelist mentioned that they work everywhere. As someone who travels frequently, they find ways to be efficient on an airplane or in an airport. Therefore, they have mastered getting work done whenever (and wherever) there is free time. This has allowed them to figure out how to prioritize their work goals and be an effective leader in many organizations. This differed from another panelist’s comments that they do not work while on an airplane. They take that time to relax or watch a movie they’ve been wanting to see, then work when they get to their destination (conference, workshop, etc.).

Concluding Thoughts Throughout my career, I have tried to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. While I didn’t seek to begin organizing panels, I did enjoy attending good panels. When someone asked me if I would help, I said “yes” because I could envision panels to address some of my professional concerns. It was an opportunity to promote my ideas and my vision and to ask my questions. Luckily for me, since I was lacking in experience and perspective, when my ideas for the panel were too narrow, I was working with individuals who could teach me about the broader scope of the AWM and extend my initial ideas. This made the panels that we organized more interesting to a wider audience and introduced me to a number of mathematicians who were not previously in my circle. While it was tempting to think of AWM as focused on promoting female mathematicians or promoting female mathematics researchers at R1 universities, my experience with organizing helped me see AWM as something more. With the AWM panels, we could involve more people, extend conversations to include groups who were not always in the room when the conversation began, and be agents for change. There are many conversations left to have: How do we better support our BIPOC colleagues? Our LGBTQI+ colleagues? How do we open the conversation on unrealistic expectations about the weekly time spent on academic work? How do

210

J. A. Jensen-Vallin

we allow time for our personal lives without being called undedicated? There is much work left to be done for women in mathematics, and I’m looking forward to (other people organizing) panels to address these and other upcoming issues. Acknowledgments Thanks to all of my co-organizers over the years, but particularly to Alissa Crans who always helped me enhance a half-thought-out suggestion, and Ami Radunskaya who always listened and heard me.

References Flaherty, Colleen. 2013. The mom penalty. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2013/06/06/new-book-gender-family-and-academe-shows-how-kids-affect-careershigher-education. Accessed 4 Nov, 2020. Jensen-Vallin, Jacqueline A. 2001. Moving up the career ladder in academia. AWM Newsletter 41(6): 12. Jensen-Vallin, Jacqueline A. 2012. Parenthood on the tenure track. AWM Newsletter 42(6): 11–13. Jensen-Vallin, Jacqueline A. 2014. Mentoring matters. AWM Newsletter 44(6): 8–9. Jensen, Jacqueline A. and Robert W. Vallin. 2014. Mixing children and meetings. MAA FOCUS 34(3): 33–34. Mason, Mary Ann. 2013. What you need to know if you’re an academic and want to be a mom. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/08/should-women-delaymotherhood/what-you-need-to-know-if-youre-an-academic-and-want-to-be-a-mom. 4 Nov, 2020. MAA. 2021. Project NExT. https://www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/professionaldevelopment/project-next. Accessed 30 Mar, 2021. (NRC) National Research Council. 2010. Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12062. Williams, Wendy M. and Stephen J. Ceci. 2012. When scientists choose motherhood. American Scientist 100(2): 138–145.

The Road Less Traveled: My Journey to Mathematics Raegan Higgins

Introduction I know I would not be Dr. Raegan Higgins without the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) and the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM). Both NAM and AWM, formed in 1969 and 1971, respectively, were organized to increase consciousness about the experiences of African Americans and women and to address the need to create a positive environment for both communities. Over the last 50 years, each organization has worked tirelessly to improve the experiences of all women and Blacks in mathematics. While these organizations have supported generations of women and Black mathematicians, I, like many who traveled before me, have found the path is not always smooth. My first experience with an AWM program was in 2010 when I participated in the Workshop for Women Graduate Students and Recent PhDs (see Fig. 1). Through this yearly workshop, AWM addresses the leaky pipeline for women in mathematics. Attending and presenting my research at an early stage of my career gave me the opportunity to become more anchored in my field and in the community. While attending the Joint Mathematics Meetings that year in San Francisco, CA, I was able to see and hear women mathematicians at all stages talk about their lives and their work. It was empowering; my thought was, “I just may be able to survive in this community.”

R. Higgins () Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_20

211

212

R. Higgins

Fig. 1 Participants in the AWM Workshop for Women Graduate Students and Recent PhDs at the 2010 Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Francisco, CA. From left to right: Kate S. Owens (College Station, TX), Kelly Jabbusch (University of Freiburg), Raegan Higgins (Texas Tech University), Audrey Malagon (Mercer University), Cornelia Van Cott (University of San Francisco), Katharine Ott (University of Kentucky), Ursula Whitcher (Harvey Mudd College), and Amanda Knecht (University of Michigan)

Opportunities, Doubts and Enlightenment I had begun the preparation for my journey as a mathematician a decade before the 2010 AWM workshop. In October 2000, I attended NAM’s MATHFest X at Morgan State University and presented joint work with my undergraduate research advisor. I did well enough that he sent me to present at the Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics (NCUWM) at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln (UNL). This was exciting for me; I felt optimistic. I was growing as an aspiring mathematician. With my talk prepared in PowerPoint with Equation Editor (there was no Beamer back then), I arrived in Lincoln in February wearing a Louisianian’s coat. I was not prepared. February is mild in Louisiana with average low temperatures between 36 and 49 ◦ F. In Lincoln, those are the daily high temperatures in February. Not only was I unprepared for the cold weather, but I was also surprised to learn about women’s struggles and issues in the field of mathematics. This idea was new to me. There were more female math majors than males at Xavier University of Louisiana (XULA), and most women were doing well there and thereafter. For example, Tasha Inniss had just earned her PhD from the University Maryland, College Park. In 2000, she, along with Sherry Scott and Kimberly Weems, became the first African American women to earn doctorates in mathematics from Maryland. The math faculty and staff at Xavier were so proud of Tasha—they just beamed when talking about her. What they did not share were the challenges she faced to become Dr. Inniss.

The Road Less Traveled: My Journey to Mathematics

213

I also remember Calandra Tate Moore preparing to graduate—taking her exit exams at Xavier and discussing her graduate school options. Calandra went to UM College Park; she was doing just fine. Although I knew she had her share of challenges, I did not know their depth or scope. As a Xavierite, we followed the mantra “As a result of my education and experiences at XULA, I am prepared for the next steps and will succeed; nothing is impossible.” Calandra was not going to introduce self-doubt. There was no room to persuade me to downgrade my goals. However, after attending NCUWM, I began to question if a PhD was for me. In my life, there was never a lack of women doing STEM. All my science teachers in middle school were Black women. In high school, most of my science and math teachers were women. In fact, my calculus teacher was a Black woman and my physics teacher was an Asian woman. My engineer aunt worked for Texas Instruments, and her twin sister and my mother majored in computer science. There were women with PhDs leading my math, science, and computer science courses at Xavier. I saw women using math my entire life. So why, on a national level, were they so underrepresented in this field? Was there a glass ceiling that women could not break? Exactly who was I aspiring to be? Was this the community I was preparing to join? And what is Imposter Syndrome? The women in my life excelled at math; they were no frauds. Greater still, where were the Black women graduate students? They certainly were not at this conference; their story was not being told. Saddened and (more) aware of the obstacles I would undoubtedly encounter, I questioned if I truly wanted to enter this field and the costs of becoming Dr. Raegan Higgins.

A Breakthrough: I Can See Clearly Now With my new knowledge, I realized that choosing the right graduate program was key. I really understood that I needed a program that supported my needs and abilities. You’re probably thinking, “Of course Raegan. That seems logical” but before February 2001, I simply did not get it. I had examples of Xavier alumnae who were doing well. The stories of their challenges, however, were not shared with me. Like AWM, NCUWM knew (and knows) that women are traditionally underrepresented in math and in the top graduate programs. I came to the realization that I needed to look for places and programs that not only said they supported women, but where women agreed that it was true. After looking at my summer 2001 options, my advisor convinced me that I could master the area of time scales. After all, I started working with him on difference equations after only taking one semester of calculus. UNL hosted a summer research experience for undergraduates that would allow me to explore time scales. What sold me was the fact that the Department of Mathematics at UNL founded and hosts NCUWM. It was clear that they knew about the disproportionate number of women in mathematics and were working to change that. I said to myself, “Raegan, this sure feels like a supportive place.”

214

R. Higgins

The summer experience at UNL was the first to support my needs and abilities outside of Xavier. I held onto that feeling as I applied to summer and graduate programs during 2001–2002. I sought advice from those I trusted. When I learned about the EDGE (Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education) Program from my Xavier mentor Kiandra Johnson, I questioned her relentlessly. I had just experienced support outside the purview of Xavier, and I wanted that feeling to continue. Just as she had always done, Kiandra answered my questions and sent me on my way with more clarity to make decisions for myself.

EDGE: A Support System My journey to the PhD was less bumpy because I participated in the EDGE 2002 Summer Session. I had never experienced challenge and success so deeply and so often before then. I had never had my thinking and writing understood (or misunderstood—ha!) and then critiqued with such care and concern. I had never worked so closely with a group of female mathematicians. I did, however, begin to see myself earning a doctorate because I was now a part of a community whose primary goal was to support women entering and persisting in graduate studies towards a PhD in mathematics. I was going to graduate school with a math support system in place, and that system included women who looked like me. This was extraordinary; some had family and friends supporting them; however, not everyone had a math support system. In four weeks, I had developed a support system of women mathematicians in all stages cheering for me. My EDGE 2002 cohort wanted me to succeed. I truly felt my graduate mentors, my course facilitators, the local coordinator, the EDGE founders, even the EDGE 2001 cohort wanted me to succeed. It was empowering! However, like most formidable journeys, there were peaks and valleys. My connection to EDGE helped sustain me in the valleys. It hurt to say I had not completed my qualifying exams at the 2003 EDGE Reunion Conference or to decline being a graduate mentor because I had just one more comprehensive exam to pass. On occasion, I remember saying to Ami Radunskaya, one of my instructors during the EDGE 2002 Summer Session, “Ami, I don’t understand,” while trying to hold back tears. She would say, “Aww, Raegan, you’re awesome and you can do this” and then guide me through the problem. About two years ago, I was sharing my thoughts with her about the next steps of my journey in academia. I was full of doubt; there was no confidence in my voice. In her own way, Ami let me wallow in self-pity and then encouraged me to believe that promotion to full professor is attainable for me. Unmoved by my tears and frustration, she helped me to revise my plan. This level of care and support began on the campus of Bryn Mawr College in 2002; she has been walking with me and cheering for me ever since.

The Road Less Traveled: My Journey to Mathematics

215

Finding My Passion and Purpose: Supporting Women in Mathematics Cheering for and supporting women in mathematics stayed with me as I traveled from undergraduate studies to my PhD. While a graduate student at UNL, I served on the organizing committee for NCUWM for three years. I had a passion for making the participants’ journey less formidable. I knew the great impact attendance and participation had for me. It was an honor and obligation to help other aspiring female mathematicians. As I continued my journey into academia, my methods for supporting students became more formal. For example, in 2011, I served as a judge for the AWM Essay Contest. My Texas Tech colleague and Essay Contest founder, Victoria Howle, knew of my commitment to support girls in mathematics as we had done some outreach work together the previous summer. Having my passion for math ignited as an eighth grader, I was eager to read the interviews about women working in a mathematical sciences career. I would have interviewed my 8th grade Algebra I teacher, Mrs. Gwendolyn Scott. I barely passed the placement exam and began struggling within weeks of the course. She gave me extra work, moved me to the front of the room and insisted that my parents sign all my graded assignments. If I were to interview her now, I would ask “What did you see in me?” and “How did you know I would respond well to the intervention?” Upon receiving my doctorate, I did send her a note with a graduation announcement. I thanked her for pouring into me and encouraging me to believe in myself. With these AWM essays, I was heartened to read that a new generation of young women mathematicians had their own Mrs. Scott encouraging them. At Texas Tech University, I wanted to share this encouragement with women in my classes. In 2014, I, along with two senior colleagues, founded Young Women in Mathematics. This group was designed to provide a space for open discussion about navigating the mathematical sciences for the department’s female students. Immediately it proved to be a boon for all women in the department. Light conversation over regular dinner meetings led the way for tiered mentoring between undergraduates and graduate students, graduate students and junior faculty, and junior faculty and senior faculty. We were all empowered to stay the course. That empowerment led to Young Women in Mathematics becoming an AWM student chapter in 2018. This helped our students further connect to the community of women mathematicians that they aspired to join.

More Doors Opened to Enhance the Passion My efforts in supporting women have broadened over the past few years. In 2017, I became co-director of the EDGE Program. It was extremely humbling to be considered, let alone chosen, to serve and lead the EDGE community. I had served

216

R. Higgins

as an instructor during 2014–2017 summer sessions; I now had another way to give back to the community that had given me so much. I was happy to serve as local coordinator in 2018. As a co-director, it was important for me to host EDGE. Also, as a faculty member, bringing the summer session to Texas Tech allowed my colleagues to see what impacts and motivates me in the mathematics community. During this time, I was also honored to serve AWM. Ami Radunskaya, AWM President from 2017 to 2019 and EDGE Co-director since 2011, asked me to serve on the organizing committee for the 2017 Research Symposium. I accepted the invitation and worked on the banquet subcommittee. It was an opportunity for me to use one of my strengths—logistics—and to improve on some of my lesser ones— knowing more women in the math community. This also gave me an up-close look at what AWM values, who composes the membership, and how it works with and for its members and the math community at large. From that experience, I expanded my professional network and honed my organizational skills. When I returned to the organizing committee for the 2019 Research Symposium, we chose to celebrate (invite and recognize) local women and groups in various areas that “encourage women and girls to study and to have active careers in the mathematical sciences” during the banquet. We wanted to shine the light on the Mrs. Scotts of the next generation of mathematicians. The banquet keynote speaker was Mariam Manuel. She is a graduate of the University of Houston and was part of the inaugural cohort of the teachHouston program. While serving as an instructional assistant professor/master teacher for teachHouston, Mariam pursued her PhD (which she received in August 2019) in Curriculum and Instruction with a specialization in STEM Education. In 2018, Mariam received the Million Women Mentors’ Stand Up for STEM Award which recognizes efforts in mentoring young girls and women to pursue STEM-related pathways. She continues to serve on multiple grants, actively publish, and present at national conferences. This new style of banquet allowed AWM to show the extent of its support for and of women in math. First, the speaker did not yet have a PhD. Secondly, the focus of the keynote “Cultivating Confidence” was not about research. Instead, the emphasis was on ways we can mentor and foster the confidence girls need to become creative problem solvers who are equipped to succeed in mathematics, and therefore, in STEM. According to Karoline Pershell, AWM Executive Director 2018–2020, “the majority of respondents to the symposium survey seemed to appreciate the new approach, the accessible content, and the opportunity it provided for everyone to come together and be reminded of a greater mission of inspiring the next generation of women mathematicians.”

The Road Less Traveled: My Journey to Mathematics

217

Appreciation and Thanks for AWM During my short time serving AWM, I have seen it work to broaden the implementation of its goals. This grassroots organization has shown it can give national recognition to local efforts that impact women and girls and can focus on all the different parts of the pipeline. The work of AWM matters because we all have the same mission: to ensure women are an integral part of the face of mathematics so that girls see themselves as future mathematicians.

From Graduate School to Tenure: Building My Career with the Help of the AWM Katharine A. Ott

Introduction I first became aware of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) in 2006 when I applied for the graduate poster session at the AWM Workshop. I was in my fourth year of graduate school at the University of Virginia, and I decided to apply for the program for the same reason I did most things back then: my PhD adviser suggested it. An outreach activity soon thereafter solidified my interest in the organization. Whereas many mathematical spaces seemed alien or unwelcoming to me at that point in my life, I could picture myself having a role with the AWM. That was the first important thing that the AWM gave to me: a space where I could envision myself in mathematics. This reflection piece summarizes my work with the AWM starting in graduate school to present day. Looking back over the 15 or so years that I have been involved with the AWM, it is evident that my work with the organization has mirrored many other aspects of my career in that it has been a “learn as you go” situation. Through AWM, I’ve gained a lot of experience in areas complementary to my interests, namely in mathematical outreach and writing for the general public. In writing this piece, I am struck by the layers of intersection between the AWM and the various aspects of my professional life, i.e., service, teaching, and research. Uncovering new points of intersection as I moved from graduate student to new faculty to associate professor has been the deciding factor for me to continue to serve the AWM.

K. A. Ott () Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_21

219

220

K. A. Ott

Graduate School While I was in graduate school the AWM supplied me with two key opportunities for my future professional development. The first, applying for and then participating in the AWM Graduate Poster Session at the 2007 Joint Mathematics Meetings, was an early lesson in putting myself out there, with the “there” standing for the world of research mathematics (see Fig. 1). The poster session was my first time applying for a travel or conference grant. The process, from writing a short summary of my dissertation research and asking for a letter of recommendation, to being accepted and then preparing a poster, was one that I would replicate over and over in the coming years as a new PhD. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the AWM provided a crucial stepping stone to my career by offering this important first chance to present myself as a researcher to the mathematical community. Not to mention that, as a first time Joint Mathematics Meetings attendee in 2007, the AWM sessions were like a smaller conference within the conference that were much easier to navigate. The second experience that I had with the AWM as a graduate student had a profound impact on my career by introducing me to mathematical outreach. My very first outreach event was in 2007. It was a Sonia Kovalevsky High School Mathematics Day (SK Day) that was organized by my PhD adviser, Irina Mitrea, and supported in part by a SK Day grant from the AWM. Leading up to the event I worked with two small teams of undergraduate students to create activities based on substitution ciphers and the golden ratio. Certain details of that Saturday in

Fig. 1 The author presenting at the graduate poster session, AWM Workshop, January 2007, New Orleans, LA

From Graduate School to Tenure: Building My Career with the Help of the AWM

221

Charlottesville remain crystal clear in my mind to this day. I recall listening in on a fellow graduate student as she demystified a math puzzle about birthdays (similar riddles still pop up on the Internet nowadays!). I also remember that for lunch we had pizza from Christian’s Pizza on the Downtown Mall, and that all the participants got a pale yellow Sonia Kovalevsky Day t-shirt. I was learning some of the most fundamental lessons about how to implement successful outreach, such as prepare engaging content, serve food that the participants enjoy, and everyone home with something (ideally, a free t-shirt).

Early Career My stake in the AWM grew significantly in the five years following my PhD. At this early stage of my career I found valuable opportunities through the AWM to establish a track record in both outreach and writing. In fact, it is due to the AWM that I found a niche where these two interests could coexist and complement one another. The outreach bug, which was planted during the two SK Days I participated in during graduate school, followed me to my first tenure-track job at the University of Kentucky. In my first year in that role I applied for my own SK Day grant through the AWM and subsequently hosted a High School Math Day for Women. A great offshoot of that event was that some graduate students were mobilized to create a Noetherian Ring student group modeled after the organization of the same name at the University of California, Berkeley, which later became a successful AWM student chapter. But the AWM did more than enable me to bring more outreach to my home institution and garner enthusiasm for supporting women in mathematics there. Right around the same time as I planned my first SK Day, I became involved in two outreach efforts on a national scale. These national outreach efforts would lead to two major career developments: recognition of my contributions to outreach by the AWM in the form of the 2014 AWM Service Award, and an introduction to writing for the AWM Newsletter. In terms of the national outreach efforts, the first instance was securing a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund the SK Day mini-grant program that was available through the AWM at that time. I was co-PI (Principal Investigator) on the grant with Tai Melcher and Irina Mitrea. Applying to host my local SK Day involved writing a proposal for a small outreach grant (informative in its own right), whereas the application to the NSF was my first experience working on a full, 15-page grant proposal. With the same team of co-PIs, I organized a wildly successful booth at the first USA Science and Engineering Festival, which took place on the National Mall in Washington, DC, in 2010 (see Fig. 2). I wrote the following about the experience: I have never encountered such a large and diverse audience excited about mathematics and science. The visitors’ smiles and their curiosity kept us [the organizers and volunteers] on our feet for eight hours each day despite our hunger and fading vocal chords. I only wish that

222

K. A. Ott

Fig. 2 Working with a visitor to the AWM Booth at the 2010 USA Science and Engineering Festival (USASEF), October 2010, Washington, DC

I had more time to interact with the individuals who visited the booth. . . . One particularly memorable encounter was with a woman who worked as a cryptographer during World War II. Unfortunately, I only had the opportunity to shake her hand before she disappeared into the sea of visitors.

The quote above, taken from the January–February 2011 AWM Newsletter, was my first article written for the newsletter. My interest in writing about mathematics for a general audience, like my interest in outreach, had roots in graduate school when I spent a summer as a AAAS Mass Media Fellow writing for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Writing for a general audience, or at the least a non-research audience, was not something I had given attention to since the summer internship. The short article about the science festival was the perfect opportunity to brush off some writing skills and to share an amazing outreach experience with the AWM community. Once I started writing in the AWM Newsletter, the lines between writing and outreach blurred. The writing fully became the outreach when Evelyn Lamb and I began a regular column in the newsletter called “Mathematics, Live!” From 2013 to 2016, I interviewed 10 women in mathematics for the newsletter. This period coincided with the “meat” of my assistant professor years, when I was busy working toward (and stressing about) tenure. The conversations and insights I had under the guise of interviews had a profound impact on me. They helped me work through numerous bouts of imposter syndrome and other transitions. Below is a list of several topics that were on the forefront of my mind, and what some very wise women had to say. • Advice for new professors. “I did something stupid during this difficult period [beginning assistant professor] which was I had it in my mind that I had to go it alone and therefore I shouldn’t be contacting my former advisers for help. . . . I

From Graduate School to Tenure: Building My Career with the Help of the AWM

223

think you should feel like you can reach back to those people. They want to be there to help you when you need a sounding board in those first few years.” (Tammy Kolda, July–August 2016) • Imposter syndrome. “It’s very important to tap people on the shoulder and say, ‘You probably don’t see this yet, but you actually could come be part of this club.’ Math is intimidating. We see our professors, particularly older ones, who have been there a long time. We might not feel that that could be us one day. We really need that direct invitation. And sometimes we need to hear it throughout each stage in our career.” (Karoline Pershell, November–December 2016) • Proposal writing. “One outcome that I know for sure will come out of the process [of writing a research proposal], and which depends only on myself, is that anytime I write a proposal, by the end of the experience I have a much better understanding of my own research program, to an extent which I didn’t even dream of when I was starting to write the proposal.” (Loredana Lanzani, March– April 2014) • Mentorship. “One thing I want to say about mentorship is that most of the people who I think of as mentors probably don’t know I think of them as mentors. I think people get a little worried about what that title means. All that it means is looking people in the eye, answering their questions, letting them know when they are messing up, and giving them a path to get back on course.” (Ulrica Wilson, May–June 2016)

Tenure and Beyond The AWM Service Award in 2014 was very meaningful to my career. It put a national stamp of approval on professional activities that are not always recognized by tenure and promotion committees. I was proud to have it on my CV, as well as a list of other accomplishments with the organization, when I went up for tenure in 2017. Since tenure, a notable AWM-related activity (and one that brings this reflection piece full circle) was presenting a research poster at the inaugural WoAN (Women in Analysis) conference at the Banff International Research Station (see Fig. 3). Naturally, I wrote about the conference and the new WoAN research network, supported by the AWM ADVANCE grant, in the AWM Newsletter (January–February 2020). I have served on two AWM committees and found both experiences rewarding. Most recently, from 2017 to 2020 I served on the AWM Essay Contest Committee. Incredibly, this committee pulls off a national competition each year involving hundreds of student-authored essays (each requiring an interviewee who is a woman working in a mathematical career) and dozens of AWM volunteers to read the essays. The Student Essay Contest promotes two activities that are dear to me: writing for a general audience and sharing stories of women who do mathematics. I’m proud that in addition to mobilizing this annual effort, the committee reflects every year on its charge and implements changes to improve the contest. During my

224

K. A. Ott

Fig. 3 Participants in the inaugural WoAN Conference, June 2019, Banff, Canada

time on the committee we worked to increase exposure of the contest at many levels in order to expand the population of essay writers, interviewees, and volunteers who read the essays. We still have a long way to go toward making the contest reflective of our society and of all the women who do math, but I am encouraged by the committee’s commitment to broadening participation in the contest to include voices, perspectives, and stories that have not traditionally been represented. Having no current AWM committee appointments or upcoming responsibilities, my future involvement with the AWM is unknown. Whatever I do next will be a continuation in spirit of the Essay Contest Committee’s work of increasing representation and participation in the AWM. Not every mathematician shares my experience; not everyone has an adviser or mentor to usher them towards the AWM, and not everyone will experience the AWM as a safe and welcoming mathematical space. Despite working to increase offerings and prizes, the AWM’s activities do not necessarily align with the professional pathways of all who work to empower women in mathematics. My hopes for the future of the association, and what will make me eager to introduce future students or mentees to the organization, are the following actions: • Be a leader among the professional societies in addressing systemic racism in mathematics; • Acknowledge and more fully attend to the differences in the experiences of women in mathematics, particularly the experiences of women of color;

From Graduate School to Tenure: Building My Career with the Help of the AWM

225

• Add points of entry for participation that address as many career types and career stages as possible; • Add additional modes of recognition for work that promotes and empowers women in mathematics. This list offers my own suggestions to help the AWM move closer to their stated belief that “all people with an interest in mathematics should be supported and encouraged to participate in the profession.” I am encouraged to know that there are many other brilliant and creative AWM members with their own ideas to achieve this goal.

Afterword I wrote this reflection in the summer of 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic was ongoing and disruptive at the time that I was writing, but I did not incorporate it into my piece because I felt like the narrative ran its natural course with my earning tenure. I thought that my future engagement with the AWM would tend to lean in the direction of me giving to the association. In retrospect, this seems arrogant on my part. In the nine months since the first submission, the pandemic continued to rage in the United States and is surging as of December 2020. It has completely upended my professional and personal life. It is now clear that this unfolding situation will prove to be as pivotal a moment in my career as earning tenure, if not more so. When vaccines become widely available, when academic calendars return to normal, and when I find myself able to turn attention back to research, outreach, and writing, I will look to the AWM as a source for help.

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections Betty Mayfield

Introduction Aside from its student chapters, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) does not have local or regional affiliates. Members may gather at national or regional conferences, including those held in cooperation with AWM, but until recently there has been no formal mechanism by which members in any given state, for instance, could meet regularly.1 Over the past five years, the Association has established a partnership with the Mathematical Association of America in order to support women in mathematics at all stages of their professional lives, close to home.

AWM: How and Where Do We Gather? Members of the Association have the opportunity to participate in AWM events held in conjunction with several national mathematics conferences every year. The Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) feature the AMS-AWM Emmy Noether Lecture (with the American Mathematical Society), workshops, panels, and poster sessions, plus an awards reception and the annual AWM business meeting. Sessions at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

1 In the early years of the organization there were a few local AWM chapters, e.g., the Philadelphia

Chapter (see Judy Green’s article in this volume). B. Mayfield () Hood College, Frederick, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_22

227

228

B. Mayfield

(SIAM) include the AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Lecture, workshops, panels, poster sessions, and AWM Research Mini-symposia. And AWM has participated from the very beginning at MathFest, the summer meeting of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), with the AWM-MAA Etta Zuber Falconer Lecture as a highlight. These three large national meetings attract mathematicians from around the country and beyond, and offer AWM members many opportunities to interact, to present their research, to learn mathematics, and to get to know each other. AWM members have also organized smaller regional conferences, including one in Southern California which has been held every year for more than 10 years. Since 2011, the Association has sponsored a biennial Research Symposium, to showcase research by women at all levels, from undergraduate students to junior faculty to leaders in business, industry, and government. Finally, any conference which “makes a significant effort to promote women in mathematics,” has an AWM sponsoring member, and supports the AWM’s Welcoming Environment Statement may seek and receive the designation as a meeting held “in cooperation with AWM.” These meetings and events are held all over the world and offer exciting opportunities for AWM members; see the Meetings section of the AWM website for examples.

Making Local Connections Some professional societies, like the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the MAA, have regional chapters in which their members may participate. These chapters hold their own smaller meetings and conferences and offer professional development opportunities for their members. Those connections are beneficial for all society members, but especially for those who may not be able to attend national or international meetings. And they provide a local community, a place to meet colleagues with similar interests, to find research partners, to connect with the world of mathematics close to home. AWM does not have a corresponding formal structure of regional affiliates (apart from its student chapters, which are hosted at colleges and universities). In 2015, AWM President Kristin Lauter and the Executive Committee began exploring ways to establish a regional presence for the Association in order to “support women in mathematics at all levels of the profession . . . to increase opportunities for women to meet and build community . . . and to support students through opportunities for student participation” (AWM, 2020b). Rather than trying to build a collection of state or regional AWM chapters from the ground up, they decided to take advantage of the existing structure of the MAA’s regional Sections. On May 1, 2015, AWM President Lauter sent a proposal to MAA President Francis Su for a formal AWM presence at MAA Section meetings. By sponsoring activities at regional MAA meetings, AWM would be able to reach out to a larger group of its members—and the Section might experience an increased, and more

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections

229

diverse, attendance at its meetings. Members of each organization could choose to join and participate in the other. The proposal should thus benefit both associations. President Su was enthusiastic. He and President Lauter were able to discuss the idea in person at the spring 2015 meeting of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), after which he took the proposal to the MAA’s Committee on Sections and Executive Committee. Both groups wholeheartedly endorsed the partnership.

MAA Sections The Mathematical Association of America is broken up geographically into 29 regional affiliates, called Sections (MAA, 2020c). Sections vary in population, in geographic size, and in culture. The State of Texas, for instance, constitutes a Section, as do several other states like New Jersey and Ohio. Some Sections’ titles clearly describe their geographic boundaries: Maryland-District of ColumbiaVirginia, or Oklahoma/Arkansas. Others take a little more work to figure out, like Intermountain, EPaDel, or Seaway. There is even a Golden Section (in California). Four Sections include parts of Canada; the Florida Section covers part of the Caribbean. Every member of the MAA is automatically a member of a Section, based on that person’s ZIP or postal code. For some MAA members, the Section is the principal place with which the member interacts with the Association. The relationship of Sections to the Association is carefully described in the MAA bylaws and facilitated by the MAA Committee on Sections. Each Section has its own bylaws, officers, committees, newsletter, and website. It may offer awards for teaching and service, professional development programs for new faculty, and contests for undergraduates. And every Section hosts at least one, and often two, regional meetings per year. These meetings feature components familiar to mathematics conference-goers: invited lectures, contributed paper sessions, panels, workshops, poster sessions, student competitions, banquets, luncheons, and more. It was at these meetings that the AWM hoped to plan regular activities that would appeal to its members. In fact, there have been AWM activities at MAA Section meetings for almost as long as AWM has existed. Sometimes local AWM members have arranged to meet at a Section meeting to discuss AWM business or issues important to members (some early examples: Ohio in 1973, Louisiana-Mississippi in 1974 and 1975, Southern California in 1977). At other times they have provided part of the meeting program. In 1982, the centennial year of Emmy Noether’s birth, the New Jersey Section meeting featured two talks about Noether, one on her life and one on her work, facilitated by AWM. In the same year, the Florida Section meeting included an AWM contributed paper session as one of the Friday afternoon parallel paper sessions, apparently a tradition in that Section. (Each of these events is described in more detail in the relevant issue of the AWM Newsletter.) The new partnership

230

B. Mayfield

would formalize these practices and encourage regular AWM activities at MAA Section meetings.

Building a Partnership In August 2015, the MAA held its gala Centennial MathFest in Washington, DC, celebrating 100 years of the Association (see Fig. 1). The summer meeting was one day longer than usual and included many special events. Officers and staff of both MAA and AWM were in attendance and took advantage of the occasion to hold a preliminary planning meeting for this new partnership. The participants were: For AWM: • Kristin Lauter, President • Ruth Charney, Past President • Magnhild Lien, Executive Director For MAA: • Francis Su, President • Betty Mayfield, Chair, Committee on Sections The group discussed how to proceed within their respective organizations and made plans for the upcoming academic year. There was general agreement that eventually it would be important to have one AWM member representing each

Fig. 1 Kristin Lauter presents Francis Su with a Möbius band sculpture from the AWM in honor of MAA’s centennial, 2015 MathFest, Washington, DC

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections

231

MAA Section as a liaison, and to appoint a committee to oversee the project. In the meantime, several Sections would run small pilot programs. During the fall of 2015, the AWM Programs Committee developed a proposal for an AWM-MAA Partner Committee and forwarded it to the Executive Committee, which approved it. Its charge was to “enhance connections between the AWM and MAA, particularly at the MAA section level, by identifying, supporting, and connecting AWM members who can serve as Partners to their local MAA Section.”2 AWM Programs Committee member Heather Russell met with the MAA’s Committee on Sections at the Joint Mathematics Meetings of January 2016 in Seattle and described the new initiative to the Committee. The minutes of that meeting indicate that committee members were “excited about this new possibility and see it as a way to enliven our Section meetings and welcome new participants.” The Committee on Sections kept the MAA’s Executive Committee and Board of Governors updated on the collaboration; it was announced to Section officers in MAA’s Spring 2016 InterSection newsletter: Thanks to a recent agreement between the Committee on Sections and the Association for Women in Mathematics, your Section will soon have the opportunity to work with a liaison from the AWM. That organization hopes to support women in mathematics at the local level by increasing opportunities for women to meet and build community, specifically by participating in MAA Section meetings. The liaison will work with your executive committee to find the most appropriate ways to explore this partnership . . . Three Sections—EPaDel, MD-DC-VA, and SoCal/Nev—have held AWM lunch sessions at recent meetings as part of a pilot program, and they were well-received. We believe that this collaboration has the potential to increase participation at our Section meetings and to attract new members both to the MAA and to AWM. A committee is currently working to identify liaisons and will contact you with the name of your partner. If you have questions or suggestions, please contact the committee, in care of Magnhild Lien. (MAA, 2016)

That summer, AWM appointed the first-ever AWM-MAA Sectional Liaison Committee: • Linda Braddy (Chair), Tarrant County College, former Deputy Executive Director of MAA • Julie Bergner, University of Virginia, MD-DC-VA Section • Minerva Cordero-Epperson, University of Texas at Arlington, Texas Section • Betty Mayfield, Hood College, MAA Committee on Sections • Cindy Wyels, CSU Channel Islands, Southern California-Nevada Section The Committee was charged with identifying AWM members in each MAA Section to serve as partners/liaisons, and with helping those liaisons plan appropriate activities at Section meetings. AWM offered administrative support: membership information, Student Chapter information, posting content on the AWM website

2 These Partners have been called both Partners and Liaisons; the committee is now called the AWM-MAA Liaison Committee (AWM, 2020a).

232

B. Mayfield

and Facebook page about the program, and emailing AWM members in particular MAA Sections as needed. The Committee met with President Lauter, via conference call, in August 2016 and decided to: • Set as a goal to recruit five new Section liaisons each year. • Focus on planning AWM lunch discussion tables at Section meetings first. • Next, explore possible student poster sessions, to tap into AWM student chapters and increase student attendance. • Work on creating resources for liaisons (ideas for lunch discussion topics, for instance) and posting them online. They met again at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in January 2017 and discussed further ways of supporting liaisons: find a “cool” name for them; give them a nice certificate to include in tenure and promotion materials; convene liaisons from different Sections at JMM and Mathfest to share ideas; continue to create an online source of ideas, like the former MAA “Math Club in a Box” (MAA, 2012).

AWM Activities at MAA Section Meetings From the very beginning, the AWM leadership had lots of ideas, big and small, about what AWM could offer its members at Section meetings. The original May 2015 proposal included these suggestions: • • • • • •

Have AWM Student Chapters organize a poster session. Have a joint AWM-MAA invited speaker. Have a local AWM representative help suggest female invited speakers. Organize an AWM lunch table. Organize an AWM Contributed Paper Session. Coordinate with Section NeXT (New Experiences in Teaching, an MAA program for early-career faculty) to have activities for both new and mid-career faculty. • Have a presence at the meeting with an AWM exhibit with our usual handouts. As the new liaison committee began to work, and Sections held their own discussions, more ideas emerged: • • • • •

Set up a mentoring program for female faculty. Hold a workshop for students. Get AWM stickers for nametags. Create an award for the best student poster. Have liaisons attend the Section’s business and Executive Committee meetings, to learn how things work in that Section, and to develop an AWM presence.

In the fall of 2015, several Sections had already hosted AWM lunch discussions as part of the pilot liaisons program.

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections

233

The Eastern Pennsylvania-Delaware (EPaDel) Section has a tradition of hosting lunchtime discussion tables on all sorts of topics. Leaders post a sign on a table, and anyone interested in that topic can sit there. Annalisa Crannell organized an AWM table at their fall meeting, where she set out AWM puzzle pages she had created and invited participants to solve them. The table filled up so quickly that there was no room for her! Members really seemed to enjoy this AWM-focused activity. At the MD-DC-VA Section meeting that fall, former AWM President Mary Gray organized an AWM lunch table—a classroom to which interested meeting participants could bring their box lunches and engage in discussion about issues they wanted to address at future Section meetings. While there was lots of interest, indicated by a full classroom, and a lively discussion, some participants later reported that they usually enjoyed spending their lunch break catching up with friends from around the Section and somewhat resented spending it at a “business” meeting. Those two experiences highlight the importance of being familiar with a Section’s culture and working within it. For those who would like to try a lunch (or other) discussion, President Lauter suggested some topics: • • • • • • •

Equal pay Equal distribution of resources to support research Encouraging and supporting female students to enter the profession Creating community among women in the profession Recruiting minority women into the profession Differences in teaching styles or classroom dynamics How to deal with discrimination

Theory into Practice The Liaison Committee has often been able to take advantage of already-planned programs to introduce an AWM component into a Section meeting. Some examples: In the fall of 2016, the EPaDel and New Jersey Sections held a joint meeting at Villanova University. This bigger-than-usual Section meeting featured three invited addresses, contributed talks by faculty and both graduate and undergraduate students, a student problem-solving activity, and events peculiar to the EPaDel Section, including a silent auction and a reception at the end of the day at which participants could socialize. It happened that Liaison Committee member Betty Mayfield was one of the three invited speakers. She contacted Villanova AWM Student Chapter Advisor Beth Malmskog, who consulted with her students; they were eager to participate in the conference, and soon AWM was listed in the program. The Villanova Department of Mathematics agreed to pay the registration fee for any student who wanted to attend. The AWM office identified all of its members who lived in either of those Sections and sent

234

B. Mayfield

Fig. 2 Lisa Schneider and Annalisa Crannell at one of the AWM lunch tables, 2016 EPaDel and New Jersey Sections fall meeting

them an email inviting them to the conference. At the meeting, Mayfield led one of the five lunchtime discussions, on “Creating Community Among Women in the Profession.” There was great interest in the topic, with many students and faculty participating; as with the previous EPaDel lunchtime experience, there were so many people spread out over several tables, there were actually many animated discussions going on (see Fig. 2). Several Pennsylvania faculty members—and one grad student—volunteered to follow up with AWM events at future meetings. President Kristin Lauter reported on the meeting in the January– February AWM Newsletter and included two photographs of participants (Lauter, 2017). The spring 2017 MD-DC-VA Section meeting was held at James Madison University, where Minah Oh was both the faculty advisor to an active AWM Student Chapter and the Section’s Program Chair, and at which AWM Executive Committee member Alissa Crans was to be one of the invited speakers (see Fig. 3). Oh agreed to coordinate AWM activities at the meeting (and to become the very first AWMMAA Liaison). She sent special invitations to faculty advisors of the five student chapters in the Section, urging them to bring students to the meeting. And she contacted friends at other institutions, encouraging them to start a student chapter; soon the Section had eleven chapters. She met with Section officers and received their enthusiastic support for this new initiative and arranged for an AWM lunch table for students and faculty at the meeting; Crans agreed to offer a special AWM workshop for students, “A Magical Number,” on the Euler characteristic. There was a one-page flyer in each meeting packet announcing these AWM activities and

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections

235

Fig. 3 Alissa Crans presents an AWM student workshop at the spring 2017 MD-DC-VA Section meeting

inviting everyone—AWM member or not—to participate. The student workshop was especially fun, interactive, and well-attended; AWM definitely had a positive impact on this meeting.

An Ambassador for AWM In the fall of 2017, former AWM president Kristin Lauter was named an MAA Pólya Lecturer for the next two academic years. The MAA describes this honor: “George Pólya, renowned teacher and writer, embodied the high quality of exposition that the MAA seeks to encourage. To further this goal, the George Pólya Lectureship was created in 1991. Each Section is entitled to a Pólya Lecture for a Section meeting approximately once every five years” (MAA, 2020b). As she traveled to different Sections around the country, President Lauter also acted as an ambassador for the AWM-MAA Liaison Project, contacting colleagues in the Section ahead of time and arranging for lunchtime discussions, student workshops, or other ways to connect with AWM members. She has reported that several new student chapters were established as a result of these visits, and that the profile of AWM was enhanced.

236

B. Mayfield

Where Are We Now? Over the next few years, AWM Executive Director Karoline Pershell worked hard to keep the Committee and other interested AWM members connected to each other via conference calls and emails. She also communicated with MAA Executive Director Michael Pearson about involving AWM more in MAA meetings, as the MAA reconceptualized its relationship to the winter Joint Mathematics Meetings. The Committee came to realize that taking on the responsibility of assigning a liaison to each of the 29 Sections was a daunting task, one which was probably best left to the Sections themselves. At the time of AWM’s 50th anniversary, the Committee has a new, simpler charge (“To act as AWM’s appointed liaisons to the Mathematical Association of America”) and a newly energized committee, chaired by Shanna Dobson of CSU Los Angeles and the Southern California/Nevada Section of the MAA. The Committee posted an announcement in the March–April 2020 AWM Newsletter describing their new charge, and inviting members interested in becoming a Liaison to contact them (AWM, 2020b).

An Exciting New Opportunity One of the very first suggestions for a possible AWM Section activity, back in 2015, was to offer an official AWM Lecture as part of a Section meeting. In 2019, an MAA Task Force on Sections, led by Committee on Sections chair Lisa Marano, recommended, and the MAA Board of Directors approved, a new program of lectures for Sections. Each year, tentatively starting in fall 2022, each Section will have either a Pólya, NAM (National Association of Mathematicians), or AWM Lecture, supported by the MAA (MAA, 2020a). The AWM-MAA Liaison Committee will create a database of available speakers as part of its duties. Both associations are excited about this new collaboration.

Into the Future AWM Lectures at MAA Section meetings are just the latest example of bringing programs to our members where they live and work; the AWM-MAA Liaison Program continues to offer AWM a way to support its members locally, and to build and enhance our mathematical communities. AWM or MAA members who would like to find out more about the Liaison Program (Does my Section have a liaison? How can I get a list of student chapters in my Section? When and where is the next MAA Section meeting near me?) or who have suggestions for programs or speakers should contact the AWM-MAA Liaison Committee via the AWM website.

Meeting AWM Members Where They Are: Connecting with MAA Sections

237

Participation by many dedicated members will help to keep this program strong and growing. Acknowledgments Thanks to Kristin, Annalisa, Lisa, Beth, Minah, Shanna, Linda, Magnhild, Karoline, and all the others who have worked hard to bring this concept to fruition, and for patiently answering all my emails while I was writing this article.

References Association for Women in Mathematics. 2020a. AWM-MAA Liaison Committee. https://awmmath.org/about/committees/awm-maa-liaison/. Accessed 10 Jun 2020. Association for Women in Mathematics. 2020b. AWM-MAA liaisons. AWM Newsletter 50(2): 32. Lauter, Kristin. 2017. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 47(1): 4. Mathematical Association of America. 2012. Math Club in a Box. http://maamathclub.pbworks. com/w/page/12474458/FrontPage. Accessed 15 June 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2016. InterSection: The Newsletter for MAA Section Officers. Spring 2016. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ 0B6emiv0orjcaZmV2ekN6NGEzTG8. Accessed 11 Jun 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2020a. FAQs on the future of JMM. MAA Focus 40(2): 9. http://digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com/publication/?m=7656&i=656938&p= 8. Accessed 15 Jun 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2020b. Pólya Lectures. https://www.maa.org/programsand-communities/member-communities/maa-awards/lecture-awards/polya-lecturers. Accessed 13 Jun 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2020c. MAA Sections. https://www.maa.org/programsand-communities/member-communities/maa-sections. Accessed 8 Jun 2020.

Part V

Telling Our AWM Stories

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest Victoria E. Howle and Heather A. Lewis

Wherever you can find connection, you can belong. Lu Paris, “A Lonely Road to Loving Math,” 2020 Grand Prize essay based on her interview with Marissa Kawehi Loving

Introduction The Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics, now co-sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics and Math for America, was established in 2001 to increase awareness of women’s ongoing contributions to mathematics and mathematical sciences. Students interview women working in a mathematical field and submit essays based on the interviews. Between 2001 and 2020, the Essay Contest (as it is often informally called) has resulted in thousands of essays written by students, of which 147 have received awards and have been posted on the AWM website. In this article, we present a history of the contest over these 20 years and explore its impacts—some intended and some unexpected—on the students, the interviewees, and the volunteers who keep the contest going.

V. E. Howle () Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. A. Lewis Nazareth College, Rochester, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_23

241

242

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

The History The Beginning The contest began with essays printed on paper and sent through the mail. There was no official committee, no streamlined process for helping students find women to interview, and the judges were whoever could be rounded up in the hallways of Sandia National Laboratories. The Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics was the brainchild of Tammy Kolda, an applied mathematician and Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories in California. Back in 2001, in her second year at Sandia, Tammy was looking for a way to share the stories of women working in mathematical fields. She wanted students to learn about the on-going contributions of women to mathematics and not just about a few famous historical examples such as Hypatia or Emmy Noether. Tammy was the web editor for the Association for Women in Mathematics’s then-new website, and knew that the AWM would be able to publish the stories on its website. Tammy shared the idea with a new co-worker at Sandia, Vicki Howle, who had finished her doctoral degree only a few months earlier and had recently started working in the same computational mathematics group as Tammy. Vicki was equally enthusiastic about the idea and agreed to take the lead. They worked together to figure out some basic guidelines for a contest: a student should find a woman working in a mathematical area, interview her, and use the conversation to write a 500- to 1000-word essay. Since not everyone might know a woman to contact, students would be offered the option of writing to Vicki, who would then match them with a woman to interview. Students would send their essays directly to Vicki, who would group them into categories (Middle School, High School, Undergraduate, and Graduate) and organize judging on content, grammar, and presentation. This was enough to get started, and the inaugural announcement appeared in the May–June 2001 AWM Newsletter (see Fig. 1). It was followed in the next issue by a two-page article giving all of the details. The contest was underway! Soon the essays started arriving. In retrospect, the fact that all the essays were being sent to a national security lab only a few months after September 11 might have been a cause for concern, but fortunately Sandia was supportive and even sponsored the project, providing the funding for awards. Vicki worked through contest details as they came up: calling women she knew (and some she didn’t) asking if they’d be willing to be interviewed, collecting the essays that came through the post and through email, and convincing several colleagues to help read and judge the 92 entries that were eventually submitted. Alexandra McKinney, a sixth grader at Londonderry Middle School in New Hampshire, submitted one of the essays that first year. She had heard about the contest from her mother, who was always on the lookout for scholarships and opportunities for her daughter. Alexandra wanted to write about someone from her own state, and after researching some of the women at nearby universities,

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

243

Fig. 1 The First Announcement of the Essay Contest

asked Toni Galvin at the University of New Hampshire. Toni agreed, and Alexandra conducted the interview by phone from her desk in her room. She learned about Toni Galvin’s work and career trajectory. When the interview was over, Alexandra began her essay: Some say the “sky is the limit,” but this is never true for women in mathematical sciences. The sky isn’t the limit, because some women go beyond! Dr. Toni Galvin is a space physicist who works at the University of New Hampshire as a member of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space and of the Department of Physics. This means that she primarily researches the sun, its particles and the heliosphere. Her job isn’t exactly like an astronomer’s, but the two fields are similar. Space physicists study mainly particles, fields and energies. They also study sun, space, space around planets, particles, comets and asteroids. Astronomers study these sometimes, but they will usually study stellar evolution and cosmology. Wow! 2001 Grand Prize, “Women In Mathematical Sciences: To Infinity and Beyond! A Biographical Essay on Dr. Toni Galvin,” Alexandra McKinney of Londonderry Middle School in Londonderry, New Hampshire.

Vicki and a few of her colleagues read through the essays, choosing a First Place winner in each school category, along with several Honorable Mentions. The Grand Prize essay was chosen from among the four First Place essays: Alexandra’s essay

244

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

received both First Place at the Middle School level and the Grand Prize overall. Vicki sent calculators, small cash prizes, and plaques from a local trophy shop to Alexandra and the other students who won, along with certificates of appreciation to all the participants. All of the winning essays were published on the AWM website, and Alexandra’s essay was also printed in the March–April 2002 issue of the AWM Newsletter. Alexandra was thrilled to have won, and promptly wrote a thank-you letter to the AWM, which was shared in the July–August Newsletter: I am writing to thank AWM for the honor of being recognized as a winner of the 2001 AWM Essay Contest: Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics. I am very excited that AWM chose my essay as the Grand Prize winner and the 1st place winner at the Middle School level. Interviewing Dr. Galvin, the subject of my essay, and learning about her life and work was a great experience. Dr. Galvin is a remarkably accomplished woman, and she also makes time to encourage girls to pursue interests in math and science. Your essay contest encouraged me to think about the contributions of women in the mathematical sciences. It also reminded me that there are many women in these fields who are eager to encourage girls to love math and science too! In addition to the honor of winning, I would also like to thank you for the beautiful plaque, the cool calculator and the honorarium checks. I already have the plaque hanging above my desk. The calculator is being put to good use in my math classes, and I’ve added the AWM Newsletter to my scrapbook. Of course, my mom and dad had to send one to every living relative too. I’m going to save the money until something really special tempts me! I hope that AWM will be doing this essay contest again next year. I enjoy writing, especially about notable women. I also love math and science, so I think your essay contest is a lot of fun! Thanks again! Sincerely, Alexandra McKinney

Winning the Essay Contest gave Alexandra a boost of confidence, one that she could recall well nearly 20 years later. That confidence helped her when she needed to take challenging courses for her bachelor’s degree in Public Policy at Stanford, and later at Yale Law School. In a conversation in 2020, Alexandra shared that she is an Assistant Director of Judicial Clerkships at Harvard Law School, where she advises law students on their own careers. Alexandra reflected that even now, she is impressed with how forthcoming Toni Galvin was in talking about her career path and journey. Alexandra especially appreciated hearing how Dr. Galvin actually got to where she was in her career and how she found opportunities. Both Alexandra McKinney and Toni Galvin are in different places in their careers than they were in 2001—Toni is still at the University of New Hampshire, but is now the director of the New Hampshire Space Grant Consortium and the principal investigator for a number of other projects, and in 2019 was named a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union—but Alexandra continues to see the impact of that interview, especially in how it has given her an appreciation for the importance of helping students figure out their own paths to their goals. Alexandra’s essay and the other essays in 2001 covered a broad range of topics from their interviewees’ careers and lives. The essays discussed the women’s work, their family backgrounds, their educational and career paths, adversities they overcame, as well as their hobbies and other interests. Sana Ahmed, a junior at

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

245

Townsend Harris High School in New York City, wrote an essay about Misha Kilmer that received First Place at the High School level. Among the things that she works on are solving large-scale linear systems of equations quickly and accurately. . . . Professor Kilmer is involved with three-dimensional breast tissue imaging and will soon move to brain imaging. She explains that three-dimensional imaging is much harder than two-dimensional imaging and you have to reconstruct a lot of information from a very limited set of data. Another amazing application Professor Kilmer has worked on was the detection of buried landmines. Professor Kilmer explained how you might use an algorithm based on measured electromagnetic scattering data to find landmines. She says that research is particularly satisfying to her because she gets to see her work in action. 2001 First Place, “Biographical Essay: Misha E. Kilmer,” Sana Ahmed of Townsend Harris High School in Flushing, New York.

At the time she was interviewed, Misha was an assistant professor in the mathematics department at Tufts University in Massachusetts. In the intervening years, she has been promoted to full professor, was named the William Walker Professor of Mathematics at Tufts, served as chair of her department for six years, served on the editorial boards of several journals, and was named a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Sana herself, after majoring in English at St. John’s University, went on to a career in product management and product marketing. Another student who entered the contest was Andy Moffit, a cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point. In a recent conversation, he confessed that he was motivated by the extra credit his calculus teacher offered (“My love of words and writing has always exceeded my love of higher level math”) but he enjoyed interviewing Tasha Inniss, who at the time was a professor at Trinity College in Washington, DC, and the essay that he wrote won First Place in the Undergraduate Category. In addition to her teaching, Dr. Inniss is an affiliate member of the National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR) and a visiting researcher for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Dr. Inniss is currently conducting research for NEXTOR, which is commissioned by the FAA. Part of her research deals with minimizing delay for aircraft landings at commercial airports during inclement weather. . . . When severe weather strikes, fog, low cloud cover, and thick precipitation causes the number of aircraft the airport can safely land to fall well below the number of aircraft that need to land. Dr. Inniss’s research and work with NEXTOR will help to alleviate this problem. Amazingly, Tasha Inniss still managed to find time to orchestrate and run a club for female students at Trinity who are interested in math, science, engineering, business, and many other fields. . . . When I asked Dr. Inniss what advice she would offer to her students who expressed an interest in the mathematical sciences, she said, “I tell them to always work hard, because math builds on itself and you need a good foundation. Never get deterred from your dreams and ultimately, do what you love.” 2001 First Place, “Tasha R. Inniss,” Charles Andrew Moffit of the US Military Academy in West Point, New York.

Tasha later joined Spelman College in Atlanta as a mathematics professor, earned tenure at Spelman, and did a rotation at the National Science Foundation where she

246

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

served as a program director and acting deputy division director. As of this writing, she is back at Spelman College as the Associate Provost for Research. At the same time, Andy reports that he is getting some much needed math practice teaching his three young girls so they don’t have to rely on extra credit points later in life. The final First Place essay in 2001 was by Susan D’Agostino, a graduate student at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who interviewed Vera Pless, an expert in coding theory. At the time [in the early 1960s], there were no laws prohibiting gender discrimination in academic institutions and some schools did not disguise their reluctance to hire female mathematicians. Before she had a chance to get discouraged, however, she learned that the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory was looking for mathematicians to work in a new area called “error-correcting codes.” She had never heard of the field, but she trusted in her ability to learn. Once hired, she discovered the work environment to be lively and subsequently spent 10 satisfying years there. . . . She advises aspiring mathematicians to foster a broad view of the field. “While I consider myself a pure mathematician, some very interesting questions I’ve worked on have been posed by individuals who have been interested in applications,” she notes. 2001 First Place, “A Moment with Vera Pless,” Susan D’Agostino of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Vera had already had a full career by the time of this interview, and retired from the University of Illinois at Chicago five years later. She was named a fellow of the American Mathematical Society in 2012 and died in March 2020. Susan D’Agostino completed her doctorate and became a tenured math professor, but after ten years of teaching decided to pursue her passion for writing full-time. In the intervening years she has turned her focus to public science journalism. She is the author of the general-interest book How To Free Your Inner Mathematician: Notes on Mathematics and Life and her math and science writing has appeared in several magazines such as The Atlantic and Scientific American. As of 2020, Susan is earning a master’s degree in Science Writing at Johns Hopkins University. With these essays, a number of Honorable Mention essays, and the many other wonderful submissions, the Essay Contest was a success. Vicki ran the contest the following year with a newly-designed logo (see Fig. 2), and over the next several years made incremental changes. There were few entries from graduate students compared to the other levels, so in 2003 that category was eliminated. The meanings of “Middle School” and “High School” were clarified to be grades 6–8 and grades 9– 12, respectively, to account for school-by-school variability. There were also a few situations where the woman who was interviewed was reluctant to have her personal information shared; this was addressed by using either an initial or an alternate name (marked as such) in the published essay and by encouraging the students to make sure the interviewees knew at the start that winning essays were posted online. But the guidelines otherwise remained similar to the original ones, and students talked to and wrote about a variety of women in mathematics. Although colleagues at Sandia continued to help with the contest, by 2004 other AWM members had begun serving on what they started calling the Essay Contest Committee. Typically one member would be in charge of matching, which

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

247

Fig. 2 The Essay Contest Logo

involved recruiting women willing to be interviewed and then sending their contact information to students who requested someone to write about. Other committee members took the lead on judging, usually taking all the essays within one category (Middle School, High School, or Undergraduate), finding another mathematician to help them, and doing all the judging in that category together. Another committee member edited the winning essays if needed. Vicki continued to serve as the contest organizer, doing the matching, judging, and other jobs as needed, working with the students, interviewees, and the AWM as the essays were being prepared to be published, and making sure all of the prizes were sent. While almost all of the entries were from students in the United States, occasionally students from other countries submitted essays, and in 2004 the contest had its first international winning essay. Tzipora Henig had recently moved to Israel from her home in Canada and, in looking for contests and scholarships, found out about the Essay Contest. She decided that participating in this contest would be a way to interview, write about, and honor her former teacher, Mrs. S., who had been an inspiring teacher and mentor. I came to think of her as my grandmother; in fact, she reminds me of my biological grandmother: tall, stately, still beautiful despite her age, stern but loving, demanding but also forgiving. Math became the highlight of my week and my favorite subject while Mrs. S. became my favorite teacher and mentor. And when I learned about her life story, she became my biggest inspiration to try hard and succeed. . . . [After moving to Israel from Romania] she couldn’t find a job in her field, because Israel didn’t want female chemists at the time. What she did find was a job at an all-boys’ technical high school in Haifa, teaching mathematics and physics. She only had two problems with this: she didn’t speak any Hebrew, and she wasn’t very well educated in math. . . . She recited her lessons that first year in algebra, trigonometry, physics, and eventually chemistry, while learning Hebrew and math from her students. “They were brilliant boys,” she said, “and they taught me the math!” She taught in Israel for two and a half years before coming to Canada. Once she reached Canada, she was faced with a similar dilemma as before: although she now had a math education, she didn’t speak the language. . . . “I cried every night,” she

248

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

confessed to me. “I watched ‘Bugs Bunny’ and didn’t understand a word and I cried because I couldn’t even understand ‘Bugs Bunny!”’ But she worked hard, and she learned. And 42 years later, she’s still teaching in the same high school and her English is better than that of most of her students. 2004 Honorable Mention, “My Teacher, My Mentor: Mrs. S.,” Tzipora Henig of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

Tzipora still remembers her interview with her beloved teacher quite fondly, saying it was “yet another way she helped me.” At the time of the interview, Tzipora was having a similar experience in Israel with learning a new culture and a new language. She had recently had a moment during one of her classes where the professor told a joke and she was distraught that she couldn’t even understand the joke. Mrs. S.’s story of not even being able to understand “Bugs Bunny” when she first moved to Canada made Tzipora realize that she too could succeed and overcome her current challenges. Tzipora finished her degree in applied mathematics, went on to earn a master’s degree in financial mathematics, and, as of this writing, works in finance. She remains very grateful for the contest, since the discussion with Mrs. S had such an impact on her at the time. While the first six years of the contest, 2001 through 2006, could be described as the origin and refinement of the Essay Contest, the next two years were characterized by changes in the support structure. The AWM Education Committee had provided assistance with the logistics while Sandia National Laboratories continued to support the contest financially, but in 2007 Vicki moved to Texas to begin work at Texas Tech, and Sandia was no longer directly involved with the contest. With no obvious source of funding for the prizes, the contest was at risk of coming to a halt until an anonymous donor offered to provide the financial support, allowing it to continue for another year. The Grand Prize winner that year was Leena Shah, a student at Hartland Middle School at Ore Creek in Brighton, Michigan. Leena interviewed Melanie Matchett Wood, who was both the first woman on the United States International Mathematical Olympiad Team and, in 2002, the first American woman to be named a Putnam Fellow.1 As of 2020, Melanie is a professor at Harvard University in addition to being an editor of several journals, but at the time of the interview she was still a graduate student: Today, Melanie is 26 years old and admits that she is in no rush to get through with her education. Recently, she coached for two of our nation’s teams that participated in the 2007 China Girls Mathematical Olympiad. . . . Her advice to students who are interested in mathematics is to look into summer programs and explore different math camps. Upon our interview, Melanie stated, “A key in my path was that I knew people involved in mathematics.” She believes it is important to establish contact with contemporary mathematicians and become involved in mathematical programs through your childhood years. By doing so, it opens future doors of opportunities for those who aspire to pursue a career in mathematics. 2007 Grand Prize, “The Creation of a Female Mathematician: Ms. Melanie Wood,” Leena Shah of Hartland Middle School at Ore Creek in Brighton, Michigan.

1 Ioana

Dumitriu, a student from Romania, was a Putnam Fellow in 1996.

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

249

The next year brought additional changes. One was a new deadline for entries: up through 2007 the contest closed each year around November 1, but this schedule proved to be difficult for teachers both because of testing schedules at the time and because teachers who found out about the contest during the fall didn’t have time to advertise it to their students. The deadline was pushed back to the end of February, which meant that what would have been called the 2008 contest became the 2009 contest. There remained a need for ongoing logistical and financial support. In December 2008, Cathy Kessel, the president of the AWM, wrote to Vicki to ask for an update on the contest so she could report on it at an upcoming meeting of the AWM Education Committee being held during the Joint Mathematics Meetings. In replying to Cathy, Vicki mentioned, I should add that I’ll be especially grateful for any contest support this year. My spouse and I are expecting twins. They are officially due in March, but really anything could happen since twins sometimes like to arrive awfully early. If there is interest at the meeting, it might be a good year to have a few extra people on the contest committee.

As it turned out, just six days after this email exchange Vicki’s twins were born. Other AWM members took over some of the jobs that Vicki had been doing and at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in January 2009, the Committee on Committees appointed an official AWM Essay Contest Committee, formalizing the committee process that had already evolved and making it easier to sustain. A second anonymous donor came forth with financial support for the year. Vicki herself continued to promote the contest: she had given a talk for The Unseen AWM Opportunities, an AWM panel about its programs, at the previous Joint Mathematics Meetings in January 2008, and in 2009 wrote an article for the March–April AWM Newsletter on the contest’s origins and reach. By this time, nearly 800 students had interviewed and written about women in careers using mathematics, including unexpected ones like owning and working in a donut shop. The Grand Prize essay in 2009 was written by Wai-Ting Lam, a senior at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York. Wai-Ting had interviewed Joan Birman, a prominent topologist who has been recognized for her research, writing, and philanthropy. After earning the BA degree from Barnard in 1948, Dr. Birman was hired by a firm that manufactured microwave frequency meters and needed help in solving a mathematics problem they had encountered. That was the start of a fifteen-year detour away from academia. During that time she became aware of the needs of engineers, and learned that the more mathematics you knew, the better equipped you were to tackle the varied mix of industry-related math problems that arose. However, as her home responsibilities increased (she had 3 children) even part time work became difficult. It seemed natural to use whatever time she could spare to learn more math. With the support and encouragement of her husband, Professor of Physics Joseph Birman, she started graduate studies, part-time, in mathematics. 2009 Grand Prize, “The Charm of Topology—Dr. Joan Birman: Mathematics is very beautiful!,” Wai-Ting Lam of St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York.

The contest had been running for eight years, through a job change for Vicki, a move halfway across the country, and the arrival of two healthy-though-premature

250

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

babies. With the contest organization established and things going well, it seemed like a good time to pass the leadership on to another person, and so with Vicki’s support, Liz Stanhope stepped into the role of Essay Contest Committee Chair.

The Middle Years Liz Stanhope had been working with Vicki on the Essay Contest for several years, and had taken on some of the organizing during the 2009 contest. She had also experienced the contest from the other side, having been interviewed by one of her students six years earlier: After obtaining her degree with a focus in differential geometry, Liz conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor that continued her graduate work in spectral geometry. Imagine snare drums with various shapes that have infinitely thin membrane surfaces. Liz’s studies focused on the idea that if you strike this surface and analyze the sound waves produced, you can sometimes determine the shape of the membrane surface. Liz chose this topic because she wanted to be able to explain conceptually her research to anybody, not just other mathematicians. “As you advance into elite programs, the number of women in those programs tends to drop off,” Liz explains, referring to the homogeneous gender culture in the math department at Michigan. Although a remarkably friendly atmosphere for a department of its size, Liz admits there were occasions when “people passed me in the halls with these curious looks, as if to say, ‘what is a woman doing here?”’ Gender is a factor in forming support networks and Liz admits that had she had a long-term position in such a program with so few other women, she “probably wouldn’t have survived.” 2003 First Place, “Elizabeth Stanhope: Overcoming Silent Barriers,” Jessica John of Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.

Interviewing Liz for the contest had a significant impact on Jessica, who shared that she still thinks about this contest often. She explained, “I didn’t realize it then, but my experience with Liz, learning about her path through adversity (as a queer woman, working in STEM, working abroad, etc.) had a huge impact on me and my own sense of self. It’s only in looking back now that I realize and can appreciate how much of a trailblazer she was, and how much of an eye-opening turning point it was for me in the development of my own identity.” Just as the contest and her interview with Liz had a lasting impact on Jessica, so too Liz herself has had a lasting impact on the contest as an interviewee, a volunteer and committee member, and in her role as Chair of the Essay Contest Committee. Upon becoming chair, Liz made several changes that helped to streamline the contest’s processes. She reorganized the committee slightly, assigning the role of matching students with someone to interview to a pair of committee members instead of a single person; this made it easier on each committee member and also helped with the expansion of the pool of potential interviewees. Liz also started writing down the timeline and steps for judging, allowing them to be referenced and shared.

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

251

Although the contest budget had never been large, it was needed to continue offering prizes for the winning essay writers, and the ongoing funding of the contest still posed a significant challenge. It was not sustainable to look for a new donor each year. In the fall of 2009, however, that barrier was removed when Math for America agreed to provide the funding for the contest for multiple years, starting with the 2010 contest. Math for America had been founded five years earlier and already had a history of supporting education, as its president, John Ewing, described: Math for America (MfA) is an unusual program based in New York City, offering four-year, renewable fellowships to outstanding, experienced mathematics and science teachers. The fellowship provides an annual $15,000 stipend, but more importantly engages teachers in workshops on content or pedagogy, mostly created and run by the teachers themselves. The current program has built a community of over 1000 master teachers, providing them with opportunities to grow, lead, and influence their colleagues. MfA believes that putting teachers first encourages the most accomplished to enter the profession and continue teaching longer. Putting teachers first ultimately puts students first as well. The NYC program is funded primarily by the Simons Foundation. It has inspired a similar program in the rest of New York State, which is publicly funded.

Math for America continues to fund the Essay Contest. In 2020, John explained how the Essay Contest fits into MfA’s mission in an email: MfA sees its support of outstanding K–12 teachers as a key part of our nation’s math and science infrastructure. With that in mind, in 2010 it began supporting the annual AWM Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics. Students, their teachers, and famous researchers are all part of the same scientific enterprise. Informing students and teachers about the breadth and scope of that enterprise is essential to its success. In this sense, the essay contest fits perfectly within MfA’s mission and provides a wonderful opportunity for both students and their teachers.

The involvement of Math for America brought an immediate increase in the number of students who were interested in the contest: over 120 students wrote in requesting the name of a woman to interview for the 2010 contest, and 699 essays were entered—substantially more than had ever been submitted in a single year before. With so many essays, the way the contest was run had to change: it was no longer possible for one pair of judges to read all the essays even in just one school category. A call for help went out, and the mathematics community responded generously, with dozens of volunteers. The committee members coordinated teams to judge the essays in several rounds. The students wrote about many different careers, often describing the connections between math and other fields. As one example, Kelly B. Wagman had worked at Johns Hopkins University before her senior year of high school and there met Sarah Wheelan, MD, PhD. Sarah has a joint appointment in the School of Medicine and the Biostatistics Department and has done research in genomic sequencing. In her essay, Kelly wrote about how Sarah became aware of connections between biology and mathematics: Dr. Wheelan’s biology teacher in ninth grade was a botanist, who described everything in such detail that “it was clear he really enjoyed what he was doing.” This was the first time she thought she might do something other than be a writer. She also had an incredible

252

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

math teacher who showed the students a computer program he wrote to plot out fractals. Dr. Wheelan says of the program, “it was one of the most amazing things I’d ever seen.” Soon, she was thinking about how a coastline “has infinite lengths if you measure it closely enough, and how similar snowflakes are.” It boggled her mind “how everything came together—the patterns in math were the same as the patterns in biology.” 2010 Honorable Mention, “Dr. Sarah Wheelan: ‘I always wanted to be a writer,”’ Kelly Barbara Buckley of the Key School in Annapolis, Maryland.

Kelly, in reflecting on her experience ten years later, mentioned that Sarah Wheelen had had a significant impact on her career: “Because Dr. Wheelan introduced me to coding, I ended up majoring in computer science and economics in college and have gone on to work in various roles in the technology industry. I don’t think I would have taken any computer science in college if it wasn’t for her mentorship.” The Grand Prize essay in 2010 was by Honor Bailey, a senior at St. Petersburg High School in Florida, who wrote about Lynn Pippenger, the chief officer of a financial services company: In her journey from a grocery clerk to the highest echelons of Raymond James, Ms. Pippenger has followed her early love for accounting in many diverse and inventive reincarnations. Her motto is, “Whatever comes my way!” Today, many students aspiring to achieve the feats of Ms. Pippenger may assume they need to attend the most prestigious schools and have the most elite connections. Ms. Pippenger, however, has proven that self-initiative is the true key to success. Ms. Pippenger does not simply learn and copy: she innovates. When asked what type of math she uses in her job, Ms. Pippenger giggles bashfully and modestly says, “Well, I guess I add, subtract, multiply and divide!” Perhaps that’s how her career first began. But Ms. Pippenger’s journey through mathematics has evolved into something much greater. 2010 Grand Prize, “Ms. Lynn Pippenger: Adding It Up from Accounting to Finance Executive,” Honor Bailey of St. Petersburg High School in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The number of essays submitted the following year was again well above the numbers from before MfA’s sponsorship, so the committee continued to request help for judging from the larger mathematical community, a practice that continues to this day. With more time to prepare for the influx of essays, a new process was developed: the essays in each school category were grouped into small batches, and each batch was sent to pairs of judges for independent ranking. The top essays from each judge progressed to the next round, where another pair of judges read through them, until the final round of essays, where a First Place and any Honorable Mentions were selected. Finally, as before, the Grand Prize essay was chosen from the three First Place essays. The 2011 Grand Prize essay was written by Stephanie Wenclawski, a junior at John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Stephanie wrote about Nan Mattai, Senior Vice President of Engineering and Technology at Rockwell Collins, where Stephanie’s mother worked: Born in Georgetown, Guyana as the third child of seven children, Mrs. Mattai learned the importance of education at a young age. Mattai was raised in a middle-class family, where neither parent possessed a college degree. Her parents realized an education was the best thing they could provide for Mattai and her siblings. Mattai distinctly remembers her mother saying, “An education is better than silver and gold.” Mattai was competitive with

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

253

her brothers, so when they chose math and science classes, she signed up for advanced math and science classes. Intrigued by math and its applications at an early age, Mattai would add up the cost of items in her mother’s grocery cart when shopping. As she grew older, Mattai learned more about science and applied mathematics and Madame Curie became an inspiration to her. Because Curie was the first woman to earn the Nobel Prize for Science, Mattai established her career aspiration of becoming a scientist and researcher in math and physics. 2011 Grand Prize,“Mrs. Nan Mattai: More Than a Parking Spot,” Stephanie Wenclawski of John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

After the 2011 contest, with a sabbatical in Australia on the horizon, Liz stepped down as chair. She had shepherded the committee through some significant changes, and left it equipped with a process that worked well even with the increase in essays that resulted from Math for America’s involvement. The new chair, Heather Ames Lewis, had joined the Essay Contest Committee in 2009 just as it was formalized as an AWM committee, and for the first two years on the committee matched students with people to interview. Learning all the details of being chair was challenging at times, but with the support of the committee and volunteers it all came together. The Grand Prize essay in 2012 was by Gitanjali Lakshminarayanan, a sophomore at Vanguard High School in Ocala, Florida, who interviewed the mathematician Mythily Ramaswamy while visiting in Bangalore, India. The first thing that struck me was how simple she looked. You could walk by her on the street and not even realize that you just passed one of the leading research mathematicians in India. I was waiting in the library of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), deep in the heart of Bangalore, one of India’s most populated cities, when Dr. Mythily Ramaswamy walked in. We went to the cafeteria where we ate some of the best cafeteria food I have ever tasted. I interviewed her in her relatively small office which appeared to be only 10 by 10 feet, in which she had managed to fit two desks. Her white board was covered with equations like a cliché. 2012 Grand Prize, “Dr. Mythily Ramaswamy: Making a Difference, One Equation at a Time,” Gitanjali Lakshminarayanan of Vanguard High School in Ocala, Florida.

Gita went on to earn a bachelor’s degree in molecular and cellular biology, and shared that the experience of interviewing Dr. Ramaswamy and writing about her taught her how important it was to have strong female mentors as inspirations. She noted, The teachers that made me interested in math and biology were two incredible women who encouraged and fostered that interest. Even in my research experience, the labs where I felt I learned the most and contributed the most were female-led. We know this— underrepresented populations have to work 3,4,5 times as hard just to be taken seriously. I learned that lesson from Dr. Ramaswamy. It is disheartening that a lot of what she said she faced in her career and education are things that I have heard during mine as well, some 30– 40 years later. But, I am fortunate to have had so many women who were amazing advisors to me. Since this experience, I discovered just how important it is to empower other women in places where we may not be readily welcome.

Over the next several years, the public-facing side of the contest stayed very similar, with guidelines that hearkened back to its early days, although there were

254

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

some adjustments. Starting in 2012, the deadline for entries was moved up a month to the end of January: with some streamlining of the judging timeline and the help of many volunteers, this allowed for the winners of the Essay Contest to be announced in the spring and printed in the May–June AWM Newsletter while many of the students were still in school. The more significant improvements happened behind the scenes: Heather, extending Liz’s work, recorded all the procedures for running the contest and worked with the AWM to change when announcements and calls for volunteers went out; by this time there were nearly 50 people around the country helping to judge the contest each year. After her first year as chair, the submission form was redone to make it easier to work with for judging or for notifying the principals and department chairs of the students who won. The new format also made it straightforward to remove the student names and identifying information before sending the essays to the judges, so that all judging could be done blindly (which had also been done before, but took significantly more work). An FAQ was added to the website, and the schools of all the students who submitted essays were posted as a way to maintain privacy while still publicly recognizing everyone who had spent time interviewing and writing about women in mathematics. In 2016, the now well-established contest had another first: the first duallanguage essay was published on the AWM website. Maria Lozada, a biomedical engineering major at Broward College in Florida, had met Yahaney Yagari while living in Columbia, and for the Essay Contest wrote about Yahaney’s path to studying mathematics and then using her knowledge to benefit her Embera Chami community. Maria had translated her essay into Spanish to share with Yahaney and, upon learning that her essay received an Honorable Mention, happily agreed to having both versions posted as a way to share Yahaney’s story with more people: Hoy el programa se encuentra activo, y Yahaney Yagari no solo enseña matemáticas a los jóvenes de su comunidad sino que también viaja a otras comunidades Embera de la región con el fin de llevar el concepto de la matemática a un mayor número de pobladores indígenas. Fue extraordinario haber sido testigo de cómo el poder decisivo y el amor por la matemática de una sola mujer indígena pudo transformar las perspectivas de toda una comunidad sobre el sistema universitario y las aplicaciones de la matemática. Cuando contacté a Yagari, quien actualmente reside en Colombia, para contarle a cerca de este ensayo, ella se mostró realmente entusiasmada con la idea de usar su historia para crear conciencia sobre el impacto que una sola mujer, sin importar la raza, religión, o cultura, puede tener en la sociedad a su alrededor. La reacción de Yagari frente a este ensayo resonó en mi vida ya que la habilidad de generar cambio está intrínsecamente relacionada con mi programa de estudio, Ingeniería. Si, nosotras las mujeres, tenemos el valor de defender nuestras pasiones e intereses—sin importar las adversidades sociales que podamos enfrentar—podemos generar cambios no solo en matemáticas o disciplinas relacionadas con la matemática, sino también en cada campo que deseemos emprender.

The English version of the above reads: Today the program is still active, and Yahaney Yagari does not just teach Indigenes from her community, but she also travels to other Embera communities of the region to teach mathematics. It was impressive to witness how the decisive power and love for mathematics of a single indigenous woman was able to transform a whole community’s perspective of

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

255

university and mathematics. When I contacted Yagari, who currently lives in Colombia, to tell her about this essay, she seemed delighted with the idea of using her story to raise awareness about the impact that a single woman, no matter the race, religion or culture, can have on the world around her. Yagari’s reaction to this essay resonated with me because the ability to generate change is completely intertwined with my major, engineering. And if we women have the courage to embrace our creativity and passions—regardless of the social adversities we might face—we can generate change not just in mathematics or mathematicsrelated disciplines, but also in every field that we decide to undertake. 2016 Honorable Mention,“Matemáticas para los Indígenas Colombianos” / “Mathematics for the Colombian Indians,” Maria Lozada of Broward College in Pembroke Pines, Florida.

Although students could only submit one essay per year, they could enter in multiple years, and in 2017 the Grand Prize essay was written by a student who had previously earned an Honorable Mention in middle school, although the blind judging meant that this wasn’t apparent until after the winning essays had been chosen. Karen Ge, like Alexandra in 2001, initially found out about the contest from her mother. As a side note, it is not unusual for middle school students to learn about the contest from a parent, although most have found out from their teachers; high school and undergraduate students, on the other hand, have most often discovered the Essay Contest while looking for contests or scholarships, as Tzipora did. Karen is now an undergraduate at Stanford University, but mentioned in a recent conversation that she appreciated the female focus of the essays since some of the other math activities that she participated in were more male-dominated. Both times that she entered the contest, she chose to interview teachers who were highly regarded at her school. In 2014, as a seventh grader, she interviewed Suzanne Croco, her coach for MathCounts; three years later, as a high school student, she interviewed her calculus teacher, Elizabeth Moore. Karen wanted to get to know their stories, the people behind the image, and also to express her appreciation for what they had done for her: With Mrs. Moore teaching the most advanced math courses, budding female mathematicians are more confident in themselves and their futures as they look up to a hard-working and enthusiastic role model. Her passionate teaching and devotion to excellence inspire me in both my school work and my extracurricular study of mathematics. For me and all young women pursuing mathematics, she advises not letting math cut off interests in other fields. One of her favorite aspects of math is how pervasive it is, how it is hidden in so many of the secrets of our world. “Don’t give up if it gets hard—it could be that you aren’t good at one type of math, but you’re good at another type of math,” she cautions. Mrs. Moore shows me that she can push the limits of culture by succeeding as a highly regarded mathematics teacher and demonstrates that a woman in mathematics can manifest tremendous mental tenacity. She proves that, where there is passion, the limit does not exist. 2017 Grand Prize,“The Limit Does Not Exist,” Karen Ge of Naperville North High School in Naperville, Illinois.

The following year, the First Place essay at the Undergraduate level was also written by someone who had previously received recognition: Francesca Paris. Francesca had first learned about the contest in high school from her math teacher, Shahana Sarkar, who knew that Francesca enjoyed writing (“She was adamant that

256

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

I enter!”). She asked her parents for ideas of someone to talk to, which is how she came to interview Kate Stevenson, a professor at California State University, Northridge. The essay that she wrote (“Dr. Kate Stevenson: Adding Value”) received First Place at the High School level in 2014. Four years later, as an undergraduate majoring in statistics and Arabic, she decided to enter the contest again and asked her advisor for a recommendation for someone doing really interesting work. This led to her interview with Bhramar Mukherjee, a biostatistician at the University of Michigan working in the cancer center there: In the center she translates that work into action, developing resources like free colonoscopy screenings for underserved populations. As the statistical landscape shifts with technological advancements, she sees the increasing prospects for precision medicine, using big data on health records to predict risk or prescribe treatments for individual patients. That comes with challenges: many health records are not yet integrated, medical data are rarely recorded in simple random samples, and records can be missing for any number of reasons. But Mukherjee tackles these questions around data integration, non-probabilistic sampling, and missing data with enthusiasm: the potential for powerful applications of that theoretical work, she believes, is enormous. 2018 First Place, “Dr. Bhramar Mukherjee: Balance and Big Data,” Francesca Paris of Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

In 2020, Francesca Paris shared that in addition to learning a lot from the women, the experience of interviewing someone and then writing about her was also worthwhile in and of itself. One of the benefits was with the practice interviewing— Francesca is a journalist working for public radio and so interviews people regularly, but in high school the process of writing out questions and then interviewing someone was all new. She thinks about that now, what a big responsibility it is to represent someone’s story, and how useful it can be to do it at such a young age. A second benefit was in being able to combine writing and mathematics: she was good at both, but had never thought of putting them together. By writing the essay, especially the first time, she realized that combining math and writing wasn’t just possible, it was valuable. Just as there was no rule against participants entering more than once, there was no formal rule against multiple essays being written about the same woman and indeed, many of the women who volunteered to be interviewed have done so multiple times. Rosa Orellana, a professor at Dartmouth College, has been interviewed by students at three different grade levels, and in both 2017 and 2018, the essays about her received recognition: Sophie Usherwood’s essay “No-Recipe Math: Rosa Orellana’s Mathematical Journey” received an Honorable Mention at the Middle School level in 2017, and a year later Jacob Slaughter’s essay “Running the Numbers: A Biographical Essay on Professor Rosa Orellana” received the Grand Prize. Professor Rosa Orellana’s favorite season to run is in winter. I recognized Prof. Orellana in a Dartmouth College photo when searching for a mathematician to interview, because I have seen her running for years on the road by my house. When I asked her about running, she laughed. A woman had stopped her recently on a run and said that Orellana had inspired her to start running. “You can be a role model even when you don’t think you are, just doing something you love,” she mused. . . . At Dartmouth, Orellana’s research is in algebraic

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

257

combinatorics. Algebra is made up of sets and operations upon the elements of those sets. She is developing methods to find the coefficients of the product of some functions, called Kronecker coefficients. Orellana recently discovered some symmetric functions. Symmetric polynomials have many applications in physics. While the applications of her work are exciting, Orellana shared that it is the math alone that inspires her. Glowing, she said, “I love the math. I do the math as an artist does art. When I look at the formulas, they look beautiful. When I look at the polynomials and the structures that I am studying, they look so very beautiful.” 2018 Grand Prize, “Running the Numbers: A Biographical Essay on Professor Rosa Orellana,” Jacob Slaughter of Thetford Academy in Thetford, Vermont.

In some ways it is not a coincidence that Rosa has been interviewed more than once: Dartmouth College developed a regional Essay Contest based on the national one, which we describe at the end of this article, and many local students look for someone in the area to write about. Rosa herself said that she really enjoyed talking to each of the students, and in a recent conversation emphasized the importance of sharing mathematics with younger people. At Dartmouth’s Sonia Kovalevsky Days, Rosa gives a presentation for students about the difficulty Sonia Kovalevsky had in simply getting an education, and she thinks it is important to educate people about the challenges that still exist; it is also important to share the reasons someone would go into math despite those challenges, since she herself had been inspired to study math because of the excitement and enthusiasm of one of her own teachers. She added, “Why does someone like math? If students understand more about why we go into math regardless of the barriers, some people might develop a passion for math.” During Heather’s tenure as chair there was one other notable change to the AWM committee structure. Originally one of the members of the AWM Programs Committee served as a liaison to each program, including the Essay Contest Committee, but in 2013 Heather was invited to join the Programs Committee and serve as that liaison. This made communication particularly easy, and the model of having committee chairs (or another designated committee member) serve on the Programs Committee was eventually adopted for the other AWM programs as well. Throughout this time, the Essay Contest Committee kept everything running well: one of the members, Joanna Bieri, streamlined the process for requesting a woman to interview, the committee solved any questions and issues that came up, and the community of volunteers continued to help out each year. Heather chaired the committee for seven years, but eventually her other work commitments started to overlap with the contest: she had begun taking students to a conference in Hungary over spring break, which was in the same time period as when the winning essays were finalized, checked for accuracy, and edits made in preparation for publication. And so in 2018 she too passed the torch, this time to Johanna Franklin.

258

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

The Present Johanna had joined the Association for Women in Mathematics in 2001, during her first year of graduate school and the first year of the Essay Contest. She learned about the Essay Contest from the AWM announcements, and after her graduation started volunteering as a judge because the work was interesting and a fun way to support students and, practically, because the annual nature of the commitment worked well during her years as a postdoc. After several years of reading and judging the essays, she joined the Essay Contest Committee, and served on the committee for three years before becoming chair. Her first task as chair was to negotiate a new submission system, this time motivated by the desire of the AWM to use a single platform across the entire website, but which did have the advantage of allowing students to make corrections to their essays right up until the deadline. One of Johanna’s goals as chair has been to be as explicitly welcoming as possible. For example, with the support of the Essay Contest Committee, she updated the FAQ to point out that essays about trans women have always been accepted and changed the question “Can male students participate?” to “I’m not female. Can I still enter the contest?” (Answer: Absolutely!) as a way of being more gender inclusive. It should be noted that the move to be more explicitly welcoming is embraced by the broader AWM as well; the AWM produced a 2018 statement that included the line “The AWM stands by our commitment to provide an inclusive, supportive community for all self-identified cis or transgender women, and, more generally, for non-binary or gender non-conforming individuals.” Johanna has also actively worked to create a stronger sense of community among the various groups of people involved in the contest—the judges, participants, and interviewees—by increasing communication; one way she has done this is by developing a procedure for anyone in the community to learn what stage the contest is in at any point in the judging. In 2020, nearly 20 years after Alexandra McKinney heard about the contest and found someone to interview, a high school student named Lu Paris did the same. Lu’s math teacher, Shahana Sarkar, was the very person who had had encouraged Lu’s sister Francesca to enter the contest some six years earlier, and by the time Lu was a senior in high school, Shahana had turned it into a class assignment. Lu, like Alexandra decades earlier, searched on her own for an interesting woman to interview, using Twitter to look in the math community for someone with a strong math background and interesting opinions. In this way she became acquainted with Marissa Kawehi Loving. They spoke for a long time, and Lu’s essay described not just Marissa’s accomplishments but the prejudice she encountered in graduate school as a woman of color, as well as the people who showed her that she was not alone. Dr. Piper H, a Black, female mathematician, gave a talk about mathematics and racism, and for the first time, Dr. Loving felt heard. “I was just seeing all of these events as indicating how terrible I was, and how bad I was at math,” she confesses. “[The talk] gave the experiences I was having names and made visible to me the underlying structures that were manifesting all these things that I just assumed were isolated incidents happening to me. It

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

259

just felt like a relief.” . . . [Later, after Dr. Loving told her advisor about her experiences] He believed her. He refuted the crushing comments, telling her, “No one can tell what kind of mathematician you can be until you become it.” The prejudice and harm Dr. Loving and other women of color face did not end that day. But a new chapter opened for Dr. Loving. With a newfound feeling of belonging as a mathematician, she completed her thesis and was awarded an NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship to work at Georgia Tech. Now, she doesn’t just limit group theory to her research. Instead, she works with Justin Lanier on SUBgroups, online support groups that connect first-year math graduate students in order to help them break through the same feelings of inadequacy and isolation Dr. Loving suffered. “Mathematics is based on the connections you have with other people,” Dr. Loving states. “Almost all math today is done collaboratively. I’m a Native Hawaiian woman. I’m the first Native Hawaiian woman to get a PhD in mathematics. A big value of mine, as a Hawaiian, is community, and so I see this very much as a coming together of my values as a person and as a mathematician.” 2020 Grand Prize, “A Lonely Road to Loving Math,” Lu Paris of Head-Royce School in Oakland, California.

The essay received the Grand Prize. In a recent conversation, Lu shared her surprise and dismay that someone so obviously smart and very talented could feel so much self-doubt, and that it was shocking that Dr. Loving wanted to drop out of grad school. (“Here’s this amazing mathematician who might not have even been a mathematician!”) But she also noted that Marissa did finish, and that was also really cool to see. And indeed, the whole experience had a significant impact on Lu, much as it had with Alexandra in the first year of the contest. Lu had been debating applying for a STEM scholarship, but was reluctant, doubtful of her ability; after talking to Marissa, writing about her experiences, then having the essay win the Grand Prize, she realized that she could do more than she thought, and so she applied for—and received—the scholarship, helping to fund the next chapter of her own journey.

The Impacts In the 20 years of the Essay Contest, thousands of students have interviewed and written about women in mathematics. There have been 147 awards given out to students in 29 states and 4 countries. The numbers, however, are not the only story. The contest was originally envisioned as a way for students to learn about women they might not have known of otherwise, and early guidelines encouraged students to seek out women to interview that they didn’t already know. That suggestion was dropped from the guidelines as it became clear that students who did interview someone they already knew often gained from the experience. Alessandra King, a teacher at Holton-Arms School in Maryland, has regularly made submitting an essay to the Essay Contest a class assignment. In a recent conversation, she mentioned that some of her students had interviewed family members and heard new stories. One student found out that when her mother moved to the United States as a teenager, her family was not able to come too, so she had to navigate a new culture alone.

260

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

Another student learned that a relative had only been able to go to school because her father, determined to make sure his daughter got an education, took her there and back every day on his bicycle. Many students write about their teachers, using the essay as a way to honor and thank them: Mrs. Perez is a woman of Mathematics. From her job, to her family, to her hobbies, she incorporates math into her life in a way that is fun. She has taught me that everything from baking, to solving a Sudoku, to the technology needed for the iPad has fundamentals based in math. She is my role model. Thanks to her, I have learned to love math. She motivates my classmates and me to always do our best and try our hardest. 2013 First Place, “A Teacher of Miracles,” Emmanuel Martinez of Lyford Middle School in Lyford, Texas.

But the process of interviewing a teacher can also reveal new information. Karen Ge said that when she interviewed her MathCounts coach, Suzanne Croco, in seventh grade, one of the things that was really intriguing was learning about Mrs. Croco’s teaching philosophy: Karen had never thought about the idea of a teaching philosophy and the ways that a teacher would intentionally design their classroom. This sparked an interest in math education for Karen, who ended up tutoring and even teaching her own classes later in middle and high school. As of this writing, Karen is a symbolic systems major considering an honors degree in education and hopes to make education an integral part of her career. Francesca Paris, too, learned more about teaching as a high school student when she interviewed Kate Stevenson. Kate spoke to her about working with psychologists to understand how people learned math in order to help her students engage with the material; Francesca hadn’t thought about the connection between psychology and learning, and it helped her to understand her own schooling in a new way. As mentioned earlier, Tzipora Henig also used the Essay Contest to honor a favorite and inspiring teacher. As Tzipora put it, “I always liked math; Mrs. S. taught me to love it.” Mrs. S. also taught Tzipora’s mother and sisters at the same school. Her school was very religiously conservative and most of the teachers would not have pushed their female students to excel in mathematics and science, but Mrs. S. was an exception and gave Tzipora the confidence and drive needed to follow her own path. She loves more than her job; she loves her students and does her best to give them what they need to succeed in life. Eleventh grade mathematics taught me so much more than just trigonometry. It taught me that I can succeed, because someone believes in me; I can climb high, because someone showed me how to pick myself up if I fall; I can do whatever I set my mind to, because someone told me that I can. And that someone is Mrs. S. 2004 Honorable Mention, “My Teacher, My Mentor: Mrs. S.,” Tzipora Henig of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

The experience of interviewing her teacher for the essay had a direct impact on Tzipora, helping her to adjust to a new situation, as described earlier. In remembering

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

261

the experience, Tzipora was especially moved to have had the opportunity to reflect on and honor her teacher in this way, as Mrs. S. died just recently. Many students, however, did interview people whom they didn’t already know. Rebecca Segal, who has judged many essays over the years, mentioned how much she loved seeing the diversity of jobs and life experiences described in the essays that are submitted each year. And indeed, over the years, a surprising number of careers have been described, from bioinformatics: Currently, Dr. Hunt is doing work in bioinformatics. This is a relatively new area of computational biology used for finding out information about genes. The Human Genome Sequence Project is an attempt to determine exactly the correct sequence of all of the human DNA sequences. These are made up of amino acids A (Adenine), C (Cytosine), T (Thymine), and G (Guanine). She also pointed out during the interview that “people feel that once they know what the genes are in DNA, that would give them a big step in understanding and curing disease(s).” For example, during our discussion I learned that it might be possible to cure sickle cell anemia by correcting the gene that causes the red blood cell to sickle. Dr. Hunt and other scientists have developed a method of using sequence statistics to build a Markov decision model that is being used to solve a particular linear programming problem related to the alignment of sequences of DNA. 2002 First Place, “Dr. Fern Hunt: Mastering Chaos in Theory and in Life,” Alicia Richardson of Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland.

and biostatistics: Back in the States after her rewarding experience in Moldova, Lori pursued graduate study in Epidemiology at Boston University. She soon realized, however, that she preferred the biostatistics part of the program, and got her MPH in Biostatistics and International Health. She worked as a project manager for a year, and once she got her hands on real data she knew that she wanted to continue on, and joined the PhD program at Boston University. Now she is working on predictive accuracy markers in logistic data. Predictive accuracy measures include True Positive Rates and False Positive Rates, which can be applied to prenatal testing for Downs Syndrome, for example. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Lori works in the department of Rheumatology, where she does everything from writing grants to doing statistical analysis and writing papers. She has gotten three papers published so far this year, and another three are in the works. 2006 Honorable Mention, “Lori Chibnik: Applying Statistics to Public Health,” Miranda Fix of Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota.

to cryptology: Within minutes the amazed audience was on its feet to acknowledge one of the most significant breakthroughs in cryptography in the new century. What Wang Xiaoyun had presented to them was an elegant and audacious attack on the computer security procedure called MD5. Before she spoke, it was assumed by all the mathematicians present that it would take a million years of supercomputer time to crack a security code like MD5. Now, this woman proved she could unscramble any MD5 code in an hour using merely a personal computer. From an ordinary child to an international decoder of the digital world, Wang achieved this remarkable feat by living her life with determination. 2011 Honorable Mention, “Wang Xiaoyun: Breaker of the Digital World,” Yanna Gong of Eden Prairie High School in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

262

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

and supply chain analytics: At present, she is working as a Senior Analyst on the Supply Chain Team for Target Corporation. Basically, she is using math to try to find ways to maximize Target’s revenue. Dr. Schumacher says that she loves her job and that her favorite thing about it is that she is able to use math “in the real world.” Despite loving her job in math, Dr. Schumacher is not at all regretful that she went to school for theater. She says that her background in theater has actually helped her a lot in her current career. . . . Because of the presentation and communication skills she learned while studying theater, she is able to effectively present her mathematical findings to non-mathematicians without oversimplifying her work. “If they don’t trust me or understand my work,” she summarizes, “they won’t use my results, which is why communication skills are so important.” 2016 Honorable Mention, “The Path to Success,” Nikki Heinen of Maple Grove Senior High in Maple Grove, Minnesota.

and government research in applied mathematics: Dr. Saunders has worked for 27 years as a research mathematician in the Applied and Computational Mathematics Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Her research has included “numerical grid generation, materials and fluids modeling, mathematical function software development and interactive 3D graphics for complex 3D Web visualizations.” Her current projects still include many of these areas, but much of her work is either directly or indirectly related to the NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF). . . . She is an avid tennis player and can usually be found at the US Open Tennis Tournament in New York around the end of August. She also leads a tutoring/enrichment program for at-risk students on behalf of the Northern Virginia Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. 2017 Honorable Mention, “Challenges, Growth, & Opportunity,” Kailande Cassamajor of Wheaton High School in Silver Spring, Maryland.

But the students have learned about more than the careers; they have learned about the women’s lives. Many of the students wrote about the barriers faced by the people they talked to and the challenges that they had overcome. Students also wrote about the concerns that some women had in reconciling their professional and personal lives: She had all of the same ambitions as her male counterparts, and yet her heart still wrenched, as she thought, “But, I want to have a family!” All of the boys who had these aspirations, she explains, never had to face this dilemma. They could travel their ardent career paths, brimming with hard work and triumph, then tack a family on without fretting. . . . Repeated evidence of her abilities, as she earned high grades, published peer-reviewed studies, and wrote a dissertation on measuring properties of clouds in the arctic, evaporated any lingering qualms about her intelligence and stamina. Meanwhile, the gender norms of the time became more progressive, and, little by little, she learned that she did not have to give up her adored job, and her success, in atmospheric science to have children of her own. Julie walked straight into the foreboding woods, combining her love of problem solving, physics, nature, and family, to create her own path for inhabiting and doing with as she pleased. 2017 Honorable Mention, “Julie Haggerty’s Journey to the Clouds,” Macey Broadwater of Fairview High School in Boulder, Colorado.

The students have often also made a point of writing about all the women do in addition to their careers: they read, they run, they volunteer, they cook, they play soccer, they play foosball, they play instruments, they knit, they swim, they

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

263

raise families, they travel, they garden, and so much more. Hearing about the nonmathematical aspects of the women’s lives can make a big impact on the students: Karen Ge noted that the whole experience of interviewing people she admired was very humanizing. “I could see that they were god-like people but also just people.” Karen also recognized that, as people, they were not so different from her. She saw “This is a person I could become if I put in the work and stick with it.” Another student, Priyanka Nanayakkara, had a similar experience. Priyanka had entered the contest during her sophomore year at the University of California, Los Angeles, after learning about the AWM while at a conference. She was matched with mathematics professor Alissa Crans through the AWM website, and they spoke on the phone while Priyanka sat in her dorm hallway. They talked a lot about Alissa’s undergraduate years, when she was deciding between math and music, as Priyanka explained in a recent conversation: This was particularly interesting because I was an undergraduate myself at the time, and figuring out what I would be doing. I think college is generally a confusing time and it was nice hearing from someone who didn’t always know what she wanted to do. She had these two competing interests that she seemed to love equally, and it was good to see how she managed that.

She said that it also stood out to her that Alissa talked about still being part of a wind ensemble, that she was still involved in music even though it wasn’t her profession. “That was cool at the time—and still—because growing up you think your career is what you do all the time and it was neat to see that her identity isn’t just defined by her day job, even though her day job is awesome. I think about that now, what do I want to do outside of work that might not be related to work.” Priyanka also added that the experience of talking to a mathematician and realizing that this was someone who had once been in her shoes made her feel more a part of the mathematical community. Priyanka has since graduated with a degree in statistics and as of this writing is in a PhD program in technology and social behavior at Northwestern University. At the University of Redlands, [Alissa Crans] majored in mathematics, but immersed herself in several music classes as well, almost double majoring. She wrote proofs and played preludes, finding a rhythm she could call her own. When she couldn’t make headway on a problem set, she would step away with her clarinet. Note by note, her mind cleared. When it was time to return to her problem set, she had new ideas that her subconscious had been working on. 2016 Grand Prize, “Engaging With the Ensemble: Alissa Crans’ Journey Through Mathematics,” Priyanka Nanayakkara of the University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Another important impact on the students was noted by Leanne Holder, who has served as a judge for several years: Many of the stories of the women in the essays are in themselves intriguing, but one of the more surprising aspects of this competition has been reading about how these interviewees inspired the young students to believe in themselves, follow their dreams, to persevere through tough times, and to never be afraid to ask questions. These are the types of messages that as a mother and an educator that I want to pass along to my children and to my students.

264

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

It is rewarding for me to see young people hear these messages and start to believe it for themselves.

The women who are interviewed are offering up their time and experiences, but at times they, too, benefit from the interaction. One mathematician, Rebekah Yates, shared that the process of being interviewed by her neighbor Anna Schilke, an English major at Houghton College, meant that she found herself thinking carefully about her own experiences in order to be able to express them clearly. In thinking about her mathematical journey she realized that despite a lack of female role models—none of her math teachers between third grade and her second year of graduate school were women—there were many people who encouraged her, and she was grateful for the chance to reflect on that. These days she makes it a point to ask students about their own support systems and she encourages them to think about the ways that they themselves can actively support other people. This can be particularly valuable for students who may not have run into any barriers themselves. While the experience of being interviewed varied by person, many other women also expressed their enjoyment at being interviewed, whether or not the essay received a prize. One of the interviewees, Elizabeth Langevin, noted that the student “was a delight and her optimism reminded me of myself at that age.” Another, Ansaf Salleb-Aouissi, said that it was a pleasure to help the student “and dive back into some details of my childhood!” And yet another, Jan McDougal, described the student who had interviewed her as “a talented mathematician in training. I appreciate your work for inspiring her to continue her studies and become a role model for other young women of color.” Marissa Kawehi Loving, who was interviewed by Lu Paris, had heard about the Essay Contest from friends who had volunteered to be interviewed, but it was a surprise to receive the request from Lu who, as mentioned earlier, had found her on Twitter. Lu was thoughtful and respectful, which Marissa particularly appreciated as she shared some difficult experiences, noting “There is a vulnerability when you don’t know your audience.” But the conversation went well—both Marissa and Lu mentioned how much they enjoyed talking to each other—and when the essay was written Marissa was particularly grateful for Lu’s ability to capture their conversation, “I felt like I could hear her voice and also hear my voice. That’s a real challenge as a writer.” Marissa was particularly happy for Lu when she received the Grand Prize, and was also glad for the opportunity to share her story with a wider audience to let other students who might be encountering prejudice know that they are not alone.

The Offshoots In talking with students who have participated in the AWM-MfA Essay Contest, one thing that has stood out is that the experience of interviewing a woman and

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

265

then writing about her was often valuable to students even if their essays didn’t receive prizes. A goal of the Essay Contest Committee, one that continues to be actively worked on, is to find ways to reach more students who might not know about the contest, in order to give them an opportunity and excuse to talk to women in mathematical fields. One avenue is through teachers, some of whom have incorporated the Essay Contest into class projects. Alessandra King, a mathematics teacher at the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, has used entering the Essay Contest as an assignment at different grade levels. She has found that it reaches students with many different interests: some students are interested in math, some students like writing, and some students like talking to people. Students who do not think of themselves as good mathematicians still enjoy this project, because it allows them to see that there are so many different aspects of mathematics and mathematicians. Alessandra has also seen that the women who were interviewed have been a real inspiration to her students, encouraging them to be resilient. In her experience, the Essay Contest has helped make mathematics meaningful for the students. In her class assignments, the students start by finding someone outside of the school to interview, often asking their family or friends’ families for suggestions. After interviewing and writing about the women, the students take it a step further and find appropriate images to go along with their essays. Alessandra then collects the essays and creates either a class webpage or a magazine so that all of the stories are shared (see Fig. 3). The value of the magazines and webpages is that they celebrate all of the essays, whether or not the students want to enter the national Essay Contest. (She has noticed that a few students are nervous about entering a national contest, more so than just writing the essay for a class assignment.) The students’ families enjoy them as well. Here is one example from an interview of a family member: Denia Acosta grew up in the historical center of Havana, Cuba, in a time of political change and growth. During this time, her parents were both literature teachers who encouraged her to read and analyze works of writing. Even though she loved reading classical books, she realized that analyzing every story took the enjoyment out of reading, whereas with math, the more she learned, the more she liked it. Analyzing formulas and equations didn’t make math less interesting for her, but instead made it even more captivating. Now, Denia refers to math as something that will never fail her. She realized it was a new passion that would always be important in her life. Going into college, Denia majored in computer science and had a minor in math. . . . As a computer scientist, her first job was to create programs to calculate how much water from subterranean levels can be used to make fresh water. This job gave her incredible opportunities to work with engineers and learn new mathematical functions. She soon switched jobs to create programs to manage inventory and sales in several stores. Essentially, this was her introduction to the world of accounting. 2018 Honorable Mention, “Wooden Computers Didn’t Stop Her,” Ayleen Acosta, seventh grader at the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland.

Another teacher, Shahana Sarkar at Head-Royce School in Oakland, California, began encouraging students to enter the contest as extra credit about 15 years ago.

266

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

Fig. 3 Cover of magazine containing essays by students at the Holton-Arms School

In recent years, however, she’s incorporated the contest as an assignment in her upper-level classes. She explained her motivations for the assignment: It is part of my desire to expand students’ understanding of “What does doing math look like?” and “Who does math? What do they look like?” I wanted my students to have a better sense of what math looks like after the Algebra to Calculus sequence. . . . And this essay (as well as a few other assignments—researching college courses, reading books and articles about the world of math) was part of my plan to get kids to explore the world of math outside of K–12 school.

While the guidelines for the class assignment are almost identical to the Essay Contest guidelines, Shahana required that the women interviewed be someone outside of the student’s school or family. In 2020, she modified the criteria so that students could write about women and/or underrepresented people in mathematics. She assembled a panel of friends and math teachers to read and rank all of the essays,

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

267

and the students who wrote about women also submitted their essays to the national contest. Teaching has been her dream since childhood because of the “fantastic reward” of helping somebody truly understand something, and at Northridge, she gets to experience that every day. As a professor of abstract algebra, Stevenson helps her students transform from young men and women who think about math into people “who are mathematicians because they are creating math.” To balance out the exhaustion of “giving up” herself to her students during classes, Stevenson continues her research into algebraic geometry, ring theory, and group theory. Her research extends past pure mathematics to mathematical pedagogy. Stevenson runs a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for general education math courses across the California State University system. She works to redesign curriculums, secure funding, and coordinate across campuses for the high-failure general education classes that are ignored by many math professors but crucial to the universities. With the grant, she has transformed some entry level pass rates from one-third to three-fourths of students. 2014 First Place, “Dr. Kate Stevenson: Adding Value,” Francesca Paris, senior at HeadRoyce School in Oakland, California.

At Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, the mathematics department has been running a local version of the national contest since 2015. Carolyn Gordon started this regional contest at the request of area teachers who were bringing students to Dartmouth’s campus for SK Days in honor of Sonia Kovalevsky, a program originally organized by the Association for Women in Mathematics. The local contest is purposefully aligned with the national one, with a local option for requesting the name of a woman to interview (although students can still use the national contest to connect with a mathematician). The mathematics department does the judging and notifies the students whose essays win, and then the students, their families and teachers, and other community members gather for a reception with prizes, flowers, and even gifts for siblings. Carolyn, who also served as AWM president during the early years of the national Essay Contest, remarked, “The contest is always so rewarding: the parents and teachers know how much it means for the students to interview and write about someone. It’s always really nice, and it makes you realize the Essay Contest is really meaningful.” As the only female in the Kyushu University mathematical department building, Dr. Kimiyo Yamamoto had to run the 100-meter distance between the mathematical building to the main office just to find a restroom, similar to the movie, Hidden Figures. But that was over 50 years ago, in 1961—shouldn’t things be different by now? However, Kimiyo’s story is pretty recent, only five years ago, and in some places gender biases still exist even today. But Yamamoto says that women must stay strong and persevere through them, because that was what allowed Kimiyo Yamamoto to become the courageous person she is today. The first thing that I thought of when I met Kimiyo Yamamoto is that she isn’t one of those trees that shoots up directly into the sky. Most people’s paths are like christmas trees, starting wide on the bottom and gradually narrowing down. Her path is more like a bonsai tree, turning and twisting in different directions, and yet, still maintaining a perfect balance. It is a path most aren’t courageous enough to take. Though she sprouts many branches, they all start at the same place, similar to her life that is surrounded by one passion, mathematics.

268

V. E. Howle and H. A. Lewis

2018 Honorable Mention, “Bonsai Tree,” Sora Shirai, seventh grader at Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire. In 2018, the essay tied for First Place in the Middle School category at Dartmouth College.

The Future Several of the people who have read the essays over the years, both committee members and judges, have mentioned how much they themselves enjoy reading the essays. Margaret Robinson served on the Essay Contest Committee for six years, leading the judging of essays in a particular category each year. She recently commented how much she has enjoyed reading about women she may not have known about otherwise, and feeling the enthusiasm of the students through their essays. Matt Koetz, who has judged for several years, observed: The contest invites students to learn not only about math in its various forms, but also (and at least as important) about the journeys mathematicians take. Quite often you’ll read an essay about someone who changed direction, either within mathematics or from another discipline into mathematics, based on an experience they had with a teacher, class, project, etc. I have felt for years that good math has a good story. The contest brings those stories to light.

All of the winning essays appear on the AWM website, but they have found their way into other media as well. Some local newspapers feature articles about the students who win, and some workplaces, universities in particular, promote essays written about one of their employees. Several of the women who have been interviewed have Wikipedia pages about them, many of which reference the student essays. Even an article in the January–February 2006 AWM Newsletter about Fern Hunt giving the newly-named Etta Z. Falconer Lecture quoted from Alicia Richardson’s 2002 essay “Dr. Fern Hunt: Mastering Chaos in Theory and in Life.” The AWM-MfA Essay Contest was established as a way for students to learn about individual women through interviews and writing, and it has clearly done that. With 20 years of accumulated stories, however, the reach is larger. When Alexandra McKinney, the first Grand Prize winner in 2001, shared how much her interview with Toni Galvin still resonates with her, she also reflected on the overall value of the accumulated collection of essays: A wonderful feature of the collection of essays on the AWM website now is that they let students know more about what it is like to DO work in a particular career, not just the school and studying for classes part that students see. It is also really valuable that the interviewees discuss not just their careers, but their career paths, which were not always direct.

The stories that the women share with the students show options, experiences, and opportunities. One longtime judge, Lori Alvin, mentioned after the 2020 contest “It seems to get harder and harder every year to narrow it down, but I enjoyed reading them all!” As do we—and we look forward to doing so for many years to come.

Telling Our Stories: The Essay Contest

269

Acknowledgments The Essay Contest Committee has had the fortune of having dedicated volunteers throughout its existence. This contest would not be possible without all that they have contributed: Janet Beery, Julie Beier, Joanna Bieri, Mariah Birgen, Glenna Buford, Anne Catlla, Nancy Childress, Sloan Despeaux, Brianna Donaldson, Christine Escher, Malena Español, Johanna Franklin, Aparna Higgins, Victoria Howle, Heather Ames Lewis, Susan Loepp, Kelly McKinnie, Liz McMahon, Jennifer Morse, Katy Ott, Margaret Robinson, Jennifer Ellis Royal, Christine Sample, Liz Stanhope, Irena Swanson, Ursula Whitcher, and additional people from the earlier days of the contest. Several groups have helped to advertise the contest including Math for America, Project Lead the Way, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the American Mathematical Society. And, of course, the contest wouldn’t exist at all without the students who interviewed and wrote about women doing mathematics, the women who agreed to be interviewed and have their stories shared, the people who have given their time to read through the essays, and many others who behind the scenes kept things running smoothly. Thank you all.

The AWM, 50 Years Ago and Today Joan Birman

The AWM was founded in 1971. I received my PhD in 1968, was a postdoc in 1971, and began a tenured position as a professor in the academic year 1973–1974, so I was right there in the early days. In those days it was impossible not to be aware of discrimination, but if you had ambitions as a research mathematician it was self-destructive to dwell on such matters. I recognized the need (indeed it was impossible not to recognize it), and knew that Alice Schafer, Mary Gray, Linda Rothschild, Linda Keen . . . did the right thing when they participated actively in AWM. As for me, I had a growing family, and very little spare time. I knew that I had no skill whatsoever with regard to politics. To be sure, I was ashamed of my lack of participation in AWM, but at best I wondered from time to time whether there was any way for me to help other women in math, and came up short. During the academic year 1974–1975 or thereabouts, I agreed to go on a brief trip which I recall as having been orchestrated by Alice Schafer. Linda Rothschild was a Columbia postdoc at the time, and Linda and I had been invited to visit Purdue University in Indiana to meet with students and (in some vague way) serve as “role models.” In fact, we met with several groups of undergrads who seemed to me to be bored with the whole thing. I came home exhausted, knowing that I had to prepare for classes the next day, only to learn that my daughter had had problems of her own while I was away, and berated me for caring more about my work than about my family. I thought “I can’t and won’t do anything like that again.” Still, I wanted to help, and as soon as I paid real attention to the matter, a small but appropriate way presented itself. A few days after we returned from Purdue, at afternoon tea at Columbia, I found myself in line next to one of the new women graduate students. I introduced myself and asked her about her studies. Her very

J. Birman () Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_24

271

272

J. Birman

positive reaction made it clear to me how I might be able to help, that is by simply being a woman faculty member who made a special effort to be accessible to women who were interested in math. That was well-suited to the work that I loved and so it was not a diversion. It also was an activity that has given me much joy over the years, both from my women graduate students (most of whom have become close friends) and also other women in math, some in places far from Columbia, who tell me now that my informed attention to their expressed problems at one time or another in career matters helped them. It’s especially gratifying to me when women I have come to know over the years, through our common profession, tell me that I helped them at key moments when they needed help. Helping individual women, one on one, is fine, but in 2020 it’s clear to me that such efforts are not enough. At this moment in time, while the position of women at the top levels of research is very much better than it was 50 years ago (here I think of the recognition that was granted to Maryam Mirzakhani and Karen Uhlenbeck) the overall position of women at the top levels of research is far from equality, or even of equal opportunity. On the other hand, the good news is that a significant number of the men in mathematics, especially those at early career points, want to help, whereas in my opinion that was much less the case in 1971. Thus, while the AWM is an organization that is primarily run by and for women-in-math there is no comparable organization that actively solicits the help of men.

My Personal Interaction with AWM Karen K. Uhlenbeck

Most of my interactions with AWM took place in its early years. In later years, I have been involved with other programs to support women in mathematics and have not been very involved with AWM. At its beginning, I was not eager to take part in AWM. This is not because I did and do not believe in its goals, but because it is not where my talents and intellectual interests lie. I recently learned of a quote attributed to the Black minister Howard Thurman (from about the time AWM was started, I believe) which says, “Do not ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive and do it, because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” What makes me come alive is doing mathematics, not organizing and advocating. Luckily, I knew this, and my strategy was to figure out how I could do mathematics and avoid the difficult situations that women were placed in (hopefully, mostly in the past). I find myself still using this strategy. So I definitely felt guilty about not joining the founders of AWM. I remember mostly Mary Gray, Lenore Blum, and Judy Roitman from the early years advocating for women. I did feel supportive and knew it was the right thing for them to do. I rather selfishly pursued my own career. I am not particularly proud of this, but by maneuvering myself adroitly, I was able to get support and encouragement for myself despite the obvious and pervasive bias against women at that time. We older women tend not to harp on war stories about the past,1 but there were plenty to tell.

1 I have been asked why we do not tell war stories. Many of the stories are not ours to tell. When we were younger, we did not understand them. As we grow older, we make our peace with the

K. K. Uhlenbeck () University of Texas at Austin, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_25

273

274

K. K. Uhlenbeck

Fig. 1 Panelists Karen Uhlenbeck, Millie Dresselhaus, Peter Sarnak, Maria Klawe, Elaine Hansen, AWM panel on how to increase the number of tenured women in mathematics departments, 2000 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Washington, DC

From time to time, I did take part in some of the organized protests. I recall that Louise Hay, Vera Pless, and I, who were all professors at the University of Illinois at Chicago at the time, sent a letter to the AMS protesting holding meetings in states which did not pass the Equal Rights Amendment. I was always willing to take part in activities that involved research mathematics. I was on the committee that selected AMS’s first few Satter Prize recipients, as well as on the committee that selected AWM’s first Noether Lecturers. It pleased me very much when I was invited as a research mathematician to take part in AWM-sponsored events (see Fig. 1). I have been available as a mentor for younger women, although by now some of my mentees are no longer young! I always felt supportive of the women activists, who did far more than I ever did to improve the status of women in the profession. In the early 1990s, when my career was established, I felt I should begin to pay back for some of the opportunities I had received. But I did not get very involved in AWM because it was not primarily a research-oriented organization. I also worked poorly (I still do) with grassroots organizing. While I do not necessarily approve of the various power structures affecting the mathematical world, which certainly change over time, I also find it frustrating and boring to oppose them. Most of my energy went to the Women and Mathematics Program at the Institute for Advanced Study and programs at the University of Texas at Austin, which directly impacted younger women research mathematicians and students by making use of the existing past. We did not dwell on the inequities of the past when we were struggling, and hence do not see a place for harping on the past in talking to younger women.

My Personal Interaction with AWM

275

opportunities and support available at these institutions. I thank both the University of Texas and the Institute for Advanced Study for their help and support over the years. Helping other mathematicians, especially women and underrepresented minorities, is my responsibility. It is not “what makes me come alive”; it is my “work.” I am quite proud that younger women both in and outside of mathematics tell me that I made a difference in their careers and lives. This still is not quite the same as proving a theorem! But how terrible it would be if you all weren’t there. In my own organizing, I have found it most important to get other women involved and to spread the input and responsibility around. Don’t tell your mentees what to do: listen to what they need and want, sympathize, make suggestions, offer support and let them do it! This is especially important if you don’t quite agree with what they are doing. I think this is what makes AWM flourish. It is run from the bottom up by volunteers, whereas national and university committees for women are top-down organizations which do not take full advantage of the interests and talents of either their peers or the younger women out there. Women whose lives we all are trying to improve have their own strengths and interests and always bring a lot to the table. AWM has proved this! I admire what AWM has succeeded in accomplishing. Like the first wave of feminism which got women the vote, the second wave of feminism which made clear how stunted women’s lives could be by denying them access to professional lives, and the passage of laws like Title IX, which made it illegal for institutions receiving federal funds to deny access to women, the early founders of AWM forced the profession to rethink its attitude towards women. The change since the 1970s is amazing. AWM also enriches the lives of women mathematicians at all levels, from students to retirees. And there is still work to do out there: the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified! Sadly, gender bias is fairly universal and many young women are held back in their careers by what is by now actually illegal treatment. I am glad AWM is here!

AWM Activity of Fern Y. Hunt Fern Y. Hunt

Why AWM? As a passionate feminist I wanted to join the women and men of AWM who were forcing open the doors of the mathematics profession, changing the culture of doing mathematics and changing the formal and informal power structure that rewards mathematicians and mathematical activity.

How Did I Get into Mathematics? In middle school, I met Charles Wilson, the advisor of the school science club, and my science teacher for the eighth and ninth grade. A chemist himself with a master’s degree from Columbia University, Wilson, as an African American was a principal role model for me even as my interests shifted to mathematics. My interest in mathematics was sparked and sustained in high school not by courses per se but by a number of well written, engaging books aimed at readers with a high school mathematics background. Examples that come to mind are A Concrete Introduction to Abstract Algebra by W. W. Sawyer, Continued Fractions by C. D. Olds, and Numbers: Rational and Irrational by I. Niven. After high school, I attended Bryn Mawr College where I majored in mathematics and went on to graduate school at Courant Institute at New York University where I earned a PhD degree in 1978. I suppose many would say I should be proud of my educational attainments and indeed I take a lot of satisfaction in them as I come from a very modest social

F. Y. Hunt () Scientist Emeritus National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_26

277

278

F. Y. Hunt

background—my parents had steady jobs, thank goodness, but we lived in a housing project until I was 16. After Mr. Wilson, I did not meet another African American scientist let alone a mathematician until I was nearly done with graduate school. But whatever success I had or will have is bound up in the swirl of social and political forces that pushed mid-century America forward and these were largely beyond my control. I was born when the momentum of the New Deal, World War II, and then Sputnik created sustained support for fostering STEM excellence in education. Although I was never in the American South and was a little too young to participate in civil rights demonstrations very much, I benefited quite directly from the Birmingham children’s march. The appalling assassination of Martin Luther King also had a profound impact on me. The shock wave of this movement percolated to the smallest scales of society so that it affected even the person to person interactions in mathematical culture that are so critical to career success or failure. It was one thing to get into mathematics, it was quite another to become a professional mathematician. It was a difficult journey, crossing many borders— social, educational and most difficult of all—psychological and spiritual. Along the way, I got a very good education at Bronx High School of Science, Bryn Mawr College, and then Courant Institute. Still that was not itself enough as getting through these places in those days was largely a matter of sink or swim for the most part. More and more I had to find from somewhere the grace to be disciplined, patient and to persevere. Finally if not most importantly there were other people. I am indebted to my advisor Frank Hoppensteadt for his calm, shrewd understanding and support. So I could write a dissertation and turn it into publishable papers but reaching a safe shore with something of the childhood urge and drive intact was due to the mentorship of James Donaldson, the chairman of the Howard University mathematics department.

Why Grateful? As an early- to mid-career research mathematician, I was engaged in research in dynamical systems and wanted to consult with a mathematician at INRIA (the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology) in France and later attend the European Dynamics Days in Dusseldorf, Germany. An AWM travel grant enabled me to do this. Presenting my work in an international setting, and engaging with other mathematicians reinforced my sense of legitimacy as a researcher who could choose important and interesting problems. Seeing the work of others broadened my view of what is possible and challenged me to improve. This is perhaps a more common experience now but in 1990 there were still very few African American women who were provided the opportunity to interact in this way. There were still too few female researchers in general who could provide validation on a regular basis. I have also benefited from the support and friendship of the many African American women mathematicians who preceded me and who

AWM Activity of Fern Y. Hunt

279

have come onto the scene since. Collectively, our actions made it easier I hope for women in the next generation. From time to time I have been a panelist or speaker at AWM events (see Figs. 1 and 2) and worked on various AWM committees. Beginning with the Travel Grant Committee, I’ve worked on the Infrastructure Task Force, the Meetings and Programs Committee, and served as a member of the Executive Committee. My most satisfying achievement during this time was my work in 2006 in helping to establish the ICIAM (International Conference of Industrial and Applied Mathematics), new lecture award named after Olga Taussky Todd. A major figure in the development of both pure and applied linear algebra in the twentieth century, Taussky Todd worked at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (then the National Bureau of Standards) during World War II. I was working there at the time so when Barbara Keyfitz, then president of the AWM, asked me to jumpstart an effort to develop the award I readily agreed. I was tasked with reaching out to the European women’s organization, European Women in Mathematics to get their approval and cooperation. Even though email was available, cell phones were not yet widely used so communication by long distance landline was awkward and slow. With persistence we were able to set up an awards committee and present a joint proposal to the organizing committee of ICIAM. It was a great satisfaction that one of my suggestions (although I wasn’t on the awards committee), Pauline van den Driessche was selected as the inaugural Olga Taussky Todd lecturer.

Fig. 1 Richard Varga, Cathleen Synge Morawetz, Helene Shapiro, Christa Binder, Linda Petzold, Fern Hunt, Lani Wu, Lisa Goldberg, John Todd. Speakers at AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI, 1999

280

F. Y. Hunt

Fig. 2 Katharine Gurski, Gary Green, Fern Hunt, Lisa Fauci. Speakers at 2001 SIAM Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA

Has There Been Progress? I received a PhD degree in 1978 late enough so that I rarely encountered overt discrimination, I did encounter racist and sexist attitudes and practices that limited the progress of so many women of my generation. The business of mathematical research can be a real grind for anyone. Being an African American woman meant that I was for the most part on the periphery of the mentoring networks. I wasted more time in blind alleys and unprofitable research connections than I should have and survived mainly by hard work, driving curiosity, street smarts and luck. Through my work with AWM I also saw the role that social, economic, personal, and family networks play in maintaining attitudes that needlessly exclude people. Sexist attitudes and practices in the mathematical community have declined slowly over the years. There has been visible progress across the board but still largely for white women. It has occurred sometimes ironically enough, because of these same networks of family and personal relationships that women of color do not have. Thus it has been difficult for me to see how to move things forward faster for women of color particularly African American women within the AWM framework. Fortunately two members of AWM, Rhonda Hughes of Bryn Mawr College and Sylvia Bozeman of Spelman College, developed the EDGE program. It at once addressed a critical pipeline issue of women transitioning from college to graduate school and created a multi-racial community of professional support. The Infinite Possibilities Conferences are another exciting development and they offer the possibility of a multiracial network of support for straight and queer women. I

AWM Activity of Fern Y. Hunt

281

see an opportunity for AWM in supporting this work and in reaching out to women and LGBTQ+ women outside the US. Much of the progress we have attained so far is at risk however.

What Next? There is a dire need for explanations of how mathematics is used and what the public policy implications of mathematics research are. They must be accessible yet truthful and aimed at the general public. The goal of such work besides educating and informing is to engender intelligent public discussion. In this time of pandemic and epistemic collapse, this will be an extremely important but necessary undertaking. It must also be clear by now that the days when we (with a few exceptions) could be oblivious to the societal and policy implications of mathematics research are over. While too many of us were not looking, pockets of racial and anti-feminist resentment in the last few years have grown to a size and malevolence that shocks even the most cynical of us. Perhaps these words are hard to read but if that is so, I would ask you to ponder the rhetoric of your family, friends, and politicians in the last few years. Ironically, we are approaching the point where there cannot be progress in the support and appreciation of science and mathematics without the commitment to the racial and gender diversity of the scientists and mathematicians who create it. My first hope for the future is that we will redouble our efforts to confront the attitudes and practices in our community that subtly and effectively promote bias. Secondly, I hope we can find ways to support and reward the work of mathematicians who are applying mathematics to the study of policies that will address foundational assumptions that sustain inequality. Even if everyone’s work does not directly touch on these issues there is a role for all of us in this effort. Acknowledgments Portions of this article are adapted from https://mathematicallygiftedandblack. com/honorees/fern-hunt.

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science Maria M. Klawe

My feelings about women in math changed significantly over the first half of my life. I started out believing that women in STEM fields should just be like men, competitive, fearless, and assertive. A big part of that came from desperately wanting to be male as I was growing up and since I couldn’t figure out how to change my gender, coped by mimicking male behavior. At the age of 32 I became a manager of a new discrete mathematics group at IBM Research and suddenly realized that I needed to support anyone who wanted to be a mathematician independent of gender, race, sexual orientation, or anything else. It surprised me that I needed to be in a position of responsibility to recognize something I should have seen much earlier in my life. Part of the change was caused by the management training I received immediately after becoming a manager; however, I was undoubtedly also influenced by IBM’s clear encouragement for women and people of color to take on leadership roles. My commitment to encouraging women in STEM fields increased significantly again when we moved to the University of British Columbia in 1988 because the attitude towards women at that time was so far behind that of IBM. Since then I have spent the rest of my career as an advocate for diversity and inclusion, and for the last 32 years I have been the first woman to hold my job. I start this piece with the story of my career and my growing focus on diversity and inclusion. Towards the end, I talk about the importance of associations like AWM in supporting women in fields where they are underrepresented, and share my recipe for how all organizations (academia, industry, government) can recruit and retain women who will thrive rather than just survive. I grew up as my father’s son. Born in 1951 in Toronto, Canada, the second of four daughters, from as long as I can remember I only liked boy things. My older sister

M. M. Klawe () Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_27

283

284

M. M. Klawe

Anna helped my mother with housework, cooking and looking after the younger children, while I spent my time with my father gardening, doing woodwork and exploring. Anna was the good daughter, helpful and responsible. I was constantly in trouble for arguing with my parents. I loved math, music, art, science, and reading. My parents believed I had enormous talent and could succeed at anything I wanted to do. I was nine years old when I finally gave up on wishing I’d wake up as a boy the next morning. I became a mathematician by chance. I had planned on studying engineering at the University of Alberta. My goal was to become an architect, a course of study only available in graduate school in Canada at that time, so starting with engineering seemed a good way to combine my love of math, art and science. While registering for my first-year classes I discovered that engineering majors were not allowed to take the honors math classes, and instantly changed my major to honors math. My decision was cemented by my honors calculus class where the professor, Jack Macki, spent the first two weeks outlining the material for the entire year’s course. I had never been so excited by any subject in my life. I loved –δ proofs and how beautifully everything fit together. I didn’t find the small number of women in my classes and the absence of female professors discouraging since my personality resonated with the competition to be the best student in every course and the smartest person in the room (and yes, I am embarrassed by this now). I did engage in outreach efforts aimed at girls however because I felt girls were missing out on the beauty of mathematics. In my first couple of years my professors often asked me why I wanted to be a mathematician since there were no great female mathematicians and I had so many other talents. This only made me more determined to be a mathematician. However, I was also deeply involved in student protests at the university (it was the late 1960s) and desperately wanted to find ways to make society better. By the middle of my third year I couldn’t see how I could do that through pure mathematics, and I dropped out to travel the world. While on a beach in Goa in India a year later I realized how much I was missing mathematics. I was playing chess daily even though I didn’t like chess and reading recreational math books. I decided that I needed to return to university to do my PhD in math. I wrote a letter to the math department asking if I could do that. They responded immediately saying that since I had only completed two years of my honors degree I would need to finish it first, but that they would allow me to do this in a single year and to replace all the undergraduate math courses by the graduate ones. Thus after being gone for 21 months I found myself in several mathematics graduate courses and realized I had forgotten, or had never learned, any of the prerequisite knowledge. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. Instead of mathematics being incredibly easy and requiring no effort, I had to work really hard. At the beginning of my PhD I had no idea what area of pure mathematics I wanted to work in. I loved analysis, algebra and topology. I first thought I would work in algebraic topology but then took a course in graph theory and discovered a special affinity for combinatorial problems that were simple to state but had complicated patterns that needed to be discovered and articulated to find a solution. I ended

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science

285

up doing my thesis in functional analysis solving three 20-year-old problems in left amenable semigroups. My advisor, Tony Lau, pointed me at these problems because he thought my attraction to combinatorial problems might prove useful. While a grad student I knew that the academic job market in math was horrible but like many others I thought it wouldn’t affect me. In the fall of 1976 as I started my final year of my PhD I applied to every open position in pure mathematics in North America. There were 83, most of which were two-year postdoc or lecturer positions. I interviewed for a tenure-track assistant professor position at Oakland University in Michigan at the annual AMS meeting. That meeting was also my first encounter with AWM. I went to a reception and was thrilled to discover that there was an organization to support women in mathematics. I received a couple of offers for postdocs as well as a tenure-track offer from Oakland. Tony encouraged me to accept the offer from Oakland and I did. In September of 1977, I arrived at Oakland, one of four new assistant professors in the math department of which two were women, the first female faculty members in the department. At that time Oakland University was in the middle of fields between the towns of Pontiac to the southwest and Rochester to the east. There was no college town, no ethnic restaurants, no book stores nor foreign movies. I was desperately lonely and survived by going to lots of conferences, about one a month. At one conference I met someone whose work I knew in graph theory who held an appointment in the Computer Science department at Stanford. Several of his PhD students had offers from places like MIT, Bell Labs, etc. I commented that they must be fantastic students. His reply was that they were just average but that the job market in theoretical computer science was incredibly hot. I remarked on the unfairness between the situation in math and CS. His reply was to suggest that I do a second PhD in CS, and told me about a theoretical physicist, Andy Yao, with a PhD from Harvard who had just completed a second PhD in CS at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Andy went on to win the Turing Award in 2004. On this person’s advice I reached out in mid-March to three departments that he thought were the best place to do a PhD in theoretical computer science: MIT, Stanford and Toronto. Stanford told me that applications were already closed for the coming year. MIT told me that they would love to have me but couldn’t guarantee funding. Toronto said that they would be thrilled to have me since I was Canadian and the province of Ontario had just restricted their graduate fellowships to Canadian citizens and residents. In September 1978, I started as a graduate student at the University of Toronto, never having taken a CS course or written a line of code. My plan was to complete ten graduate courses in my first year, and write my thesis in the second year. For the first couple of weeks I understood very little except for the theory courses. I worked from 7 a.m. to midnight seven days a week and was doing fine by the middle of the semester. Towards the end of the first semester I started getting invitations to apply for faculty positions in Canadian CS departments. I went for my first interview in February and returned to find a phone message from the CS department head at Toronto asking me to call him immediately. When I did he asked why I hadn’t applied for a faculty position at Toronto. I replied that it was one of the top CS

286

M. M. Klawe

departments in the world. He told me I needed to apply by Monday morning, and I started as a tenure-track assistant professor on July 1, 1979. One of my first assignments as a new faculty member was to host a seminar series. The department thought this would help me to get to know some of the leading computer scientists around the world. The second speaker in the series was Nick Pippenger, a star young theoretical computer scientist at IBM Research in Yorktown Heights, NY. Nick was incredibly shy and unlike anyone I had ever dated. We fell in love and were engaged to be married within six weeks of his visit. Toronto was thrilled as they had been trying to recruit Nick for a couple of years. I was sure we would stay in Toronto but reluctantly agreed to interview for a position with a new theory group at IBM Research in San Jose, CA. In the end I decided that given Nick’s shyness it would make sense for us to spend a few years with IBM Research in California before moving to a university where he would have to interact with many more people. The move to IBM Research was incredibly helpful in developing my career for many reasons. First of all it gave me a chance to focus on research in my new field of theoretical computer science, and interact with top researchers throughout the Bay Area. Second, IBM was very supportive of women having children and it was much easier to have our two children there than it would have been in academia. (Of course, the fact that Nick wanted to share all the childcare responsibilities equally made a huge difference as well.) Third, I received fantastic management training that was not available in academia at that time. And fourth, it gave me the opportunity to found a new research group and then a new department. When I made the decision to learn computer science in 1978, I was also determined not to lose my connection with the mathematics community. It seemed obvious to me that there should be many areas where mathematics could help advance theoretical computer science and vice versa. After three years with IBM Research I started advocating to start a new research group in discrete mathematics to complement the theoretical computer science group founded and led by Ron Fagin. After a year of work, the new group was launched, and a year later I was made the senior manager of a new department with five research groups in mathematically related areas of computer science: theory, discrete math, functional programming, distributed systems, and computer vision. After seven years at IBM Research in San Jose, we began exploring a move to academia. We interviewed at several top CS departments in the US, but in the end decided to accept offers from the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver. Our decision surprised everyone in the theoretical computer science community, as well as UBC itself. We were leaving one of the top research groups in CS in the world for a small Canadian CS department offering us half our current salaries. On the other hand, the BC government wanted to build top CS, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering departments at the three provincial universities in order in order to create a knowledge-driven economy to complement and eventually replace its resource industries of forestry, fishing, and mining. As head of the UBC CS department I would have the chance to build a world class department on the west coast to complement the outstanding CS departments

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science

287

at Waterloo and Toronto. Moreover, my parents had moved to BC and were getting older and loved spending time with our children who were then six and three. And I very much wanted our children to attend French Immersion public schools, and those in Vancouver were excellent. And finally, Vancouver was my favorite city in the universe. In the end, Nick and I decided that this was the moment to follow our ideals and make a significant contribution to Canada. We arrived at UBC in September 1988. I was the first female faculty member in the CS department, the first female department head in the Faculty of Science, and the fourth female full professor (out of about 200) in the Faculty of Science. In fact there were only 11 female faculty in science out of about 300 when I arrived, and only two in the math department out of over 60. I was stunned by the small numbers of female faculty, especially since half of the undergraduates in science were female. I also noticed that the “he” pronoun was used absolutely everywhere and became used to constantly advocating for the use of “he or she” or “they.” Shortly after our decision to move to UBC, the Dean of Science became the Vice President for Research at UBC, and I was asked to serve on the search committee for his replacement. One of my roles was to ask candidates about their position on women in science. None of the three finalists, all white males, initially thought it was an issue that needed to be addressed. One responded that he was not opposed to women in science. When I pushed back pointing out the disparity between female students and female faculty and how important it was for students to have role models, he responded that if he became dean he would become an advocate for women in science and educate himself on the issue. He did become dean, and immediately appointed an Associate Dean for Women in Science. Moreover, in his nine years as dean he was able to double the number of female faculty to 22. Upon our arrival the UBC CS department had 13 faculty and a mandate to grow to 30 over the next five years. Naturally, hiring more women was a top priority. We interviewed about 20 candidates each year and made offers to a number of women each year but none accepted our offers. We were competing with much better known institutions in the US who were offering higher salaries. Moreover the opportunity to build a top department seemed less appealing and perhaps more risky to female candidates than males. In late 1994, I decided to apply for the position of Vice President of Student and Academic Services at UBC. A number of people had suggested that I might want to consider being president of a university and this seemed a good way to test whether I liked senior administration. Moreover, there were two things in this position’s portfolio that I wanted to change at UBC. In information technology, I wanted to create a plan to fully network the campus and provide workstations to all faculty and staff who needed them. In student services, I wanted to make students feel like valued members of the community instead of widgets in a factory. I made these priorities clear during the interview process and started as the first female vice president in the history of UBC in February 1995. In my second week on the job the president informed me that neither of these goals were strategic priorities for the institution and that I should just forget them. Needless to say, I was stunned . . . and

288

M. M. Klawe

determined to achieve both goals, which we did through a lot of hard work by many people at UBC despite the lack of support from the president. We continued to try to recruit female faculty members for the CS department. We had decided to track Canadian women doing PhDs in top CS departments in the US. One of these was Gail Murphy at the University of Washington whom I visited during my first year as a vice president. I was absolutely thrilled when she agreed to come if we could find a faculty position for her husband Mike, a biologist. With help from the provost and dean we were able to offer Mike a three-year visiting position in the microbiology department with the promise that he would be seriously considered when they had a tenure-track opening. A couple of years later he moved into a tenure-track position. Today Gail is the Vice President Research and Innovation at UBC and Mike is the head of the microbiology department. In my second year as vice president, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Canada’s equivalent to the NSF in the US, decided to launch a national program of five regional chairs for women in science and engineering. Each chair would lead regional activities designed to encourage women in STEM areas where they were underrepresented, and also collaborate nationally. UBC decided I would be their candidate proposed for the chair for the BC and Yukon region. To apply for the position I needed to have an industry sponsor willing to contribute $75,000 per year for five years, and IBM Canada agreed to do so because I had been working closely with them to build strong relationships with Canadian CS departments since the move to UBC. The university also needed to make a commitment and agreed that they would add another tenure-track faculty position in CS with the hope of recruiting a third woman to the department. I was delighted to be selected as the BC NSERC chair, and started my five-year term in summer 1997 while continuing in my vice-president role. In Canada, it was illegal to restrict a faculty position by gender, so we advertised for a CS faculty member with experience in mentoring and recruiting women in CS. I was thrilled when we recruited Anne Condon from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. While at IBM Research I had tried to recruit Anne as she was finishing her PhD at the University of Washington. Though I was not successful we had stayed in close touch, and when I co-founded the Computing Research Association’s Committee on the Status of Women (then CRA-W, now CRA-Broadening Participation) in 1991 with Nancy Leveson, we had recruited Anne as a committee member. Together with a new staff member in CS, Michele Ng, Anne and I worked hard to recruit more women in CS at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Over the five years of my chair, the percentage of women in the CS major went from 16% to 27% at a time when the percentage across Canada was about 12%. In fall of 1998, I became the Dean of Science at UBC while continuing as the NSERC BC chair. While I was proud of what we accomplished during my time as vice president, I was eager to return to a leadership role on the academic side since my passion is for research and teaching. As Dean of Science my two top priorities were to create a strategic vision for the Faculty of Science as part of UBC’s plan for obtaining additional faculty positions through the Canada Research Chairs national program, and to significantly increase the number of female faculty

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science

289

in Science. When I started there were 24 among the 11 departments. Four years later when I left to become Dean of Engineering at Princeton there were 48. In math we went from two to seven, including the retirement of one of the two initial women during that time. In CS we went from three to seven. There were several factors that contributed to our success. First, UBC had assembled resources to enable the hiring of a faculty couple when both the hiring departments were enthusiastic but one of the departments did not have an opening. Second, NSERC had a competitive program for a woman or indigenous person starting their first academic position in Canada that would provide successful applicants five years of partial salary funding. Because this program was viewed as prestigious the science department heads agreed that the dean should use discretionary funds to provide the remainder of the salary during the first five years. And third, several departments launched programs to invite women (at any level) that they would like to hire to visit for a few days. While at UBC I often gave talks at meetings in the US about our success in hiring female faculty and increasing the participation of women in CS. I found that few people believed similar approaches would work in top US institutions. Eventually I decided I needed to return to the US if I wanted to have more impact on women in STEM globally, which is how I ended up at Princeton as Dean of Engineering in January 2003. My husband Nick stayed at UBC for another semester so that our daughter could finish high school. That semester was a very difficult one. My best friend Anita Borg died in April from brain cancer. Soon afterwards my mother entered hospital with pneumonia, and passed away three months later. I was returning to Vancouver to see my family and my mother every couple of weeks. I was also experiencing intense culture shock at Princeton. I joked that moving from a large public university to the ivy league (i.e., the eight elite US private universities Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Pennsylvania, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and Cornell), from Dean of Science to Dean of Engineering, from Canada to the US, and from the west coast to the east coast, was about as bad as it could get. Things improved a lot once Nick joined me in Princeton. That fall we did a huge strategic planning exercise for the engineering school that was highly successful in engaging faculty, staff students, alumni and trustees from across the institution. Not surprisingly, increasing diversity in engineering was one of the six themes in the strategic plan that was launched in spring 2004. While at Princeton I was contacted at least once a week about a presidential or provost search being conducted somewhere. My automatic answer was that while I was honored to be asked, I had no intention of leaving Princeton in the near future. In summer of 2005, I received an email about the presidency at Harvey Mudd. Because I knew Mudd was known for innovation in undergraduate mathematics education, I read the attached brochure. The person they were looking for sounded just like me. I showed Nick the brochure and he agreed it did sound exactly like me but that we had just got to Princeton and could not possibly consider moving so soon. I pointed out that it was on the west coast, that I was sure my next job would be as a president somewhere on the west coast, and asked him to think about how many places we might be interested in. He agreed that there weren’t all that many, and we agreed that

290

M. M. Klawe

I would send them my CV but tell them I wasn’t a serious candidate. I tried to pull out of the search several times but somehow they kept on persuading me to go to the next stage. Eventually when it got to an on-campus visit, I told Princeton President Shirley Tilghman about the search. She was horrified that I would consider Harvey Mudd, saying I was supposed to be president of a place like Yale or Michigan. Eventually Mudd made me the offer. By then, Nick felt he would be happy to move to Mudd as he had been so impressed by the faculty and students. I was sure I would decide to stay at Princeton, but eventually, much like the decision to go to UBC, I decided it was a magical opportunity that I would always regret if I didn’t take. The opportunity I saw was that Mudd was founded to be a science and engineering college that focused on innovation in pedagogy and curriculum in STEM fields and also in humanities, social sciences and the arts, so that graduates would understand the impact of their work on society. I thought it could be the perfect place to discover how to attract and retain women and members of underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Somehow during the recruiting process we never discussed my commitment to diversity and inclusion. In retrospect, I think it was because I didn’t think I was going to accept the position, and they wanted a president who would lead a strategic planning process like the one we had done at Princeton. Thus I was quite surprised when after my arrival I talked about my goal to diversify our students and faculty, several board members and faculty told me that “Mudd is a merit-based institution and we couldn’t diversify without lowering standards.” Fortunately a similar strategic planning process to the one we created at Princeton ended up with “unsurpassed excellence and diversity at all levels” as one of the six themes. Luckily I had convinced Freeman Hrabowski, President of the University of Maryland Baltimore County, to be the keynote speaker at one of the strategic planning workshops. His passionate talk about UMBC’s success in sending large numbers underrepresented minorities to top PhD programs in STEM fields persuaded our community that it was possible. Over the last 14 years we have made significant progress in diversifying our faculty, staff, students, and board. With students, we have gone from about 30% women to about 50% women, including in fields like CS, physics, and engineering. We have gone from about 5% Hispanic to 20%, and about 0.5% black to 5% (or 8– 10% if we include multiracial students who present as Black). Our faculty is about 40% women, and we are slowly but steadily increasing the number of faculty of color. Our primary focus for the last several years has been on making our pedagogy, curriculum, and over-all environment engaging and supportive for everyone. We know that we still have a long way to go but we are committed to continuous change and improvement. Throughout my career I have served in leadership roles in various mathematics and computer science organizations and I have been struck by the impact that groups focusing on attracting, supporting, and recognizing women in math and CS have on the entire community. AWM was the first such organization that I joined, and I saw how its awards helped raise the visibility of women in math and its programs at meetings helped women build their networks and develop their careers. In 1990, I was the first woman ever elected to the board of the Computing

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science

291

Research Association (CRA) in its 20-year history. In my first year I was able to convince the board to create two undergraduate research awards, one for men and one for women. I was also able to nominate many women to run for election so that by the second year 30% of the board members were women. Together with Nancy Leveson, we persuaded CRA to create CRA-W, the committee on the status of women. Some of the early design principles for CRA-W have turned out to be particularly effective. Co-chairs serve three-year terms so that the workload is not overwhelming. Every committee member has to be involved in leading a project. Committee members should be leading researchers so that people realize that it’s everyone’s responsibility to help increase the participation of women. CRA-W has conducted a host of projects designed to help women advance in computing research careers. The Distributed Mentor Project matched female undergrads with female faculty across the country for summer research. Early-career workshops held at top research conferences demystify how to be successful in starting an academic career and getting tenure. Grad cohorts bring together 250 female PhD students once a year for several years so they can learn the skills needed for success in completing their degree and build a national network. Another program helps female associate professors build their case for promotion to full. Recently CRA-W changed its name to CRA-BP, where BP stands for “Broadening Participation,” to extend its activities to increasing the participation of all underrepresented groups. In 1994, with the support of CRA-W and the Association for Computing Machinery, Anita Borg and Telle Whitney launched the first Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference in Washington, DC. There were 453 attendees of which three were male. The experience was amazing. I had never been in a room with so many female computer scientists. In 1997, Anita created the Institute for Women and Technology (IWT) with the goal of recognizing, supporting and retaining women making significant contributions in technology. I was one of the first two trustees and became the first chair of the board after Anita became too ill to lead IWT, with Telle Whitney taking over the role of CEO. Telle and I had been Anita’s two closest female friends but didn’t know each other very well. When Anita died we decided to take over her role in each other’s lives. Telle did a phenomenal job of growing the Hopper conference and the impact of the Institute, which was renamed the Anita Borg Institute and eventually AnitaB.org. The most recent Hopper conference had 25,000 attendees. Another key organization supporting the participation of women in computing is the National Center for Women in IT (NCWIT). Founded in 2004 by Lucy Sanders, Telle Whitney, and Bobby Schnabel, it does many things to help increase the participation of women in IT, including awards for high school girls in computing, conferences, and information on best practices to help universities and companies. The success of organizations like AWM, CRA-W, AnitaB.org, and NCWIT have had a major impact on the mathematics and CS communities. Serving on the board of MSRI for the last 16 years, I have been thrilled to see how its support for women and other underrepresented groups has steadily increased. Similarly, serving on the board of Microsoft for almost seven years, I saw how Satya Nadella’s attendance at

292

M. M. Klawe

the Hopper conference in his first year as CEO transformed his understanding of the importance of diversity and inclusion. Finally, here is my recipe for success in building an environment in which women and underrepresented minorities will come and thrive: • Create an environment in which everyone feels supported and engaged. • Build confidence and community among members of underrepresented groups. • Ensure recruiting and interview processes avoid bias and value communication, creativity, and people skills in addition to technical ones. • Demystify the path to success. I will discuss some strategies to achieve these goals as well as provide some explanations why they are important. In my experience with a wide variety of organizations and institutions, people do their best work when they feel they are expected to succeed and have a strong sense of belonging. While there are many ways of achieving this goal, some of the most important include having leaders clearly articulate this as a cultural value, effective orientation processes, and imagery and stories in communication materials. For members of underrepresented groups it’s particularly important to provide frequent access to role models. Common approaches include speaker series, meal-time gatherings, and conferences (see Fig. 1). Mentor programs that match junior members with somewhat more senior members can also be highly effective, especially if mentors are provided with training. Since there is a lot of useful material available on how to avoid bias in recruiting and interviews, I will not cover this here, however I do want to explain the importance of explicitly mentioning communication, creativity, and people skills in

Fig. 1 AWM workshop participants Graciela Cerezo and Ramit Mehr talking with Maria Klawe at the 1998 SIAM Annual Meeting in Toronto. Klawe spoke in an AWM minisymposium on career planning and experiences

Supporting Women in Mathematics and Computer Science

293

Fig. 2 Jean Taylor, Susan Morey, Tammy Kolda, Sylvia Wiegand, Maria Klawe, Claudia Polini, Ellen Kirkman, panel on issues and inside information for women in mathematics, 1999 AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

job advertisements for technical positions. These are areas in which many women and other members of underrepresented groups feel they bring strong contributions (in addition to their technical skills) and want to work in places that will appreciate them. Similarly if the interview process does not assess these kinds of skills, applicants will doubt whether the organization really values them. One of the most important ingredients in the recipe is to demystify the path to success. In many organizations, the paths to promotion or tenure are not clearly defined. Members of the dominant groups will often learn much more from social interactions than those in underrepresented groups. Organizing workshops or panels to explicitly discuss what leads to success helps everyone and levels the playing field (see Fig. 2). While the world today is much more supportive of women in mathematics and computer science than it was 50 years ago, there is still much work to be done.

Personal Reflections: An Evolving Perspective on Women in Mathematics Leslie Hogben

This article is part memoir and part opinion piece, in which I describe my fortunate mathematical life and my evolving perspective on women in mathematics, including the need for organizations such as the AWM. I was raised in an academic family that assumed I would be some kind of scientist, and I figured out early (with the help of a fantastic middle/high school teacher) that I wanted to be a mathematician. I was raised to believe people were people regardless of gender or color and this led me to be oblivious to the impact of implicit bias and systemic racism. I began my career completely focused on math, worked primarily individually, and benefited from luck and wonderful mentors along the way. Since I have had a very fortunate life with a wonderful supportive husband, this obliviousness worked very well for me. I was raised in a loving family that provided many opportunities for educational enrichment and went to University High School in Iowa City, where my favorite math teacher Gerardus Vervoort mentored me and provided research-like discovery experiences. I very much enjoyed my college and graduate education and thrived both professionally and personally. Through a combination of effort and luck in obtaining external scholarships, I arrived at each school with the faculty assuming I would be a star. It is much easier to succeed when everyone assumes that you will. Swarthmore and the University of Warwick, UK (where I spent my junior year) were wonderful places to grow personally and mathematically. Swarthmore in particular The opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of any organization that employs or funds her. L. Hogben () Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA American Institute of Mathematics, San Jose, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_28

295

296

L. Hogben

provided extensive individual mentoring by faculty (e.g., Eugene Klotz spent an entire afternoon sitting on the lawn helping me make the right choice for graduate school). My four years at Yale were also very pleasant, taking courses and doing research for my PhD in under Nathan Jacobson (and meeting my future husband). I was fortunate to obtain a tenure-track position at Iowa State University (ISU) upon graduation in 1978, where I have been ever since. When I arrived, Anne Steiner was a full professor and became the department chair within a few years, and I think her presence influenced what I consider to be a very supportive departmental culture. After focusing on research and getting tenure, I chose (with my husband Mark Hunacek’s support) to take two years leave without pay when my daughter was born, and then worked part-time until she was in first grade. During this time I did no research (although I wrote a textbook while on leave). While working parttime and for several years after, I focused on teaching. After about eight years I decided I wanted to gradually get back into research by attending a seminar. Due to schedule conflicts with the algebra seminar, I joined the linear algebra seminar. There I learned about combinatorial matrix theory, which allowed me to combine my longstanding (but undeveloped) interest in graph theory with linear algebra. This has been a great choice for me, not only because of scientific fit, but because different research areas have different cultures, and I have found that linear algebra has a very inclusive, welcoming, and supportive culture. After restarting my research in combinatorial matrix theory, I took on my first PhD student Amy Wangsness, and this had a transformative effect on my own work. She and I and Luz DeAlba (then a professor at Drake University) began working on a project together. We declared ourselves a “research group” and suddenly began to attract other students to collaborate on research with us. This group served as one of the models for the creation of the Early Graduate Research (EGR, pronounced “eager”) course at ISU. It has been a wonderful experience working with graduate students, postdocs, and other collaborators, and I have spent much of my time over the past twenty years not only working with graduate students on research but also working to improve graduate education more broadly (since 2019 I spend half my time as Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Faculty Development in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences). As she was preparing to graduate in 2005, Amy pointed out that the Iowa State Mathematics Department was graduating a lot of women PhDs that year and asked what we were doing to replace them. We also had conversations about how the women in this cohort had supported each other, and she shared her perspective that programs to encourage women were important. Talking with her and other women students led me to take a more active role in working to recruit and retain a more diverse group of graduate students. It was in this period that I joined AWM; I regret that I did not do so earlier. In 2007, I became the Associate Director for Diversity of the American Institute of Mathematics and began working directly with AWM in that role (see Fig. 1). At ISU, I also took on more formal diversity roles as the Mathematics Department’s Diversity Director in 2009 and as the leader of an EDGE (Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education) Mentoring Cluster in 2010. Several women graduate students

Personal Reflections: An Evolving Perspective on Women in Mathematics

297

Fig. 1 Leslie Hogben, a judge at the AWM Workshop poster session, and Tracy Weyand, a winner of the top poster prize, 2014 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

at ISU participated in the main EDGE summer bridge program, and I have been told by many of them that the support of their (summer) EDGE cohort was critical to the completion of their degrees. The EDGE@ISU Mentoring Cluster, whose membership was limited to women, included graduate students in mathematics and statistics plus faculty Alyson Wilson, Karin Dorman, and myself. It met 6–8 times a year from 2010 until 2017. In the fall of 2017, the graduate women in EDGE@ISU created an AWM student chapter at Iowa State. The first elected officers were Carolyn Reinhart, president; Nate Harding, vice president; and Kate Lorenzen, secretary. The ISU student chapter of AWM put on activities for undergraduates, including both social (math movie night, craft night, etc.) and some professional development (discussions of graduate school and Research Experiences for Undergraduates). For graduate students, the chapter held professional development discussions with ISU leaders such as the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The chapter helped represent the mathematics department at the inauguration of ISU’s first female president. I served as the first faculty advisor and currently Hien Nguyen advises the chapter. Michael Young worked with graduate students to create the Mathematicians of Color Alliance (MOCA) at ISU, and in 2017 he worked with MOCA and EDGE@ISU student leaders to secure an ISU mini-grant to bring in six speakers during the 2017–2018 academic year as the Joint EDGE-MOCA Speaker Series (JEMSS). In summer 2018 the series was renamed JAMSS (Joint AWM-MOCA Speaker Series). Kate Lorenzen, Carolyn Reinhart, Mary (O’Driscoll) Vaughan, and

298

L. Hogben

Christine (Wiersma) Vaughan met with the mathematics department chair, the dean of the Graduate College, and the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and secured two additional years of funding for speakers; as of this writing, JAMSS continues but in virtual format due to COVID-19. The efforts of EDGE, MOCA, the AWM student chapter at ISU, and various faculty have helped the Department of Mathematics build a diverse and successful graduate program. The ISU Mathematics Department won the 2015 AMS Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a Mathematics Department, partly based on the diversity of its graduate program. Over the past five years the department has awarded 56 PhDs, of which 32% were earned by women and 16% by underrepresented minorities (as defined by NSF). Several questions naturally arise from the development of the ISU student chapter of AWM. While the students who founded it and led it initially accomplished a great deal and can document these accomplishments, it was and is a large time commitment. Overall, is it a net gain professionally to invest so much time in leadership as opposed to research and teaching? (This is an abstract question, since all the individuals mentioned are thriving.) Is there any way to reduce the time burden on graduate student leaders, the vast majority of whom are women? Every organization must go through periodic transitions of leadership (or cease operations), but the changes are more frequent and potentially disruptive when the leaders are graduate students. The ISU chapter is currently working though this issue, because the original leaders are graduating. What is the best way for local faculty and AWM to support chapters through such transitions? I do not have answers to these questions. I should mention that through my work with various national organizations I have seen the effectiveness of AWM communications with its student chapters: Organizers of conferences and workshops sometimes contact me seeking advice on how best to recruit women graduate students to apply. I tell them to ask AWM to distribute a message to its student chapters. Another major impact of AWM that I see is the creation of the Research Networks (and the Research Collaboration Conferences for Women that build them) though the AWM-ADVANCE program. In national programs that offer competitive funding for groups of research collaborators, there are now groups of women competing successfully with groups of men and with mixed groups. Fifteen years ago, all-women (or even majority women) groups of researchers were very rare. Many of the all-women groups formed in recent years trace their origins to AWM Research Networks. I should however mention that I remain queasy about excluding men from research groups; I support the AWM philosophy of welcoming everyone who supports women in mathematics. I also very much enjoyed attending the 2019 AWM Research Symposium at Rice University (see Fig. 2) and am looking forward to the 50th Anniversary AWM Research Symposium in 2022 at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications. Clearly I was the beneficiary of efforts of many people and organizations, especially AWM, to open doors for women in mathematics. It was very easy for me personally to step through the doors and take advantage of these opportunities and in turn, I gave back (see Fig. 3). But many women and members of other groups

Personal Reflections: An Evolving Perspective on Women in Mathematics

299

Fig. 2 Shanise Walker, Kate Lorenzen, Carolyn Reinhart, Mary Flagg, Daphne Liu, Leslie Hogben. Graph Theory special session, 2019 AWM Research Symposium at Rice University, Houston, TX. Photo courtesy of Ruth Haas

Fig. 3 AWM President Ruth Haas and AWM Fellows Roselyn Williams, Leslie Hogben, Eileen Poiani, Maura Mast, Sarah Greenwald, Marge Bayer, Karen Uhlenbeck, Michelle Manes, 2020 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Denver, CO. AWM Fellows are individuals who have demonstrated a sustained commitment to the support and advancement of women in the mathematical sciences

that have been marginalized do not start out with a privileged foundation like I had. Such a foundation just doesn’t exist for most women and even less so for people of color and other marginalized groups.

300

L. Hogben

Because of this, opening the door is not enough: Most members of groups that are underrepresented in mathematics and other sciences do not have the opportunities I had to enable them to prepare themselves to step through. So the AWM and other organizations that work to broaden participation are essential. In my opinion, young women should not feel more pressure than young men to try to fix the ills of our culture, and I do not fault my younger self for my mathematical (and personal life) focus. While the efforts of young people to achieve meaningful change are wonderful, I think the moral obligation to build a more just and inclusive mathematical and academic culture rests with established mathematicians and academic leaders. Acknowledgement I thank the referees for their helpful comments.

What AWM Has Meant to Me Susan Landau

These days I am a Bridge Professor of Cyber Security and Policy, holding tenured appointments at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and the School of Engineering, Department of Computer Science at Tufts University. I work at the intersection of cybersecurity, national security, law, and policy. I’ve written three books on encryption and wiretap policy, testified in Congress and briefed European policy makers. I race between doing research on categorizing the privacy impacts of different uses of communications metadata, writing op-eds and policy pieces on privacy, encryption, and surveillance, working in various committees, some at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, on such topics as encryption policy and bulk signals collections. It’s a heady experience, and I love it. But this short essay is not about the present. It’s about a difficult period in my life 25 years ago and what AWM has meant for me in my career as a woman in mathematics and theoretical computer science. I was an undergraduate math major at Princeton in the 1970s, started graduate school in mathematics at Cornell, and finished at MIT in applied math and theoretical computer science in 1983. This was not an easy time to be a woman in mathematics; discrimination was rife and few did anything about it. After graduate school, my husband, a fellow theoretical computer scientist, and I found positions at schools close to one another, he at Yale and I at Wesleyan. But my husband was turned down for tenure, and that’s when my troubles began. We moved to new positions, tenured for him, a promise of a future permanent position for me—but I didn’t have that in writing. The assurances made to me when

S. Landau () The Fletcher School and School of Engineering, Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_29

301

302

S. Landau

we moved did not turn out to be the solid commitment that I had thought them to be. Four years after we arrived, the promised tenure-track position in my area appeared, but I was not hired. I was then a decade past my PhD with two small children, a two-body problem made worse by the fact my husband and I were both in theoretical computer science, and a job market that, while good in computer science, did not look favorably on our subfield. And though my work was quite good—I’d been publishing impressive results, steadily obtaining NSF grants, including a prestigious NSF Math Postdoctoral Fellowship—I now faced a possibly career-ending situation. Because the job hunt would be difficult, I was offered a short-term half-time teaching appointment in the department while we searched for a new home. My appointment included expectations that I would act as a regular member of the faculty, including running such activities as the department’s distinguished lecture series and outreach for women students. But when an academic department rejects someone they know, whether a candidate for tenure or a several-year visitor for a tenure-track position, members justify that decision to themselves. Being in the department on a daily basis was tough. I was nonetheless determined to do it right. Years before Michelle Obama told us all, “When they go low, we go high,” I sought to act that way. I wrote an article for the Computing Research Association Newsletter on the two-body problem discussing how various institutions had imaginative solutions that enabled both members of the couple to pursue their careers—never mentioning the career disruption I was facing (Landau, 2005). Inside, though, the situation was tearing me apart. The support of friends helped me keep my footing. A number of professional colleagues let me know that they thought really well of my work and were very disturbed by how things had turned out. A year’s sabbatical at Cornell—in the computer science department, which had always treated me well—helped a lot. But perhaps the biggest impact was an invitation from AWM; I was asked to participate in a panel at the 1995 Joint Mathematics Meetings on “AWM: Why do we need it now?” I had known AWM since I joined while a graduate student at Cornell. When I was at MIT, AWM President Bhama Srinivasan asked Debbie Franzblau, a fellow graduate student, and me to help with a project to have graduate students join AWM. I was pleased to become involved and even more pleased to see AWM reaching out to graduate students. Once I finished my PhD I joined the AWM Speakers’ Bureau. I also spoke at a meeting on mathematics and computing at NYU organized by former AWM president Lenore Blum while she was on an NSF Visiting Professorship for Women at CUNY. I’d never before attended a workshop in which all the speakers were women; that was a heady and exciting experience. And my first academic position was as a computer scientist within the Wesleyan math department; Carol Wood, later to become AWM president, was a dynamite senior woman to have as a colleague. The advice she gave me then still resonates today. When AWM asked me to be on a panel at the 1995 Joint Mathematics Meetings (see Fig. 1), the professional recognition lifted my spirits. Acknowledgment that I was a professional despite my lack of a regular position was not forthcoming within computer science; AWM’s affirmation greatly heartened me. I used the panel as an

What AWM Has Meant to Me

303

Fig. 1 Ruth Williams, Susan Landau, Mary Gray, Sylvia Bozeman, AWM panel discussion “AWM: Why do we need it now?,” 1995 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Francisco, CA

opportunity to determine the positions of the women who had finished their PhDs at MIT during the period 1980–1984. I picked that time frame not only because it was when I completed my degree, but also because it provided a sufficiently long span that the graduates should have moved to permanent academic positions if that was their intent. I’m not trained as a social scientist who could investigate the why behind the data I found, and my study wasn’t an academic work with definitive results (Landau, 1995). But the numbers themselves were sufficiently striking to be of interest. With help from the MIT math department graduate secretary, I tracked 65 of the 80 people who had earned PhDs from the department during that period (in this pre-Google era, neither I nor the graduate secretary could find information on one woman and 14 men). Three-quarters of the men were tenured, just over half the women were. But the number of women was sufficiently low that changes in a couple of situations would make such a difference insignificant. Once I looked at the different categories of PhD-granting departments, however, the difference in career trajectories was quite notable.1 Fourteen men were tenured at Group I departments; only one woman was. Four men were tenured in Group II; no women were. Seven men were tenured in Group III departments; one woman was. I understood then that the sexism I had encountered was not mine alone, but a systemic problem affecting us all. That realization didn’t help me find the next position, but it did help me stop blaming myself for the situation I was in. My difficult circumstances finally ended—though landing on my feet occurred in a completely unexpected way. In April 1993, just as I was being turned down for 1 At the time, the American Mathematical Society (AMS) used ratings of departments based on the “quality of their research faculty,” with Group I being considered the strongest, Group II less so, Group III all remaining math departments, and Group IV, statistics, biostatistics, and biometrics programs (Fulton, 1995, p. 864).

304

S. Landau

the faculty position, the New York Times broke a story about a proposed encryption system—“Clipper”—for securing private-sector communications (Markoff, 1993). Escrowed keys would be stored with agencies of the US government. The proposal had academic and industry communities up in arms over the security and privacy implications. USACM, the US public policy committee of the Association for Computing Machinery, the largest professional organization of computer scientists, organized a report on encryption policy. I was hired as staff, but realizing my background and skills, the committee quickly elevated me to being the report’s primary author (Landau et al., 1994). The report marked the beginning of a difference for my career. As is the case for many committee efforts, the report saw lots of temporizing. Whitfield Diffie, the co-inventor of public-key cryptography and a committee member, suggested we write a book on encryption policy; he expected this to take 6 months. Writing a book on encryption policy was an unusual direction for someone whose career involved proving theorems. But working with Whit sounded fascinating—and doing the book was important. I said yes. Three-and-a-half years later MIT Press published Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption. The book made the second big difference in my career. Ten months after that, Sun Microsystems, where Whit worked, offered me a position split between policy and technical work—and they would allow me to work from home (Sun was headquartered in California; I was in Massachusetts). And that made the biggest difference of all. I accepted Sun’s offer expecting to stay for a year or two. Instead I was at Sun until the company folded eleven years later. It was a company filled with smart people doing interesting things. From the start, I was treated like the smart person I really was. Five years into my time at Sun I realized I was becoming a policy wonk. I loved what I was doing, and Sun was happy. I never looked back. I transitioned from proving theorems to writing law-review and policy papers. Post Sun, my career has included time in academia—a Radcliffe Institute Fellowship, a year visiting Harvard Computer Science, a few years at Worcester Polytechnic Institute—and industry—a short consulting role for SRI, a brief time as a Senior Staff Privacy Analyst at Google. I am delighted to now be at Tufts, splitting my time between policy work and computer science, launching a new masters program in Cybersecurity and Public Policy, teaching and educating and researching. It’s a perfect role for me. I feel very lucky. My career in science nearly came tumbling down a quarter century ago. That it didn’t is due to a combination of my grit, the support of my friends and colleagues, and various actions by the professional community that reinforced my belonging even though my professional status didn’t say so. I so much appreciate AWM, which has long understood that its mission is to raise all women and not just to elevate those who are already successful. I have seen that guiding principle in many of AWM’s actions. To mention just one, the AWM panel at the 2004 Joint Mathematics Meetings on supporting the diverse personal lives of mathematicians and the subsequent online discussion was amazing and wonderful to me (AWM, 2004). I cut my teeth in math departments in which only mathematics mattered. Here were serious mathematicians discussing the impact of race, religion,

What AWM Has Meant to Me

305

and ethnicity, sexual orientation, single parenting, illness, and loss on their lives and their lives as mathematicians (AWM, 2004). I saw an openness and candor I had never previously seen in the mathematics community. Such conversations help to bring diverse mathematicians into the fold and are incredibly important to us all. This dialogue—and there were others—occurred long before such discussions were common in professional settings. They are testament to AWM’s clear view that everybody counts. I’m proud to be part of such an organization. It has been a long time since I proved a theorem, but AWM remains close to my heart. I will always be grateful for what AWM gave me when my career was in its rough period—and what it continues to give to others.

References AWM. 2004. AWM JMM Panel 2004: Supporting the Diverse Personal Lives of Mathematicians. Mirror Site: http://comet.lehman.cuny.edu/sormani/AWM/forum2004.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2020. Fulton, John D. 1995. 1994 Annual AMS-IMS-MAA Survey: Enrollments, faculty characteristics, and update on new doctoral recipients, Fall 1994. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 42(8): 863–874. Landau, Susan. 1995. What happens to the women? AWM Newsletter 25(2): 6–7. Landau, Susan. 2005. Universities and the two-body problem. In Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett (eds.), Complexities: Women in mathematics, Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 253–256. (Originally appeared in Computing Research News 6(2): 4 and was reprinted in the Association for Women in Mathematics Newsletter 24(2): 12–14 and the SIGACT News 25(2): 41–43.) Landau, Susan, Stephen T. Kent, Clinton Brooks, Scott Charney, Dorothy E. Denning, Whitfield Diffie, Anthony Lauck, Douglas Miller, Peter G. Neumann, and David Sobel. 1994. Codes, keys, and conflicts: Issues in US crypto policy, report by a special panel of the ACM US Public Policy Committee (USACM) June 1994 (Technical Report). https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/ 10.1145/185354 Markoff, John. 1993, April 16. Electronics plan aims to balance government access with privacy. New York Times, p. A1.

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States Semra Kılıç-Bahi

Before College: Elâzı˘g I had no chance! I remember thinking that all the odds were against me getting a degree in higher education. I was born in a low-resource city (Elâzı˘g), in a lowresource region (Eastern Anatolia), of a developing country (Turkey). I did not have any woman mathematician, engineer, or scientist as a role model. In my town, the highest educational opportunity for women was the teacher institute, which graduated elementary school teachers. To make matters worse, the high school I attended, which was the one closest to our home, was a charter school that emphasized trade-related curriculum focused on typing, accounting, and economics. In 1970s Turkey, if you wanted to go to university, you needed to take two university entrance exams. One was geared towards assessing critical thinking skills and the other was similar to the SAT. University admission depended on the weighted average of the two exam scores. Other parts of the country had exam prep schools and private tutoring to prepare students for these exams. In my hometown, we did not even have access to the prep books. However, I had a few things in my favor. Even though my parents had no formal education, they valued it highly. My father had learned to read and write as a teenaged tailor’s apprentice with the help of a co-worker. My mom learned to read and write in her 30s by attending an adult learning class. I had a father who believed in equal rights. I had a mother who emphasized that women’s equal rights started with their economic freedom. My father was a tailor. Twice a year he went to Istanbul to purchase material for his store. Each time, he brought back tons of books, including a university

S. Kılıç-Bahi () Colby Sawyer College, New London, NH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_30

307

308

S. Kılıç-Bahi

entrance exam preparation book. We also bought three newspapers daily: left-wing, moderate, and right-wing. I would read all three of the newspapers in detail. During the summer months, I loved curling up on the couch and reading a book or working on math problems. I also registered for a mail-order English course. I received a study module once a week, took a quiz at the end of the module, and mailed the quiz to be graded. There were written pronunciation guidelines, but I did not hear a native English speaker until university. One of my older sisters had taken the university entrance exam and encouraged me to make the Middle East Technical University mathematics program my number one choice.

College Years: Ankara With all this, my score was good enough to get into my first choice. At that time, it was very rare for someone from my hometown to get into Middle East Technical University (METU). Because the university was a state school, we only had to pay room and board, which made it realistic for me to attend. Instruction at METU was entirely in English, so I was supposed to go through a year-long English program in preparation. Unfortunately, the university was closed that year due to political unrest in the country. The next year, when it opened, our cohort received a twomonth intensive English course. That year was a huge challenge for me. It became quite clear that my high school education had not prepared me for university. I had not heard of many of the concepts or topics that the instructors assumed we had learned in high school. I bought high school mathematics books used in big cities and studied them on my own while simultaneously trying to learn the material taught in classes. But after that first year, I was on the dean’s list almost every semester.

Masters Degree Study: Ankara and Saskatoon After finishing university, I took the masters degree entrance exam and started to work on my masters degree at METU. One of the graduate professors approached me and asked me to work with him. I did not know that many of the female students who worked with him did not complete their studies. After two years of his changing my masters degree topic once a month, asking me to give presentations on weekends, and finally suggesting that I make my presentations at his house, I decided to take action. I went directly to the department chairperson and asked if I could change my advisor. The chairperson did not ask for an explanation; he told me to find another advisor and inform him of my choice. My new advisor was a kind, professional, and encouraging person. He had received his PhD in the US and encouraged me to think about graduate studies outside of Turkey. Another professor of mine, who had received her masters degree from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, was also encouraging me to apply

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States

309

to graduate schools overseas. She helped me to fill out the application form for the University of Saskatchewan’s masters program. Even though I was scared about living so far away and in a foreign land, I was also delighted when I received my acceptance letter. When I went to Canada, I found out that the only professor who was working on differential equations was planning to retire. I was left to choose between numerical analysis and functional analysis, and I chose functional analysis. Again, there were a lot of prerequisite courses that I had not taken related to theoretical mathematics. One more time, I tried to fill in the gaps on my own, completed the required courses, and finished my masters degree.

Doctoral Study: Durham Toward the end of my masters degree, my advisor encouraged me to apply for PhD programs. I started my PhD work at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). After finishing my PhD competence exams, I started to work on C*-algebras. At that time, there was a constant power struggle between subfields within the mathematics department. During the second year of my work on my PhD, I was asked by some of my professors to take sides against my advisor. Instead, I removed myself from the situation by changing my PhD advisor and my topic. My new advisor, Eric Nordgren, was well-respected by all the different factions in the department, which allowed me to avoid drama and focus on my studies. However, this change added a few more years to the completion of my PhD degree.

First Encounter with the Association for Women in Mathematics My advisor encouraged me to attend conferences on operator theory in Canada. During one of these conferences, I met Chandler Davis. He introduced me to the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) and encouraged me to apply for an AWM Travel Grant. During the last year of my PhD program, I applied and received an AWM-NSF Travel Grant. That was the first time I attended the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM). At that meeting, I presented a poster (see Fig. 1) and spent a good amount of time with Chandler Davis and Cora Sadosky, the president of AWM. During these conversations, they were genuinely interested in my experience as a woman mathematician in Turkey. I shared with them that I was never told I wouldn’t be good at mathematics because I was a woman. Even in my conservative hometown, people did not think that women could not be good at mathematics, they just did not think women needed to know it. I remember people saying, “How much

310

S. Kılıç-Bahi

Fig. 1 Standing: Lenore Blum, Aihua Li, Kathleen Madden, Judith Miller, Mirjana Jovovic, Sheryl Wills, Semra Kılıç-Bahi; sitting: Susan Lee, Nadine Kowalsky, Sherri Brugh, Anne Dougherty, AWM workshop, 1994 JMM, Cincinnati, OH

math do you need to be a good cook?” In my opinion, the major barriers for women in Turkey were traditional gender roles and inequities in access to resources. When we talked about the tough job market, Cora offered to be a reference for my job applications. At that time, I did not realize what an unfair workload it was for her, because I applied to almost 100 schools. For the next few years, I attended JMM and participated in the employment center. I met Mary Ellen Rudin and Alice Schafer at one of the AWM gatherings. They both took time to meet with women PhD students and AWM members.

Jobs, Commuting, and Motherhood During the last four years of my PhD work, I met my future husband. It turned out that I “chose” the brutal years (1992–1994) of the academic job market to graduate. We were feeling the effects of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the opening of East Germany. Before I received my PhD, I had taught at the UNH masters degree program for high school teachers in the summer. Since I had received consistently good evaluations from the teachers, UNH sponsored my work visa to teach one more year after graduation. In the meantime, I tried to find a job. Not having a green card or US citizenship was a clear disadvantage. Even though I was married to an American citizen, I was reluctant to apply for a marriage-based green card but did so when I realized that it was impossible to find an employer who would support my work visa. While

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States

311

the green-card procedure continued, I accepted a one-year sabbatical replacement position at a small college, Bard College at Simons Rock, for students who had finished their high school requirements before their peers. The calculus course I taught there was almost equivalent to the real analysis course I had taught in the UNH masters for teachers program. We proved every theorem and lemma we used. If I used a property before proving it, students would remind me. It was heavenly! However, I was paid half the salary of the person who was on sabbatical. At that time, my husband’s job was more than 3 hours away from my job. So, I rented a place near the school for that academic year and went home some weekends. I had my first miscarriage there. That summer, I attended the History of Mathematics Institute for three weeks in Washington, DC, under the leadership of Victor Katz and Fred Rickey. Through this experience, I was able to eventually design and teach several courses on the history of mathematics, parts of which would later be integrated into many of my courses. Fernando Gouvêa from Colby College was also attending the same meeting. He asked me to apply for a faculty fellow position at Colby College for the next academic year. After I accepted the position at Colby College, I learned that I was pregnant. It was a pregnancy with many complications. I ended up losing the baby while teaching there. As with my previous job, Colby College was more than three hours away from home. I rented a place there and commuted home on weekends. The summer after Colby College, I got pregnant again. This time, I was constantly monitored by a doctor. I gave up on the idea of finding a job in higher education, sent my resume to Carney Sandoe & Associates for high school teaching jobs, and got an interview with Cambridge School of Weston in Massachusetts. During my interview, I mentioned my pregnancy, but not my history of miscarriages. The department chairperson was welcoming and quickly came up with a plan to cover my teaching for the month that I was expected to give birth. Although the school was only an hour away from home, it took me more than two hours to drive there if I did not leave before 6 am. So, I gave birth to my daughter when I was employed at Cambridge School of Weston. I do not know how I would have managed the next few years without the support of my chairperson, Maxine Bridger, since I did not have my own social support system. On the days when daycare for my daughter was not available, I took her to school. Most of the time, she slept in her stroller during class. When one of the single faculty members complained about bringing my daughter to school, my chairperson said, “We should be grateful to women who are bringing up the next generation of citizens. When you get older you will need the services of this new generation.” After this explanation, my colleague was more supportive. This was not the first time I felt the strong support of my chairperson. I had my second child when I was working there. Towards the end of my fourth year, my chairperson told me that if I wanted to go back to higher education, I should do it soon. If I took too long a break, I might not be able to go back. I applied and got the position as a half-time instructor at Emmanuel College. Since I was a half-time employee, I did not have

312

S. Kılıç-Bahi

any benefits. The teaching load for a full-time instructor was three courses. As a half-time instructor, I was asked to teach two courses, and teach the third one as an overload. At this point, I have to note that the amount of money I earned was less than the amount I paid for childcare. Some family members tried to convince me that it made more sense for me not to work. While teaching at Emmanuel College, I applied for a small grant to organize mathematics seminars for the Colleges of the Fenway, a consortium that included Emmanuel College, and developed speaker series for mathematics faculty in the consortium. Around this time, I saw an advertisement for a tenure-track position in a small liberal arts college in New Hampshire. I applied for the position and have been at this college since 2003. This was my first tenure-track position, I was employed in the state where I lived, and my drive to work was only 1 hour and 15 minutes.

First Tenure-Track Position Colby-Sawyer College is located in the northern part of New Hampshire. My experiences during the first few weeks of my employment made me realize the challenges waiting for me in this institution. One faculty member walked into my office and asked me if I believed in God and what my religion was. Since my answer was not satisfactory to her, after that she held the cross on her necklace up at me anytime she was in my office. Another faculty member asked if I had renounced my Turkish citizenship. However, my other departmental colleagues were welcoming and supportive. I also had a supportive Vice President and Dean of Faculty, Judy Muyskens, who had lived overseas and was very comfortable interacting with people from different backgrounds. During my job interview with her, I mentioned the book Mathematics and Democracy. After I was hired, she asked me to evaluate the mathematical needs of the other disciplines represented on campus and revise the curriculum accordingly. After interviewing the key people in other departments, I came to the conclusion that a quantitative literacy across the curriculum approach would be best suited to the needs of the campus and would give us the opportunity to infuse mathematical concepts in other disciplines through meaningful contexts.

Quantitative Literacy That summer, the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) had a two-week workshop on quantitative literacy (QL) in Washington. I attended that workshop and met many leaders of the QL movement there: Dorothy Wallace, Len Vacher, Judith Moran, Caren Diefenderfer, Stuart Boersma, and Aaron Montgomery. I believe it was there that MAA’s Special Interest Group on Quantitative Literacy (SIGMAA-

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States

313

QL) was initiated. After coming back from that workshop, I prepared PowerPoint slides that focused on what QL is, why we needed it, and how we could implement it, and made a presentation to the Academic Vice President (AVP). She liked the ideas and asked me to gather support from others on campus. When we had gathered the support of enough key people, we applied for an NSF grant, but were not funded. The second year, I attended another QL workshop with six more colleagues from Colby-Sawyer. The year after that, nine of us from Colby-Sawyer attended a QL conference. I had a true partnership with my AVP. She encouraged and financially supported the faculty who were attending QL conferences. She also supported “wine and cheese” faculty gatherings, where we introduced the idea of QL across the curriculum to the college community. When we applied for an NSF grant for the second time, we were funded! There was an amazing amount of energy and enthusiasm across the college. We offered several faculty and staff development workshops, developed class activities, hosted the North East Consortium on QL annual event, partnered with Carleton College Quantitative Inquiry, Reasoning, and Knowledge initiative leaders, and organized the annual numeracy workshop on our campus. When all of this was happening, I did not even consider my own career goals. I did not think to request a formal role to make sure that I would get a professional title and guarantee the sustainability of this initiative. While I was doing all this work, I was teaching four courses per semester, serving on several committees, and organizing events. The second year of our grant, the key senior campus leadership changed. The new AVP believed that too much emphasis on quantitative skills was not a good marketing tool for our college’s student demographics. The whole political and social landscape of the college changed very quickly. Moreover, the support related to our QL work started to thin. Even getting data from the registrar’s office became a challenge. I had to jump through several hoops before I could get anything done. Many promising opportunities were blocked. During our work related to QL, I came up with the idea of applying for an NSF grant to develop a national, non-proprietary Quantitative Literacy and Reasoning assessment question depository and data storage. However, since I was not sure that I would have a supportive enough environment to effectively carry out this work, I sought a partner to help with implementation. Eric Gaze from Bowdoin College liked the idea and took the lead in applying for this grant, while I served as Co-Principal Investigator. Through MAA, I have been able to keep up with recent trends and resources related to teaching and learning of mathematics and to continue being involved in the mathematics community. Through SIGMAA-QL, I met a lot of excellent mathematicians who cared about teaching and the role of mathematics in their community and at large in public. Also through the SIGMAA, I met AWM member Maura Mast and benefited greatly from her mentorship. She informed me about different opportunities and constantly supported me. Being the only mathematician in the School of Arts and Sciences and only faculty member with a foreign background in my college helped me to be more mindful about inequities in our education system.

314

S. Kılıç-Bahi

MAA Committee on Women and the Joint Committee on Women While I was serving on the MAA Committee on the Participation of Women (CPW), the committee organized panels, workshops, and contributed paper sessions to increase awareness of issues faced by underrepresented groups. When I became the chair of the CPW, we had almost completed a Welcoming Environment statement. Besides the adoption of the statement, the MAA leadership also agreed to use a third-party company to report actions prohibited by the Welcoming Environment statement at the JMM and include the statement in JMM and MathFest registration forms. The Joint Committee on Women (JCW) in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences has played a critical role in many of the initiatives supported by CPW. One of these initiatives was the development and adoption of a Welcoming Environment statement. The JCW serves as a forum for communication among member organizations and aims to enhance opportunities for women in the mathematical and statistical sciences. Before the National Association of Mathematicians joined in 2017, the JCW represented eight organizations: AWM and MAA, along with the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, American Mathematical Society, American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Two members from each organization are appointed to this committee. The member organizations bring their concerns or ideas to the JCW. The representatives collect and document the related information from their organizations, and the JCW explores and identifies best practices related to the related concern and decides on a course of action. The JCW representatives then advocate for the related changes within their own organizations. Another issue that CPW tackled in our committee working with JCW was the low number of women publishing in mathematics journals. CPW organized a panel session entitled Women and Scholarly Publishing and invited women editors of several journals to the panel. Towards the end of my term on JCW, the committee was working on two main issues. One was studying the mentoring structure in member organizations and the other was the low number of women nominated and receiving awards from organizations represented in the JCW.

AWM and MAA Mentoring Programs My connection to the mathematics community through AWM and MAA has been important throughout my career. Early in my career, AWM programs allowed me to attend the Joint Mathematics Meetings to present my research. Later, I served as a mentor for several graduate students through AWM’s Mentor Network.

High Hopes: My Career Path from Turkey to Canada to the United States

315

If the mathematical community is ever going to bring thoughtful, just, informed change and advocate for underrepresented groups, we need to create new leadership positions and new mentoring configurations. The AWM has been a leader in developing a mentoring system to support students and faculty in the mathematical sciences. The MAA’s Project NeXT is a mentoring program for early-career mathematicians. If we can change these one-to-one mentoring systems into severalmentors to one-mentee systems, we will be in a better position to address careerand life-related concerns. The extensive networking structure of AWM can be put to use for this purpose.

How AWM Can Help Support and Shape a Career: Reflections from a Grateful Mathematician Kathleen Kavanagh

AWM has been an integral part of my career, especially in my early career when I had absolutely no idea how to be a faculty member and balance research, teaching, and service. At that time, I was also the only woman in my department. I can say without hesitation that AWM provided me guidance and opportunities to be successful in all those critical areas that contribute to tenure and promotion. Looking back, I am overwhelmed with gratitude for this society (as well as SIAM, MAA, and AMS) and the efforts that are put into place to support mathematicians, and, in particular, women. Here, I reflect on how AWM helped me gain confidence and experience when I became a tenure-track assistant professor in 2003 and how it shaped me to be in the leadership positions I now hold.

My Two Women Mathematics Teachers First let me look even further back to middle and high school and then college and graduate school. The only woman math teacher I had was in eighth grade, at a rural school in upstate New York. We were her very first class right after she got her teaching certificate and she was energetic and amazing. During my undergraduate years (I went to three colleges before settling in and eventually becoming a math major) I had zero women professors. Finally, in graduate school, I had my first and only female professor, the wonderful powerhouse of numerical linear algebra Ilse Ipsen, at North Carolina State University. So, she was really my only data point in terms of understanding, “What is a woman in mathematics like?”

K. Kavanagh () Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_31

317

318

K. Kavanagh

Turning to AWM When I became a tenure-track professor in 2003 directly after grad school, I was the only woman in my department. I actually felt like I had a lot of experience being in a male-dominated math world. But, I turned to AWM for several reasons: to leverage the student chapters program (thus making a connection with a national organization) and to advance my research through its workshop at SIAM meetings (see Fig. 1) and generous travel grants program. The long-lasting impacts of my interaction with AWM helped form my commitment to K–12 outreach and provided a pathway to leadership roles in mathematics. The first reason I turned to AWM was that I noticed that the math majors in my new department seemed to be lacking a sense of community. As an undergrad and as a grad student, I had a strong support group of peers to struggle, learn, and celebrate with, but just wasn’t sensing that at the math department where I was hoping to build my career. Also, I was fresh from Project NExT, MAA’s mentoring program for new faculty. One take-away message was: Find a way to make a niche in your department so that you are invaluable. See something that is missing and take ownership! I decided that my niche would be building a sense of community among the math majors. So, I started an AWM student chapter.

Fig. 1 AWM past president Suzanne Lenhart (on left) listens as Kathleen Kavanagh presents her poster, AWM workshop, 2003 SIAM Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada

How AWM Can Help Support and Shape a Career

319

AWM Student Chapter and K–12 Outreach The chapter grew quickly, had solid membership, and did indeed provide that much missing sense of community among the majors. We started an annual dessert reception for students to present research (talks and posters) so that new math majors could mingle and chat with each other and professors. We ran math games at our local Pi Day Celebration (which has grown to serve over 300 local middle and high school students), we all read Flatland together, we hosted Casino Nights and talked about the probabilities in various gambling games, and we organized various panels to inform our majors about research experiences for undergraduates (REUs), grad school, and careers. It’s been exciting watching the chapter grow and evolve over the years (see Fig. 2), and I am so glad that I started it! My institution is a small, private, engineering university. Not only was I the only woman on the faculty, there were very few women students when the chapter started so at the beginning a majority of the members were male. (AWM does clearly state that membership is open to everyone.) Over time, we increased our number of women math majors and chapter members. I will never forget, though, when the winner of the most prestigious university award offered to students at graduation, the Levinus Clarkson Award, was given to Matthew Williams in 2007. Part of his list of accomplishments over his four years at Clarkson included serving as president of the AWM student chapter.

Fig. 2 Leah Granger and Kathleen Kavanagh, AWM student chapter poster session, 2015 MathFest, Washington, DC

320

K. Kavanagh

After I started the chapter, a very important seed was planted for me that grew into something amazing. AWM runs the Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics. We decided to do our own local version. Students could do an essay about a female mathematician (as in the AWM contest) or choose a topic from another list that we supplied (e.g., math in nature, math in sports, math in medicine, . . . ). We solicited prizes for the student winners from local businesses associated with the essay topics. For me, this was the beginning of a long career path in K–12 STEM outreach. I live in a geographically isolated, rural area of northern New York State where roughly 30% of the kids live in poverty. That is staggering. Our middle school essay contest was the first time I connected with local school districts and was how I learned to forge relationships with teachers. Over the last 17 years, I have helped bring well over $8M into this region to support students and teachers in more than 11 school districts and 3 counties. My outreach efforts are the aspect of my career that I am the proudest of and where I can see I have made an impact.

AWM Mentoring Grant Also early in my career as a new professor, I applied for and received an NSFAWM Mentor Travel Grant. I was probably one of a handful in industrial applied mathematics. I spent the summer of 2004 in Seattle at the Boeing Company working with Evin Cramer in the optimization group. This was an important turning point for me in several ways. I was only a year out of graduate school and my thesis had two parts that were tied together by nonsmooth models. One aspect dealt with optimization for nonsmooth objective functions and constraints, and the other with finite element approaches for nonsmooth PDEs. As a new faculty member, I was of course anxious about how to create my own research trajectory without my advisor and wasn’t sure what to build on. My time at Boeing was an incredible experience that fostered my love of applied optimization. I ended up abandoning all my finite element work after one of my PhD students tied up some dangling research questions about mass conservation and adaptive spatial grids. I have focused primarily on optimization ever since. The opportunity AWM provided me, to spend that summer at Boeing, gave me the experience and knowledge to develop a graduate course in applied optimization, designed to help students solve real world industrial problems. I gained a sense of independence through Evin’s mentoring that helped me establish myself as a researcher without my advisor. I also built the confidence to spearhead new applications. Since then I have gone on to collaborate in disciplines I never expected, including polymer processing, psychology, physiology, anaerobic digestion, and (my favorite) agricultural management.

How AWM Can Help Support and Shape a Career

321

Committees of National Organizations Eventually, I was promoted to tenure and began to focus more broadly on service to the mathematical community. I served as the chair of the AWM Student Chapter Committee from 2012 to 2015. Again, looking back, I feel I could have accomplished so much more in this role. It was challenging at first because I had never served on the committee before stepping in as chair, but what struck me the most was the enthusiasm of the committee members, who were always willing to step up and tackle what we needed to do. We spent much of my term there organizing the structure of how the student chapters were tracked and maintained. So much has evolved in just the few years since I served. It is now evident that with chapters spread over the country, the program continues to thrive and succeed. Through the chapter highlights and blog posts available on the website as well as via conference activities and mentoring programs, student chapters have been able to connect and cross-pollinate ideas. That was my first experience chairing a committee for a professional society. I learned how people can come together to make things happen and how challenging it is for all of us to balance life, work, and service, but we still make the time—because we are passionate about meeting the needs of our profession and communities. Since then I have gone on to be vice-chair of the SIAM Activity Group on the Mathematics of Planet Earth, secretary for the SIAM Activity Group on Applied Mathematics Education, chair of the SIAM Education Committee, and the SIAM Vice President for Education. I appreciate the connection and support between the societies, and working with leaders from AMS, MAA, AWM, and many more.

Wishes for the Future When I look ahead at what I wish for AWM in the next 50 years, it is success in providing even more support to women mathematicians at all phases of their career pathway. Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented, “When I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court] and I say, ‘When there are nine,’ people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.” I hope for a collective acceptance that women are equals, so that we don’t even need to point out and highlight that certain achievements were due to women mathematicians, because we are viewed simply as mathematicians. Fortunately, AWM strives to create pathways for women so that we are represented and included.

Part VI

Individuals, Institutions, Recognition, Collaboration: Longitudinal Perspectives on Mathematics and Women in Mathematics

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics Michael J. Barany

Introduction To understand the connections between the people, institutions, and ideas of the history of mathematics, subtle differences in wording can make all the difference. From its founding, the Association for Women in Mathematics paid special attention to the difference made by specific prepositions, and the associated nouns and verbs they bring into play. An important early decision was to adopt the preposition “for” in the association’s name, marking the AWM’s mission as advocating for women, as opposed to the emphasis with “of” on the identities of the association’s members (Gray, 1971b, p. 1). This article focuses on the AWM’s second preposition, and what it means to be “in” mathematics. As the AWM’s founders recognized, there is a great difference between doing mathematics and being in mathematics. Women have been doing mathematics—learning, teaching, creating, enjoying, applying, and more—for as long as there has been mathematics. Yet they have only sometimes in this history been doing so from within, as recognized and validated participants in mathematics as an organized collective endeavor. Understanding the history and implications of the “in” of the AWM sheds light as well on the “for” in its name, and the significance of advocacy and recognition in mathematical institutions. While doing mathematics can in principle be a rather solitary pursuit, being in mathematics is a thoroughly shared condition, dependent on the combined work and initiative of many. From its start, the AWM has focused on training, career opportunities, representation, recognition, and related aspects of mathematics as an organized profession. This is because, in its modern incarnation, these institutional

M. J. Barany () University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_32

325

326

M. J. Barany

matters have defined the boundaries of mathematics as something to be in and not just something to do. The margins of institutional mathematics have historically been capacious places for women’s participation. Women have produced and shared mathematics as theorists, translators, educators, students, posers and solvers of puzzles, reckoners, calculators, and more. They have contributed non-mathematically to others’ doing mathematics as advocates, funders, organizers, administrators, publishers, communicators, supporters, and more. Ruling these activities as outside of mathematics, maintaining their marginalization, has required constant renegotiations of mathematics and its institutions. Being in mathematics is a function of what one does, where one does it, how others regard that work, and how that work relates to the identity of the person doing it. Being out of mathematics can involve any of these aspects, and the history of mathematics’ margins reflects negotiation and contestation over each of them. This article examines some of the history of women in mathematics and of women being tacitly or explicitly kept out of mathematics, moving from the European origins of modern mathematical institutions to the American contexts that more immediately set the stage for the AWM. This account shows the importance of the institutional history of mathematics for understanding the history of women’s participation in and exclusion from the discipline. Institutions and institutionmaking have central places in the history and sociology of science and scholarship as forces determining who can participate in knowledge work (e.g. Berman, 2012; Shapin, 2008). These same institutions and records of institution-making are vital sources of evidence for understanding this history and sociology (Barany, 2020). Feminist histories of science and scholarship have paid special attention to how institutions define legitimate producers of knowledge and the kind of knowledge they can produce (Niskanen and Barany, 2021; Pereira, 2017). To understand the conditions and importance of the AWM, famous individuals from the history of women and mathematics must be considered alongside the structures, cultures, assumptions, and social relations of modern mathematics that determined who would be in and who would be out.

Making and Breaking the Margins Certain kinds of mathematical training and activity have been means of social division and exclusion for most of the known history of mathematics, as well as the history of social division. Prehistoric artifacts contain evidence of numeracy in the form of tallies, but few indications about either mathematical or social organization. In the earliest cities and multi-city societies, numbers and accounts were among the first purposes for systematic writing and record-keeping. Though mathematics may not have been identifiable as a coherent and separate kind of knowledge in the oldest historical sources, these clearly show numeracy and geometry as activities connected to social ordering in ancient societies (Robson, 2008, ch. 2).

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

327

From marketplaces and households to temples, courthouses, and other settings, early mathematical practices were sources of economic, political, religious, judicial, and other forms of authority. These settings and practices were often reserved for men, but Robson (2008) identifies several examples of evidence of women wielding numerical and metrological expertise in ancient Mesopotamia between 2500 and 4000 years ago. For most of its history, mathematics has been a part of social groups, places, and activities that have excluded and divided. As a form of technical and philosophical expertise learned from and shared among others, mathematics has contributed to such divisions and distinctions. For tradespeople who shared calculation tricks or philosophical elites who exchanged puzzles and proofs, mathematics helped to define specific spheres of social, economic, and cultural interaction. Here, doing mathematics was one of many things that a community of people did together as a distinct community. Sometimes mathematics has been an explicit criterion of entry or participation, though examples like Plato’s legendary requirement that pupils know geometry seem more the exception than the rule. Sometimes particular mathematical activities have required access to places and resources— royal courts, libraries, printing apparatus—conventionally limited by criteria that had little intrinsically to do with mathematics and much to do with identity and privilege. Barriers and opportunities defined by the social contexts of doing mathematics set the terms for a relatively late development in the history of mathematics, the possibility of being in mathematics as an institution in its own right.1 Being in mathematics required mathematics to be organized as a distinct sphere of social and intellectual activity, such that doing mathematics could underwrite its own recognizable social role and identity. This possibility emerged gradually in the early modern period, as identities such as geometer or mathematician grew out of older ones like philosopher, astrologer, and scholar. These identities solidified in spaces for mathematics carved from associated social formations concentrated especially around publishing, patronage, and elite realms of governance and culture. Importantly, these roles represented a small fraction of all the walks of life that involved doing mathematics, marking off particular areas where doing mathematics and recognizing others doing mathematics could in themselves be a source of money and prestige. The intersection of publishing and elite culture created both limitations and opportunities for women’s participation in emerging mathematical institutions. Three prominent examples from the first half of the eighteenth century illustrate some of the institutional stakes of women’s contributions to textbooks, treatises, translations, and periodicals that established common culture, consensus, and spaces

1 Robson and Stedall’s handbook puts these social contexts and conditions in the center of approaches to the history of mathematics, including the presence of mathematics in and beyond formal institutions (Robson and Stedall, 2009). A distinctive recent discussion from a mathematician’s perspective is Harris (2015, pt. 1).

328

M. J. Barany

of mathematical debate and identity formation. They also show that women’s presumptive exclusion from later mathematical institutions was in important respects a departure from some relevant antecedents. Established in England in 1704, the Ladies’ Diary quickly became a leading venue for mathematics ranging from clever puzzles to challenging subjects of current debate and research. While in many respects reinforcing contemporary gendered status distinctions, the periodical embedded mathematics in a space marked for women where both women and men could engage in mathematical conversation (Costa, 2002). Italian filosofessa Maria Gaetana Agnesi honed her mathematics as an element of cultural attainment among Milan’s social elite. She presented her 1748 calculus book, enthusiastically embraced across Europe, as an index of women’s potential contributions “to the sublimities of a science” and “the glory of their sex” (Mazzotti, 2007, 2018). Also in 1748, in France, Émilie du Châtelet completed her translation and commentary of Newton’s Principia. Published posthumously in 1759, this significant mathematical and philosophical work derived from Châtelet’s extended immersion in exclusive social and scientific settings in Enlightenment Paris (Terrall, 1995). In each of these examples, women from privileged social contexts participated as women in the kinds of activities of creating, sharing, and evaluating mathematics that made up new mathematical identities and institutions. Each did so, however, on terms set by male gatekeepers: editors, publishers, and academicians who retained the privilege of adjudicating participation in mathematics through their control of economic and social institutions with more rigid gendered barriers to participation. These gatekeepers facilitated or denied opportunities within broader contexts of norms and expectations that defined how women could participate in scholarship. Where women were more often seen as legitimate spectators or appreciators rather than originators of knowledge, they found room within expository and didactic genres to frame new ideas in suitably modest and receptive terms (Terrall, 1995, p. 293). When interlocutors praised or criticized these women’s mathematics, they did so in gendered terms, making their work stand for the virtues or limitations of all women (Terrall, 1995, pp. 294–296; Mazzotti, 2018). This marked their contributions and identities as exceptional or marginal and exposed them to reevaluation amidst shifting social understandings and prejudices. Such social shifts in elite cultural and intellectual spaces across Europe in the latter half of the eighteenth century changed the status of both women and mathematics. Scientific academies developed over that century into rarefied manifestations of the prestige and power of their official patrons. The men who drew stipends, adjudicated prizes, and filled these academies’ official functions rallied to the methods of rational mechanics, the technically demanding application of infinitesimal calculus to physical phenomena. For the savants of the French Académie des Sciences, rational mechanics marked the intellectual boundary between sober, serious, masculine science and the naive, speculative, metaphysical, feminine reasoning of the unlettered masses (Terrall, 1999). Partial exceptions to this pattern, such as the elite mathematical activity of Mary Somerville, reflected their own highly gendered conditions of possibility and perception (Stenhouse,

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

329

2021). Where Châtelet could occupy a boundary position involving substantial engagement with and contribution to elite scientific debates, later women were systematically shut out or hemmed in by suppositions about fundamental differences between masculine and feminine thought (Terrall, 1999, pp. 257–260), a pattern repeated in elite scientific spaces across Europe.

Training and Constraining At the turn of the nineteenth century, the prolonged military conflict of the Napoleonic wars and new approaches to government and civil service that centered the expertise of engineers expanded the field of mathematical professionals in exclusively male domains. Mathematics became the foundation of training and work in engineering professions whose professionals occupied social roles and functions of power and prestige reserved to men. In the context of world history, Western Europe was relatively late to technically intensive training and examinations for civil service as a gendered and classed means of creating civil elites that reinforced social biases and inequalities. These were, for example, defining features of Chinese imperial governance for centuries, dating back at least as far as the early Tang dynasty (618–907 CE) and being continually revised and debated in view of changing social, economic, and institutional contexts (Elman, 2013). The French apotheosis of this model was the École Polytechnique, founded in the wake of the French Revolution. Its professors came from the Paris scientific elite and its students, all cadets of the French military, were trained in a rigorous mathematical regime that seeded subsequent generations of scientists and engineers in service to the French state (Belhoste et al., 1994). Using technologies new to advanced scientific education, most notably the blackboard, the École Polytechnique massively expanded the number of technically adept practitioners of modern mathematical methods, training them in male military settings and launching them to careers in male realms of state employment. Many institutions, notably the United States Military Academy at West Point (Phillips, 2015), followed suit, making elite engineering education the province of particular men in particular positions of national and military service in many parts of the world. In England, an intensified mathematical training for an expanded technical elite took place largely outside of explicitly military contexts, in the nearly-as-exclusively male walled-in colleges of Cambridge University (Warwick, 2003). Prejudiced suppositions about women’s minds and bodies and the connections between the rigors of mental and physical exertion justified regimes of training that shut women out and lavished on vigorous young men the attention and opportunities necessary to master and make a career from intricate technical mathematics (Warwick, 1998; Winter, 1998). Across these settings, the place of mathematics as a component of or outgrowth of other institutions of socialization, training, certification, and endeavor meant that those other institutions set the basic terms for participation in mathematics. An all-male military academy or an all-male Cambridge college

330

M. J. Barany

was not just a place to do mathematics with an arbitrary gender barrier attached: the cultures, practices, and infrastructures of each space were built around certain assumed homogeneities and created distinct obstacles for those who did not fit their assumptions. Consequently, when women engaged the masculinized institutions of nineteenth century mathematics, they had to do so almost always as outsiders and exceptions. In the early years of the École Polytechnique, Sophie Germain learned mathematics in the private spaces of her family library and then deployed a pseudonym and the veil of postal correspondence to access lessons and correspondence from the military institution’s decorated instructors. As she built a mathematical reputation she was eventually able to set the pseudonym aside and engage openly in mathematical discussions with famous interlocutors, but as a woman she continued to be denied the kind of systematic training and access to privileged scholarly settings that would allow more than peripheral participation in most aspects of organized mathematics in and beyond France. Where she was able to participate, she was dependent on the discretion and exceptions of conventionally empowered men. Half a century later, the career of Sofia Kovalevskaya recapitulated many aspects of Germain’s. She developed an interest and proved her talent for mathematics in domestic settings. Winning the support of established mathematical men, she was able to pursue studies and research from the margins of the German university system, navigating repeated formal barriers to ordinary channels of participation. Sustained accomplishments in the limited areas of professional mathematics open to her helped overcome formal opposition and tacit barriers to her eventual appointment to a more conventional professional mathematical role in Stockholm, as part of a new academic institution whose gatekeepers—including mathematician Gösta Mittag-Leffler—could sidestep the many traditional barriers to women’s formal professional attainment. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the first Cambridge women’s colleges created settings for women students to attempt the university’s demanding mathematics training. Compensating for limited training opportunities prior to university and at the university itself, women students at Cambridge proved themselves just as capable as men in competitive mathematics examinations but continued to be accorded marginal status in the systems to which those examinations were meant to be a gateway (Jones, 2009).2 The men who set the examinations, adjudicated regulations, ran Cambridge’s interconnected network of social and academic organizations, shaped perceptions through media and public debate, and otherwise held the institutional center at and around the university made space for including and even celebrating exceptional women while reinforcing a norm of women as marginal. Their influence was felt in the cultural expectations and value systems surrounding

2 Jones (2009) focuses her study of women and mathematics in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Cambridge on Grace Chisholm Young (1868–1944), a formidable mathematician whose granddaughter Sylvia Wiegand became the AWM’s 13th president. See Wiegand’s article in this volume.

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

331

mathematical training and examinations. When women began to succeed according to previously valorized standards, such as skill and speed at complex technical calculation, those values shifted perceptibly to preserve male primacy, emphasizing other aspects of achievement where women’s achievements could be more easily minimized or set aside (Rankin, 2016). On the Continent, the education and career of Emmy Noether reflected women’s continued marginalization at the end of the nineteenth century in expanded systems of training and advancement built for and designed around men and their traditional institutions. Noether had privileged access to mathematics and to academic training from her family, and excelled in a number of fields in school. She was able to specialize in mathematics within the German university system, though not without complication. Her meteoric accomplishments as a mathematician, collaborator, and mentor led to significant recognition but did not obviate numerous barriers and restrictions on women’s careers in mathematical academia, importantly including limitations on Noether’s ability to earn a living from her mathematical vocation. Intellectual contributions of indubitable importance offered partial ground for Noether to be an exception within male institutions, and her exceptional status followed her throughout her career.

Exceptions and Expectations The story of women mathematicians through the nineteenth century is often told through exceptional figures like those discussed above, in part because the predominant institutions of mathematics made exceptions of any visible women. Expanded and diversified settings for mathematical training and careers from the late nineteenth century into the twentieth made space for women to be in mathematics without necessarily being repeatedly defined and marked as exceptions, as their forebears had been. Green and LaDuke’s (2009) prosopography of American women mathematics PhD holders from before 1940 underscores the variety of training and career paths, some exceptional and some normal (if often peripheral), that came with new opportunities for women in higher education. These, in turn, responded to changing social expectations for women, including possibilities for employment in professions associated with advanced training—mainly teaching but also publishing, administration, and technical fields (Green and LaDuke, 2009, ch. 6). Such prosopographical approaches—studying women mathematicians, scientists, and engineers by assembling bits and pieces of information available about many individuals to develop a picture of their common experiences and contexts— have offered a crucial counterpoint to historical understandings based on the exceptional figures who found fame and left a deeper paper trail. They complement, as well, statistical and demographic analyses and comparisons that give an aggregated view of participation in mathematics and science (e.g. Chipman and Thomas, 1987). Because the documents and records historians typically use to

332

M. J. Barany

write histories are typically created, collected, and preserved in the very institutions that have made women marginal and exceptional, finding the normal and common experiences of women connected to these institutions can demand meticulous and resourceful efforts to unearth and reconsider the available evidence. Margaret Rossiter’s groundbreaking studies of women scientists in America have been a vital model and foundation for work situating women mathematicians in broader institutional, social, and other conditions that were designed around particular sorts of men (Rossiter, 1982, 1998, 2012). More recently, Margot Lee Shetterly (2016) used related methods of group biography to surface a generally overlooked community of Black mathematical professionals in the United States space program. The flipside to methods that compile the often subtle or indirect traces of women’s experiences in mathematical institutions is to use those masses of records to examine how institutions set expectations and created obstacles or opportunities for all, to understand how these produced different conditions for different would-be mathematicians. As formal rules explicitly limiting women’s training and employment in mathematics faded in the twentieth century, other rules and expectations maintained entrenched inequalities. Some of these operated (and continue to operate) comparatively directly. For example, the AWM has consistently pointed to the unequal effects of anti-nepotism policies on women married to fellow academics, with obstacles deriving from how a superficially gender-neutral policy sits within the heavily gendered conditions of family relationships, mobility, and career advancement. Julia Robinson famously achieved many milestones of a decorated mathematical career, including election to the National Academy of Sciences, before holding a mainline faculty appointment (e.g. Lamb, 2019). Other rules enforcing gender bias could be just as explicit without being officially formalized. Hilda Geiringer was an accomplished applied mathematician by the time she arrived in the United States as a refugee of World War II, and like her nearcontemporary Emmy Noether found that she would only be seriously considered for employment in women’s colleges, rather than research institutes or universities that would readily hire men of comparable research attainments (McNeill, 2019). When Geiringer proposed in 1950 to bring her successful general education course in mathematics to Harvard, the Mathematics Department there found it inconceivable that a woman could be an appropriate teacher for a class of male freshmen.3 While women could in principle teach in colleges and universities with predominantly- or all-male student bodies, in practice those who would hire them had to be able to picture them in such a role. For those seeking to establish themselves in the mathematics profession, gendered expectations about career prospects became self-fulfilling, justifying channeling funding and opportunities to privileged and mobile young men (Barany,

3 Geiringer-Ahlfors-Birkhoff correspondence, April–May 1950, Harvard University Mathematics Department Archives, box 15, folder “G.” Co-educational arrangements between Harvard and Radcliffe meant that in practice Geiringer’s prospective classroom may not have been exclusively male, despite Harvard’s gender exclusivity.

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

333

2021). Philanthropic organizations that took an interest in mathematics starting in the 1920s saw the field as a venue for international cooperation and common culture. Employing a logic of investment borrowed from the industries whose wealth funded new large-scale philanthropies, funders sought to direct resources to future leaders who would extend the value of a fellowship or project grant beyond the period of initial funding. Looking for future leaders often amounted to looking for younger versions of current leaders, entrenching standards and biases by channeling advantages to the already-advantaged. Reflecting a set of principles developed over the preceding decades, a midcentury Rockefeller Foundation guide to identifying fellowship recipients advised setting a higher bar for women candidates due to the risk of their marrying and leaving the field, which would limit the long-term impact of the fellowship (Barany, 2018b, 2019). Such suppositions and the guidelines they enforced were not based in empirical reviews of scientific careers or any systematic attempt to understand the factors that made for successful investments, even by the funders’ own standards. Foundation officers took for granted that women would be poor investments and were not challenged in these assumptions by the men surrounding them. This kind of thinking meant that a broader increase in educational and career opportunities for aspiring mathematicians did not necessarily translate into more opportunities for women, especially in elite sections of the discipline being remolded around new funding for travel, publication, electronic computing, and other resource-intensive activity. Wider pipelines came with more direct competition for funding, admission, and advancement. Military and government funders that joined philanthropies as major non-academic mathematics sponsors after World War II adopted many of the values and expectations that philanthropies and universities used to identify good investments (Barany, 2016). These assumptions extended from elites to support for rank-and-file mathematical training that linked government funding to national defense using terms like the “manpower problem” to define the financial and institutional needs of postwar mathematical sciences. The typically male decision-makers directing resources had strong incentives to support those poised to thrive in a sexist world, whether or not their own personal biases supported that state of affairs.

Filed Away When women did play major roles in mathematical institutions, their gender affected how they and others understood their contributions. One of the most important shapers of mid-twentieth century mathematics was Mina Rees, who held a 1931 PhD from the University of Chicago and made full use of her mathematical training and experience to allocate resources and match projects to experts in support of mathematical research on the wartime Applied Mathematics Panel and through the postwar Office of Naval Research (Barany, 2017; Shell-Gellasch, 2011). Formally, however, her role was as an administrator rather than a mathematician,

334

M. J. Barany

so the considerable mathematical knowledge and skill she brought to her work were not credited as mathematical. Despite having a greater effect on mathematical research than most card-carrying mathematicians of the time she came not to see herself as a research mathematician (e.g. Rees, 1979, p. 16). The experience of Rees, herself also a significant player in the history of computing, reflects what historians of computing have examined and explained in detail (e.g. Abbate, 2012). With some significant exceptions, women have been vital contributors to technically and intellectually challenging mathematical work insofar as their contributions could be seen as essentially secretarial or administrative. In settings where programming and engineering computers were seen as more prestigious and demanding, and compensated accordingly, employers replaced women with men, paying the men more and according them higher status for comparable work. Racism and sexism have historically worked together to devalue and obscure mathematical work by devalued and obscured members of society (e.g. Hersh and John-Steiner, 2010; Hottinger, 2016; Shetterly, 2016). Seeing women’s work as essentially secretarial and, conversely, seeing secretarial work as essentially women’s, were both early-twentieth century developments in corporate settings with lasting effects on mid-century and later mathematics (Kwolek-Folland, 1994; Strom, 1992). In academic organizations, “secretary” remained a prestigious institutional role associated with august academic societies (often male-dominated—the American Mathematical Society did not have a woman as secretary until 2013) while acquiring new associations with lower-status functional and infrastructural work by women. These dual associations complicated what it meant for women mathematicians to take on positions as secretary in mathematical organizations, even in the more prestigious traditionally male form that would be seen as respectable if held by a man. As Mary Gray quipped in the second AWM Newsletter, in 1971, “One easy thing for women to do to improve their image is to refuse to serve as secretary of anything” (Gray, 1971c, p. 2). The devalued title of secretary when held by women was of a piece with the gendered bifurcation of labor in mathematics departments over the twentieth century, a split that remains visible in many departments today. The letters, reports, and other communications essential to the operations of both research and organizational activities in twentieth-century mathematical institutions depended on the complex skilled labor of uncounted women who were not mathematicians like Rees, but without whom mathematical work could not take place (cf. Webster, 1996). As secretary for the mathematics faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1933 to 1950, to take one especially accomplished example, Gwen Blake worked in multiple languages to manage mathematical and professional activities for a highly active group of full-time faculty and a large number of visitors. Her work included managing visa and housing arrangements, dealing with public inquiries, and producing and organizing high volumes of correspondence for committees of the American Mathematical Society and the 1950 International Congress of Mathematicians (along with its would-be 1940 predecessor, canceled due to war) on

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

335

which IAS mathematicians served.4 Because much of Blake’s work circulated under the signatures of the famous mathematicians for whom she worked, her crucial contributions to the transformations of American and international mathematical institutions before and after World War II were not widely recognized in her time, nor have they been broadly credited since. Blake did not have advanced mathematical training, though the expertise her job required can be seen in the training of her successor, Caroline Underwood, who came to the post with a masters degree in library science.5 Many who worked to make mathematical institutions possible from roles that hid their contributions did so with substantial background in the field. Mina Rees wielded an unusual degree of institutional authority, even as the importance of her mathematical acumen was minimized. Women with undergraduate, masters, or sometimes higher training in mathematics filled technically challenging roles for scientific presses and associated organizations, who needed employees with the mathematical skill to compose and correct technical and scholarly publications and reaped a substantial hidden subsidy from the career barriers that kept women with such training out of more prestigious and better paid positions in other industries. Caroline Seely, a familiar name to historians who work with the American Mathematical Society archives, held a PhD in mathematics and was the first full-time mathematician employee of the AMS, working in a secretarial and editorial role while remaining active as a researcher (Green and LaDuke, 2009, pp. 73, 286). From 1971 to 1972, a short-lived Berkeley mathematics department newsletter, Mother Functor, mixed discussions of women’s hiring in faculty positions with reports from secretaries on the department’s work environment and an anonymous note on the alienating experience of women graduate students.6 The newsletter, with its deliberately provocative title (issue 3 included a note suggesting that the title exhibited male chauvinism), reflected a precipitous political moment in and beyond mathematics that also gave rise to the AWM. While the AWM has focused primarily on the women in mathematics as students, researchers, and professionals, the connections between working conditions, sexism, and women’s careers in and around mathematics more broadly have remained a perennial concern. Viewed through the history of mathematical institutions, women—often with advanced mathematical expertise—have been essential participants in the work of mathematics in much greater numbers and to much greater effect than one might conclude by focusing solely on those professionally regarded as mathematicians. Persistent inequities in status, resources, and much else have made this participation 4 Blake’s work must typically be read between the lines of correspondence in the IAS Archives and the personal papers of mathematicians with whom she worked. See also Records of the Comptroller, Institute for Advanced Study Archives, box 1, folder 17. 5 “Underwood, Caroline May 27, 2010,” interview by Linda Arntzenius, Oral History Project files and recordings, Box 10, IAS Archives. 6 I accessed Mother Functor in carton 3, folders 5–6 of the Stephen Smale papers, BANC Mss 99/373, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Copies are also archived separately in the Bancroft and Mathematics/Statistics libraries at Berkeley.

336

M. J. Barany

a complex consideration in the history of women in mathematics, affecting the perception and opportunities for women in many different roles.

A Near Miss If administrative and infrastructural workers represent the easily-overlooked supporting stratum of scientific institutions, their opposite in the history of scientific institutions are the celebrated recipients of major prizes. The former hold the institutions together and make their operations possible, while the latter represent the institutions’ values and aspirations both internally and to the wider world. The Fields Medal began in 1936 as a way for mathematicians to promote an international consensus around promising contributors to the discipline (Barany, 2018a). The medal’s profile got a rapid boost from a confluence of events in 1966 that resulted in its comparison to the Nobel Prize, initially as political cover for an activist mathematician who drew criticism for dodging a US House Un-American Activities Committee subpoena to accept an award in Moscow, the site of that year’s International Congress of Mathematicians (Barany, 2015). The medal eventually became one of the most recognizable markers of excellence in mathematics both within and beyond the world of mathematicians. It was until 2014 an exclusively male award, awarded before 2006 by exclusively male committees.7 In the inaugural AWM Newsletter, Mary Gray (1971a, p. 6) signaled the importance of “great women mathematicians” as role models and standard-bearers to counter mistaken beliefs about women’s relative potential and contributions. “Young women in mathematics,” Gray urged, “need to be encouraged to think of themselves as potential Fields medal winners.” Historians and sociologists of science are familiar with the tendency of recognition to build on recognition, with those thriving in systems built for them able to convert initial successes into further accomplishments and credit, while those disadvantaged by prevailing systems miss out on recognition and the further opportunities that come with it (Rossiter, 1993). This makes prizes a precarious target for addressing bias in a discipline: while awards tend to reaffirm and reinforce the privilege of those already privileged, they can also be powerful means of redirecting values, attention, and resources in new directions. Post-1966 views of the Fields Medal grew out of perceptions of the small number of pre-1966 recipients, comparatively young men with tight connections to elite mathematical institutions. A majority had close links to prominent centers in Paris or Princeton. They rose through those connections, with the help of prizes like the Fields Medal, to prominent positions in the discipline. When the prize suddenly became more prominent in and beyond mathematics in 1966, it was easy to look

7 A list of winners and committee members is available at the International Mathematical Union’s website.

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

337

backward and see a trail of accomplished men who set a pattern for the award’s future status and expectations. So it is important to understand the contingency of that initial group and the factors that made those specific men into the Fields Medal’s and in some respects the mathematics discipline’s models. Because the early career pathways for mid-twentieth century mathematics were designed around a certain profile of young male mathematicians (Barany, 2021), there was plenty of room for variation and accommodation in the lives of those who fit the mold for them to nonetheless receive recognitions that in retrospect can look like predestination. For those outside the institutional core, near misses can reverberate with lasting consequences. It was overdetermined but not at all inevitable that the early mold for the Fields Medal would be cast exclusively around men. In 1958, the history of the Fields Medal and of expectations of and institutional support for women in mathematics almost changed decisively, but for a small number of near misses. That year, Soviet mathematician Olga Ladyzhenskaya was nominated for a Fields Medal by Kurt Friedrichs and advanced to the shortlist on the forceful advocacy of Andrey Kolmogoroff.8 Ladyzhenskaya was already becoming internationally known among leading researchers in partial differential equations, and would be part of the Soviet delegation that made a standout impression at the 1958 International Congress of Mathematicians in Edinburgh (Friedlander et al., 2004). Navigating obstacles of gender and social position to work on the forefront of Soviet mathematical analysis, by 1957 she had published striking and significant results. However, delays and limits on communication across the Iron Curtain meant that Kolmogoroff’s intervention arrived after the committee had started to narrow its consideration around other candidates. Though Ladyzhenskaya was placed on the shortlist, committee members lacked easy access to the publications that excited her advocates. Her candidacy stalled because, as the committee chair Heinz Hopf put it, “important as her achievements may be, only very few of us know enough about them and now very little time is left to form a judgment” (Zariski correspondence, Hopf to Fields committee, 5 March 1958). Ladyzhenskaya’s near miss is, in one sense, a story about a rising star of mathematics whose recognition as such was delayed and diminished by accidents of circumstance. The fact of her gender did not appear explicitly in the committee’s discussions. Her gender is nonetheless vital to understanding how her personal circumstances resulted in a near miss, producing just enough effect on the timing of her career, her recognition in and beyond the Soviet Union, the capacity of those who did not know her to extend the benefit of doubt, and other factors that in the decisive moment left her just outside the committee’s final selection. Just a little extra advantage, whether being on the other side of the Iron Curtain, being able to publish earlier in Western journals, being able to advance more rapidly through training and career opportunities in the Soviet Union, or even having an advocate

8 My account of Ladyzhenskaya’s candidacy is based on the “Fields Medal Committee 1958” folder in box 3 of the Oscar Zariski Correspondence, Papers of Oscar Zariski, Harvard University Archives HUGFP 69.10, Cambridge, MA. See Barany (2018a).

338

M. J. Barany

in Kolmogoroff able to communicate just a little more rapidly with the rest of the committee, could have turned the tide. Not all of these disadvantages came from her gender, but her gender made all of these disadvantages potentially decisive. In another sense, Ladyzhenskaya’s near miss is a story of missed chances for generations of women to see themselves in the Fields Medal template. Mary Gray’s charge in the early years of the AWM could have looked very different with even one woman Fields Medalist to whom to point. In yet another sense, this is a story about how norms and assumptions about male mathematical careers keep opportunities open for some men while demanding formidable feats of skill and fortune for all others. Each of these views of Ladyzhenskaya’s story reflects part of what it means for women to be in mathematics, and how that belonging can be contingent, conditional, and precarious.

Seeing Women in Mathematics Institutions work by coordinating and compounding. They turn people learning and doing mathematics into members of a discipline that sustains and supports mathematical training and careers. They define what success means and channel resources to help those bound for success to attain it. They make visible people and models and ideals and values, and convert that visibility into patterns and pathways for the institution’s future. From among all the people involved in producing and sharing mathematics, organized mathematical institutions determine who gets to be in mathematics and on what terms, who can thrive in systems designed to create particular kinds of mathematicians and particular kinds of mathematics. An important thread in the activities of the Association for Women in Mathematics has been using the AWM’s institutional wherewithal and partnering with others to convert the visibility of individuals into new opportunities and expectations for participation in mathematics. Anchored to famous individual names from the past, recurring events including the Noether Lectures (since 1980) and Kovalevsky Days (since 1987) shift emphases of who and what mattered in the past while building the kinds of institutional networks and pathways that can change norms and experiences for new and old participants in the discipline. Recurring and stand-alone events and initiatives linked to famous names alike reflect the fundamental connection between ideals and expectations in mathematics and the personal and organizational relationships and infrastructures that bring those ideals and expectations into the world. In some respects Maryam Mirzakhani’s 2014 Fields Medal is a counterpoint to Ladyzhenskaya’s experience. By 2014, enough women were sufficiently integrated into the major institutions of mathematics that although major prizes and opportunities still went (and continue to go) predominantly to men there were multiple women who were plausible medalists, numerous women at later career stages to prove women could thrive in the discipline’s elite, and even a woman as chair of the committee to select the medalists. These changes, the result of persistent advocacy

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

339

and action around mathematical institutions, meant that yet another possible near miss in one iconic corner of the discipline was not missed after all. Following her Fields Medal, and again with renewed vigor after her death in 2017, Mirzakhani’s story became a major rallying point for promoting and celebrating women in mathematics. Commemorations of her life and ideas were a centerpiece and a focus of external messaging in (WM)2 , the first World Meeting for Women in Mathematics in Rio de Janeiro in 2018. Participants in that meeting launched the annual May12 initiative, now coordinated by a number of organizations for women in mathematics (including the AWM), to celebrate women in mathematics on Mirzakhani’s birthday. The 2018 (WM)2 coincided with an International Congress of Mathematicians that returned to an all-male slate of Fields Medalists, where men continued to occupy the bulk of the most visible positions across the program. The institutional conditions of participation and visibility determine both what is normal and what is exceptional, and both norms and exceptions can be obstinately durable. Mirzakhani broke through as an exceptional mathematician winning a famous prize. Her story reframes how we understand the complex dynamics of both exceptional and less exceptional participation in the discipline. Mirzakhani’s biography reflects both how conventional pathways toward elite mathematical careers have become vastly more open to women and how those same pathways continue to place unequal demands on mathematicians on the basis of gender. In these respects, Mirzakhani was perhaps more an echo than a counterpoint to Ladyzhenskaya. Both thrived in settings that accommodated them but were not built with them in mind, both could be normal participants at some times but had to be exceptions at others. Individuals like Ladyzhenskaya and Mirzakhani do not make norms, expectations, and exceptions; institutions do. The history of the Association for Women in Mathematics, with its focus on women’s visibility, representation, and opportunities across many institutional spaces in mathematics, reflects the enduring significance and persistent challenges of institutional awareness and transformation. So long as mathematics persists as an institutionalized discipline, its history will depend on how institutions define who is within, and how they learn to see the meanings and consequences of different conditions of belonging. Acknowledgments I wish to thank the article reviewers for an abundance of perceptive comments and helpful suggestions.

References Abbate, Janet. 2012. Recoding gender: Women’s changing participation in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barany, Michael J. 2015. The myth and the medal. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 62(1): 15–20.

340

M. J. Barany

Barany, Michael J. 2016. Remunerative combinatorics: Mathematicians and their sponsors in the mid-twentieth century. In Mathematical cultures: The London meetings 2012–2014, ed. Brendan Larvor, 329–346. Birkhäuser. Barany, Michael J. 2017. The World War II origins of mathematics awareness. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 64(4): 363–367. Barany, Michael J. 2018a. The Fields Medal should return to its roots. Nature 553: 271–273. Barany, Michael J. 2018b. A postwar guide to winning a science grant. Physics Today 20 March, online. Barany, Michael J. 2019. Rockefeller bureaucracy and circumknowing science in the mid-twentieth century. International Journal for History Culture and Modernity 7: 779–796. Barany, Michael J. 2020. Organizational practice in the heterolingual archive [Prática organizacional no arquivo heterolingual]. Em Construção: arquivos de epistemologia histórica e estudos de ciêcia 7: 19–27. Barany, Michael J. 2021. “A young man’s game”: Youth, gender, play, and power in the personae of mid-twentieth century global mathematics. In Gender, embodiment, and the history of the scholarly persona: Incarnations and contestations, eds., Kirsti Niskanen and Michael Barany, 21–53. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Belhoste, Bruno, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, and Antoine Picon, eds. 1994. La formation polytechnicienne 1794–1994. Paris: Dunod. Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2012. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chipman, Susan F. and Veronica G. Thomas. 1987. The participation of women and minorities in mathematical, scientific, and technical fields. Review of Research in Education 14: 387–430. Costa, Shelley. 2002. The Ladies’ Diary: Gender, mathematics, and civil society in earlyeighteenth-century England. Osiris 17: 49–73. Elman, Benjamin A. 2013. Civil examinations and meritocracy in late imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Friedlander, Susan et al. 2004. Olga Alexandrovna Ladyzhenskaya (1922–2004). Notices of the American Mathematical Society 51(11): 1320–1331. Gray, Mary. 1971a. Defensive action. AWM Newsletter 1(1): 6. Gray, Mary. 1971b. The Penn State meeting–chairman’s report. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1971c. Untitled notice of Etta Falconer’s election as secretary in an organization established by Black mathematicians. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 2. Green, Judy and Jeanne LaDuke. 2009. Pioneering women in American mathematics: The pre-1940 PhD’s. Providence RI: American Mathematical Society and London: London Mathematical Society. Harris, Michael. 2015. Mathematics without apologies: Portrait of a problematic vocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hersh, Reuben and Vera John-Steiner. 2010. Loving + hating mathematics: Challenging the myths of mathematical life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hottinger, Sara N. Inventing the mathematician: Gender, race, and our cultural understanding of mathematics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Jones, Claire G. 2009. Femininity, mathematics and science, c.1880–1914. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kwolek-Folland, Angel. 1994. Engendering business: Men and women in the corporate office. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lamb, Evelyn. 2019. How Julia Robinson helped define the limits of mathematical knowledge. Science News 196(9): 22–26. Mazzotti, Massimo. 2007. The world of Maria Gaetana Agnesi, mathematician of God. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mazzotti, Massimo. 2018. From genius to witch: The rise and fall of a filosofessa. Los Angeles Review of Books Quarterly Journal: Genius Issue 18. McNeill, Leila. 2019. The woman who reshaped maths. BBC Future 1 November, online https:// www.bbc.com/future/article/20191031-hilda-geiringer-mathematician-who-fled-the-nazis.

Mathematical Institutions and the “In” of the Association for Women in Mathematics

341

Niskanen, Kirsti and Michael Barany, eds. 2021. Gender, embodiment, and the history of the scholarly persona: Incarnations and contestations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pereira, Maria do Mar. 2017. Power, knowledge and feminist scholarship: An ethnography of academia. London: Routledge. Phillips, Christopher J. 2015. An officer and a scholar: Nineteenth-century West Point and the invention of the blackboard. History of Education Quarterly 55(1): 82–108. Rankin, Joy. 2016. Lady wranglers. The New Inquiry. Lady Science blog. https://thenewinquiry. com/blog/lady-science-no-26-pt-2-lady-wranglers/ Rees, Mina. 1979. Women mathematicians before 1950: Mina Rees [ed. Pat Kenschaft]. AWM Newsletter 9(4): 15–18. Robson, Eleanor. 2008. Mathematics in Ancient Iraq: A social history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Robson, Eleanor and Jacqueline Stedall, eds. 2009. The Oxford handbook of the history of mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1993. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science 23(2): 325–341. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1998. Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940–1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 2012. Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shell-Gellasch, Amy. 2011. In service to mathematics: The life and work of Mina Rees. Boston: Docent Press. Shetterly, Margot Lee. 2016. Hidden figures: The American dream and the untold story of the Black women who helped win the space race. New York: William Morrow and Company. Stenhouse, Brigitte. 2021. Mister Mary Somerville: Husband and secretary. Mathematical Intelligencer 43: 7–18. Strom, Sharon. 1992. Beyond the typewriter: Gender, class, and the origins of modern American office work, 1900–1930. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Terrall, Mary. 1995. Émilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science. History of Science 33(3): 283–310. Terrall, Mary. 1999. Metaphysics, mathematics, and the gendering of science in eighteenth century France. In The sciences in enlightened Europe, eds. William Clark, Jan Golinski, and Simon Schaffer, 246–271. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Warwick, Andrew. 1998. Exercising the student body: Mathematics and athleticism in victorian Cambridge. In Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge, ed. Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin, 288–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Warwick, Andrew. 2003. Masters of theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Webster, Juliet. 1996. Shaping women’s work: Gender, employment and information technology. London: Longman. Winter, Alison. 1998. A calculus of suffering: Ada Lovelace and the bodily constraints on women’s knowledge in Early Victorian England. In Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge, ed. Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin, 202–239. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics Jemma Lorenat

As a junior at the University of Richmond in 1935, Alice Turner Schafer (then Alice Turner) entered a mathematical contest. Over fifty years later she recalled the 24 hours that she had to solve a set of “original” problems: I was living in the dormitory by that time and we had to have our lights out by midnight. The President of the Student Government came to me and said, “you can keep your lights on tonight because you’re working on this contest.” I said, no, I’m going to my aunt’s home. My aunt worked and had a maid, who did everything for me and fixed lemonade for me to drink for the 24 hours. It was wonderful. (Rahn, 1998, p. 12)

For at least once, Schafer had time for mathematics and only mathematics. As a result of her efforts during these 24 hours of domestic support, she won the 20dollar gold piece awarded for the best score. Talent aside, the opportunity to stay at her aunt’s afforded Schafer a real advantage over her fellow competitors. At least, it seems so, until one notes that she was the only woman majoring in mathematics at the University of Richmond and had to travel across the lake that separated the women’s dormitories from the main campus to attend all her upper-division classes or even borrow a book from the library. Moreover, Schafer had heard that the Head of the Mathematics Department had told the Dean of Women that he wanted no women majoring in mathematics. How many of Schafer’s male peers ever made their own lemonade or thought it was so wonderful if someone else did? Schafer (1915–2009) went on to obtain a PhD in projective differential geometry with a fellowship from the University of Chicago in 1942. During World War II she worked at the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins University. Later she taught as a professor of mathematics at Swarthmore College (1948–1951), Drexel Institute of Technology (1951–1953), Connecticut College (1954–1962),

J. Lorenat () Pitzer College, Claremont, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_33

343

344

J. Lorenat

Fig. 1 Carolyn Mahoney and Alice Schafer. 1999 AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI. Mahoney was on a planning committee for the conference and Schafer spoke on a panel on The Many Careers of Olga Taussky. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

Wellesley College (1961–1980), Simmons College (1980–1988), and Marymount University (1989–1996). Schafer was a founding member and the second president of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) and in 1989 AWM’s Schafer prize was established “for an undergraduate woman for excellence in mathematics.” Her numerous committee roles, speaking engagements (e.g., see Fig. 1), and publications document a sustained commitment to advocating for and promoting women in mathematics. Through a series of vignettes from Schafer’s writings and biography, this article will draw attention to her personal and political efforts to make time for women in mathematics in the face of societal barriers and domestic expectations.1

Constraints and Opportunities The value of time—something made eminently clear to Schafer from her days as a student—persists as a central theme in her writings and interviews. Schafer later recounted why she first became a feminist. It was the mother of little Johnny Hatcher, with whom I played all the time as a child. . . . Anyway, it was Johnny’s mother who first made me aware of discrimination

1 For

a more complete biography see Murray (2000) as well as Srinivasan et al. (2010).

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics

345

against women. She worked so hard: tended the garden, did all the housework, including the laundry—and when Mr. Hatcher came home, he never lifted a finger to help. (Murray, 1996, p. 7)

Schafer and her husband, who was also a mathematician, raised two sons that they adopted in 1948 and 1951. Unlike the Hatchers, the Schafers managed their two professional careers with housework help. Schafer pointed to her aunt as a model of a working woman who realized the value of sending out the laundry and later gave Schafer money so she could do so. Schafer gratefully acknowledged other women who provided her time when she was studying mathematics. As a graduate student at the University of Chicago, she benefited from the support of Sophonisba Breckinridge, who was a professor of social economy and the head of Schafer’s dormitory at the time. In an oral interview, Schafer described the ways in which “Miss Breckinridge” provided for the female students. But I want to tell you, she was for the women. One of my friends was ill and the hospital at the University of Chicago told me to come over and get her medicine for her, because she couldn’t go. Miss Breckinridge heard about it and said, “You are not going. You are studying your mathematics. You are not going.” She called the hospital and said that the hospital should send [the medicine] right over. One word out of her and the medicine was sent right over. (Rahn, 1998, p. 26)

In the mathematics department, there was only one woman on the faculty, Mayme Logsdon, who was an associate professor of mathematics. Logsdon not only taught graduate and undergraduate courses, but also served as an advisor for female PhD students. However, Schafer noted that the “men told us not to take any classes with her so I dutifully did not until my last year” when she took algebraic geometry. In part because of Logsdon’s many other responsibilities as a dormitory head, she was not doing research when they met. However, she provided space for Schafer to finish her dissertation when the physics department took “over part of the building because of the war effort. So Mrs. Logsdon, as we called her, asked me to share her office which was wonderful of her” (Schafer, 1994). Schafer’s own postdoctoral experiences teaching five different courses six days a week at Connecticut College shaped her understanding of finding time for research after graduation. Later Schafer had enough authority to delegate some of her professional duties. As a professor at Wellesley College, she found herself one hot summer day filling out order cards for mathematics books to be purchased for the college library. I called the President’s office and said to Miss Clapp [the president of Wellesley], “I don’t think you hired me to sit at the desk and write out cards to order books,” and she said, “I didn’t.” With that, then, she let us have a half-time secretary and eventually we had a full-time secretary. Miss Clapp was really very, very special. (Rahn, 1998, p. 6)

In turn, Schafer endeavored to provide time for other women in mathematics. As chair of the mathematics department of Wellesley College, Schafer arranged the faculty schedules “so that they could go to seminars at MIT or Harvard or Brandeis” (Murray, 1996, p. 30). As a leader in the AWM and in her work on

346

J. Lorenat

American Mathematical Society committees, Schafer focused on finding available research fellowships and encouraging women to apply. These sources of funding offered temporary opportunities for women mathematicians to focus solely on research, free from the intensive teaching schedules that characterized most of the academic positions then available.

Expectations for Research and Domesticity During the twentieth century, laboratory scientists were able to delegate parts of their research processes to graduate student assistants, but some mathematicians argued that their research could only be advanced by themselves. This is noted, for instance, in William Duren’s fascinating account from 1988 on the relationship between mathematics and American society, where he argues against teaching numerous course sections. But free time for research is important to a mathematician, so mathematicians generally chose to do their teaching in a fewer number of large lecture sections, often with quiz sections attached that teaching assistants handled. (Duren, 1988, p. 426)

The problem of time was particularly acute for women, who were rarely considered for fellowships or positions at research institutions where, with the help of teaching assistants, time could be dedicated almost exclusively toward research. Moreover, well into the twentieth century, many considered being a wife as a full-time profession that precluded other occupations. Schafer recalled similar sentiments— sometimes made explicit—at the University of Chicago. [Professor A. Adrian] Albert said once, when Florence Dorfman and I were having coffee with him in the coffee shop, “You two are going to get married.” He didn’t quite say, “Forget the mathematics”; but I assume that that’s more or less what he was trying to say. So I think that was probably the attitude, at Chicago. (Murray, 1996, p. 15)

The history of women in mathematics can be read as a history of stealing time to do mathematics. In a biography of the early nineteenth-century mathematician Sophie Germain, first written in 1894 and republished in the AWM Newsletter in 1981, the logician Christine Ladd-Franklin described the “heroic measures” Germain undertook, studying in the freezing cold at night. In a footnote, LaddFranklin observed the similarities to circumstances in her own day. The general law that women’s learning must be got by heroic measures, if at all, is not yet obsolete. Ellen Watson, the highly gifted young woman, Clifford’s pupil, who died at the Cape of Good Hope at an early age, did all her studying before breakfast, because she was required to spend the day-time in teaching her younger brothers and sisters; and the very last number of the Nineteenth Century contains an account of a girl whose sympathetic family secure[s] her two uninterrupted hours for every day for an afternoon nap on account of her delicate health, not knowing that her afternoon sleepiness is due to hours of hard work before breakfast—work for which, it goes without saying, she would not dare to ask for two uninterrupted hours in the afternoon. (Ladd-Franklin, 1894, p. 947)

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics

347

Ladd-Franklin concluded that “the higher mathematics present a long and toilsome course of study to any one who wishes to master them.” In Schafer’s own biographies of women in mathematics, she similarly drew attention to the limited time afforded to women who might wish to pursue mathematics. In closing the historical account of “Women and Mathematics,” Schafer noted, What each woman had within herself was the stamina and drive to continue in her chosen field, in spite of all the obstacles against that continuation. It is not surprising, then, that there have been few outstanding women mathematicians; what is surprising is that there have been any. (Schafer, 1981a, p. 185)

Schafer shared the ways in which women in mathematics needed time while countering expectations that women should spend their public and private time in domestic pursuits regardless of their academic ambitions and research aspirations. Schafer’s historical account ends with the premature death of Emmy Noether in 1935 and by the mid-1930s, when Schafer began to pursue mathematics, prospects for women to study mathematics in the United States looked better on paper than they had a few decades before. Women could enroll in most graduate programs without requiring special permission. As Schafer argued in her article “Before AWM,” the university policies were only part of the story: By the 1920s, women in this country were receiving approximately 6% of the doctorates awarded in mathematics, a figure that remained relatively constant until the beginning of the 1970s. Women could attend graduate schools at all of the universities with good research departments in mathematics except Princeton University, which did not admit women to its graduate program in mathematics until the late 1960s. Although women could attend other graduate departments of mathematics, life was not always easy once they gained admission. (Schafer, 1981b, p. 6)

Admission did not guarantee equal opportunities or equal treatment with male students. Further, it was not obvious to all administrators, supervisors, or colleagues that these disparities existed and needed to be changed. These permeate academic life; they are deep seated and frequently unrecognized. To remove them from the decision-making process and to guard against their reappearance requires tremendous vigilance. (Schafer and Gray, 1981a, p. 231)

Schafer’s accounts reflect the particular and subtle demands that continued to be placed on women in mathematics. One notorious example that Schafer cited on at least three occasions concerned the colloquium series at the University of Chicago when she was a graduate student there. Schafer described the division of labor over 50 years later. And of course, the women were in charge of the teas: ordering the cakes; preparing the tea; washing the dishes afterward. The male graduate students were never asked to do anything. Later, though, the men volunteered to clean up and wash the dishes. (Murray, 1996, p. 13)

Schafer elaborated on her thoughts at the time. When I was a graduate student, I really resented having to order the tea and cookies and wash the dishes after the colloquium talks. I didn’t think that was right, and I still don’t think that was right. I mean, if students had to do it, then the men should have taken their turns and the women take theirs. (p. 16)

348

J. Lorenat

Schafer’s resentment was less a response to the added work of preparing, serving, and cleaning up than to the lost opportunity to participate fully in the mathematical experience like her male colleagues. In a later letter she described the stark contrast with women performing domestic labor. The male graduate students had no such duties and could stand around and talk with the speaker and others about mathematics, for example. (Schafer, 1994, p. 2)

At work, and even at home, male mathematicians were expected to spend their time on mathematics. Conversely, women were expected to contribute to domestic duties in both spheres as well, regardless of their academic positions. The case of the Chicago tea is eerily reflected in Schafer’s later experiences while visiting mathematicians in China and recorded by Schafer, Susan Gordon Marchand, Lily E. Christ, and Evelyn M. Silvia in 1988. Sometimes there were subtle indications of different expectations. For example, at Beijing Normal University, a young woman brought in a huge thermos of hot water to refill our tea. After she presented it to a male faculty member, he gave it to a woman colleague to pour. (Marchand et al., 1988, p. 16)

Such differential treatment may have been invisible to those who benefited from it, just as the idea of being served lemonade at home might be unremarkable for the mid-twentieth-century male professional. Jill C. Bonner described the situation more bluntly in an article for the AWM Newsletter. Younger men, while they are more likely to realize intellectually and appreciate the inequities of the traditional female role, nevertheless find it overwhelmingly advantageous to their professional lives and success to maintain the status quo. The vital importance of wives as career-support systems seems to me to imply that discriminatory attitudes to women may be harder to eradicate in the sciences than in other professions. (Bonner, 1981, p. 13)

Moreover, efforts to redress discrimination could be viewed as a waste of time. Pouring tea was no great injustice, and Schafer faced backlash for her attention to what mathematician and fellow AWM member Patricia Kenschaft called “microinequities” and are today well-known as “micro-aggressions.”2 Then as now, a focus on the almost invisible could cause contentious defensiveness, as evidenced by Schafer’s participation in a debate around the topic of mathematics textbooks in the mid-1970s.

2 Schafer attributed this expression to Kenschaft, who described micro-inequities as “small slights that are often humorous in themselves but chip away at women like water dropping on a rock” (quoted in (Schafer, 1991, p. 736)).

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics

349

An Episode in the Fight Against Sexist Textbooks As the Association for Women in Mathematics endeavored to shift the culture of mathematics towards greater inclusivity, one strategy focused on textbooks. In particular, the AWM maintained a list during the mid-1970s of sexist textbooks to aid members in course design and perhaps provide economic pressure as well. In 1974 Schafer wrote a letter to Professors Goodman and Ratti whose book she had employed in a recent course. Writing on behalf of herself and the students in her class at Wellesley College, Schafer explained that the book contained two objectionable “kinds of problems and discussions”: those that were obviously sexist and could be only thought of as insulting to women and those that were more subtle in nature which, by and large, assumed that all executives are men, people with interesting professions are men, college professors, doctors, etc. are all men, men always do the gambling, are members of political parties and are the members in the family who influence their sons—no mention that the daughters might be even interested in being members of political parties and therefore probably unworthy of being influenced. (Schafer, 1974a, p. 12)

She acknowledged that the authors may well have been unaware of the sexist nature of their writing, but concluded “it would be heartening if textbook writers would realize that women can do other things than be housekeepers.” Goodman replied to Schafer explaining that he was in the process of editing a second edition that he hoped would be free of such criticisms. However, Goodman also disagreed with many of Schafer’s critiques, claiming the use of “he” as the grammatically correct pronoun for a person of unspecified gender and justifying the predominantly male cast of specific word problems that Schafer had listed.3 In this problem we find Mr. Skidmore playing pool with Professor Bankball, and interrupting his play long enough to phone his wife that he will be home by midnight. I personally see nothing wrong with this problem. Mr. Skidmore is obviously very considerate of his wife’s feelings and is behaving quite properly. A male chauvinist pig would not bother to phone his wife. But suppose for the moment that in problem 14, it was Mrs. Skidmore playing pool and betting 1 dollar on each game. Then the authors would be accused or portraying women in a very bad light as gamblers. (Goodman, 1974, p. 12)

Goodman was clearly upset at his book’s presence on a list of sexist textbooks and provided some biographical context to justify his own equitable conduct as a mathematician and teacher of mathematics. However, he also didn’t quite see the

3 In

a 1958 review of Emil Artin’s Geometric Algebra, Schafer herself used the default “he”:

For the student whose knowledge of modern algebra is meagre, the first chapter offers a compilation of algebraic theorems (and their proofs) which he is most likely to need. (Schafer, 1958, p. 36)

350

J. Lorenat

problem, as he suggested by putting “this discussion in its proper setting”: We live in a world where: (1) a billion people do not have enough to eat. (2) billions of dollars of excess profits are concentrated in the hands of a selfish few. (3) prisoners of war (men) have recently been tortured and killed, (4) many countries imprison their citizens (men) for their political views, and finally (5) overpopulation and pollution may soon be the cause of still more starvation and still greater crimes. You are indeed a fortunate person, if the problem mentioned in your letter is the most important one you face. I sincerely hope that the energy you spend in attacking various problems is distributed in proportion to the importance of the problems. (p. 13)

Goodman concluded by asking that his response be published in the AWM Newsletter, which it was. While Goodman’s ranking of priorities may be persuasive, his description of our world is true of all times in recent human history. His argument then suggests that there is never a right time to dedicate energy to subtle forms of discrimination.

Toward Structural Changes Schafer clearly thought differently and dedicated her time—time that might have otherwise been spent in mathematics research—towards fulfilling the aims of AWM. In 1980, the journal Science published a study that “showed that the mean Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) mathematics score of boys in the top 2–5% of a group of seventh graders was consistently higher than that of girls in the same group” and suggested this result was due to “superior male mathematical ability” (Schafer and Gray, 1981b, p. 231). Schafer and Mary Gray immediately responded with articles in academic journals and newspapers, challenging the study’s premise and pointing out its potential to further damage the status of women in mathematics. Anyone who thinks that seventh graders are free from environmental influences can hardly be living in the real world. While the formal training of all students may be essentially the same, the issues of who helps with mathematics homework, of what sorts of toys and games children are exposed to, of what the expectations of parents and teachers are, and of a multitude of other factors cannot lightly be set aside.

The differences in circumstances and expectations for boys and girls reflects the heroic measures described by Ladd-Franklin almost 100 years earlier. Schafer and Gray concluded their rebuttal in Science with a proposal for collective action: “work is needed by everyone on changing the environmental factors which are barriers to the full realization of the potential of women and girls.” Though Schafer recognized her value as a role model, she also appreciated that merely being a role model was not sufficient in creating permanent improvements. Similarly, historian of science Margaret Rossiter has observed the lack of institutional change effected by some of the “firsts” achieved by women in the physical sciences during the nineteenth century. Generally they worked to make themselves so outstanding as to be worthy of a personal favor or exemption or exception, rather than to build ties and alliances that would effect

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics

351

permanent institutional change. They squeezed through but left the pattern intact. (Rossiter, 2003, p. 56)

Looking at the evolution of Schafer’s curriculum vitae (CV) from the 1960s to the 1990s, one sees that it was precisely when she began to be more active politically that her research activities diminished. In a description of research in progress for faculty review, Schafer described her activities as “studying and working on [the] subject of finite groups and properties of p-groups” from 1963 to 1977. In this interval, Schafer spent sabbaticals on research, including a postdoc from 1968 to 1969 at the University of Chicago “where she did research and study in infinite [sic] group theory” (Schafer, 1970). The last listed research paper on her CV is “Some theorems in finite group theory,” the summary of a talk given at the Northeastern Section of the Mathematical Association of America in 1965. Thus there is evidence that in the 1960s Schafer had successfully shifted research from the differential geometry of her dissertation to the algebra that she professed to have always preferred. She might have continued this research, but in 1971 she cofounded the AWM. Other members of AWM similarly described the conundrum of committee participation, which was essential toward advancing the visibility and status of women, but took time from mathematical research. The comments of Nancy K. Stanton spoke to a pervasive issue. One problem I have run into as a woman mathematician is that I am asked to do far more for the mathematical community than a man with a comparable position is. Last year, for example, I was on three AMS committees and I was an AMS representative on the NSF postdoc selection panel. I have been asked to referee excessive numbers of NSF proposals, in part, I think, because there is pressure to use women as referees. A number of other women mathematicians I know have run into similar excessive demands on their time. This certainly shows the success of the AWM in pushing, for example, for women to be adequately represented on AMS committees. However, it also tends to create an unfair burden for some of us. (Stanton, 1988, p. 10)

As president, Schafer had to file for tax-exempt status, print the newsletter, organize sessions, audit affirmative action programs, find local and national funding, promote the speakers bureau, and raise publicity, all the while teaching a full course load and participating in college governance at Wellesley. As Schafer declared in the AWM Newsletter, “Women with doctorates need time for mathematical research just as men do!” (Schafer, 1974b, p. 1). Reflecting on her education as a mathematician, Schafer regretted the time she had not been able to put toward research early in life. Had I had enough money, I would have stayed in graduate school longer. In the fall of 1995 Suzanne Lenhart invited me to speak at the University of Tennessee, and when she introduced me she emphasized the fact that I had gotten my PhD in three years. And that’s fast—too fast! . . . I think it was uncommon. I worked very hard, as a matter of fact, all the way through. And I think that the thing that I regret is that I didn’t have enough money as a graduate student to stay longer than the three years. And then I would have had more opportunity to learn more mathematics, and to do more research. Then I might have landed a job at a school where the teaching load was lighter and I had time to do research. (Murray, 1996, p. 31)

352

J. Lorenat

Yet, Schafer never regretted the time taken toward advancing women in mathematics. To paraphrase John Adams—“I must study politics and war, that our daughters may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”4

References Bonner, Jill C. 1981. The cult of objectivity in the physical sciences. AWM Newsletter 11(3): 12– 15. Duren Jr., William L. 1988. Mathematics in American society 1888–1988: A historical commentary. In A century of mathematics in America: Part II, eds. Peter Duren, Richard Askey, and Uta Merzbach, 399–447. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Franklin, Christine Ladd. (1894). Sophie Germain, an unknown mathematician. Century 48: 946– 949. (Reprinted in AWM Newsletter 11(3): 7–11 in 1981) Goodman, A. W. 1974. Response from A. W. Goodman to a letter from Alice Schafer. AWM Newsletter 4(5): 12–13. Marchand, Susan Gordon, Lily E. Christ, Alice T. Schafer, and Evelyn M. Silvia. 1988. A report on women in China, 1987. AWM Newsletter 18(3): 13–16. Murray, Margaret A. M. 1996. Alice T. Schafer interview. Oral history transcript provided by Margaret Murray, revised 13 January 1998. Murray, Margaret A. M. 2000. Women becoming mathematicians: Creating a professional identity in Post-World War II America. Cambridge: MIT Press. Rahn, Millie. 1998. Alice T. Schafer interview. Schlesinger Archives. MC 690, box 1 folder 18. Oral history transcript. Rossiter, Margaret. 2003. A twisted tale: Women in the physical sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In The Cambridge history of science: The modern physical and mathematical sciences, Vol. 5, ed. Mary Jo Nye, 54–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schafer, Alice T. (1981a). Women and mathematics. In Mathematics tomorrow, ed. Lynn Arthur Steen, 165–185. New York: Springer-Verlag. Schafer, Alice Turner (1958). Review: E. Artin, Geometric Algebra. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 64: 35–37. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1970. Curriculum Vitae. Wellesley College Archives. 3PB. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1974a. Letter to Professors Goodman and Ratti. AWM Newsletter 4(5): 12. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1974b. Report of the President. AWM Newsletter 4(7): 1–2. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1981b. Before AWM. AWM Newsletter 11(2): 6–7. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1991. Mathematics and Women: Perspectives and Progress. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 735–737. Schafer, Alice Turner. 1994. Letter to Della Fenster. February 11, 1994. Schlesinger Archives. MC 690, box 1 folder 19. Correspondence re: women in mathematics 1983–1994. Schafer, Alice Turner and Mary W. Gray. 1981a. Guidelines for Equality: A Proposal. Academe 67(6): 351–354.

4 The original John Adams quote is from a letter to Abigail Adams from May 12, 1780: “I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” For the full letter, see https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L17800512jasecond.

Alice Turner Schafer: Changing Expectations for Women in Mathematics

353

Schafer, Alice Turner and Mary W. Gray. 1981b. Sex and Mathematics. Science 211(4479): 231. Bhama Srinivasan, Mary Gray, Linda Rothschild, Ellen Maycock, Chandler Davis, and Lee Lorch. 2010. A Tribute to Alice Turner Schafer. AWM Newsletter 40(1): 5–12. Stanton, Nancy K. 1988. Is the climate for women in mathematics changing? AWM Newsletter 18(1): 4–10.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism in Mathematics During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s Laura E. Turner

Introduction The Association of Women Mathematicians was founded in the midst of the second wave of feminism in the United States when a small group of women attending the Joint Mathematics Meetings of 1971 decided to form a caucus. Shortly thereafter, they joined with a number of Boston-area women mathematicians who had been meeting since 1969 (Blum, 1991). Together, and largely reflecting the energetic efforts of the first president, Mary Gray (Elkins, 1973), the group began publishing a Newsletter devoted to the discussion of roles of women in mathematics, the sharing of amelioratory strategies, the encouragement of political action, and, among other things, the exposition of instances of discrimination. While membership under its original name was already advertised as “open to all mathematicians, regardless of sex” (AMS, 1971), the organization would become the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) already in its first year of existence. By 1972 the AWM aimed “to improve the position of women in mathematics and to encourage women to study mathematics and to seek careers in mathematics” (AWMN, 1972a) by showing children that girls “can and should learn mathematics” and by demanding an end to the historic discrimination women faced vis-àvis consideration for graduate school, faculty appointments, and all manner of administrative posts within universities, industry, and government; discrepancies in salaries and assignments of duties; and promotion and tenure (Blum, 1991, p. 16). By virtue of its activism in these veins, which included investigations of

L. E. Turner () Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_34

355

356

L. E. Turner

sex discrimination and illegal hiring practices, its organizers quickly came to view it as “the main advocate for women in mathematics” in the political and legal arenas (Blum, 1975a). Yet the path toward equity was far from smooth, as indicated by the complex conditions faced by women mathematicians documented in the accounts of Case and Leggett (2006) and described in relation to the growth of the AWM as presented in Blum (1991) and Greenwald et al. (2015). Historian of science Margaret Rossiter (1982, 1995, 2012) has written extensively on the experiences of women scientists in American intellectual institutions prior to 1940 and up to the turn of the twentyfirst century, illuminating women’s unacknowledged scientific contributions and documenting their marginalization within scientific communities. This was not for lack of capability or hard work, but because women experienced what Rossiter has referred to as hierarchical and territorial discrimination, namely the funneling of women into underpaid, undervalued, and auxiliary or invisible positions from which they were generally not promoted, and the clustering of women into certain fields and at women’s colleges or less prestigious institutions. The former of these is widely documented within the AWM Newsletter. As we will see, the challenges the AWM and its members faced in this connection illuminate a number of underlying factors, including widespread belief by mathematicians, the broader public, and even prominent feminists in the inability of women to do mathematics and the belief (in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary) that a gender-blind meritocracy was possible and that mathematical practice was generally objective. Here, the term “mathematical practice” refers to the professional activities undertaken by mathematical practitioners, in contrast to mathematical results themselves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as the creation and application of mathematical knowledge; the processes for publishing and sharing mathematical knowledge through journals, conferences, or other means including teaching; and the processes involved in decisions concerning hiring, reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In this article we explore public dialogues within the AWM and the broader mathematical community, largely through the lens of the AWM Newsletter, described as “a forum, a source of information, and a channel of communication” (Blum, 1975a) and later as “the very embodiment of the AWM” (Blum, 1991, p. 15). While opinions within AWM Newsletter articles, statements, and letters to the editor are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the AWM, they nevertheless reveal priorities and interests of both the members and the organization as a whole. Here, we focus on discourse surrounding the contexts of affirmative action mandates within academia, the Benbow-Stanley conclusions on sex differences in mathematical ability, anti-science gender essentialism, and the Jenny Harrison tenure case. Against the backdrop of the broader feminist movement during this period, aspects of which both supported and clashed with the general mission of the AWM and inspired impassioned responses within the mathematical establishment, all three issues attracted controversy. Taken together, they illustrate the difficulty of identifying and providing compelling evidence of sex discrimination.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

357

Accordingly, the analysis of the current article focuses on the light that controversies of sexism in mathematics shed on the general climate for women in mathematics and the situation for individual women mathematicians during this period. While one might question the juxtaposition of remarks made over the course of roughly two decades and by individuals at various stages of their careers, the narrative surrounding sex discrimination in mathematical practice was remarkably consistent across time in spite of the fact that certain forms of progress, such as increased recognition of women for their achievements, were made. As we will see, in spite of the perceived importance of disassociating individual women mathematicians from sex-linked stereotypes and although American mathematicians widely subscribed to a belief in the objectivity of mathematical practice, deeply-ingrained myths of female mathematical inferiority persisted from the 1970s into the 1990s. These rendered the individual woman mathematician vulnerable to hidden biases and subtle discrimination that many struggled to see and acknowledge.

Responses to Affirmative Action Mandates One critical means of effecting positive change for women predated the AWM and attracted controversy within the US mathematical community into the 1990s. This was “affirmative action” as instantiated in policies introduced during the early 1960s to prohibit government contractors from discriminating against employees or job applicants due to race, creed, color, or national origin.1 In 1967 sex also became a protected category and, as pointed out in the first AWM Newsletter, “[t]here is no exclusion for educational institutions.” Although discrimination was not illegal, it could lead to cancellation of existing contracts or failure to obtain new grants. To avoid this, contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract of $50,000 or more were required to develop a written affirmative action plan (AWMN, 1971, p. 1).2 However, the AWM Newsletter cautioned, “[m]any schools claim to include

1 In its 1975 definition of “affirmative action” the United States Commission on Civil Rights included “any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future” (US Commission on Civil Rights, 1977). 2 A number of laws ultimately prohibited discrimination against women within the contexts of universities, schools, and industry. These included the 1972 amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act, administered by the Equal Opportunity Commission, preventing sex discrimination in hiring, pay, and working conditions; the Equal Pay Act as amended in 1972, enforced by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Wages and Hours, which prohibited discrimination in pay; and Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, enforced by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which stated that “[n]o person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Many states also had laws against sex discrimination (Jaffe, 1976, p. 7). Notably, Title IX concerned the admission and treatment of students, as well as employment.

358

L. E. Turner

women in their minority group plans, but experience has shown that unless particular attention is devoted to this area it gets neglected. In particular, the males in charge of the program may be insensitive.” When suggested to the male Equal Employment Opportunities Officer at the American University, for example, that the program needed additional staff, preferably a woman aware of the problems, he responded: “Oh yes, we really need a woman in the office, especially if she can type” (AWMN, 1971, p. 3). As the above remarks suggest, affirmative action did not solve the problem of sex discrimination (or, for that matter, racism) in academia. While the government enforced affirmative action legislation within industry, the long history of selfgovernance of institutions of higher learning, coupled with arguments in favor of autonomy and academic freedom, meant that universities experienced minimal government pressure to change (Blum, 1992, p. 20). Universities were excused from meeting their hiring goals—if, indeed, their affirmative action plans had numerical goals at all (National Research Council, 1979, p. 7)—provided they could demonstrate “good faith” efforts to find qualified women (Ezorsky, 1977, p. 8). In the words of James C. Goodwin, Assistant to the Vice President for state-wide university and student relations at the University of California, The great white marshmallow of university structure is antithetical to affirmative action. People at all levels of a university system speak readily about the problems of affirmative action, since everyone seems to consider it someone else’s problem and disclaims the ability to deal with it on his or her own level. Throughout the nation, affirmative action offices are being demoted or rendered ineffective as they are moved further away from the decision-making centers within the patriarchal structure and substructures that make up the university. Through policy and inaction we see a broken-down charade acted out by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and the Universities, accompanied by the manipulation of data from ineptly tuned computers . . . (Goodwin, 1978, p. 3)

At many institutions, moreover, affirmative action mandates were met with a fair deal of resistance, with grumbles of “reverse discrimination” and feelings of related resentment expressed, often privately, into the 1990s (Jackson, 1995, p. 287). By Gray’s account in 1973, “[t]he backlash on hiring women has become quite severe . . . The same scholars who said nothing for years about discrimination against women are suddenly big advocates of equal opportunity, which they define to be hiring white males” (Gray, 1973a, p. 1). Various ploys to circumvent what some perceived as government “interference” were reported at that time, with composite histories drawn from actual events including offering the position to a female candidate but delaying the signing of the contract for so long that the woman is forced to remove herself from consideration; offering a position to a minority or woman candidate under conditions or at a salary level known to be unacceptable to the candidate; formally listing a woman or minority candidate as the second choice when certain that the first choice (a white male) will accept; and inviting women to interview for an advertised position for which a man had already been made a firm offer (Goodwin, 1978, pp. 4–5). The AWM Newsletter reported on the last ploy in 1973 (Gray, 1973b, p. 1).

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

359

Complicating matters was the popular opinion that once an affirmative action program was signed, all problems were solved (Roitman, 1976, p. 8) and the fact that many mathematicians publicly claimed to be anti-discrimination while opposing or expressing uncertainty about affirmative action measures. “I’m very much in favor of fighting discrimination, for non-mathematical reasons, against mathematicians in matters of hiring, promotion, or tenure,” asserted Robion Kirby, American Mathematical Society (AMS) Council Member-at-Large candidate, in 1973 in response to AWM queries concerning political, sexual, and racial discrimination within the mathematical community and possible responses of the AMS. Indicating that the AMS should continue to combat non-mathematical discrimination against any mathematician, he added: “The most significant example of institutionalized discrimination I know of is actually pro women. Many good schools set aside a block of graduate admissions or teaching assistantships, or even an instructorship, which only go to women or minorities” (Kirby, 1973). In fact, in the words of AMS presidential nominee R. H. Bing, “[s]exual and minority discrimination has abated and in some cases is in reverse [emphasis added]” (Bing, 1975, p. 9). By 1975 Gray expressed two primary concerns connected to the backlash against affirmative action, which by then had “become a matter of serious concern” (Gray, 1975a, p. 1). The first was the widespread identification of the hiring of minorities and women with the lowering of standards of quality. As phrased two years prior, “[w]hite males are always alarmed that bringing in Blacks or women is going to dilute the ‘quality,’ which of course only they are ‘qualified’ to judge” (Gray, 1973c, p. 1).3 In this vein, some in academia argued that affirmative action was a threat to established tenure practices, which required that a faculty member “satisfy minimum eligibility requirements, demonstrate a certain performance level, and reveal adequate potential for growth and development” (AWMN, 1973, p. 12), as well as meet academic standards. US Department of Labor Revised Order Number 4, issued in December 1971, for instance, stipulated that “[n]either minority members nor female employees should be required to possess higher qualifications than those of the lowest qualified incumbent” (Sherman, 1973). By one (mis)interpretation, this meant that a department which had improved over time would be unable to apply current standards to women and minorities and “must instead apply the standards by which its weakest current members were hired or promoted” (Sherman, 1973). Another misconception, expressed two decades later when the tight job market gave rise to newfound concern that women and minorities had an unfair edge, was that a woman would “move upward under affirmative action until she reached a department in which she was some amount (which depends on the strength of the affirmative action) below the standard at which the men were hired,” such that every

3 This was, of course, a gross misinterpretation of the aims of affirmative action. As stressed by Committee W of the AAUP in 1975, “[a]ffirmative action does not require that underqualified candidates be hired, but if the candidates are essentially equivalent, preference should be given to women or minorities if the effects of past discrimination have not been overcome” (Blum, 1975b, p. 1).

360

L. E. Turner

woman would be the weakest member of the department except possibly in the very top schools (Kirby, 1995, p. 23). Gray’s second concern was the emphasis by HEW that it was up to the colleges and universities to determine who was best qualified. “This would imply,” she continued, “that once efforts are made to find women and minority candidates, no effort need be made to hire [emphasis in original]” (Gray, 1975a, p. 1). Accordingly, scenarios like those depicted above seemed unlikely to occur; colleges and universities could go about business as usual, basing the notion of “best qualified” on the same stereotyped assumptions they had always used. The problematic nature of this was emphasized by Walter J. Leonard, Special Assistant to the President of Harvard University, in 1978. By his account, the predominantly white, male faculties appeared “absolutely incapable of developing the internal courage or intellectual capacity to accept other than one of their own kind as equal” (Goodwin, 1978, p. 6).4 One proposed remedy to the dearth of women and minorities in mathematics, as elsewhere, concerned HEW hiring goals “set to approximate an impartial, biasfree result” (Ezorsky, 1977, p. 7). Yet rather than reflecting an attempt to provide women and minorities with their fair share of jobs, some equated such “quotas,” as they were often called, with special treatment (Reed, 1980), opposing “any kind of quota system to equalize representation from different groups of people, including women” as invited speakers at meetings (Ratner, 1986, p. 12) or to “set numerical quotas for women in tenure positions” (Bloch, 1995). Rather than establish protections for specific groups of people, many seem to have felt that the appropriate ways to tackle problems of hiring and promotion and to address discrimination were at the level of the individual. “Once institutionalized discrimination is gone,” Kirby wrote in 1973, “one must fight discrimination on a case by case level” (Kirby, 1973). Bing argued similarly around the same time, asserting that “AMS opposes unfair discrimination. We have concern for mathematicians in difficulty and AMS should have committees to decide what is to be done in individual cases [emphasis added]” (Bing, 1975, p. 9). A full 4 In this vein, and in light of the fact that systemic racism is and has been so deeply embedded into American culture (making it very difficult to recognize), scholars have emphasized the importance of qualitative methods in providing insight into its day-to-day impacts in the United States. Delgado (1989) and Aguirre (2000) have utilized the notion of counterstory, namely a story challenging the “stock story” of the white majority. Delgado (1989), for example, has described a series of stories in which a Black lawyer is rejected from a teaching position at a major law school. His description highlights key features of the stock story justifying the search committee’s decision to reject the applicant: that the institution acted benevolently and in good faith and above all, that the candidate “would have been hired had he measured up.” As we will see, these features emerge within the context of the AWM discussions. Similarly, Aguirre (2000) presents an example in which the implementation of an affirmative action program served to marginalize one minority candidate for an academic position. In it, the shortlisted applicant is removed from consideration for the faculty position to which he applied and suggested for consideration in the context of the institution’s Diversity Opportunity Targets (DOT) program, for which a particular number of faculty positions had been earmarked. Ultimately, this candidate was not selected for a DOT appointment. In the meantime, however, the department had already hired a white candidate. From the perspective of a faculty member involved in the search, the decision of the campus administration was to blame.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

361

two decades later James Ralston, candidate for the AMS Nominating Committee, would echo this sentiment. To him, not only was the discrimination that led to affirmative action programs a departure from that idea, but so were some of the solutions proposed. “I believe,” he asserted, “that to treat someone respectfully one begins by treating them as an individual [emphasis added]” (Ralston, 1995).

Sex-linked Theories of Mathematical Ability The importance of treating women mathematicians as individuals would be emphasized again in what on the surface might appear to be an unrelated context, that of the studies of Johns Hopkins psychologists Camilla Benbow and Julian Stanley. As we will see, however, Benbow and Stanley’s conclusions and the broader myth of male mathematical superiority lay at the very heart of much affirmative action opposition. The AWM Newsletter would draw attention to this already in 1975, citing a remark of Berkeley mathematics professor David Gale which illustrated “quite plainly the central belief of those who oppose affirmative action on the one hand while claiming it unnecessary on the other.” At that point a congressional committee was investigating the affirmative action package for the entire University of California system and for its part, the AWM intended to provide witnesses so that some “real action” might be forced. In this vein Gale, addressing the reasons for which there were, at that point, no women in his mathematics department, asserted: “[t]he problem is that, while there are many competent women mathematicians, there are very few outstanding ones and no ‘super stars’” (AWMN, 1975, p. 4). The controversial conclusions of Benbow and Stanley and the subsequent treatment thereof by the news media did much to further this attitude. In 1980 Benbow and Stanley published results of a study of 9927 “intellectually gifted junior high school students” which found that the mean Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score of boys in the 95th to 98th percentiles was higher than that of girls in each of the six testings studied, and that a larger percentage of boys scored more than 600 (Benbow and Stanley, 1980, p. 1262). It should be noted that this study, as well as any others discussed in this text, considered differences between people classified by binary gender only. Subsequent references in this text to boys, girls, males, females, men, and women will reflect this, maintaining the vocabulary used by the historical actors involved. Such findings were not new; the previous decade had seen a sizable interest in the relationship between gender and achievement in mathematics of children in the later years of elementary school, with many studies indicating that boys were significantly superior to girls in both mathematical performance and attitude toward mathematics (Rogers and Hanna, 1989).5 Nor were they surprising; as

5 See Aiken (1976), Backman (1972), Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), Mullis (1975), and Suydam and Riedesel (1969).

362

L. E. Turner

stated emphatically by Elizabeth Fennema, a University of Wisconsin mathematics educator cited in the Benbow-Stanley study, “I believe the findings of differences in performance of this highly selected sample of girls and boys really did exist. Those boys did perform better on the SAT-M than did those girls. However,” she continued, “the inferences of causation are only that—inferences—and I believe a number of faulty assumptions have been made” (Fennema, 1981, p. 381). Fennema and others had previously suggested that differential course-taking numbered among the factors affecting mathematics achievement; see, for instance, Fennema and Sherman (1977). Benbow and Stanley argued that their study controlled for this factor, among others, and hypothesized that because the boys and girls had received the same education in mathematics, “sex differences in achievement in and attitude toward mathematics result from superior male mathematical ability” (Benbow and Stanley, 1980, p. 1264). Although many women “can’t bring themselves to accept sexual differences in aptitude,” Benbow reportedly said, “the difference in math is a fact. The best way to help girls is to accept it and go from there” (Fennema, 1981, p. 381). “You can’t brush the differences under the rug and ignore them,” she stated in a subsequent telephone interview. “That’s not going to help the girls. We’ve got to accept it and see what we can do to make the situation better” (New York Times, 1980). Benbow and Stanley’s articles attracted a great deal of attention in popular media outlets,6 and criticism from mathematicians and mathematics educators, among others, quickly followed. Unsurprisingly, AWM members numbered among the detractors. The Association responded officially less than a month after the initial findings were published, and founding AWM members Gray and Alice Schafer, both serving as representatives of the Joint AMS-MAA-NCTM-SIAM7 Committee on Women in Mathematics, published a rebuttal in Science shortly thereafter.8 As Gray would recall many years later following Schafer’s death, “My tendency was to shrug it off as just another annoyance.” Schafer, on the other hand, “was indignant. She flew into Washington and demanded an audience for us” with the editor of Science, successfully challenging the magazine to publish a response refuting the controversial conclusions (Srinivasan et al., 2010, p. 7). In their response, Gray and Schafer point to “two clear problems” with the Benbow-Stanley hypothesis. First, environmental and cultural factors had not been ruled out; despite the fact boys and girls in the study had essentially received the same formal training, “the issues of who helps with mathematics homework, of what sort of toys and games children are exposed to, of what the expectations of parents

6 See,

for instance, New York Times (1980), Time Magazine (1980), Washington Post (1980), and Williams and King (1980). 7 American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 8 Schafer was the second AWM president, and when the rebuttal was published she was the retiring chairperson of the Joint Committee on Women. Gray was the incoming chairperson at that time.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

363

and teachers are, and of a multitude of other factors cannot be lightly set aside.”9 Second, it was unclear whether SAT scores were, in fact, a good measure of inherent mathematical ability given that no student identified by the study as mathematically precocious had gone on to do graduate work in mathematics (Schafer and Gray, 1981).10 They called for more work to change the environmental factors which, they argued, prevented women and girls from fully realizing their mathematical potential. Schafer and Gray were not alone in their skepticism of the Benbow-Stanley conclusions. At the joint meeting of the AMS and MAA in January 1981 a press conference was held during which representatives of the MAA, AMS, AMS-MAANCTM-SIAM Committee on Women, as well as the AWM “presented a variety of views, all quite distinct from those of Benbow and Stanley” (Anderson, 1981). In response to both the Benbow-Stanley study and Schafer and Gray’s rebuttal the Executive Committee of the AWM issued a formal resolution on January 8, 1981 which read: The Association for Women in Mathematics is outraged by the irresponsible coverage in the December 12 Issue of Science of a study of dubious validity on sex differences in mathematical ability. We strongly support the views of the Joint Committee on Women in Mathematics as expressed in an editorial to appear in the January 16 issue of Science. (Srinivasan, 1981a, p. 1)

The irresponsibility of publishers was further stressed by Gray and Schafer, who pointed to the progress it stood to undo. The AWM, together with the Joint Committee on Women and a number of other organizations,11 had worked with aides to Senator Ted Kennedy’s Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research to develop the National Science Foundation Authorization and Equal Opportunities in Science and Technology Act (Gray, 1981, p. 3), which President Carter had signed on December 12, 1980. Gray and Schafer, in particular, had invested time and energy to get the bill passed (Srinivasan, 1981b, p. 1). Individuals and organizations that supported the establishment of this Act, they asserted, “do not deserve to hear from those who have consistently opposed the legislation that it is a waste of money because women are genetically inferior when it comes to mathematics [emphasis added]” (Schafer and Gray, 1981).

9 Berkeley science educators Elizabeth Stage and Robert Karplus pointed to a number of other issues including the fact that Benbow and Stanley determined that their findings were potentially linked “to greater male ability in spatial tasks” (Benbow and Stanley, 1980), though they did not measure spatial ability themselves (Stage, 1981; Tomizuka et al., 1981) and it was unclear to many how to test for it in the first place (Tomizuka et al., 1981). For further objections see Anderson (1981); Tomizuka et al. (1981). 10 Benbow and Stanley disputed this point; see (Tomizuka et al., 1981). 11 These included the Association for Women in Computing, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Psychological Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Federation of Professional Women’s Organizations, the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), and the Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL) (Gray, 1981, p. 3).

364

L. E. Turner

Beyond the context of legislation, Gray and Schafer pointed to the problem of the interpretation of the results, which Benbow and Stanley had acknowledged were “consistent with numerous alternative hypotheses.” That the press ignored this statement resulted in “sensationalized coverage,” the harm of which would be “virtually impossible to undo” (Schafer and Gray, 1981). Indeed, although Benbow and Stanley later lamented the conflation of issues and asserted that “superior male mathematical ability” and “greater male ability in spatial tasks” mean merely “that boys tend to score higher on the SAT-M and spatial tests . . . than girls do,” damage had already been done. “Unfortunately,” they acknowledged, “many readers . . . interpret ‘superior ability’ as meaning inherently, intrinsically, or genetically abler” (Tomizuka et al., 1981). This misinterpretation and distortion of such data came with serious social repercussions, and some expressed concern that individuals wholly outside the education community now believed statements such as “males inherently have more mathematical ability than females” (Time Magazine, 1980). This concern was not unfounded. In 1981, when sixth through eighth graders were prompted with the statement “[s]ome people say that girls are better in math than boys and some say that boys are better than girls” and asked what they thought, responses included “Boys are better . . . Cuz I’ve seen like studies and they say boys are better,” and “I read somewhere, . . . that, um, boys are, it’s some kind of scientific thing that boys are better in math than girls are” (Fennema, 1981). The beliefs of parents, too, were impacted. By 1986 Jacobs and Eccles would conclude, among other things, that compared to other mothers, those who had heard about the Benbow-Stanley report from the media “appeared to think that their daughters had less math ability, were less likely to succeed in math in the future, found math more difficult, and had to work harder to succeed in math” (Jacobs and Eccles, 1985, p. 22). Responses to the Benbow-Stanley conclusions spilled into the following years in venues ranging from Psychology Today (Tobias, 1982) to the Spanish quarterly Mientras Tanto (Beckwith et al., 1981), with AWM members discussing the response of the Association (LaDuke, 1981) and, in at least one case, encouraging rebuttals intended to “counter their ‘statistics’ with real statistics” (Jaffe, 1984). During this time Benbow and Stanley continued their studies of mathematically precocious youths, concluding that by age 13 “a large sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability exists,” with boys outnumbering girls 13 to one amongst those scoring 700 or higher on the SAT-M (Benbow and Stanley, 1983).12 Benbow, moreover, would begin to explore physiological characteristics of children with extreme intellectual precocity. While Schafer, Gray, and many others stressed the importance of environmental factors, Benbow claimed her research demonstrated 12 In

spite of the fact that researchers at Johns Hopkins found the average ratio between 1984 and 1991 to be 5.7 to one (Brody et al., 1994), and that Stanley, himself, reported the ratio in 1997 to be four to one (Stanley, 1997), this ratio of 13 to one publicized by Benbow and Stanley continued to be cited without later statistics until 2005 (Kessel, 2011). Notably, it was cited in discussions of the 2005 remarks of Harvard President Lawrence Summers; see, for instance, Chapman (2005). It has since dropped to three to one; see Haier (2009, p. 192).

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

365

that these, alone, did not explain the male advantage in mathematics. “After 15 years of research looking for an environmental explanation, and getting zero results, I gave up,” she said. “Our work is pointing us to a biological explanation” (Goleman, 1987). Finding that 80% of mathematically and/or verbally extremely precocious youths were left-handed, myopic, and had asthma or other allergies, she was led to pose the question of whether intellectual precocity had physiological, as well as environment bases. Two of the three characteristics, Benbow noted, were possibly linked to the influence of testosterone during fetal development (Benbow, 1986). She and Robert Michael Benbow continued research in this vein, finding circumstantial evidence “consistent with the hypothesis that students with extremely high mathematical or verbal reasoning ability are exposed prenatally to higher than normal levels of testosterone” (Benbow and Benbow, 1987, p. 150). Benbow’s conclusions were picked up by the news media, including the New York Times, which published an article highlighting the search for factors that might account for gender differences in math test scores. “Besides citing the increase in the number of girls taking the tests who have less academic preparation,” the article notes, “psychometricians and test critics offer a mix of explanations, ranging from sex bias in the test items to social pressures that keep girls from excelling in math, to basic differences in brain function. The best answers, to date, seem to include all these factors, to a greater or lesser degree” (Goleman, 1987). Yet while scholars continued to debate the relative merits of environmental or social-pressure theories and biological explanations, and to criticize or defend the SAT itself, AWM member Mary Beth Ruskai would recommend reframing the debate entirely. In an AWIS panel on gender and mathematics Ruskai “told of a nightmarish vision, in which work by Camilla Benbow suggesting a link between testosterone and mathematical ability becomes accepted, and girls who get A’s in high school algebra are treated with estrogen to ‘cure’ them.” The problem, to her, was “a lack of tolerance for human diversity” (Greenspan, 1987, p. 11). Ruskai shed additional light on her perspective in an AWM panel on gender and science. “Some theorists find an emphasis on cultural differences to be less objectionable than an assertion about biological differences,” Ruskai stated. “Personally, I do not find this distinction very important. Moreover, while I agree that we need to respond to the NY Times article [Goleman (1987)], as well as address the serious flaws in Benbow and Stanley’s work, I also think we need to re-examine our attitude.” To Ruskai, the most critical issue was the fact that regardless of how sex and gender impacted mathematical ability, if they did at all, women and girls continued to do mathematics and many even excelled at it. She continued: Does it really matter whether differences are cultural, biological, or non-existent artifacts of testing? Women are now encouraged to climb mountains, run marathons, and engage in other athletic endeavors despite the documented differences between male and female muscular development. About 20% of PhDs in mathematics now go to women. We have ample evidence that a significant number of women are not only capable of doing mathematics and science, but also enjoy it. The discovery of a sex-linked mathematics gene or hormone will not change that, nor would it justify sex discrimination. Any differences which may exist must be overshadowed by the variety of individual differences and preferences. (Smith et al., 1987, p. 9)

366

L. E. Turner

Ruskai’s remarks emphasize the diversity of interests and abilities of individual women, further stressing the importance of separating the individual from the cause. Yet as the backlash to affirmative action suggested, this would not be straightforward. Arguments that affirmative action would “lower standards” or “dilute the quality” were rooted in the myth that women cannot do mathematics and in the controversial belief that there were innate sex-linked differences in mathematical ability, ideas perpetuated and made popular by the oft-quoted and highly-publicized Benbow-Stanley conclusions.13 What is more, such ideas were linked to feminism during this period in ways that clearly surprised a number of women mathematicians. In particular, while some feminists balked at sex-linked theories of mathematical ability and sought to remedy environmental and cultural factors keeping girls and women out of science, others embraced stereotypes of mathematics, science, and gender, some apparently delighting in the fact that many women steered clear.

“The Tip of a Very Serious Iceberg”: Feminist Misconceptions of Mathematics The above-mentioned New York Times article cited social pressures on teenage girls as a potential factor in sex differences in SAT scores. Some scholars viewed the fear of peer rejection as a major factor in the decision of some girls not to enroll in advanced mathematical courses, suggesting that “girls see math as unfeminine. Real women, they believe, do not solve equations” (Goleman, 1987). One woman interviewed, who wished to remain anonymous, described how “mortified” she felt when she, as a seventh grader, achieved the highest math score in her class. “After that,” she indicated, “I only took the minimal number of math courses I needed to satisfy college-entry requirements” (Goleman, 1987). That such beliefs impacted the trajectories of mathematicians was acknowledged by former AWM

13 In

fact, the controversial conclusions of Benbow and Stanley would resurface again a number of times in later years, as would refutations thereof; in the words of Cathy Kessel, then the AWM president-elect, “[c]ritiques of Benbow and Stanley’s work became a small industry in psychology.” Kessel, herself, pointed out that if there indeed was an innate gender imbalance in mathematical ability it should be constant over time. The drop of the male to female ratio with SAT scores over 700, however, did not reflect this (Kessel, 2006a). Subsequent research on gender ratios of high achievers in mathematics has found a great deal of variation by country. Hanna (1989, p. 16), for example, found that differences among countries were greater than sex differences, and that in five countries studied, sex-related differences actually favored girls in some subtests. Guiso et al. (2008, p. 1165) concluded that “in more gender-equal societies, girls perform as well as boys in mathematics” and that the magnitude of the average mathematical gender gap was significantly correlated with gender inequality, as measured by the Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum. Hyde and Mertz (2009, p. 8806), too, found that the gender gap favoring boys above the 99th percentile is correlated with a country’s gender equity, suggesting that this gap is “due, in large part, to sociocultural and other environmental factors, not biology or gender per se.”

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

367

President Judith Roitman, who described her own progress as a mathematics student as “marked by severe disjunctions of self-image” and the avoidance of mathematics courses in college to avoid what society considered a contradiction. “It took me a long time,” she wrote, “to internalize the lack of contradiction between ‘woman’ and ‘mathematician’” (Roitman, 1987, p. 8). By the mid-1980s it would emerge that contradictions of this sort were perpetuated not only by historical precedent and, more recently, media coverage of the Benbow-Stanley and related results, but also by a handful of vocal scholars engaged in the “new feminist scholarship” aimed at exploring the effect of gender in various disciplines (Smith et al., 1987, p. 5). Yet while feminist analyses in areas like literature and the social sciences were typically undertaken by scholars within the very fields they studied, this was not the case for science and mathematics. As a result, the conclusions at which they arrived struck many AWM Newsletter readers as untrue. In this connection, the misconceptions espoused by a handful of “vocal and visible sociologists” within “so-called feminist circles” would lead Ruskai, who visited the Bunting Institute of Radcliffe College as a Science Scholar between 1983 and 1985 (AWMN, 1983), to publish an open letter on feminism in science in the Newsletter and the American Physical Society Committee on the Status of Women in Physics (CSWP) Gazette in 1986. In her letter Ruskai expressed her increasing concern about the view that science and mathematics are uncreative, unintuitive, dull processes of quantification, and are incompatible with “feminine nature” (Smith et al., 1987, p. 6). This mistaken idea was evidently held by a number of non-scientist professionals, many with public prominence, with whom she had been in contact at the Bunting Institute. As she would later assert, the suggestion of a dichotomy between the feminine (creative, intuitive, subjective, nurturing) and the masculine (analytical, abstract, objective, scientific) perspectives was not only inaccurate, but would never result in the sort of dialogue that might improve the scientific climate for women (Ruskai, 1989, p. 2). Mary Poplin of the School of Education at Claremont College, for example, had concluded with apparent delight during an interview with the Boston Globe that women with an aptitude for computing, science, and mathematics had no interest in these fields because science “doesn’t deal with subtleties” (Ruskai, 1986a, p. 4). Similarly, in a Newsweek article sociologist Sherry Turkle seemed to suggest that the field of computer science itself should change so as to accommodate the lessstructured and more “artistic” approach that she understood as feminine. Ruskai emphasized a recurring theme in such articles: that women are more “intuitive” than men, which seemed to her “suspiciously like a rewording of the old bigoted male accusation that women can’t think logically” (Ruskai, 1986a, p. 5). More problematic, still, was the realization that such opinions were “actually the tip of a very serious iceberg” (Ruskai, 1986a, p. 5). Many non-scientists such as those Ruskai encountered at the Bunting Institute not only regarded these scholars as women scientists from the fields about which they wrote but as spokespersons, interpreting the view of this outspoken minority as “orthodox.” Furthermore, she wrote, “because the social scientists in question are widely regarded as staunch

368

L. E. Turner

feminists, dissenting views are sometimes regarded as non-feminist” (Ruskai, 1986a, p. 6).14 Ruskai’s letter generated more responses than any other article in the history of the AWM Newsletter to that point (AWMN, 1986), likely due in some part to Newsletter editor Anne Leggett’s introduction, which solicited responses to Ruskai’s report and examples of feminist anti-science bias from readers (Leggett, 1986). As a result, the AWM also sponsored a panel on gender and science in which Ruskai and others participated at the 1987 AMS-MAA joint summer meeting in Salt Lake City. Based upon their written remarks, panel participants and respondents agreed that women are no less capable (Boas, 1986) and no more intuitive than men (Robinson, 1986, p. 11) with respect to mathematics and science, though one cautioned that in pointing out misconceptions one might be seen as “defensive, functioning by male models, unenlightened, or downright hostile,” thereby diminishing one’s effectiveness in doing so (Hsu, 1986, p. 12). It was generally agreed, moreover, that the practice of science, reflecting masculine prejudices (Smith et al., 1987, p. 14) and social pressures (Smith et al., 1987, p. 11), was not gender-neutral (Hsu 1986, p. 12; Nichols 1986, p. 6). Though some questioned the roles non-scientist scholars ought to serve in discussions of gender and science, there appears to have been general agreement that communication with non-scientist feminists, as well as laypeople (Hsu, 1986), was paramount (Nichols, 1986; Roitman, 1987). One thread woven through several responses concerned the dismissal of gender stereotypes and the resistance to attempts at classification. Ann Marsh Robinson, manager of a software engineering group for General Electric, found Turkle’s idea that girls and boys respectively prefer “soft” and “hard” styles of programming “ridiculous and offensive, and annoying as well.” While she found differences between the people in her group, they were not differences between men and women (Robinson, 1986). Roitman wrote about her shock at a lecture she once heard by cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead on the theory of imprinting, which purportedly made women excellent social scientists and men excellent mathematicians and physicists, “implying as it did that no woman could be Gauss, Euler or, for that matter, Noether.” When she questioned Mead about the fact that women do, in fact, excel professionally in physics, chemistry, and mathematics, “she proceeded to skewer me, essentially telling me that I and my mathematician, physicist, chemist, etc., sisters were misguided, possibly psychologically warped” (Roitman, 1987, p. 7). “I don’t like anything to be characterized as feminine: not

14 It

should be noted, however, that while this strand of feminism adopted a form of anti-science gender essentialism based on the assumption that males and females are born with different qualities which are biological, rather than cultural, and that science is inherently masculine, gender essentialism was widely rejected by most feminist thinkers. The majority of those who studied science were not only closely aligned with STEM fields, but seriously considered the cultural impact of the production of scientific knowledge. Witt (1995), in fact, has argued that “anti-essentialism has become (almost) an essential feature of feminist theorizing.” For feminist perspectives on science which are neither anti-science nor gender-essentialist see also Anderson (1995), Barad (1995), Lloyd (1996), Longino (1994), and Wylie (1995).

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

369

your interests, not the way you walk, not the way you do mathematics,” remarked Jean Taylor in the discussion surrounding the 1987 AWM panel on gender and science. A neurobiologist at the University of Wisconsin, she pointed out, indicated that while much attention is given to small average differences between men and women “there is a very much larger range of differences among individuals” (Smith et al., 1987, p. 14). Ruskai would remark directly upon this issue. Emphasizing the differences between men and women “ignores the great differences between individuals within a given category” (Ruskai, 1989, p. 4) whether the category is defined by gender or some other factor. “The problem with gender difference theory,” she contended, “is that it seems to be trying to define a canonical feminine woman. Instead, we need to emphasize the diversity of interests and ability; and the importance of not only tolerating, but encouraging, that diversity” (Smith et al., 1987, p. 9). By 1993, however, Ruskai would conclude that in spite of the importance of judging people as individuals instead of by categories, her own belief in the prospect of a gender-neutral meritocracy in mathematics had eroded. Most people had hidden biases concerning everything from race, religion, and ethnicity to height, marital status, and hair style which were “simply too ingrained for that” (Ruskai, 1995, p. 438). That such difficulties in separating the individual from the assumption were often unconscious was particularly apparent in the case of Berkeley professor Jenny Harrison, who filed a widely-publicized lawsuit when she was denied tenure. Reactions to the Harrison case illuminated both the vulnerable position of the individual woman mathematician and the complex relationship of feminism itself to mathematics.

Affirmative Action at Berkeley and the Jenny Harrison Tenure Case Between 1960 and 1975 when Marina Ratner was hired, no woman had held a tenured or tenure-track position in the Berkeley mathematics department. In 1976 Julia Robinson, who had worked occasionally as a lecturer at Berkeley, was offered a permanent position only after she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences (Selvin, 1991, p. 1781). When Virginia (Jenny) Harrison was hired in 1978, the number of tenured or tenure-track women in the department was increased to three until Robinson’s death in 1985. Harrison had received her PhD from the University of Warwick in 1975. Her thesis was published in the Annals of Mathematics and earned her prestige early in her mathematical career. She spent the following three years at the Institute for Advanced Study, at Princeton, and then at Berkeley on a Miller Fellowship. She accepted an assistant professorship at Berkeley in 1978 and spent three years at Oxford University on a leave of absence between 1979 and 1982. In 1986 Harrison was denied tenure. She appealed the decision, which she and her supporters

370

L. E. Turner

maintained was due to sex discrimination,15 but her appeal was denied by the university’s Privilege and Tenure Committee. In 1989 she filed a civil suit charging sex discrimination and in 1993 her seven-year battle was over: following the unanimous recommendation of an independent tenure review committee, established as part of an out-of-court settlement, Harrison was appointed full professor with tenure at Berkeley (Selvin, 1993). In 1991, Harrison’s case began to receive coverage in the AWM Newsletter (AWMN, 1991a), and her decision to file a lawsuit began to attract a great deal of controversy. In this connection, different beliefs about the possible trajectory of such a lawsuit may have resulted in different perspectives. In a hearing before the Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities of the United States Committee on Education and Labor, Harrison indicated that she placed great emphasis on using the courts to obtain her own personnel file, and asserted that she could use it, along with the files of eight male peers granted tenure around the same time, to prove that she had been treated differently (Committee on Education and Labor, 1992, p. 39). Those who understood her strategy as an emulation of the process used by Marjorie Shultz and Eleanor Swift of the Berkeley Law School may have believed that a lawsuit could ultimately lead to a settlement and an independent tenure review panel as in the Swift case, which will be discussed later in this text. Others, however, were concerned that Harrison’s high-profile lawsuit might impact women in mathematics negatively, whether by causing some to question the competence of women mathematicians or by making institutions wary of women hires (Blum and Goldberg, 1994, p. 610). Unsurprisingly, the AWM did not take an official position on the matter at any point; such intervention would reasonably challenge the credibility of an advocacy organization, particularly in the absence of some process for carefully reviewing the merits of an individual case or dispute.16 Carol Wood, who served as AWM president as the Harrison case gained renown, stated in 1994 that the Executive Committee was “unanimous in its view that a professional organization should not make judgments on individual tenure cases.” This decision, she said, was not endorsed by all AWM members, but was consistent with a previous policy not to position itself relative to any dispute between an individual and an institution (Jackson, 1994, p. 194).17

15 Indeed,

a number of irregularities in Berkeley’s handing of Harrison’s tenure review were reported; see Committee on Education and Labor (1992, pp. 216–218). 16 The AMS also took no stand on the case, though it opted to provide the mathematical community information in light of the large amount of publicity and discussion surrounding the developments and the broader issues of tenure reviews, grievance procedures, and dispute resolution (AMS, 1994). 17 A 1975 statement by Lenore Blum supports the idea that the Executive Committee of the Association would “not, in general, be publicizing individual cases” (Blum, 1975b, p. 3). Although it is unclear to what extent the following impacted such decisions, there appears to have been a general feeling, at least by 1980, that the AWM could have “very little effect” on specific affirmative action cases (Roitman, 1980b), and that although the organization had made women

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

371

One outcome, however, was the statement on dispute resolution, approved by the AWM Executive Committee in 1992. No doubt reflecting on the complexities in tenure decisions highlighted by the Harrison case, it reads: To judge the relative merits of mathematicians is not an easy task. Whereas people of good will may differ on the substance of decisions concerning hiring, tenure and promotion, most would agree that such judgements are best made within the mathematics profession, rather than in courts of law. Unfortunately, situations arise where faculty feel that they have not been fairly treated and that inappropriate considerations have entered into the deliberations of their colleagues or of administrators. If an impasse has been reached, some institutions have found that a useful technique is to form an outside review committee consisting of those with expertise in the field of the faculty member who is challenging an adverse personnel decision. . . . Although an outside committee can only make recommendations, with the institution retaining the authority to grant promotion and/or tenure, the advice of knowledgeable parties not directly involved may lead to a solution satisfactory to all. AWM recommends that referral of a dispute to an outside review committee be considered as an alternative to resolution by the courts. (AWMN, 1992)

This policy was reaffirmed by the AWM Executive Committee in 2011 (Wood, 2020, p. 5). Although the AWM maintained an official distance from the matter, a number of its members did not. Cathy Kessel, for example, who served as AWM book review editor from 1989 to 1994 and would become AWM president in 2007, joined the Support Committee for Jenny Harrison, a group of academic and nonacademic sympathizers that solicited legal funds, engaged in outreach, and published a newsletter (Hirsch, 1994). At the Joint Mathematics Meetings in 1993 committee members collected hundreds of signatures on a petition to the Regents of the University of California urging them to settle the case (C. Kessel, personal communication). Lenore Blum, AWM president from 1975 to 1978, viewed Harrison’s situation differently, criticizing the handling of the case by both Harrison and the university. She argued, among other things, that the secrecy (by legal agreement) shrouding the structure and guidelines for Harrison’s new tenure review may cast doubt on the credentials of women mathematicians in general. Moreover, she felt, the efforts to suppress dissenters by both sides had resulted in an “angry, divided mathematical community,” the repercussions of which were felt throughout the university (Blum and Goldberg, 1994, p. 610). Marina Ratner, the sole tenured woman in the Berkeley mathematics department at that point, was one of Harrison’s most vocal critics. In a letter to the AWM Newsletter she asserted that sexism and racism existed at Berkeley “and must be eradicated by every means,” but “there was no sex discrimination in the case of Jenny Harrison.” She claimed that Harrison “was denied tenure purely and simply

visible in the mathematical community, “we still don’t know how to help good women who are denied tenure or a raise” (Roitman, 1980a, p. 2).

372

L. E. Turner

because, though a good teacher, her research did not meet the very high standards of the Mathematics Department at Berkeley, the finest public university in this country.” Moreover, she argued, women in science were “perfectly equipped to meet the same standards that men do” and could succeed “without male enthusiasts who actually see us as inferior, and who ‘genuinely’ try to ‘help’ with Harrison-type lobbying” (Ratner, 1993). Yet the question of equivalent standards for men and women was a matter of much contention. In contrast to those who bemoaned a perceived lowering of standards, to others it was evident that women were actually required to achieve far more than men in order to be considered equal (Sadosky, 1991); as phrased by Cora Sadosky during her own term as AWM president, Harrison (whom she congratulated), “had to endure a tenure process that no one would have dreamt to put a man through!” (Sadosky, 1993). Accordingly, while mathematics may have been viewed as objective, mathematical practice was another issue entirely.

The Myth of Objectivity in Mathematical Practice The public dialogues within the AWM and the broader mathematical community surrounding affirmative action, sex-linked theories of mathematical ability, anti-science gender essentialism, and the Harrison case challenge the notion of objectivity in mathematical practice. Even the SAT itself, at the heart of the BenbowStanley conclusions, was demonstrably problematic as a measure of mathematical ability, particularly in light of its history, which called into question the predictive validity of the test.18 According to information compiled by Owen (1985) and summarized by Mary V. Jackson, Director of the Women’s Studies Program at the City College of New York, the exams were “honed so that they agree or conform with past SATs in their prediction patterns for groups in society: white males vs. white females, rich vs. poor, whites vs. non-whites” (Jackson, 1990).19 Moreover, “[t]he preferred group is, and always has been, middle- and upper-class white males. For them, the test has been changed, question content distorted, and question form fixed to insure that their presumed superiority shows in the scores.” In particular, Owen showed that rather than measuring innate intelligence, the SAT quantified a particular set of cultural biases and the skill of the individual to take the exam. Furthermore, individuals at the Educational Testing Service (ETS) had, themselves, concluded that the 40-point difference between the sexes 18 This

is in contrast to the notion of construct validity, which considers the extent to which the test measures what it is intended to measure. Schafer and Gray (1981) expressed concern about the SAT in this latter connection. So, too, did Kessel (2006b, p. 28). 19 This is supported by Gallagher and Kaufman (2005, pp. 328–329), who have claimed that content specifications for both the SAT and GRE “are based more on historical precedent than on in-depth analyses of the cognitive processes and skills required for successful performance in the domains they are intended to assess.”

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

373

in mathematics was “at least in part, a function of the test specifications” and could be “raised or lowered 20 points by manipulating subject matter and question form.” In fact, a researcher for ETS described what was “probably an unconscious form of sexism” in the form of changes to the verbal SAT so as to “balance” the exam and raise the scores of males specifically (Jackson, 1990). At least one prominent critic of the SAT had contended, however, that the exam was intentionally made more difficult for women around 1972 (when the drop in girls’ scores began), the same year Title IX was passed, so as to provide an objective-looking means of excluding women from scholarship and other educational opportunities (Goleman, 1987). Perhaps as a result, it turned out that in order for male students to earn the same college mathematics grades as female students at MIT the males had to score 40 points higher than the females, on average, on the SAT-M. When the university attempted to equalize the disparity by accepting female students having scores up to 40 points lower than males on the SAT-M, however, the reaction was “horror” at the prospect of “lowering standards” (Bernstein, 1995, p. 13). In fact, as Ronald Douglas, Professor of Mathematics and Vice-Provost of Undergraduate Studies at SUNY Stony Brook, pointed out in an AWM Newsletter forum “Affirmative Action: What Is It and What Should It Be?” in 1995, although some mathematicians may have understood their discipline as objective, with important results rising naturally to the top like cream and their creators receiving appropriate credit (thereby rendering the notion of affirmative action “simply unnecessary”), departments regularly made special efforts to hire within a particular subject area, and prizes, positions, and funding opportunities often discriminated in favor of young mathematicians. That is, “choices are always being made and ‘affirmative action’ is a part of the mathematics culture, only we often don’t recognize it as such” (Douglas, 1995, p. 22). Yet even if individual mathematicians were sometimes evaluated according to differential standards, that the achievements and service of women were regularly measured by an entirely different yardstick was particularly glaring. As Louise Hay remarked in 1988, while the very top tier of women mathematicians had largely gained acceptance within the mathematical community by that point, the same was not yet true for those at the average level. Paraphrasing Virginia Woolf in A Room of Her Own, “women will not achieve equality until they have earned the right to be hacks” (Roitman et al., 1988, p. 8). The AAUP had identified this issue for women academics already in 1975. In clarifying the meaning of “affirmative action” it was stressed that one should avoid looking for the woman or minority “super-candidate” but “accepting something less from white males.” In particular, one should avoid hiring males on “promise” or expectations and females on concrete accomplishments (Blum, 1975b, p. 1), which proved particularly difficult to evaluate impartially. Studies had shown that across disciplines the same work was consistently rated lower when attributed to a woman, confirming the existence of prejudice against women’s intellect (Ezorsky, 1977, p. 8) and to some, the existence of awards for women would taint the winners, intimating as it did “that they play in a different league, one in which you don’t have to hit the major-league curve to make it to The Bigs” (AWMN, 1991b, p. 23). In fact, this view was cited by some

374

L. E. Turner

who cried “reverse discrimination” but claimed that they ultimately had women’s best interests at heart, for “this sort of thing, in the long run, hurts rather than helps women” (Kirby, 1973) and “is counterproductive and will lower the status of women in the long run” (Reed, 1984). As University of Georgia mathematician Andrew Granville pointed out in 1995, however, regardless of affirmative action policies, women and minorities faced higher expectations. In particular, they often had less time to devote to research because they were expected to engage in more service activities, leading to a new form of discrimination stemming not from malice but misunderstanding (Granville, 1995, p. 12). “We still live in a society,” summarized Sadosky in 1991, “that ‘seriously’ debates the worth of the results of Sonja Kowalewski, while justifying the absence of women full professors in the top math departments of the country arguing that there are almost no women with good enough credentials” (Sadosky, 1991). Backlash against “quotas” thought to favor women, moreover, was another manifestation of differential standards, particularly in view of the invisible quota system which had already become apparent. A conference at the Mathematics Institute at Oberwolfach, for instance, saw the seven woman (out of 50 total participants) seated one at each dinner table (and asked, moreover, to serve the soup), in spite of the fact that the men were seated by drawing lots (Srinivasan, 1981c). Sadosky would remark directly upon this issue in addressing the largerthan-usual representation of invited women speakers at the 1994 International Congress of Mathematicians, encouraged by a resolution passed by the International Mathematical Union in 1990. Yet the eight women non-plenary speakers “lectured in eight of the 17 sessions, one in each session. It seemed as if the selection panels, although aware enough to consider women candidates, felt that they had filled their duty as soon as the first one accepted. And this is not an isolated occurrence.” As a personal anecdote, when prompted by a colleague, Sadosky had recommended for a position one of the best junior scholars in her field. Upon hearing her suggestion he responded: “But we already have a woman!” (Sadosky, 1995, p. 22). In her presentation of the above interaction Sadosky characterized her colleague as “friendly.” Accordingly, from her perspective the problem was “not so much those diehard retrogrades who hate women intellectuals on principle and talk about our less-developed brains and our innate inferiority.” Rather, The problem is the honest people who insist they do not discriminate and are against quotas (those favoring women and minorities, mind you) and who may earnestly think that everything will be okay if only we ignore the issue, and just use initials before last names to conceal gender. The problem is the good guys of both genders who are not trained to be good enough. (Sadosky, 1995, p. 23)

The issues Sadosky identified, however, were complicated. As we will see in the following section, the matter of precisely how to best help women in mathematics depended on one’s perspective, even among women mathematicians. As evidenced by the division of the mathematical community in relation to the Harrison case, moreover, it was difficult to conclusively identify gender discrimination in individual cases.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

375

In fact, one critical means of doing so involved comparing the individual woman with men who were considered similar in some respect. This strategy was mentioned within the AWM Newsletter in 1976 by Gray in connection with her role as chairperson of Committee W of the AAUP; see (Gray, 1976, p. 13). In Harrison’s case, using this strategy meant obtaining her own personnel file and those of eight male peers in the Berkeley mathematics department promoted “easily and smoothly with no problems” (Committee on Education and Labor, 1992, pp. 28–29). These files were not available during her Privilege and Tenure hearing. According to the lawyer who represented her in that connection, their case included “historical, statistical, direct, and indirect evidence of gender bias, and it was disregarded for the most part,” with the procedural violations cited above deemed “harmless” by the committee. In situations in which tenure evaluations are not kept confidential, he argued, it was “a level playing field” (Kahn, 1991, p. 22). For its part, the university argued that opening the files would reduce the rights of the faculty involved. Notably, this was in spite of the fact that it had made such an exception in the case of Eleanor Swift, who was denied tenure in Berkeley’s School of Law in 1987 but promoted in 1989 after Swift and her lawyers demanded a comparison between her file and those of six other faculty members granted tenure during her eight years teaching there (Swift, 2014, pp. 338–347). We will touch upon Swift’s case again in the following section. After a five-year struggle and a ruling that the lawyer handling Harrison’s lawsuit against Berkeley viewed as precedent-setting (Kahn, 1991, p. 24), the university was forced to hand over the files in question (Committee on Education and Labor, 1992, pp. 28–29) and to pay a $500 fine for not having done so sooner (Kahn, 1991, p. 24). Harrison’s Support Committee described this as “a turning point in the case”; getting those files made it possible to measure Harrison’s accomplishments against those of the eight comparable men and to show that she had been treated differently (Support Committee for Jenny Harrison, 1993, p. 13). While Harrison’s independent tenure review panel had been instructed not to address the possibility of sex discrimination in her original tenure decision, its examination of her early work placed her “in the lower middle of the comparison group” of nine men and one woman promoted in the Berkeley mathematics department since 1977. Her teaching was “above average,” her supervision of graduate students “unusually good,” and her service to the university comparable. This, alone, was sufficient for the committee to recommend granting her tenure. As for her latest work, the committee deemed it “in many cases comparable and in some cases higher” than those of the of the other ten upon their promotion to full professor (Selvin, 1993, pp. 324–325). Although many practitioners viewed themselves as objective, and while many understood their discipline to be objective, in matters of hiring and promotion, in particular, discrimination was possible. In the words of Berkeley mathematician Jerrold (Jerry) Marsden, reflecting on Harrison’s case in 1991, the tenure review process could be “a very subjective, wishy-washy kind of arrangement” (Kahn, 1991, p. 23). “Almost anyone can be denied tenure if you say enough negative things about them,” he continued. “It’s very easy to do.”

376

L. E. Turner

Women as Data; Women as Individuals “If women are going to help women,” Roitman had asserted in 1977, we’re going to have to do it pretty much on our own” (Roitman, 1977, p. 6). She was led to this conclusion by her understanding that working with government agencies to tackle the problems of women in science meant that the AWM might tone itself down and lose sight of what women in science needed. Yet the question of how to best help women mathematicians was subjective, one reason for which some women mathematicians appear to have been “cool, or openly hostile” to the AWM early in its history. Members speculated about the reasons for this already in 1972, offering caricatures of afflictions ranging from the “I’m not a bra burner” complex (easily recognized by veterans of the anti-war movement), to the “Queen Bee” complex, often accompanied by the reaction that if “I made it without help, why shouldn’t other women if they are really good?,” to the “Aunt Sally” complex, which describes a woman who “is subservient, knows her role, maybe has a good teaching job— but makes coffee, does lots of advising, serves as secretary to lots of committees, maybe runs the undergraduate program, gets less salary, but most of all doesn’t get aggressive or out of her place” (AWMN, 1972b). Concerns about the broader feminist movement and about the particularly vocal approach adopted by AWM members during the 1970s kept some at a distance, if not in opposition to the organization. When Gray first announced the organization’s plans to improve the status of women in mathematics, their aims of equality in academia, government, and industry were considered quite radical (Blum, 1991, p. 16). As a result, Blum described the first decade of the AWM as “a time of activism, of speaking out, of politics, of confrontation, of heroes and villains—when issues seemed almost black or white” (Blum, 1991, p. 20). By Roitman’s account the early task was to look around at the situation for women in mathematics, report on what they saw, and argue that things did not have to be that way (Blum, 1991, p. 20). In doing so “what we did mostly was yell a lot. We had to,” she explained. “People had to be educated, and that was nearly all we did” (Roitman, 1980c, p. 2). Not all appreciated this strategy or even its intended outcomes equally. Joan Birman, for instance, acknowledged her own reaction to the confrontational politics of the AWM in its early years, stating: I was there, I was beginning my career, and frankly I was embarrassed by the tactics of some of my unpleasantly aggressive women colleagues. I did not want and I was absolutely certain that I did not need their help. A natural (and very arrogant) corollary was that if they had to resort to such unattractive behavior it had to be because, if one took a good hard look, one would see that they did not have the goods. (Jackson, 1994, p. 194)

NYU Professor of Mathematics Cathleen Morawetz,20 on the other hand, “did not want the Association for Women in Mathematics to speak for all women

20 Notably,

Morawetz would become the second woman to serve as AMS president, holding this role from 1995 to 1996.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

377

mathematicians. I joined them later,” she continued, “but [in the early years of the AWM] they were terrible attackers” (Blum, 1991, p. 16). Others, moreover, were concerned about the damage the organization and its approach might do. An open letter to AWM members by Catherine Folio of Middletown, New Jersey, for instance, expressed her concern that “by concentrating only on the encouragement of women toward math/science, [programs to encourage young women to study mathematics and science] serve to continue the rift between male and female scientists” (Folio, 1979, p. 2). “Where are the programs for ‘Math for Boys’ and ‘Men in Science’?,” she wondered, “Why are the women always put on the defensive?” Citing her own uncertainty, Barbara Rice acknowledged that it took her “years to join AWM because I was afraid of what it might do. I was afraid the feminist movement would interfere with and muck up things that individuals are trying to achieve.” Here, she expressed a particular concern that universities’ recent interest in increasing the number of women on their faculties typically meant appointments in women’s studies, education, and nursing departments, which meant that “women get distracted from fields like mathematics” (Smith et al., 1987, p. 15). Karen Uhlenbeck of the University of Texas at Austin, moreover, identified an apparent contradiction between feminism and the profession of mathematics itself, asserting in a 1988 AWM panel discussion that “the world of mathematics is a male world which is primarily Caucasian. It is really not possible to be a successful mathematician without accepting this fact and feeling at least somewhat comfortable in this world,” a matter which served as “a barrier between successful women scientists and the official feminist line” (Roitman et al., 1988, p. 9). Perhaps with such views in mind it was suggested by some that “the AWM does not speak often enough to or for the women mathematicians who believe that doing mathematics is the primary way to increase the role of women in mathematics” (Roitman, 1980a, p. 2). In the words of Mary Ellen Rudin at the 1974 International Congress of Mathematicians, “[t]he best way to help women in mathematics is to do mathematics!” By the account of Roitman, with whom she was speaking, her roar was punctuated by the pounding of her fist on the table “so hard that the dishes jumped in the air” (Roitman, 1991, p. 5). Regardless of one’s perspective on confrontational politics, one mechanism for change remained constant across the history of the AWM. In a 1975 letter to the AWM Newsletter editor, Roitman pondered the actions the organization ought to take regarding the discrimination its members were feeling. She argued that it was necessary to cast aside fears and gather concrete information concerning salaries, promotion, comments, and incidents in the form of statistical data and personal anecdotes. “We have to see real patterns of discrimination,” she wrote. “Nobody will do that for us” (Roitman, 1975, p. 12). In an effort to detect such patterns, AWM members were encouraged to monitor job search procedures at their own institutions and report to the AWM any Newsletter ads that may have been placed in bad faith (Stehney and Roitman, 1976). Although many data cited in the AWM Newsletter were collected by other organizations, including committees of the AMS, they proved invaluable as a line of defense against myths and misinformation for, as Ruskai pointed out, “one

378

L. E. Turner

cannot solve a problem unless one understands it” (Ruskai, 1997). In fact, a disinclination to “generalize or comment publicly on a subject without data” was cited by one respondent to Ruskai’s letter on feminism and women in science in the CSWP Gazette as a reason for which some women scientists did not participate in “women’s issues” (Rajnak, 1986). The importance of data was further stressed on a number of occasions and in various contexts within the AWM Newsletter. Gender theorists were criticized for making “inexcusable generalizations on the basis of very little data” (Koblitz, 1986, p. 10), while testimony provided by Hugo Rossi on the dynamic that developed during the work of his department’s hiring committee provided “rare, golden nuggets” to a researcher concerned with the means by which social systems and cultures perpetuated bias, the sort of personnel data that was generally “all but impossible to gather as research data” in light of privacy mandates (Tonso, 1996, p. 18). In effectively refuting the claim that affirmative action gave women an unfair edge at entry-level academic positions, data were critical (Ruskai, 1997, p. 16). Attesting to the particularly acute need for good data, when poor-quality work defending the SAT and alleging innate gender differences was countered by responses which were unfortunately no better, Ruskai stressed in the AWM Newsletter that “[i]f we are ever to succeed in burying the myth of male mathematical superiority, we will have to take care that the data we cite is above criticism.” Data without context, however, were potentially problematic. In addressing the false claim that women were getting all the jobs it was pointed out that raw statistics provided by departments seeking to circumvent affirmative action mandates could be deceptive, and hence attacks on the perception of reverse discrimination must involve the critical review of anecdotal evidence (Winstead, 1995, p. 14). On the other hand, anecdotal evidence of sex discrimination, even in the presence of data, appears to have been regarded more cautiously. There appear to have been several reasons for this. First, judgements of subtle forms of sexism were highly subjective; as one observer declared in the context of the Harrison case, “sexism is a very individual thing, for the giver and the taker” (Jackson, 1994, p. 192). Ruskai, in fact, would ultimately contend that most stories of reverse discrimination would reveal themselves to be differences of opinion concerning the relative merits of individuals (Ruskai, 1996, p. 14). Compounding this issue was the fact that as the “glass ceiling” gradually rose, discrimination moved underground, with blatant cases of abuse yielding to more subtle forms of inequity. Given that judgments about scholarship were largely qualitative, moreover, it was easier for academics to hide individual cases of sex discrimination than it was for other employers (Ezorsky, 1977, p. 8). Beyond the sheer difficulty in identifying individual instances of sexism, particularly in the absence of comparative analyses such as those performed in connection with the Harrison and Swift cases, was concern about the image such instances presented to the very women the AWM sought to attract to the field and the climate with which they would be met. In a letter to the AWM criticizing Harrison’s strategy, Ratner disparaged Harrison’s status as a “role model” in achieving one’s goals.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

379

“Sadly,” she wrote, “her successful tactics send a message to the public and to university students that women faculty are hired primarily for their gender. This will only enhance cynicism and true gender discrimination [emphasis added]” (Ratner, 1993). Concern for the image of women in mathematics was further evidenced by reactions to a 1992 profile of the field of mathematics written by Paul Selvin detailing the struggles of women like Lynne Butler, who left Princeton for Haverford College after years of blatant sexism; Birman, who described herself as a secondclass citizen in the Columbia mathematics department; and other anonymous women who experienced “a climate of hostility that they had to fight their way through on the way to professional success.” By the account of Uhlenbeck, change was coming slowly, but “heroism is still the norm” (Selvin, 1992, p. 1383). Eighteen women, including nine AWM presidents21 criticized the Selvin piece, stressing that while there remained serious problems for women in mathematics, progress had been made over the past 15–20 years. Moreover, they argued, overemphasis on the role of sexual innuendo distracted from the true issue, namely societal belief that women cannot do mathematics, and if they do, “it’s by definition not too good” (Wood et al., 1992). Carol Wood, in her president’s report, expressed the underlying concern as the “negative tone and discouraging message” of the article (Wood, 1992a). In a letter to the AWM Newsletter editor, Birman noted that some had privately expressed the view “that the AWM, which has done so much to encourage more women to go on in mathematics, cannot now allow them to be scared away from the field, and the negative tone of Selvin’s piece might do that” (Birman, 1992, p. 3). Sexual innuendo, however, existed in mathematics, even if blatant discrimination was no longer widespread. Societal biases, moreover, had made a demonstrable impact on individual trajectories even if the situation for women in mathematics had improved. As Birman pointed out in the same letter to the editor, knowledge was required for progress, and although Wood criticized the tone and message of the Selvin article she “did not go so far as to suggest that anything in it was not true.” To Birman, this AWM attitude of denial verged on censorship, an act in conflict with its position as an Association for Women in Mathematics and in line “with the very forces which keep women down” (Birman, 1992, p. 4). The position of the individual woman mathematician was thus delicate. Individual stories were viewed as important as the AWM came of age in the 1980s, particularly those of women recognized by the mathematical establishment for their own achievements who stood to provide significant support and encouragement to junior women scholars. When they insisted that they faced no discrimination, it was suggested, “they may be accurately describing their own experience, but do little to help others survive” (Hughes, 1982, p. 4).

21 These were Wood, Sadosky, Blum, Gray, Morawetz, Roitman, Ruskai, Schafer, Rhonda Hughes,

Lida Barrett, Sun-Yung A. Chang, Fan R. K. Chung, Linda Keen, Maria Klawe, Jill Mesirov, Susan Montgomery, Judith S. Sunley, and Mary Wheeler.

380

L. E. Turner

Ratner, for instance, claimed to have known nothing about the controversy surrounding her own appointment in 1975. By the end of 1974, however, the AWM was monitoring hiring practices at Berkeley,22 with an AWM Newsletter stating that: The hiring practices of Berkeley have in the past been a subject of a great deal of criticism, and it was established that their “search” for women and minority candidates for positions for 1974–75 was pro forma. Therefore, AWM intends to monitor the process this year as closely as possible. (AWMN, 1974, p. 8)

Indeed, in 1975 Morris Hirsch described how the mathematics department at Berkeley engaged in a charade aimed at producing “evidence—on paper—of Affirmative Action” (Hirsch, 1975, p. 5), and Stephen Smale, a member of the same department, agreed. Although a letter circulated to the department the year prior stated that “every woman in applied math who had received her degree in the previous five years had been invited to apply for a certain position” this was evidently a lie (Smale, 1975). In fact, Smale pointed out, “a main potential candidate for that position, Dr. Lenore Blum, who even had an office in this math department, had not been invited,” and worse still, during a meeting considering applicants for the position, committee members were shown only one of Blum’s two files. When three attending professors disclosed these facts the chair of the committee “threatened to put damaging letters in their files” (Smale, 1975). Smale described how “[i]n the name of affirmative action procedures (what irony)” the department chair polled the department on the question of whether his colleagues felt that Ratner was “superior to, or at least as well qualified as, the other leading candidate for the pure mathematics position,” an obstacle not introduced for a man hired at the same time (Smale, 1975, p. 7). Ratner, for her part, evidently did not find the behavior at Berkeley problematic; “she believes there is no sex discrimination in the mathematics department,” said an interviewer (Jackson, 1994, p. 192). The suggestion Ratner was hired because she was a woman may have impacted her perspective on subsequent Berkeley hires and affected her view of the Harrison case. That said, her viewpoint attracted criticism. Gray, for instance, found it difficult to understand the “vitriolic comments” in Ratner (1993) unless viewed in the context of the myth, “underlaid as it may be with misogyny,” that women can’t do mathematics (Gray, 1996, p. 29). As evidenced by Ratner’s view of Harrison’s qualifications and decision to file a lawsuit, however, as well as those of others, individual stories were subject to individual judgment; sexism on that scale was largely a matter of perspective, particularly as discrimination became increasingly subtle. In fact, and in spite of its earlier position, Charity Hirsch (organizer of the Support Committee for Jenny Harrison and wife of Morris Hirsch) would later criticize the AWM for its

22 As

a result of such monitoring, it was understood by Berkeley professor David Goldschmidt that the AWM had been advising its members not to apply there (AWMN, 1975, p. 3). The AWM did investigate cases of discrimination and improper hiring practices, and reportedly submitted information to a Congressional committee investigating the affirmative action hiring plans of universities (Blum, 1975a).

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

381

handling of the Harrison case on the grounds that its policy of distancing itself from individual cases was detrimental not only to those involved but to others suffering discrimination who were unable to hear Harrison’s perspective (Hirsch, 1999). Additional remarks offered at the conclusion of the case, moreover, illuminate the crux of the matter and emphasize the delicate nature of the situation. As the editorial board of the AWM Newsletter explained, While acknowledging that important issues have been raised in what we have already published, we plan not to accept further correspondence about this or other concluded tenure cases. We will consider any letter or article dealing with issues affecting women in mathematics, including those raised by particular cases. But we intend not to discuss the personality or the intentions or the actions of individual colleagues, nor can we dissect and compare their mathematical abilities and accomplishments. . . . The very small number of women in the top mathematics departments has made the Jenny Harrison case extraordinarily visible. We should direct our endeavors to increase the number of worthy women mathematicians at the top level of the profession. Then, the right of women to do mathematics will no longer become confused with the discussion of personalities [emphasis added]. (AWM Editorial Board, 1993)

This emphasis on the importance of number is telling. It was a collective of individuals, not isolated figures, that would normalize the presence of women in the upper echelon of the field. As far as fighting discrimination was concerned, moreover, because data and anecdotal experiences illuminating patterns formed the frontline defense of the AWM and a critical means of effecting positive change, it was a collection of individual experiences, not any one data point, that would provide evidence of discrimination considered compelling. This was true even when grievances were settled in ways deemed satisfactory to the individuals who filed them. The tenure review process ultimately followed in the cases of Harrison, Swift, and others represented a critical means of determining individual instances of sex discrimination and, if the university in question followed the recommendation of a panel to grant the individual tenure, of rectifying the wrong. Yet as the Harrison case in particular demonstrates, in spite of the findings of the review panel and her subsequent reinstatement at Berkeley as a full professor, Harrison continued to attract criticism from detractors who accused her of a “massive propaganda campaign” (Ratner, 1993) which placed pressure on the university to settle out of court (Jackson, 1994, p. 193). Together, this suggests that women as data held the power for reform but, as evidenced by reactions to the Selvin profile and the Harrison case, the perspectives of individual women required careful contextualization and were vulnerable to controversy.

Concluding Remarks In its efforts to improve the status of women and girls in mathematics the AWM was met with resistance stemming, in part, from three deeply-held and widespread myths about women and mathematical practice. The first was that of the inability of

382

L. E. Turner

women to do mathematics, a belief which persisted into the 1990s both within the mathematical establishment and well beyond, and was supported by the conclusions of Benbow and Stanley concerning male mathematical superiority and normalized by the news media and popular magazines. Belief in superior male mathematical ability was exacerbated by feminist antiscience bias inherent in the second myth, that of the canonical feminine woman. This ideal was advanced by a handful of prominent and vocal feminist sociologists and opposed by a number of AWM members. By the account of the latter, this myth invoked stereotypical misconceptions of science in the construction of a stereotypical feminine woman incongruent with the identity of women scientists themselves and detrimental to the AWM mission and to the advancement of women in science more broadly, particularly as non-scientists evidently understood this perspective as embodying the views of women scientists themselves. Compounded by cries of “reverse discrimination” in response to affirmative action efforts aimed at providing women their fair share of jobs, these myths emphasized the importance of treating women as individuals, rather than as representatives of their sex, and of encouraging the diversity of mathematical interests and ability. Yet as evidenced by coverage within the AWM Newsletter from the 1970s through the 1990s, although many opposed affirmative action programs and hiring targets, advocating in their place a gender-blind meritocracy, the persistence of deeplyingrained prejudices rendered the latter all but impossible, particularly as many failed to recognize the many forms of “affirmative action” already inherent in hiring, promotion, and even the construction of standardized tests. In light of the above, this third myth, that of the possibility for objectivity in mathematical practice, was particularly problematic. Data to illuminate patterns were considered critical in combating claims of superior male mathematical ability and reverse discrimination and in providing compelling evidence of sexism in hiring and promotion, and although the experiences of individual women comprised the data set and were thereby key to the amelioration of the situation for women in mathematics, the belief that mathematical practice could be objective and genderneutral, together with the persistent but subtle forms of discrimination highlighted above, rendered the position of the individual vulnerable. Episodes of discrimination were more compelling when they formed a composite picture; on their own, they held less weight. The issue of whether individual cases even constituted discrimination and the matter of possible repercussions for the public image of mathematics and the mission of the AWM, moreover, underlined a perceived need to tread carefully so as not to make matters worse. The Harrison tenure case and its reception are reflective of this constellation of issues. With a documented history of institutional discrimination against women and resistance to affirmative action mandates, the hiring of Marina Ratner at Berkeley was met with backlash, some of which is documented in the AWM Newsletter. When Harrison appealed her tenure denial and filed her lawsuit many of the same issues resurfaced. In spite of the institution’s checkered past, the matter of whether Harrison truly experienced discrimination or merely failed to meet Berkeley’s exacting standards was ultimately unresolved in the AWM Newsletter and

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

383

amongst AWM members. While the independent review committee panel tasked with examining her qualifications in 1993 unanimously recommended granting her tenure with a full professorship, even after the matter was officially settled, it continued to attract highly-publicized reactions (Blum and Goldberg, 1994; Jackson, 1994; Selvin, 1993). Sexism proved very difficult to conclusively identify at the level of the individual, including among those who had arguably been on the receiving end of discrimination by the same faculty at some point. In the end, women mathematicians were vulnerable as representatives of their sex, and remained vulnerable as individuals. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Cathy Kessel and five anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions in revising this text, and in particular, for providing an alternate perspective which may not have been apparent to all AWM Newsletter readers and for drawing attention to certain complexities regarding Ratner’s position, especially in light of the public controversy surrounding her own appointment.

References Aguirre, Adalberto, Jr. 2000. Academic storytelling: A critical race theory story of affirmative action. Sociological Perspectives 43(2): 319–339. Aiken, Lewis. 1976. Update on attitudes and other affective variables in learning mathematics. Review of Educational Research 46: 293–311. American Mathematical Society. 1971. News items and announcements: Association of Women Mathematicians. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 18: 334. American Mathematical Society. 1994. Introduction to “Fighting for Tenure.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 41(3): 187. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics 23(2): 27–58. Anderson, Richard. 1981. The challenges of the Eighties. Focus 1(1): 3–7. Association for Women in Mathematics. 1992. AWM statement on dispute resolution. AWM Newsletter 22(3): 3. AWM Editorial Board. 1993. Letter from the editors. AWM Newsletter 23(6): 9. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1971. HEW. AWM Newsletter 1(1): 1–7. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1972a. Association for Women in Mathematics membership application. AWM Newsletter 2(5): 11. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1972b. Several complex variables. AWM Newsletter 2(6): 8. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1973. Legal news. AWM Newsletter 3(6): 12–13. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1974. Jobs. AWM Newsletter 4(7): 3–9. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1975. More Berkeley. AWM Newsletter 5(4): 2–4. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1983. Ruskai named science scholar. August 5, AWM Newsletter 13(3): 10. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1986. Gender and science. AWM Newsletter 16(5): 1. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1991a. Articles of interest. AWM Newsletter 21(4): 24–25. (AWMN) AWM Newsletter. 1991b. Articles of interest. AWM Newsletter 21(5): 22–25. Backman, Margaret. 1972. Patterns of mental abilities: Ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex differences. American Educational Research Journal 9: 1–12. Barad, Karen. 1995. A feminist approach to teaching quantum physics. In Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering, ed. Sue V. Rosser, 43–75. New York: Athene Series, Teacher’s College Press.

384

L. E. Turner

Beckwith, Jon, John Durkin, and Vera Sacristán. 1981. Chicos, chicas y matemáticas. Mientras Tanto 10: 71–83. Benbow, Camilla. 1986. Physiological correlates of extreme intellectual precocity. Neuropsychologia 24(5): 719–725. Benbow, Camilla and Robert Benbow. 1987. Extreme mathematical talent: A hormonally induced ability? In Duality and unity of the brain, ed. David Ottoson, 147–157. Boston: Springer-Verlag. Benbow, Camilla and Julian Stanley. 1980. Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science 210(4475): 1262–1264. Benbow, Camilla and Julian Stanley. 1983. Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science 222(4627): 1029–1031. Bernstein, Danielle. 1995. Women in mathematics and computer science: A conference review. AWM Newsletter 25(1): 12–13. Bing, R. H. 1975. AMS candidates answer our questions: Candidate for president. AWM Newsletter 5(6): 9–10. Birman, Joan. 1992. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 22(6): 3–4. Bloch, Spencer. 1995. 1995 AMS election: Statement for AWM. AWM Newsletter 25(5): 8. Blum, Lenore. 1975a. Report from the president. AWM Newsletter 5(5): 1. Blum, Lenore. 1975b. Report from the president. AWM Newsletter 5(6): 1–3. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. AWM Newsletter 21(6): 11–22. (Reprinted in this volume) Blum, Lenore. 1992. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. AWM Newsletter 22(1): 12–25. (Reprinted in this volume) Blum, Lenore and Lisa Goldberg. 1994. Fighting for tenure: Another view. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 41(6): 607–610. Boas, Ralph. 1986. Letter to the Editor: Reply to Mary Beth Ruskai. AWM Newsletter 16(6): 10. Brody, Linda, Linda Barnett, and Carol Mills. 1994. Gender differences among talented adolescents: Research studies by SMPY and CTY at Johns Hopkins. In Competence and responsibility: The third European conference of the European Council for High Ability, eds. Kurt Heller and Ernst Hany, 204–210. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Case, Bettye Anne and Anne Leggett, eds. 2006. Complexities: Women in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapman, Steve. 2005. Staying mute on men vs. women differences. Chicago Tribune, January 23. Delgado, Richard. 1989. Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review 87(8): 2411–2441. Douglas, Ronald. 1995. Affirmative action: What is it and what should it be? AWM Newsletter 25(6): 22–23. Elkins, Judie. 1973. Letter: Editor, The Newsletter, AWM. AWM Newsletter 3(6): 11. Ezorsky, Gertrude. 1977. Hiring faculty women. AWM Newsletter 7(1): 7–8. Reprinted from The New York Times, 10/11/76. Fennema, Elizabeth. 1981. Women and mathematics: Does research matter? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 12(5): 380–385. Fennema, Elizabeth and Julia Sherman. 1977. Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization, and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal 14(1): 51– 71. Folio, Catherine. 1979. An Open Letter to the Members of AWM. AWM Newsletter 9(3): 2–3. Gallagher, Ann M. and James C. Kaufman. 2005. Gender differences in mathematics: What we know and what we need to know. In Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach, eds. Ann M. Gallagher and James C. Kaufman, 316–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goleman, Daniel. 1987. Girls and math: Is biology really destiny? The New York Times August 2 Section 12: 42 Goodwin, James. 1978. Affirmative distractions. AWM Newsletter 8(1): 3–7. Reprinted from “The Sciences,” July/Aug. 1977. Granville, Andrew. 1995. 1995 AMS election: Statement for AWM. AWM Newsletter 25(5): 12–13.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

385

Gray, Mary. 1973a. Report from the Chairman. AWM Newsletter 3(1): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1973b. Report from the Editor. AWM Newsletter 3(3): 1. Gray, Mary. 1973c. Report on the AMS meeting in New York. AWM Newsletter 3(4): 1–3. Gray, Mary. 1975a. Report from the Editor. AWM Newsletter 5(1): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1976. Report of Committee W, 1976–76. AWM Newsletter 6(7): 12–13. Gray, Mary. 1981. NSF advisory committee for science education. AWM Newsletter 11(1): 2–3. Gray, Mary. 1996. Gender and mathematics: Mythology and misogyny. In Towards gender equity in mathematics education: An ICMI study, ed. Gila Hanna, 27–38. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Greenspan, Marian. 1987. Gender and science panel. AWM Newsletter 17(5): 10–12. Greenwald, Sarah, Anne Leggett, Anne, and Jill Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Mathematical Intelligencer 37(3): 11–21. Guiso, Luigi, Ferdinando Monte, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2008. Culture, gender, and math. Science 320(5880): 1164–1165. Haier, Richard. 2009. Cognition and the brain: Sex matters. In The Science on Women and Science, ed. Christina Hoff Sommers, 190–201. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Hanna, Gila. 1989. Gender differences in mathematical ability—perceptions vs. performance: part two. AWM Newsletter 19(5): 14–17. Hirsch, Charity. 1994. How to start, organize, and operate an effective support committee. Women in higher education 3(1): 14. Hirsch, Charity. 1999. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 29(3): 7. Hirsch, Morris. 1975. UC Berkeley. AWM Newsletter 5(1): 4–5. National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the academic ladder: Doctoral women scientists in academe. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Reprinted, in part, in AWM Newsletter 10(1), 10(2), 10(3).) Hsu, Pao-sheng. 1986. Reply to Mary Beth Ruskai (letter to the editor). AWM Newsletter 16(6): 11–12. Hughes, Rhonda. 1982. Women mathematicians in the eighties. AWM Newsletter 12(1): 3–4. Hyde, Janet S. and Janet E. Mertz. 2009. Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(22), 8801–8807. Jackson, Allyn. 1994. Fighting for tenure: The Jenny Harrison case opens a Pandora’s box of issues About tenure, discrimination, and the law. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 41(3): 187–194. Jackson, Allyn. 1995. Are women getting all the jobs? Panel discussion tries to defuse mounting tensions over “reverse discrimination.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 41(4): 286–287. Jackson, Mary. 1990. SATs ratify white male privilege. AWM Newsletter 20(5): 9–10. Jacobs, Janis and Jacquelynne Eccles. 1985. Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media reports on parents. Educational Researcher 14(3): 20–25. Jaffe, Martha. 1976. A report on sex discrimination at Boston State College. AWM Newsletter 66(4): 6–8. Jaffe, Martha. 1984. AWM meetings: Boston area. AWM Newsletter 14(4): 11. Kahn, Brady. 1991. The gender factor. East Bay Express, March 8. Kessel, Cathy. 2006a. Archived endorsements and response statements: 2006 appointment to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. https://awm-math.org/policy-advocacy/endorsements/ endorsements-archive/. Accessed 20 January 2021. Kessel, Cathy. 2006b. The trouble with SMPY. AWM Newsletter 36(5): 28–30. Kessel, Cathy. 2011. Rumors of our rarity are greatly exaggerated: Bad statistics about women in science. Journal of humanistic mathematics 1(2): 2–26. Kirby, Robion. 1973. Replies (from candidates in the AMS election to questions submitted to them by AWM). AWM Newsletter 3(6): 3. Kirby, Robion. 1995. Affirmative action: What is it and what should it be? AWM Newsletter 25(6): 23–25.

386

L. E. Turner

Koblitz, Ann Hibner. 1986. A historian looks at gender and science. AWM Newsletter 16(4): 10. LaDuke, Jeanne. 1981. Report on a Chicago area AWM meeting. AWM Newsletter 11(3): 2–3. Leggett, Anne. 1986. Letter from the editor. AWM Newsletter 16(3): 2. Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1996. Science and anti-science: Objectivity and its real enemies. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, eds. Lynn Hankinson Nelson and Jack Nelson, pp. 217– 259. Longino, Helen E. 1994. In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist 77(4): 472–485. Maccoby, Eleanor and Jacklin, Carol. 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mullis, Ina. 1975. Educational achievement and sex discrimination. Denver: National Assessment of Educational Press. Nichols, Marianne. 1986. Reply to Mary Beth Ruskai (letter to the editor). AWM Newsletter 16(6): 6–7. Owen, David. 1985. None of the above: Behind the myth of scholastic aptitude. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rajnak, Katheryn. 1986. Reply to Mary Beth Ruskai (letter). CSWP Gazette 6(3): 2. Ralston, James. 1995. 1995 AMS election: Statement for AWM. AWM Newsletter 25(5): 14. Ratner, Marina. 1986. Why I am boycotting the ICM-86. AWM Newsletter 16(5): 11–12. Ratner, Marina. 1993. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 23(5): 17. Reed, Michael C. 1980. AMS election: Candidates’ AWM statement. AWM Newsletter 10(5): 5. Reed, Michael C. 1984. AMS election statement for AWM. AWM Newsletter 14(6): 4–5. Robinson, Ann Marsh. 1986. Reply to Mary Beth Ruskai (letter to the editor). AWM Newsletter16(6): 10–11. Rogers, Pat and Gila Hanna. 1989. Gender differences in mathematical ability—perceptions vs. performance. AWM Newsletter 19(4): 6–17. Roitman, Judith. 1975. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 5(4): 11–12. Roitman, Judith. 1976. Women, math, and education: 2 months of material and 2 trends. AWM Newsletter 6(3): 7–8. Roitman, Judith. 1977. Do it yourself. AWM Newsletter 7(6): 5–7. Roitman, Judith. 1980a. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 10(1): 1–2. Roitman, Judith. 1980b. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 10(2): 2. Roitman, Judith. 1980c. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 10(6): 1–2. Roitman, Judith. 1987. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 16(6): 7–9. Roitman, Judith. 1991. Conference in honor of Mary Ellen Rudin. AWM Newsletter 21(6): 5–6. Roitman, Judith, Mary Ellen Rudin, Louise Hay, Karen Uhlenbeck, and Nancy K. Stanton. 1988. Is the climate for women in mathematics changing? Panel discussion, Atlanta, Joint Mathematics Meetings, January 6, 1988. AWM Newsletter 18(3): 4–10. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women scientists in America, volume 1: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1995. Women scientists in America, volume 2: Before affirmative action, 1940–1972. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 2012. Women scientists in America, volume 3: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ruskai, Mary Beth. 1986a. Letter on feminism and women in science. AWM Newsletter 16(3): 4–6. Ruskai, Mary Beth. 1989. How stereotypes about science affect the participation of women. http:// mbruskai.info/pdf-gender-sci/G&S3.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2020. Ruskai, Mary Beth. 1995. Are “feminist perspectives” in mathematics and science feminist? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 775(1): 437–441. Ruskai, Mary Beth. 1996. Thoughts on affirmative action. AWM Newsletter 26(2): 10–15. Ruskai, Mary Beth. 1997. 1997 AMS election: AWM statement. Statement. AWM Newsletter 27(5): 16–17. Sadosky, Cora. 1991. AWM election statement. AWM Newsletter 21(6): 6. Sadosky, Cora. 1993. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 23(5): 1–3. Sadosky, Cora. 1995. Affirmative action: What is it and what should it be? AWM Newsletter 25(5): 22–24.

Women as Data and as Individuals: Public Dialogues on Sexism

387

Schafer, Alice T. and Mary Gray. 1981. Sex and mathematics. Science 211(4479): 231. Selvin, Paul. 1991. Does the Harrison case reveal sexism in math? Science 252(5014): 1781–1783. Selvin, Paul. 1992. Profile of a field: Mathematics. Science 255(5050): Selvin, Paul. 1993. Jenny Harrison finally gets tenure in math at Berkeley. Science 261(5119): 286. Selvin, Paul. 1993. Harrison case: No calm after storm. Science 262(5132): 324–327. Sherman, Malcolm. 1973. Letter to the editor. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 20(6): 311. Smale, Stephen. 1975. The Berkeley story—continuation. Letter from Smale to Rosenlicht and Gale. AWM Newsletter 5(3): 6–7. Smith, Martha, Mary Beth Ruskai, and Patricia Kenschaft. 1987. AWM panel on gender and science: Panel discussion, AMS-MAA summer meeting, Salt Lake City, August 6, 1987. AWM Newsletter 17(6): 5–16. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981a. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(2): 1–2. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981b. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(4): 1–2. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981c. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(5): 1. Srinivasan, Bhama et al. 2010. A tribute to Alice Turner Schafer. AWM Newsletter 40(1): 5–12. Stage, Elizabeth K. 1981. Commentary on women in math. AWM Newsletter 11(4): 12–14. Stanley, Julian. 1997. Letter to the editor. Johns Hopkins Magazine, September. Available at https:// pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0997web/letters.html Stehney, Ann and Judith Roitman. 1976. Publishing job openings in the Newsletter: An official policy. AWM Newsletter 6(4): 13. Support Committee for Jenny Harrison. 1993. Harrison now tenured. AWM Newsletter 23(5): 13. Suydam, Marilyn and C. Alan Riedesel. 1969. Interpretive study of research and development in elementary school mathematics, Vol. 1. Introduction and summary: What research says. Final report, Project No. 8-0586, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Swift, Eleanor. 2014. Better than going to court? Resolving a claim of discrimination through a university’s internal grievance process. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 29(2): 337– 351. New York Times. 1980. Are boys better at math? The New York Times, December 7. Time Magazine. 1980. The gender factor in math: A new study says males may be naturally abler than females. Time Magazine, December 15. Tobias, Sheila. 1982. Sexist equations. Psychology Today 16: 14–16. Tomizuka, Carl et al. 1981. Mathematical Ability: Is Sex a Factor? [Letters to the editor]. Science 212(4491): 114+116+118+121. Tonso, Karen L. 1996. Affirmative action: response to Rossi. AWM Newsletter 26(5): 18–19. United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1977. Statement on affirmative action. Clearinghouse Publication. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. United States Congress House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities. 1992. Hearing on sexual harassment in nontraditional occupations: Hearing before the subcommittee on employment opportunities of the committee on education and labor, House of Representatives, one hundred second Congress, Second Session, hearing held in Washington, DC, June 25, 1992. U.S. Government Printing Office. The Washington Post. 1980. At mathematical thinking, boys outperform girls. Washington Post, December 5. Williams, Dennis and Patricia King. 1980. Do males have a math gene? Newsweek, December 15. Winstead, Mark. 1995. Are women getting all the jobs? AWM Newsletter 25(1): 14–15. Witt, Charlotte. 1995. Anti-essentialism in feminist theory. Philosophical Topics 23(2): 321–344. Wood, Carol. 1992a. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 22(3): 1–2. Wood, Carol et al. 1992. Women in mathematics [Letter to the editor]. Science 257(5068): 309. Wood, Carol. 2020. Presidents’ reflections: 1991–1992 plus and minus . AWM Newsletter 50(3): 3–5. (Reprinted in this volume) Wylie, Alison. 1995. Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics 23(2): 345–358.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners Joseph A. Gallian

The Origins The Alice T. Schafer Mathematics Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman was established in 1990 by the Executive Committee of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM). It is named for its second president, Alice T. Schafer, a founding member who oversaw the incorporation of the AWM and championed opportunities for women in mathematics throughout her career. She retired as the Helen Day Gould Professor of Mathematics at Wellesley College in 1980. Schafer’s honors include being elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1985 and receiving the MAA YuehGin Gung and Dr. Charles Y. Hu Award for Distinguished Service to Mathematics in 1998. She died in 2009. A Schafer Prize nominee must either be a US citizen or have a school address in the United States, and be an undergraduate when nominated. The award is presented at a mathematics meeting, for example, in 2020, it was presented at the AWM Reception at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM). Recipients receive a $1000 prize and an honorary plaque, and are featured in an article in the AWM Newsletter. The charge to the three-person AWM selection committee is: “To recognize talented young women to be evaluated on the ability for independent work in mathematics, demonstration of real interest in mathematics, quality of performance in advanced mathematics courses and special programs, and (when relevant) performance in mathematical competitions at the local or national level.” To encourage worthy nominees, each year there are typically one or two winners, up to two named runners-up, and multiple named honorable mentions (e.g., see Fig. 1).

J. A. Gallian () University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_35

389

390

J. A. Gallian

Fig. 1 Honorable mention Jessica Polito, honorable mention sarah-marie belcastro, runnerup Zvezdelina Stankova, Alice Schafer, AWM President Carol Wood, winner Jeanne Nielsen, honorable mention Debra Boutin, honorable mention Karen King, 1991 MathFest, Orono, ME

Between 1990 and 2020, 36 people were awarded the Schafer Prize. Since receiving the prize, they have taken a variety of career paths. This article, a revision of a 2019 article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, provides snapshots from 1990 to 2020 of the Schafer winners’ subsequent activities and accomplishments.

The Winners 1990: Linda Green and Elizabeth Wilmer The first Schafer prize was presented to co-winners at the 1990 MathFest, the summer mathematics meeting (see Fig. 2). Linda Green is a teaching associate professor of mathematics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). She obtained a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD at Princeton University in 1996 under Cynthia Louise Curtis. Her research interests include mathematics and statistics education, mathematical modeling of disease, and topology and geometry of 3-dimensional manifolds. Most of her publications have appeared in medical journals. In 2018 she received the UNC Goodman-Petersen Award for Excellence in Teaching.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

391

Fig. 2 Linda Green, AWM President Jill Mesirov, Alice Schafer, Elizabeth Wilmer. 1990 MathFest, Columbus, OH. Photo courtesy of AMS

Elizabeth Wilmer is a professor of mathematics and former department head at Oberlin College. She received a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and a PhD from Harvard in 1999 under Persi Diaconis. Wilmer is a coauthor of the 2008 AMS book Markov Chains and Mixing Times and has published papers in combinatorics and probability.

1991: Jeanne Nielsen Clelland Jeanne Nielsen Clelland is a professor of mathematics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She received her bachelor’s degree from Duke University and PhD from Duke in 1996 under Robert Bryant. Her research area is differential geometry and its applications to differential equations. In 2018 she received the Burton W. Jones Distinguished Teaching Award from the Rocky Mountain Section of the MAA. Clelland has published over 20 papers.

392

J. A. Gallian

Responding to a letter from the author in November 2019 she said: During my grad school years and throughout my career, I have been very grateful for the AWM and all the work that it has done to support women (including me!) in the mathematical community. At the time I won the Schafer Prize, I don’t think I realized yet how important this was, and how helpful it was to be part of a strong community of other women in mathematics—but with the benefit of hindsight, I am extremely appreciative of the AWM and everything that it does.

1992: Zvezdelina E. Stankova Zvezdelina E. Stankova was a professor of mathematics at Mills College for 16 years and is currently teaching mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley). She received a bachelor’s degree from Bryn Mawr College and a PhD from Harvard in 1997 under Joe Harris. She has published papers in enumerative combinatorics that have been cited over 375 times and is co-editor of two books on problem solving. Stankova is founder of the Berkeley Math Circle, an inaugural winner of the MAA Henry L. Alder Award for Distinguished Teaching by a Beginning College or University Mathematics Faculty Member in 2004, and the recipient of the MAA Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award for Distinguished College or University Teaching in 2011.

1993: Cathy O’Neil and Dana Pascovici Cathy O’Neil is an author and data science consultant. She received her bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from Harvard in 1999 under Barry Mazur. Following five years as a mathematics postdoc at MIT, she took a position at Barnard College. From 2007 to 2011, she worked in the finance industry. A PBS Frontline episode about Wall street featured a 38-minute interview with her. She is the author of the blog mathbabe and was a TED-talk speaker in 2017. O’Neil’s book Weapons of Math Destruction was long-listed for the 2016 National Book Award for Nonfiction. At the 2019 Joint Mathematics Meetings, she received the MAA’s Euler Book Prize and gave the MAA-AMS-SIAM Porter Public Lecture. Her publications have been cited more than 2100 times. Writing in her blog in 2011 about receiving the Schafer Prize O’Neil said “I went to [the meeting] and learned about Alice S[c]hafer and her struggles and successes as a trailblazer for women in math, and I felt really honored to be collecting an award in her name.” Dana Pascovici is a biostatistician at the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility at Macquarie University, where she focuses on generating reliable methods of interpreting and analyzing data on plasma proteomics and plant proteomics. She received a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College and a PhD from MIT in 2000 under David Vogan. Pascovici was the first recipient of the MAA Elizabeth Putnam

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

393

Prize which is given to women with high scores in the William Lowell Putnam Mathematics Competition, finishing sixteenth out of the 2356 undergraduate participants.

1994: Jing Rebecca Li Jing Rebecca Li is a research scientist at Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) in France. She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and PhD degree from MIT in 2000 under Jacob White. Li has published over 25 papers in applied mathematics and physics journals.

1995: Ruth Britto Ruth Britto (see Fig. 3) is an associate professor in theoretical physics at Trinity College Dublin. She earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from MIT and a PhD in physics from Harvard in 2002. She has held research positions at the Institute for Advanced Study, the University of Amsterdam, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique. Britto is best known for her work on scattering amplitudes in high-energy collider experiments designed for discovering and analyzing new particles and new physical behaviors. Her 2005 paper with Cachazo, Feng, and Witten, which provided a recursion method for calculating scattering amplitudes, has been cited over 1200 times. Two other papers on scattering amplitudes she coauthored in 2005 have been cited over 1700 times.

Fig. 3 Alice Schafer, Ruth Britto, AWM President Chuu-Lian Terng, 1995 MathFest, Burlington, VT

394

J. A. Gallian

She has also published papers on black holes and her citation total exceeds 5000. Britto was the second winner of the Elizabeth Putnam Prize.

1996: Ioana Dumitriu Ioana Dumitriu is a professor of mathematics at the University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include the theory of random matrices, numerical analysis, and scientific computing. She received her bachelor’s degree from NYU and a PhD from MIT in 2003 under Alan Edelman. Following three years at UC Berkeley as a Miller Research Fellow, Dumitriu spent the years 2006–2019 at the University of Washington. She was the first woman Putnam Fellow (due to scoring among the top five) and is a Fellow of the American Mathematical Society. Dumitriu has received the Leslie Fox Prize in Numerical Analysis and an NSF CAREER Award, and won the Elizabeth Putnam award three times. She is the author of over 25 published papers and has more than 1500 citations.

1997: No Prize Prior to 1997, the Schafer prize was presented in the summer at MathFest or at a SIAM conference. The Schafer prize was not awarded in 1997, so that it could be presented at the next Joint Mathematics Meetings in January.

1998: Sharon Ann Lozano Gretencord and Jessica Shepherd Purcell The Schafer prize gained new visibility at the JMM Joint Prize Session (see Fig. 4). Sharon Ann Lozano Gretencord received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 1998 and a master of science in computational and applied mathematics from UT Austin in 2000. She then spent two years as a lecturer in the mathematics department at UT Austin and developer of mathematics and science curriculum for a non-profit. She won a 2001 Woman of the Year in Science and Technology award from the YWCA, and now develops and teaches science courses for middle and high school students. On receiving the award, she said: There are many talented undergraduate women in mathematics. It is an honor to be considered among them and to have been awarded the Alice T. Schafer Prize this year. I thank the people and organizations, such as AWM, that do more than share their knowledge. They genuinely believe in and inspire the success of all students.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

395

Fig. 4 First Joint Prize Session where the Schafer prize was awarded. MAA Secretary Martha Siegel, co-winner Jessica Shepherd, MAA President Gerald Alexanderson, co-winner Sharon Ann Lozano Gretencord, Alice Schafer, AWM President Sylvia Wiegand, 1998 JMM, Burlington, VT

Jessica Shepherd Purcell is an associate professor of mathematics at Monash University in Australia. She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Utah and a PhD in 2004 from Stanford University under Steven Kerckhoff. After three years as a postdoc at UT Austin, Purcell spent the years 2007–2015 at Brigham Young University. She has published over 35 papers on low-dimensional topology and has given more than 75 invited talks. Purcell has received an NSF CAREER Award, a Sloan Research Fellowship, and an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship. Purcell said on receiving the award, Thanks to the AWM and all those who believe in the capabilities of women enough to provide encouragement that helps them excel.

1999: Caroline J. Klivans Caroline J. Klivans is an associate professor of applied mathematics at Brown University and a deputy director of the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM). She received a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University and a PhD from MIT in 2003 under Richard Stanley with support

396

J. A. Gallian

from an NSF Graduate Fellowship. She then held postdoctoral positions at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute and at Cornell. From 2004 to 2008 she was an L. E. Dickson Instructor and VIGRE postdoctoral fellow in the departments of mathematics and computer science at the University of Chicago. Her research interests are in algebraic, geometric and topological combinatorics. Along with numerous publications, Klivans is the author of the book The Mathematics of ChipFiring published in 2018. She has given over 90 invited talks.

2000: Mariana E. (Campbell) Levin Mariana E. (Campbell) Levin is an assistant professor of mathematics, specializing in mathematics education, at Western Michigan University. Her research centers around understanding and supporting students’ meaningful engagement with mathematics, with a current focus on engaging pre-service elementary teachers in mathematical inquiry experiences. She received a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, San Diego, a master’s from UC Berkeley, and a PhD in mathematics education from UC Berkeley in 2011 under Alan Schoenfeld. Before her current position, she held a postdoctoral research position in the Program in Mathematics Education (PRIME) at Michigan State University. Her publications include papers in mathematics education and an edited volume in the learning sciences.

2001: Jaclyn Kohles Anderson Jaclyn Kohles Anderson received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Nebraska and a PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2006 under Ken Ono. After finishing her PhD, she raised two children while working on mathematics as time permitted. Recently, Anderson has returned to school to study operations research and data science. She has published papers in number theory and in discrete dynamical systems.

2002: Kay Kirkpatrick and Melanie Matchett Wood Kay Kirkpatrick is an associate professor of mathematics and physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). She received a bachelor’s degree from Montana State University and a PhD from UC Berkeley in 2007 under Fraydoun Rezakhanlou. Her research interests include statistical mechanics, PDEs, condensed matter physics, and biological computation. When contacted in 2020, she was working on dark matter via Bose-Einstein condensation of axions, and

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

397

had won a UIUC fellowship to study neuroscience and mathematical foundations of biology during 2020–21. Kirkpatrick was an NSF Postdoctoral Fellow at MIT from 2007 to 2009 and received an NSF CAREER Award in 2013. She advises both mathematics and physics doctoral students and publishes in both mathematics and physics journals. Upon receiving the award, she said: I feel extremely honored to be numbered among today’s rising women in math. The Association for Women in Mathematics is doing a wonderful thing to encourage and support aspiring mathematicians. I’ll spend the rest of my life repaying this debt to AWM and to all of my professors and mentors.

Melanie Matchett Wood is a professor at Harvard and a Chancellor’s Professor at UC Berkeley. She received a bachelor’s degree from Duke and a PhD from Princeton in 2009 under Manjul Bhargava. Her research interests include number theory, arithmetic and algebraic geometry, topology, probability, and random groups. Wood was the first American women to be a Putnam Fellow and the first woman to win the AMS-MAA-SIAM Morgan prize for Outstanding Research by an Undergraduate. Her many other awards include: AMS Fellow, NSF CAREER Award, AWMMicrosoft Research Prize in Algebra and Number Theory, American Institute of Mathematics 5-Year Fellowship, Sloan Research Fellowship, and Packard Fellowship. In 2018 she was a Minerva Distinguished Visitor at Princeton. She has published more than 35 papers in number theory and given over 100 invited talks. On receiving the award, Wood said: It is a wonderful honor to be awarded the Alice T. Schafer Prize from the Association for Women in Mathematics. I would like to thank those who established the award for their vision to recognize and encourage young women mathematicians. Mathematics, though extremely rewarding, is a difficult career to pursue, and thus it is so important for young mathematicians to feel support from the community as they pursue their careers. I want to thank the Association for Women in Mathematics for showing me such support and recognizing me among such outstanding young women mathematicians.

2003: Kate Gruher Mattison Kate Gruher Mattison is Vice President of Curriculum at IXL Learning, an American educational technology company whose website offers educational practice for K–12 students. Mattison leads the content design team that creates interactive, engaging, challenging practice skills for math, English language arts, science, social studies, and Spanish. She received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD from Stanford in 2007 under Ralph Cohen. Upon receiving the award, she said: I feel greatly honored to receive the AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize. The AWM provides incredibly important support to women in early stages of their careers as mathematicians and I believe that their vision will help many young women achieve their goals. I feel greatly encouraged in my ambitions by the AWM’s support and belief in my abilities.

398

J. A. Gallian

2004: Kimberly Spears Hopkins Kimberly Spears Hopkins is the owner of a real estate investment company specializing in industrial multi-tenant buildings. She received a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a PhD in 2010 from UT Austin under Fernando Rodriguez-Villegas.

2005: Melody Chan Melody Chan is a Manning Assistant Professor at Brown. She received a bachelor’s degree in computer science and mathematics from Yale University and, supported by NSF and NDSEG Fellowships, a PhD from UC Berkeley in 2012 under Bernd Sturmfels. From 2012 to 2015, she was an NSF Postdoctoral Fellow and Lecturer in the mathematics department at Harvard. Her research interests are combinatorial algebraic geometry, graph theory, and tropical geometry. From 2000 to 2001, Chan studied the violin at the Juilliard School with Itzhak Perlman and Dorothy DeLay. She has over 20 publications, over 500 citations, and has given over 90 invited talks. She is a Sloan Research Fellow and an NSF CAREER Award winner, and received the 2020 AWM-Microsoft Research Prize in Algebra and Number Theory. In response to winning the award, Chan said, I am truly happy to be able to accept the 2005 Alice T. Schafer Prize from the Association for Women in Mathematics. I view this prize as both an honor and a responsibility. The AWM fills an invaluable role in encouraging women to pursue mathematical careers, and I can only hope to contribute to the pursuit of its commendable goals.

2006: Alexandra Ovetsky Fradkin Alexandra Ovetsky Fradkin is Dean of Mathematics, Science, and Technology at Main Line Classical Academy, a private school in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, where she develops the mathematics curriculum and teaches children in grades K–5. After earning her bachelor’s degree from Princeton in 2006 and, in 2011, a PhD in mathematics from Princeton under Maria Chudnovsky, Fradkin worked for several years as a professional mathematician, publishing ten papers in combinatorics. Before assuming her present position, she taught enrichment math at Golden Key Russian School to children ages 4–10. In 2017 she published Funville Adventures, a math-inspired children’s fantasy adventure that introduces kids to the concept of mathematical functions.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

399

2007: Ana Caraiani Ana Caraiani is a Royal Society University Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in mathematics at Imperial College London. She received a bachelor’s degree at Princeton where her senior thesis advisor was Andrew Wiles. She was a twotime Putnam Fellow and a member of the first-place 2006 Putnam team, the only year Princeton has ever won the team competition. She won the William Lowell Putnam Fellowship for Graduate Study at Harvard, where she received a PhD in 2012 under Richard Taylor. Her research interests include the Langlands program, algebraic number theory, arithmetic geometry, and representation theory. Caraiani was an L. E. Dickson Instructor and NSF Postdoctoral Fellow at Chicago (2012– 2013), a Veblen Research Instructor and NSF Postdoctoral Fellow at Princeton and the Institute for Advanced Study (2013–2016), and a Bonn Junior Fellow at the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics (2016–2017). She has received the Elizabeth Putnam Prize twice, the Whitehead Prize given by the London Mathematical Society, and is a Fellow of the American Mathematical Society. Among her published papers, some are notable for their length, running over 100 pages. She has given over 100 invited talks.

2008: Galyna Dobrovolska and Alison Miller Galyna Dobrovolska is an NSF Postdoctoral Fellow in mathematics at Columbia University. She obtained her bachelor’s degree at MIT and a PhD from the University of Chicago in 2014 under Roman Bezrukavnikov and Victor Ginzburg. In 2015–2016 she was a postdoc at Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn. Dobrovolska’s research interests lie in geometric representation theory and related areas of algebra, geometry, and combinatorics. She has published several papers. Alison Miller received a bachelor’s degree from Harvard, a master’s degree from University of Cambridge as a Churchill Scholar, and a PhD degree from Princeton in 2014 under Manjul Bhargava. After serving as a Benjamin Peirce Fellow and NSF Postdoctoral Fellow in mathematics at Harvard, she took a position as an associate editor at Mathematical Reviews. As a high school student, she was the first US woman to win a Gold Medal in the International Mathematical Olympiad. As a graduate student, she was a coach of the American girls team in the China Girls Mathematical Olympiad. Her research interests are in algebraic number theory, arithmetic invariant theory, and their connections with classical knot invariants. She is a three-time winner of the Elizabeth Putnam Prize finishing in the top fifteen in the competition each time. She has several published papers.

400

J. A. Gallian

2009: Maria Monks Gillespie Maria Monks Gillespie is an assistant professor at Colorado State University. She received a bachelor’s degree from MIT, a master’s degree from Cambridge as a Churchill Scholar, and a PhD in 2016 from UC Berkeley under Mark Haiman. Gillespie was an NSF Postdoctoral Fellow and a Krener Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the University of California, Davis. Among her honors are a Goldwater Scholarship, the AMS-MAA-SIAM Morgan Prize, a Hertz Fellowship, an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, and a Best Graduate Student Paper award at an international combinatorics conference. Gillespie’s research interests lie in algebraic combinatorics and its connections to algebraic geometry and representation theory. She has over 15 published papers and has given over 30 invited lectures. In a letter to the author in November 2019, Gillespie said: In 2009, as an excited undergraduate just getting started with mathematics research, winning the Schafer Prize was a great honor. The recognition helped to motivate me to continue to pursue research, and I am grateful for the visibility that the AWM provided for me through this prize.

2010: Hannah Alpert and Charmaine Sia Hannah Alpert is an NSF Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of British Columbia. She received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD from MIT in 2016 under Larry Guth, where she had an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. In 2016–2017, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM) and in 2017– 2019 a Zassenhaus Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Ohio State University. As an undergraduate she was a Goldwater Scholar and participated in three REUs. Alpert has published papers in geometric topology and combinatorics. Reflecting on the impact of receiving the Schafer Prize, Alpert said in 2019: When I started undergrad I felt like a mathematician already, so I was disappointed to find that in the eyes of my department, undergrads had a long way to go before becoming part of the clan. I liked to get away in the summer to REUs where faculty treated me as if I knew what I was doing. When I was named a winner for the Schafer Prize, I imagined that for the first time my department was proud to count me as one of their own. Maybe it would have happened even without the prize, but I felt like they treated me better after that.

Charmaine Sia is a clinical assistant professor of mathematics at NYU. She received her bachelor’s degree in mathematics and physics from MIT and a PhD from Harvard in 2015 under Michael Hopkins. Sia’s research interests include algebraic topology, homotopy theory, the theory of topological modular forms, structured ring spectra, and forms of K-theory. Prior to joining NYU, Sia was a Zorn Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Mathematics at Indiana University Bloomington. She has published several papers.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

401

2011: Sherry Gong Sherry Gong is a Hedrick Assistant Adjunct Professor and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California Los Angeles. She received her bachelor’s degree at Harvard in 2011 and a PhD in 2018 at MIT under Tom Mrowka, where she had an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. In high school, she medaled four years at the International Mathematical Olympiad with one silver and one gold. In 2010, Gong helped coach the USA team in the China Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad to a second place finish. She was the leader or deputy leader for the United States team to the European Girls’ Math Olympiad 2012–2017. She is a volunteer in a program to help low-income students from underserved communities learn advanced mathematics and enter a career in STEM fields. Gong works both in low-dimensional topology via gauge theory and in operator theory and non-commutative geometry, and has several publications.

2012: Fan Wei Fan Wei is a Founders’ Circle postdoctoral member of the Institute for Advanced Study working in Avi Wigderson’s group. She received a PhD at Stanford University in 2019 under Jacob Fox, a Master of Advanced Study with Distinction at Cambridge, and a bachelor’s degree at MIT in 2012. Her research interests include extremal combinatorics, probabilistic combinatorics, and applications of combinatorics to computer science. She has held internships at Microsoft Research New England and at Microsoft Research Redmond. Wei received the 2013 AMSMAA-SIAM Morgan Prize and participated in two REUs. Reflecting on receiving the Schafer Prize, Wei wrote in 2020: I’m very grateful to have received the Schafer prize; it has always been a great encouragement to me in my career. I have attended many events organized by AWM, where I got to know many female researchers and learned interesting math as well as career advice. In addition, AWM also provides many resources for junior researchers: the travel grant program is one of the many examples. In conclusion, for junior researchers, AWM is a wonderful association and I would like to thank all the staff members for their dedication and efforts.

2013: MurphyKate Montee MurphyKate Montee is the Clare Booth Luce Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Carleton College. She received her PhD from the University of Chicago in 2020 under the supervision of Danny Calegari. Her research interests are geometric group theory, cube complexes, and random groups. Montee was an NSF Graduate Fellow

402

J. A. Gallian

while at Chicago (2013–2018) and a Churchill Scholar at Cambridge in 2013–14. While an undergraduate at Notre Dame, she participated in two REUs. Montee started an annual symposium for women in STEM at the University of Chicago and describes herself as a “passionate teacher and mentor of undergraduate students.”

2014: Sarah Peluse Sarah Peluse is a Postdoctoral Fellow at The University of Oxford. She received her PhD in 2019 from Stanford University under the supervision of Kannan Soundararajan. She received a bachelor’s degree in 2014 from the University of Chicago. Her interests are arithmetic combinatorics and analytic number theory. She has published several papers and has preprints on the arXiv. She participated in an REU.

2015: Sheela Devadas Sheela Devadas is an NSF Graduate Fellow at Stanford University studying under Brian Conrad. She received a bachelor’s degree at MIT in 2015. Her research interests are algebraic number theory and arithmetic geometry. She has published papers in algebra and theoretical computer science.

2016: Mackenzie Simper Mackenzie Simper is an NDSEG Fellow at Stanford studying under Persi Diaconis. She received a bachelor’s degree at the University of Utah in 2016 and a master’s degree at Cambridge in 2017, where she held a Churchill Scholarship. Simper participated in two REUs. She has published one paper and has more papers on the arXiv.

2017: Hannah Larson Hannah Larson is a graduate student at Stanford working on algebraic geometry under Ravi Vakil. She received her bachelor’s degree from Harvard in 2017. As an undergraduate she received a Goldwater Scholarship and the Mumford Prize as the most promising senior math concentrator at Harvard. She has received a Hertz Fellowship, an NSF Fellowship, a Maryam Mirzakhani Graduate Fellowship, and a Stanford Graduate Research Fellowship. Larson has participated in three REUs and has published papers in number theory and algebra.

Snapshots of AWM’s Alice T. Schafer Prize Winners

403

2018: Libby Taylor Libby Taylor is a graduate student at Stanford studying under Ravi Vakil. She is supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship, a Stanford Graduate Fellowship, and an EDGE Fellowship. Taylor received a bachelor’s degree in 2018 from Georgia Tech. Her research interests are in algebraic and arithmetic geometry. Taylor has several publications in combinatorics and her Erd˝os number is 2.

2019: Naomi Sweeting Naomi Sweeting is an NSF Graduate Fellow at Harvard, focusing on number theory. She received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and history at the University of Chicago, where she was a Goldwater Scholar. Sweeting participated in one REU. Reflecting in 2020 on being awarded the Schafer Prize a year earlier, Sweeting said: Winning the AWM Schafer prize was a vote of confidence from the mathematical community just as I was embarking on a more intensive, research-focused phase of my career. I had known for many years that I wanted to spend my life doing math; it was so gratifying to know that the AWM wanted me to, as well.

2020: Natalia Pacheco-Tallaj Natalia Pacheco-Tallaj graduated from Harvard University in 2020. She was a course assistant for Honors Linear Algebra and Real Analysis and Topology I: Topological Spaces and the Fundamental Group. She has participated in two REUs and published several papers in peer-reviewed journals. She was co-organizer for the Women in Math and Statistics Conference at Harvard in 2019.

Some Trends and Impacts Five schools have had multiple Schafer Prize winners: MIT (6), Chicago (5), Harvard (5), Duke (2), and Princeton (2). Six schools have had more than one Schafer Prize winner pursue a PhD degree in their graduate programs: Stanford (8), Harvard (7), MIT (6), UC Berkeley (4), Princeton (4), and Chicago (2). Amazingly, graduate study at Stanford has been the choice for six of the eight who received the Schafer prize between 2012 and 2019.

404

J. A. Gallian

As AWM President Ruth Haas mentioned in the January–February 2020 AWM Newsletter, “The AWM has been called to task for not doing more to increase the percentage of women of color in the awards it gives.” Schafer winners seem not to have included any women from groups historically underrepresented in mathematics aside from Sharon Ann Lozano Gretencord, identified as Latino in an interview posted on the AWM website from the 2001 AWM Essay Contest. There have been some additional women of color among the prize winners. The criterion “quality of performance in advanced mathematics courses” gives an overwhelming advantage to students from PhD-granting institutions. All of the winners have been from such schools. The highly positive reaction in the mathematics community to the Schafer prize motivated the MAA to establish the Morgan Prize for Outstanding Research by an Undergraduate Student in 1995 with the AMS and SIAM joining as co-sponsors. It is important to note that the Schafer Prize honors more than just the women selected. It recognizes the mentors, the departments, and the research programs that provide support, nurturing, guidance, and inspiration. Acknowledgments The author is grateful to the referees for their careful reading of the drafts and their valuable comments.

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration in Mathematics Sara N. Hottinger

Collaboration has become a fairly central part of academic work life, whether we are talking about collaboration in the classroom, in our research and scholarship, or in our administrative practice (Bozeman and Youtie, 2018; Kezar and Lester, 2009; Scager et al., 2016; Walsh and Kahn, 2009). Given the growing prevalence of collaborative work in the academy, it is important that we examine our understanding of collaboration within the culture of higher education, particularly in light of the persistent Western values of individualism and intellectual autonomy, where “success in the academy depends largely on having one’s work recognized as an individual accomplishment” (Ede and Lunsford, 2001, p. 357). Collaboration within the field of mathematics occupies an interesting place within academic discourse about collaboration, between the recent explosion of collaborative practice in big science and standard histories of mathematics, which are generally told as a progressive timeline of individual accomplishment and discovery. In what follows, I use a cultural studies approach to show how collaboration and individual achievement are often set up as a mutually exclusive dichotomy that can be challenging to navigate as STEM scholars advance along academic milestones like the doctoral dissertation, promotion and tenure, and international recognition. I also show how difficult it can be to adopt a non-dichotomous understanding of collaboration and individual achievement, using a whimsical example from mathematics popular culture: the Erd˝os Number Project. Throughout this article, I consider the impact the growing expectation for collaboration has on women’s success in STEM, with a specific focus on mathematics. My interest in this article is to help us think differently about collaboration and individual achievement in mathematics. Rather than prescribe a best practice

S. N. Hottinger () Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_36

405

406

S. N. Hottinger

for success in mathematics, my goal is to encourage us to expand the number of different pathways available to women and other underrepresented groups to achieve success in the field. To this end, I conclude with a discussion of the ways in which the discourse within the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) Newsletter challenges us to break down the mutually exclusive binary of individual achievement and collaboration. Whether celebrating the story of an individual mathematician who has engaged in a lifetime of collaborative work in an in memoriam notice, or by encouraging mathematicians to network and collaborate through the Research Collaboration Conferences for Women, which often lead to individual achievement in the form of publications, the Association for Women in Mathematics works to shift academia away from a culture that constructs collaboration and individual achievement as mutually exclusive.

Brief Overview of Scholarly Collaboration in the Contemporary Academy Despite a persistent mythology that celebrates and honors the autonomous “great thinker,” collaboration in the academy has grown considerably since the early twentieth century (Austin and Baldwin, 1991; Bozeman and Youtie, 2018; Cronin, 2012; Ede and Lunsford, 2001; Papatsiba, 2013). Sonnenwald (2007) defines scientific collaboration as “interaction taking place within a social context among two or more scientists that facilitates the sharing of meaning and completion of tasks with respect to a mutually shared, superordinate goal” (p. 645). Austin and Baldwin (1991) consider collaboration across the academy and offer a more broad, but very similar, definition of faculty collaboration as “a cooperative endeavor that involves common goals, coordinated effort, and outcomes or products for which the collaborators share responsibility and credit” (p. 5). While there is certainly widespread recognition that collaboration includes such things as visiting scholar arrangements, research design processes, and peer feedback (none of which necessarily result in a product or publication), the most common proxy for studying collaboration is co-authorship (Katz and Martin, 1997; Papatsiba, 2013). It is this understanding of co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration that I use throughout this article. Katz and Martin (1997) acknowledge that “the assumption that multiple-authorship and collaboration are synonymous” needs to “be qualified with the recognition that in some instances not all those named on a paper are responsible for the work and should not share the credit for it” (p. 3). And, of course, using co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration does indeed limit my consideration of the many and varied ways that collaboration happens in academic work that does not lead to publication. Despite these qualifications, using co-authorship as a proxy for research collaboration offers some key insights, including a definitive and practical method for large-scale bibliometric analyses of collaboration both within and across disciplines (Katz and Martin, 1997). Using this understanding

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

407

Table 1 Data from Wuchty et al. (2007b, p. 9) Discipline Physics Mathematics Psychology Political Science Literature Philosophy

Npapers

Mean team size 1955–1959

Mean team size 1966–2000

% change

1,804,970 474,203 384,176 124,276 184,512 52,053

1.72 1.22 1.47 1.06 1.05 1.05

4.05 1.84 2.57 1.23 1.07 1.06

135.1 50.4 75.1 16.6 2.2 0.3

of collaboration also serves to connect my cultural analysis of collaborative practice to publication, one of the key metrics of success in the academy. This becomes important as I consider the role gender plays in collaborative practice in mathematics. While much of the focus on research collaboration concentrates on the significant growth of team science and collaboration within and across STEM disciplines since the early twentieth century, researchers have found evidence that co-authorship has also increased quite significantly in the social sciences and much more modestly in the humanities during that same period (Cronin, 2012). This pattern is well documented in Wuchty et al.’s 2007 bibliometric study of the average team size (number of authors per published paper) of 19.9 million research articles in Web of Science, published between 1955 and 2000 (Wuchty et al., 2007a). The average number of authors per publication grew across all disciplines. A selection of Wuchty et al.’s data is reproduced in Table 1 to give a sense of the relative growth of team sizes across a range of disciplines in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. If we delve down into bibliometric research that specifically addresses mathematics, studies show that the amount of collaboration in mathematics has indeed grown, as shown in Table 1, but at a slower rate than in other STEM disciplines. Brunson et al., in their 2014 study of the evolution of the research collaboration network in the mathematical sciences, make the following observation: While mathematics is as methodologically mature a discipline as any, it is widely viewed as a solitary, or minimally collaborative enterprise. Mathematics collaboration networks have been shown to exhibit lower connectivity than other scholarship networks . . . but, as in other disciplines, there has been discussion of rising collaborativeness in mathematics. (Brunson et al., 2014, p. 974)

This “rising collaborativeness” is clearly demonstrated in a study by Behrens and Luksch (2011) that analyzed bibliometric data from the period 1868–2008 from the Zentralblatt MATH database (now zbMATH) of FIZ Karlsruhe, one of the most comprehensive databases of mathematics scholarship. In the last 60 years, the field of mathematics, which Bozeman and Youtie (2018) call “the last refuge of the solitary thinker,” (p. 4) saw “a substantial decrease in single-authored papers . . . resulting in an average value of about two authors per publication” (Behrens and Luksch, 2011, p. 193). Huang (2015) found remarkably similar results in his

408

S. N. Hottinger

bibliometric study of a top mathematics journal from 1960–2010, where the average number of co-authors across all papers published during that time period rose from 1.1 to 1.8. According to Wuchty et al. (2007a): Surprisingly, even mathematics, long thought the domain of the loner scientist and the least dependent of the hard sciences on lab scale and capital-intensive equipment, showed a marked increase in the fraction of work done in teams, from 19% to 57%, with mean team size rising from 1.22 to 1.84. (p. 1037)

I have included substantial quotes from these studies because bibliometric researchers consistently express surprise at the rise of co-authorship in mathematics, which speaks to a persistent cultural understanding of mathematics as a solitary endeavor. I take a closer look at this perception throughout this article. This focus on collaboration and co-authorship is important because it both impacts a researcher’s success in the academy and is considered “crucial for academic career advancement” (Zippel, 2017, p. 8). In addition, there is a growing import given to impact metrics in order to establish research success, especially in top research universities (Gruber, 2014). Thus, not surprisingly, Wuchty et al. (2007a) considered the number of citations co-authored papers received versus the number of citations solo-authored papers received. There is a broad tendency across the three branches of scholarship they focus on—science and engineering, social sciences, and arts and humanities—for co-authored work to be more highly cited than solo-authored work (Wuchty et al., 2007b, p. 21). This pattern is especially true in STEM, where “team-authored papers received 1.7 times as many citations as solo-authored papers in 1955, but 2.1 times the citations by 2000” (Wuchty et al., 2007a, p. 1037). Because of the growing impact of co-authorship on academic success, particularly in STEM, gender should be examined in bibliometric analyses.1 The data show that women lag behind men in a number of different measures and across a wide variety of disciplines. In an analysis of papers published between 2008 and 2012, indexed in the Thompson Reuters Web of Science databases, Sugimoto et al. (2013) found that women account for fewer than 30% of all authorships across a range of disciplines. West et al. (2013) performed a comparable bibliometric study with the JSTOR database and found a similar result. Between 1990–2011, women accounted for only 27.2% of authorships (both team and solo authorships) across all disciplines. There was some variation across disciplines, with women dominating in disciplines typically associated with “care”: nursing; midwifery; speech, language, and hearing; education; social work; and librarianship. In such typically male-dominated disciplines as military sciences, engineering, robotics, aeronautics and astronautics, high-energy physics, mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and economics, women were significantly underrepresented in both

1 It is important to note that bibliometric researchers must take care in both their analysis of gender in bibliometric studies of co-authorship and in the conclusions they extrapolate from their data. See Flaherty (2020a) and Flaherty (2020b) for an account of a very recent controversy over the use of bibliometric co-authorship studies to make claims about the value of female mentorship in STEM.

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

409

the number of publications and in the number of first-authorships. This finding is confirmed by a 2016 bibliometric study of the zbMATH database, which found that less than 15% of published authors in mathematics are women (Mihaljevi´c-Brandt et al., 2016). While co-authors in mathematics often tend to be listed alphabetically, ensuring that women are neither under- nor over-represented at first or last author positions (Mihaljevi´c-Brandt et al., 2016; West et al., 2013), this practice is not the case in other disciplines, where the number of women in prestigious author positions lags behind the number of men.2 Sugimoto et al. (2013) found that for every paper with a female first author, there were almost two (1.93) papers with a male first author. Gender parity in scholarly collaboration has also been measured by looking at domestic and international collaborations. Because international collaborations carry more prestige, it is significant that female researchers tend to lag behind male researchers in the number of international collaborations (Sugimoto et al., 2013; Uhly et al., 2017). This is reflected in Kathrin Zippel’s argument that “in an increasingly competitive academic world, internationally co-authored articles are published in higher-ranked journals and receive more citations than other publications” (p. 126). The data suggest that for women to reach the highest levels of academic success, they must strategically pursue collaborative opportunities and seek out opportunities to work on international research teams. Yet there remain a number of mixed messages about collaboration in research and individual academic achievement. In the next section, I engage in an analysis of those mixed messages and look at the very real impact they can have on academic women’s careers.

Caught Between Individualism and Collaboration: Career Advancement An acclaimed tradition in the history and sociology of science emphasizes the role of the individual genius in scientific discovery. This tradition focuses on guiding contributions of solitary authors, such as Newton and Einstein, and can be seen broadly in the tendency to equate great ideas with particular names, such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Euclidean geometry, Nash equilibrium, and Kantian ethics. The role of the individual contributions is also celebrated through science’s award-granting institutions, like the Nobel Prize Foundation. (Wuchty et al., 2007a)

In this section I explore how the growth of scholarly collaboration and coauthorship challenges the cultural construct of the “individual genius” mentioned in the above epigraph. Perhaps even more salient, in what ways does the academy perpetuate this cultural idea of “individual genius” despite the increase in collaborative practice, as represented by the above cited bibliometric studies? This deep-seated privileging of individualism, and the romantic myth of the solitary “great thinker,” 2 West et al. (2013) offer an interactive online visualization of their data at http://www.eigenfactor. org/gender, that allows readers to see discipline-specific data.

410

S. N. Hottinger

underlies the history of thought in the West. Descartes’ dictum, cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), represents a key building block in the Western conception of individualism, locating knowledge in a completely autonomous self and solidifying a central component of standard epistemologies that place the individual at the center of knowledge production and authorship. This notion of the great thinker transitioned into the more modern construct of an author, which can be traced back to the development of modern capitalism and intellectual property, and is closely associated with Western rationalism (Ede and Lunsford, 2001). The concept of the author is not just limited to literature and can be found in multiple disciplines, ranging from the humanities to the hard sciences. Michel Foucault, in his classic essay “What is an Author?” begins with the argument that, “the coming into being of the ‘author’ constitutes the privileged moment of individualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences” (Foucault, 1998, p. 205). This argument becomes important when we look at how individual achievement and collaborative practice get constructed in the field of mathematics. If the idea of the individual mathematical author remains key to advancement and recognition in the field, should early-career mathematicians, particularly those from underrepresented groups, be encouraged to collaborate? And, if collaboration is encouraged, is there a strategic way to manage collaborative work in order to maximize career success? Before I address these questions, I want to consider the importance of individual achievement in mathematics; why does the figure of the solitary thinker/the great scientist/the mathematical author persist in ways that still shape our cultural understanding of math and science? The epigraph to this section clearly acknowledges the importance of the author function in the history and sociology of science and the ways the author function still operates, both in the histories we tell of mathematics and science, but also in the ways we continue to award achievement. While there might be a growing expectation that researchers will participate in collaborative teams, our key academic milestones, signifying achievement, remain highly individualized. In order to earn the highest degree possible in United States higher education, one must demonstrate individual scholarly achievement in the form of a doctoral dissertation. The 2019–2020 Stanford Bulletin defines the dissertation as “an original contribution to scholarship or scientific knowledge and must exemplify the highest standards of the discipline” (Stanford University, 2019– 2020).3 Yale’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Yale University, n. d.) clearly states that the “dissertation should demonstrate the student’s mastery of relevant resources and methods and should make an original contribution to knowledge in the field.” The Princeton University Graduate School (n. d.) statement regarding the dissertation is very clear with regard to the individual nature of scholarly research

3 Ede and Lunsford (2001) quote this exact same definition of the dissertation from the 2000–2001 Stanford Bulletin. It is worth noting that the language has not changed in 20 years, despite the continuing growth of scholarly collaboration during that same time.

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

411

and writing: “the dissertation must show that the candidate has technical mastery of the field and is capable of doing independent and original research” (emphasis my own). From these few descriptions of the doctoral dissertation, from some of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the world, it is quickly apparent that the gateway to an academic career in the United States remains a solo-authored piece of original scholarship. While collaborative scholarship might be on the rise, particularly in the social sciences and STEM, and despite the fact that dissertation advisors are sometimes essential collaborators, the determination of whether one qualifies to become a professional scholar in the first place remains an individuallyauthored piece of scholarship. In the humanities, where there has been the least growth in collaborative research and co-authorship, collaborative dissertations have been actively discouraged. Consider the experience of Kami Day and Michele Eodice (2001) who, in the mid1990s, proposed a collaboratively written dissertation. They were both doctoral students in a Rhetoric and Linguistics program at a mid-sized university in the northeastern United States, in “a department that fosters collaborative efforts among its students and is exemplified by collaborative faculty projects” (p. 2). When they submitted a proposal to collaboratively author a dissertation, they felt confident their advisor and their dissertation committee would fully support them. They were concerned, however, that the chair of the program and the dean of the graduate school would not approve their proposal. Their concerns were realized when they were told that, while their proposed project was indeed “a worthy and necessary undertaking,” it did not “fit the definition of a dissertation” (p. 4). In a letter to Day and Eodice, the dean wrote that he was “convinced that a jointly-authored dissertation could not be considered unless the individual contributions of each student were clearly identified” (quoted on p. 4 of Day and Eodice, 2001). The program chair and the dean understood what Day and Eodice were trying to do, but they were not willing to place their institution “in the risky position of challenging academic tradition” (p. 4). I summarize Day and Eodice’s story here because their account demonstrates very clearly that individual intellectual contributions and the individual author are still at the heart of our academic endeavor in US higher education. As humanities scholars, Day and Eodice were explicitly denied permission to co-author their doctoral dissertation; they make clear, however, in their later book First Person Squared (2001) that their doctoral research and writing was still very much a collaborative effort: we wrote two dissertations—together. We co-wrote the literature review, a article on collaborative dissertations, and part of the design and methodology for both studies; and we became co-researchers in each other’s projects. (p. 5)

The expectation that the doctoral dissertation remains the work of an individual scholar is not limited to the humanities. Even with the significant growth of collaboration in STEM, dissertations in those fields remain, as far as I have been able to find, solo-authored pieces of scholarship. And yet, STEM graduate students commonly engage in collaborative research and produce co-authored publications

412

S. N. Hottinger

(Bozeman and Corley, 2004; Park et al., 2017). STEM graduate students must figure out ways to navigate the recognition of the impact collaboration had on the dissertation with the requirement of producing a solo-authored piece of scholarship. While I have not done an extensive study of the acknowledgement sections of STEM dissertations, one need only look at the dissertations of some of the Association for Women in Mathematics dissertation award winners to find evidence of this. The AWM established an annual prize for up to three outstanding PhD dissertations by women mathematical scientists who recently defended their dissertations. The prize was first awarded in 2017 (see Fig. 1). The evidence of collaboration in these outstanding dissertations manifests in different ways. Consider the extensive acknowledgement in the work of one of the first AWM dissertation award winners Emily Sergel (2016) that specifies exactly what sections of collaboratively written chapters were the result of the author’s contribution: I’d also like to acknowledge my funding and collaborators. Much of this work was supported by NSF grant DGE-1144086. The material from Chapter 3 is a joint paper with Adriano Garsia, Nolan Wallach and Guoce Xin which has been submitted for publication. My primary contributions form Section 3.4. The results of Chapter 4 are part of ongoing work with Adriano Garsia. My primary contributions form Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

Fig. 1 Yunqing Tang, Emily Sergel, and Dana Mendelson, inaugural AWM Dissertation Prize winners, 2017 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Atlanta, GA. Both Mendelson’s and Sergel’s dissertations have chapters that are the result of collaboration

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

413

Whereas Dana Mendelson (2015), another inaugural winner, writes a more general acknowledgement that a chapter of her dissertation is the result of a collaborative relationship: I would also like to thank . . . Jonas Lührmann for our extremely enjoyable collaboration (which has, in particular, given rise to the contents of Chapter 2 of this thesis).

These dissertation acknowledgements reveal the complexity STEM scholars face when they must navigate the dichotomy between the privileging of individualism that still drives the recognition of academic achievement and the need and expectation to engage in collaborative research and publication. While the completion of the doctoral dissertation is a key milestone that serves to launch a career as a researcher and scholar, the push and pull between the need to engage in collaboration, especially in STEM disciplines, and the recognition of individual achievement, remains salient as researchers advance through their academic careers. This contradictory expectation becomes apparent in a recent focus group study on the role of collaboration in the career success of academic scientists. Misra et al. (2017) conducted 16 focus group meetings with 85 STEM faculty at a large, research-intensive university. The faculty groups were separated by both rank and gender and asked a series of structured questions about the role of working together to solve problems in research, career development, and departmental decision-making. While data show that collaboration in this broad sense is key to career success in STEM, institutional structures exist that continue to privilege individual achievement and that serve as barriers to effective collaboration, especially in research-intensive institutions. Misra et al. identify three overlapping areas of concern, that particularly influence STEM women: resources, recognition, and relationships. While both men and women report a lack of resources available to support collaboration, ranging from staff support and mentors to equipment and space, men at the assistant professor rank are more likely to have colleagues helping them find resources, while women at the same rank are less integrated in departmental and college-wide networks (Misra et al., 2017, p. 9). A narrative around individual achievement and recognition, particularly during the promotion and tenure process, emerged from these focus group sessions among both men and women, and reveals how complicated it can be for STEM faculty to navigate between the expectation to collaborate and the need to demonstrate individual achievement. Funding agencies tend to prioritize collaborative work that crosses disciplinary boundaries, but many of the focus group participants noted that personnel evaluations at both the tenure and promotion stages give primacy to independent, disciplinary work. Women are particularly concerned about receiving recognition for their collaborative work. Misra et al. (2017) argue that in maledominated disciplines, “women may, in fact, get less credit than men” when they are members of collaborative teams and that “experiences of engaging in collaborative research without receiving adequate credit further limits women’s advancement” (p. 12). Finally, Misra et al. found that developing peer mentoring relationships is a key component to career development and achieving success in research collaborations.

414

S. N. Hottinger

Men and women tend to have very different experiences in this regard: While assistant and associate men could recount substantial mentoring engagement, much of it informal, assistant and associate women reported less mentoring. Women provided examples of the difficulty of connecting with colleagues, and receiving feedback on their work more than men. Women were also concerned about the time-consuming nature of mentoring, and the lack of incentives to mentor faculty colleagues—making them more cautious about requesting time and attention from their mentors. (Misra et al., 2017, p. 15)

Because individual achievement is still given primacy over collaborative work, particularly around the promotion and tenure process, it can be difficult to encourage and sustain the mentoring relationships necessary to ensure the success of pre-tenure STEM faculty. This difficulty becomes even more salient given that the recognition of individual achievement occurs well beyond the promotion and tenure process, as mathematicians achieve higher levels of success at an international level. This plays out very palpably in the awarding of the top prizes in mathematics—the Fields Medal and the Abel Prize. The Fields Medal was first given in 1936 and is awarded every four years to mathematicians under the age of 40. In the citations for all 60 Fields Medalists, individual achievements are highlighted, even when the mathematicians have published a significant number of co-authored results. For example the citation for John Thompson states, “Proved jointly with W. Feit that all non-cyclic finite simple groups have even order. The extension of this work by Thompson determined the minimal simple finite groups, that is, the simple finite groups whose proper subgroups are solvable” (Albers et al., 1986, p. 53). In this instance collaborative work is acknowledged, but the work of the individual recipient clearly drove the selection process. But it must be noted that even the acknowledgement of collaborative work is an exception. Throughout the 60 citations, phrases describing individual achievement abound, whether or not the mathematician has a history of collaborative research (International Mathematical Union, n. d.). The situation is similar with the Abel Prize, which was first awarded in 2003. Over the past 18 years, 22 mathematicians received the prize. In the four years when two mathematicians were chosen, only once was the award given jointly for collaborative work. In 2004, the second Abel Prize was “awarded jointly to Michael Francis Atiyah and Isadore M. Singer” for their discovery and proof of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, amongst other accomplishments (NASL, 2004). This acknowledgement of collaborative work is, again, the exception rather than the rule. During the other three years when the prize was awarded to two mathematicians the citations make very clear that these mathematicians were awarded for independent achievement. For example, in 2008 John Thompson and Jacques Tits were chosen as recipients of the prize for their work in group theory. The press release acknowledges that “the work of the two laureates has been complementary,” but quickly clarifies the independence of their work: “John Thompson concentrated on finite groups, while Jacques Tits worked predominantly with linear groups” (NASL, 2008). In 2015, John Nash and Louis Nirenberg received the Abel Prize for their work in the theory of nonlinear partial differential equations. The citation makes clear that “though they did not formally collaborate on any papers, they influenced

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

415

each other greatly.” Even more striking is the following statement, describing the two mathematicians: “Unlike Nash, who wrote papers alone, Nirenberg preferred to work in collaboration with others, with more than 90% of his papers written jointly” (NASL, 2015). Despite the fact that the vast majority of Nirenberg’s work was collaborative, he was recognized as an individual for his accomplishments in mathematics. Clearly there is ample evidence of significant growth in collaborative work in mathematics and other STEM disciplines, but the idea of the individual “great thinker” remains central to our understanding of scholarly achievement in mathematics.

The Push and Pull Between Individualism and Collaboration: Math Pop Culture In the previous section, I demonstrate the ways in which the encouragement and growth of collaboration in mathematics and other STEM disciplines comes up against the fundamental keystone of individual scholarly achievement throughout the careers of faculty scholars. In this section, I turn to something a bit lighter and more fun, but nevertheless illuminating. In mathematics, an attempt to deconstruct the dichotomy between individual achievement and collaboration has taken a whimsical turn in the form of the Erd˝os Number Project. Paul Erd˝os (1913–1996) was a prolific Hungarian mathematician, who is perhaps most well-known for his ability to collaborate with other mathematicians. In fact, Erd˝os wrote papers with a total of 509 co-authors. As a result of his extensive network of collaborators and the overall growth of collaboration in the form of co-authored papers during the twentieth century, mathematicians have used Erd˝os’ collaboration network to define the number links needed to connect a mathematical author back to Erd˝os. The number of links is that mathematician’s Erd˝os number. For example, a mathematician’s Erd˝os number is 1 if they co-authored a paper with Erd˝os. Those mathematicians who co-authored a paper with someone who co-authored a paper with Erd˝os have an Erd˝os number of 2, and so on. The mathematician Jerry Grossman, who has written a number of articles on the mathematics collaboration network, maintains a website that is devoted to information about the Erd˝os Number Project (Grossman, n. d.). Having a low Erd˝os number is notable, signifying your close proximity to Erd˝os in the collaboration network. This notability is demonstrated by the lists, on the Erd˝os Number Project website, of the Erd˝os numbers for Nobel Prize winners, Fields Medalists, and Abel Prize winners, as well as Nevanlinna, Wolf, and Steele Prize winners. There is also a list of other famous or notable people, including Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Larry Page, and Angela Merkel, all of whom have an Erd˝os number of less than 5. What I find fascinating about the Erd˝os number project is that it seems to be a celebration of mathematical community and collaboration. And in many ways, it is. Biographies of Erd˝os describe his extensive travel around

416

S. N. Hottinger

the world, meeting up with other mathematicians and exchanging ideas (Bollobás, 1998). Erd˝os had a talent and a passion for working with other mathematicians, and the recognition of his abilities as a collaborator is an important counterpoint to the idea of mathematics as the last bastion of the solitary “great thinker.” Upon deeper reflection, however, the Erd˝os Number Project has also become a way to reduce collaboration to moments of individual achievement and recognition. Certainly, the Erd˝os Number Project serves as a record of Erd˝os’s own achievement, as the author of “close to 1500 papers, about five times as many as other prolific mathematicians” (Bollobás, 1998, p. 209). By showcasing how many incredibly talented people have a very low Erd˝os number, the Erd˝os Number Project becomes a demonstration of one man’s extensive reach and influence within intellectual circles. The project has also become a way to mark the notability of individual mathematicians, because of their own proximity to Erd˝os and his work. Kirsten Menger-Anderson (2018) recently published a fascinating article in which she examines how each of the individuals on the list of Erd˝os1 mathematicians (those mathematicians who directly collaborated with Erd˝os) were represented on Wikipedia, with a focus on the 21 out of 512 Erd˝os collaborators who were women. Menger-Anderson argues that, “the Erd˝os number, in essence, is a measure of the distance between oneself and a great man,” and she questions what exactly makes someone notable (Kramer, 2018, n. p.). Menger-Anderson’s examination of the biographies of Erd˝os1 mathematicians on Wikipedia led her to multiple debates that happened among Wikipedia editors about whether someone’s Erd˝os number was considered a defining characteristic, thus ensuring its inclusion in a biographical entry alongside birth and death dates, nationality, and reasons for notability. Ultimately, the editors of that Wikipedia page decided that a person’s Erd˝os number is not a defining characteristic of a person. And, more interestingly, having an Erd˝os number of 1 was not enough by itself to gain someone their own page on Wikipedia. Menger-Anderson found a number of Erd˝os1 mathematicians whose pages were marked for deletion because the only thing that seemed to make them notable was their Erd˝os number. She does note, however, that it is quite likely that no mathematicians participated in the ultimate debate that decided the notability of one’s Erd˝os number. As I show below, among mathematicians, one’s Erd˝os number is a matter of some pride. On a side note, Menger-Anderson looked carefully at the difference in editors’ responses to the biographical entries of the female and male mathematicians with an Erd˝os number of 1 and found that amongst those Erd˝os1 mathematicians who had a Wikipedia entry, “women were over four times more likely to have their importance questioned” (n. p.). Menger-Anderson’s essay is worth reading further, but for the purposes of this chapter, I want to focus on the idea of notability and the ways the Erd˝os Number Project, whether intentionally or not, serves to confer, in a small way, a measure of individual achievement via collaborative proximity to a great man. The Erd˝os Number Project serves as a very interesting site of attempted reconciliation between the celebration of and desire for collaboration within the mathematical community and the deeply embedded legacy of individualism within both mathematics and the larger academic community. But that reconciliation fails

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

417

in some ways, as the Erd˝os Number Project often serves as a mechanism to confer notability to those individuals with a low Erd˝os number. Consider that in 2004, an Erd˝os number was for sale on eBay (Grossman, 2005; Monastersky, 2004). An independent scientist auctioned off his services as a co-author, offering 40 hours of his time to the project. Since the seller’s Erd˝os number was 4, part of the package was that the auction winner would have an Erd˝os number of 5 if their collaboration resulted in publication. The seller’s intention was to encourage research collaboration amongst scientists and provide an opportunity for those who may be disadvantaged in their efforts to build or increase their collaboration network. About 50 prospective bidders contacted the seller, all of whom were interested in his offer. The ultimate winner bid more than $1000 and stated, “A low Erd˝os number clearly is a status symbol with value that stretches well beyond the academic community” (quoted in Monastersky 2004, A15). Both the status conferred upon individuals with a low Erd˝os number and the value of such beyond the academic community can be further demonstrated by the numerous blogs on industry websites and in magazines explaining the concept of the Erd˝os number and tracing the Erd˝os number of prominent professionals (e.g., Kishan, 2017; Wolfers, 2008), as well as by the countless examples of mathematicians who trace their collaborative path back to Erd˝os (e.g., Boe, n. d.; Mathers, 2014). The push and pull between individual achievement and the celebration of collaboration is also apparent in the language used by Gizem Karaali (see Fig. 2) in her review of Deborah Heiligman’s book The Boy Who Loved Math, in the AWM Newsletter (Karaali, 2015). Karaali describes the book as an introduction to Paul Erd˝os, “the quirky twentieth century genius whose many collaborators gave us the infamous Erd˝os number,” then playfully exclaims that her own Erd˝os number is 2 and that

Fig. 2 Recent PhDs Rachel Levy and Gizem Karaali set up to give their research talks at the AWM Workshop, 2006 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Antonio, TX. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

418

S. N. Hottinger

she is indeed bragging about that (p. 17). No doubt, I would also brag if I had an Erd˝os number of 2! The Erd˝os Number Project is a whimsical bit of mathematical fun that has become a part of popular culture and promotes mathematics in positive ways. While Erd˝os numbers do indeed celebrate the collaborative work of one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, they also reveal the difficulty inherent in deconstructing the growth in collaborative practice in STEM and the cultural foundation of individual achievement and recognition that continues to shape the academy.

The Association for Women in Mathematics and the Promotion of Collaboration Cultural change is slow. That is clearly evident when we consider the ways that the growth of collaboration in STEM has not yet shifted the culture of individualism that still underpins recognition and achievement in the academy. In this final section, I focus on an analysis of the most recent five years of newsletters of the Association for Women in Mathematics (2015–2019) and the ways in which the AWM Newsletter illustrates that collaboration and individual achievement are not mutually exclusive. Collaboration is discussed or mentioned in the pages of the AWM Newsletter in five general ways: (1) research collaborations in biographical notes of mathematicians (award winner citations, in memoriam notices, or interviews); (2) collaborative opportunities in calls for grants and conference submissions; (3) collaboration as a criteria in job advertisements; (4) collaborations with other professional and advocacy organizations; and, (5) ongoing calls for collaboration between K–12 math teachers and mathematicians. A future, more in-depth study should parse out the different ways these five general categories of collaborative practice in the pages of the AWM Newsletter function to deconstruct the binary between collaboration and individual achievement. For the purpose of this chapter, however, the primary focus of my discussion will be on the establishment of the Research Collaboration Conferences for Women (RCCW) that began with the Women in Numbers (WIN) conference in 2008 and that has continued to grow, more recently with funding provided by an NSF ADVANCE grant (2015–2020). In the focus group study by Misra et al. (2017) summarized earlier, STEM women at the assistant and associate professor ranks frequently commented on the lack of informal mentoring in their home departments and colleges, particularly in male-dominated fields. One woman in the study commented that networking depends on being part of the boys’ club and that was difficult for women, particularly because a lot of the socializing that established these informal networks occurred after 5:00 p.m., which is a difficult time for women with families. Another senior STEM woman acknowledged the reality of these informal networks that developed among men where, “male mentoring happens organically, on the golf course” while women are too busy to socialize with each other and only hang out

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

419

in order to accomplish something concrete (p. 14). According to Misra et al., “For many of the women, this sort of informal collaborative work toward professional development seemed out of reach” (p. 14). A 2019 article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society establishes that this phenomenon is not uncommon, and becomes particularly acute for those who are underrepresented in mathematics (Hogben and Stevens, 2019). In response, various organizations have made an effort to build research communities in mathematics with open application processes; one of these are the Research Collaboration Conferences for Women, sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics. Women interested in organizing an RCCW invite senior women in a subfield of mathematics to propose research problems and run collaboration groups at a week-long conference. Junior faculty, postdocs, and graduate students working in that subfield can apply to participate and, once accepted, are assigned to groups before arriving at the conference. Each group consists of both junior and senior women working together to solve a research problem (see Figs. 3 and 4). After the conference, collaborative work continues through electronic communication and follow-up workshops at larger mathematics conferences, with the eventual goal of publishing a proceedings volume in the AWM Springer book series (Lauter, 2015). For women who work in male-dominated mathematics departments or who are the only mathematicians doing research in their subfield within a department, RCCWs can serve as a formal mechanism for establishing strong collaborative networks that provide the three necessary “R”s for faculty success, according to

Fig. 3 Participants in a 2006 research collaboration working group at the workshop for women in computation topology, University of Minnesota. Photo courtesy of the Women in Computational Topology network

420

S. N. Hottinger

Fig. 4 Participants in a 2006 research collaboration working group at the workshop for women in computation topology, University of Minnesota. Photo courtesy of the Women in Computational Topology network

Misra et al. (2017): resources, recognition, and relationships. Through the NSF ADVANCE grant travel funding is identified to help participants attend the initial week-long RCCW, providing the resources necessary to facilitate the establishment of collaboration networks. Recognition comes in the form of both conference participation and, in many cases, a collaborative publication in a discipline-based conference proceedings through the AWM Springer series or through a special issue of a topical research journal. Although these publications are co-authored, rather than solo-authored, they nevertheless serve to advance mathematical knowledge within specific subfields in mathematics and have achieved a level of respect in the field. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, mathematicians have the opportunity to establish mentoring relationships with both senior women in their field and with peers. Because RCCWs are organized in small- to medium-sized groups, these mentoring relationships have a chance to grow organically in a semi-formal setting (Bauer et al., n. d.). The need for women in mathematics to engage in collaborative research and publication is clear. The Association for Women in Mathematics has established a successful initiative that helps early-career mathematicians gain access to collaborative networks and the components of collaborative work that foster individual achievement and success. But developing scholars also need to be aware of the larger cultural forces that shape institutional policies and individual attitudes and responses toward collaboration. This awareness will enable them to be very strategic about how they engage in collaborative research and scholarship in order to ensure that they do not run up against the underlying expectation of individual achievement that still shapes many of our ideas and practices in the academy. Such strategic awareness may also help address the leaky pipelines in many STEM disciplines, ensuring a more manageable path for underrepresented groups toward the highest levels of academic success.

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

421

References Albers, Donald J., Gerald L. Alexanderson, and Constance Reid. 1986. International mathematical congresses: An illustrated history 1893–1986. Springer-Verlag: New York. Austin, Ann and Roger Baldwin. 1991. Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education and George Washington University. Bauer, Kristine, Erin Chambers, Kathryn Leonard, Fengyan Li, Rebecca Segal, and Katherine Stange. n. d. How to Launch a Research Network. https://awmadvancedotorg.files.wordpress. com/2019/04/howtorn.pdf. Accessed 12/15/2020. Behrens, Heinrich and Peter Luksch. 2011. Mathematics 1868–2008: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 86: 179–194. Boe, Brian. n. d. Fun Stuff. https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/brian/fun-stuff. Accessed 7/26/2020. Bollobás, Béla. 1998. To Prove and Conjecture: Paul Erd˝os and His Mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly 105(3): 209–237. Bozeman, Barry and Elizabeth Corley. 2004. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 33(4): 599–616. Bozeman, Barry, and Jan Youtie. 2018. The Strength in Numbers: The New Science of Team Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brunson, Jason C., et al. 2014. Evolutionary events in a mathematical sciences research collaboration network. Scientometrics 99: 973–998. Cronin, Blaise. 2012. Collaboration in Art and Science: Approaches to Attribution, Authorship, and Acknowledgement. Information and Culture 47(1): 18–37. Day, Kammie, and Michele Eodice. 2001. First Person Squared: A Study of Co-Authoring in the Academy. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. 2001. Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship. PMLA 116(2): 354–369. Flaherty, Colleen. 2020a. ‘You Must Retract This Paper.’ Inside Higher Ed, November 23. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/11/23/journal-faces-backlash-publishingarticle-female-mentorship. Accessed 12/22/2020. Flaherty, Colleen. 2020b. Retracting a Bad Take on Female Mentorship. Inside Higher Ed, December 22. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/12/22/retracting-bad-take-femalementorship. Accessed 12/22/2020. Foucault, Michel. 1998. What is an Author? In Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, edited by James D. Faubion and translated by Robert Hurley and others. New York: The New Press. Grossman, Jerrold. 2005. Patterns of Research in Mathematics. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 52(1): 35–41. Grossman, Jerrold. n. d. The Erd˝os Number Project. https://oakland.edu/enp/. Accessed 7/26/2020. Gruber, Thorsten. 2014. Academic sell-out: how an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24(2): 165–177. Hogben, Leslie and T. Christine Stevens. 2019. Joining a mathematical research community. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 66(7): 1101–1107. Huang, Dei-wang. 2015. Temporal evolution of multi-author papers in basic sciences from 1960 to 2010. Scientometrics 105: 2137–2147. International Mathematical Union (IMU). n. d. Fields Medal. https://www.mathunion.org/imuawards/fields-medal. Accessed 7/26/2020. Karaali, Gizem. 2015. Book Review column. AWM Newsletter 45(4): 17–19. Katz, J. Sylvan and Ben Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26: 1–18. Kezar, Adrianna and Jaime Lester. 2009. Organizing Higher Education for Collaboration: A Guide for Campus Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kishan, Saijel. 2017. Six degrees of quant: Kevin Bacon and the Erdos [sic] number mystery. Bloomberg News. https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/six-degrees-quantkevin-bacon-erdos-number-mystery/. Accessed 7/26/2020.

422

S. N. Hottinger

Kramer, Melody. 2018. The Erd˝os paradox: When a mathematical number and Wikipedia collide. Diff (February 27). https://diff.wikimedia.org/2018/02/27/erdos-paradox/. Accessed 7/26/2020. Lauter, Kristin. 2015. President’s Report. AWM Newsletter 45(6): 1–6. Mathers, Colin. 2014. My Erd˝os number drops to 4. https://colinmathers.com/2014/05/22/myerdos-number-drops-to-4-i-doubt-it-will-go-lower/. Accessed 7/26/2020. Mendelson, Dana. 2015. Nonlinear dispersive equations with random initial data. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DSpace@MIT: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/ 99324. Accessed 8/1/2020. Menger-Anderson, Kirsten. 2018. Who’s important? A tale from Wikipedia. Medium (February 9). https://medium.com/q-e-d/whos-important-a-tale-from-wikipedia-a370dc6ef078. Accessed 7/26/2020. Mihaljevi´c-Brandt, Helena, Lucia Santamaría, and Marco Tullney. 2016. The effect of gender in the publication patterns in mathematics. PLoS ONE 11(10): e0165367. Misra, Joy, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Gabriela Weaver, Jennifer Normanly. 2017. Collaboration and gender equity among academic scientists. Social Sciences 6: article 25. Monastersky, Richard. 2004. Hot type: Co-author for sale. Chronicle of Higher Education 50(38): A15. Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). 2004. Citation and Biography of the 2004 Abel Prize Winners. https://www.abelprize.no/c53865/binfil/download.php?tid=53806. Accessed 7/26/2020. Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). 2008. Citation and Biography of the 2008 Abel Prize Winners. https://www.abelprize.no/c53860/binfil/download.php?tid=53795. Accessed 7/26/2020. Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). 2015. Citation and Biography of the 2015 Abel Prize Winners. https://www.abelprize.no/c63466/binfil/download.php?tid=63545. Accessed 7/26/2020. Papatsiba, Vassiliki. 2013. The idea of collaboration in the academy: Its epistemic and social potentials and risks for knowledge generation. Policy Futures in Education 11(4): 436–448. Park, John Jongho, Nathan Hyungsok Choe, Diane Schallert, and Alexander Forbis. 2017. The chemical engineering research laboratory as context for graduate students’ training: The role of lab structure and cultural climate in collaborative work. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction 13: 113–122. Princeton University Graduate School. n. d. Dissertation and FPO. https://gradschool.princeton. edu/academics/degree-requirements/phd-advising-and-requirements/dissertation-and-fpo. Accessed 7/14/2020. Scager, Karin et al. 2016. Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE Life Sciences Education 15(4): ar69. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0219. Sergel, Emily. 2016. The Combinatorics of nabla pn and connections to the Rational Shuffle Conjecture. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Accessed 8/1/2020. Sonnenwald, Diane. 2007. Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41(1): 643–681. Stanford University. 2019–2020. Stanford Bulletin. https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/. Accessed 7/26/2020. Sugimoto, Cassidy, Vincent Larivière, Chaoqun Ni, Yves Gingras, and Blaise Cronin. 2013. Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504, December 12: 211–213. Uhly, Katrina M., Laura M. Visser, and Kathrin S. Zippel. 2017. Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academic. Studies in Higher Education 42(4): 760–782. Walsh, Lorraine and Peter Kahn. 2009. Collaborative Working in higher education: The social academy. New York: Routledge. West, Jevin, Jennifer Jacquet, Molly King, Shelley Correll, and Carl Bergstrom. 2013. The role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS One 8(7): e66212.

Gender and the Cultural Construction of Individualism and Collaboration

423

Wolfers, Justin. 2008. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon: Economists’ version. https://freakonomics. com/2008/04/01/six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon-economists-version/. Accessed 7/26/2020. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007a. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316 (5827): 1036–1039. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007b. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Supplementary material. Science. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ full/1136099/DC1 Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. n. d. Dissertations. https://gsas.yale.edu/ academic-requirements/dissertations. Accessed 8/1/2020. Zippel, Kathrin. 2017. Women in global science: Advancing academic careers through international collaboration. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Part VII

Reflecting on Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?: Degrees, Rank, and Salary L. Billard

Introduction It is almost fifty years since the Association for Women in Mathematics was formed (in 1971), and since Title IX (in 1972), part of the Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender in educational institutions in the United States (US). While there has been some progress towards achieving that equity, unfortunately that progress still leaves much to be desired. Indeed, perceptions of the present day attainments are not matched by the data. This article updates the situation described earlier in Billard (1991). As a generalized assessment, when comparing women and men, overall, there have been improvements for women in initial hires, the gap between promotion and tenure rates for men and women is unchanged, and the salary gap has widened. Given the worsening disparity between the academic salaries of women and men, we also look at ways to help bring the women’s salaries into parity with their men colleagues. The core structural approach to address this issue was laid down by Scott (1977) with subsequent important advances in, e.g., Gray and Scott (1980) and Gray (1993). Billard (2017) describes some of the common pitfalls often encountered when trying to evaluate salary differences and also provides a new recommendation as to how adjustments should be made, an approach deemed to be more equitable to both men and women.

L. Billard () University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_37

427

L. Billard 100

100

428

Men Women

60 20

40

Percent PhD Degrees

60 40 0

0

20

Percent Bachelor Degrees

80

80

Men Women

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

1960

1970

Year

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year

Fig. 1 Mathematical sciences, percentages by gender: BS degrees (left), PhD degrees (right)

Thus, firstly, we look at the numbers of men and women earning bachelors degrees (BS1 ) in the mathematical sciences (mathematics and statistics, not including computer sciences) and the numbers earning doctoral degrees (PhD) in the US, and thence the rates of progression from the BS to the PhD degrees. Then, we consider the differing tenure rates and compositions by ranks of men and women in the US. This is followed by a discussion of salary issues ending with a suggestion for how to move towards salary equity.

Progression to Doctoral Degree Since attaining faculty status usually involves obtaining the doctoral degree (PhD), let us take a brief look at the pipeline of mathematically related training. Thus, Fig. 1 (left panel) shows the percentages of all the bachelors of science (BS) degrees in the mathematical sciences over the years 1965–2012, that were awarded to men (upper blue asterisks) and to women (lower red triangles), respectively. Figure 1 (right panel) shows the corresponding percentages for PhD degrees. Note these are percentages of all such degrees; thus as the percentage that go to women increases, so must there be a commensurate decrease in the percentage awarded to men. [Data numbers are obtained from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Sciences and Engineering Indicators tables of degrees from US institutions. These were published every other year between 1965 and 2012.] Plots of the rates of progression from BS to PhD for the mathematical sciences for men and women, respectively, are shown in Fig. 2. These are calculated based

1 This

includes BA degrees; for compactness, we write simply BS.

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?

429

10 5 0

Percent PhD Progression

15

Men Women

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year Fig. 2 Mathematical sciences: Percentage progression from BS to PhD

on an assumption that on average there is a five-year time lag to progress from a BS to a PhD degree. I.e., for each gender, progression from year x =

number PhD in year (x + 5) × 100%. number BS in year x

(1)

From these, it is clear that, for both men and women, higher percentages of those who have graduated with a BS in the mathematical sciences are going on to complete doctoral degrees than in the past.2 There remains the unanswered question as to why the gap between the percentage of men who successfully continued to the PhD and the corresponding percentage of women, has essentially remained the same over fifty years.

2 Some PhD degrees from US institutions are awarded to those with bachelors degrees from outside the US; for the present purposes, it is assumed this occurs approximately constantly across genders, and that the relative results of Fig. 2 pertain.

430

L. Billard

40

Full−M Assistant−W

30

Percent in Rank

50

60

Full−M Full−W Associate−M Associate−W Assistant−M Assistant−W

Associate−W Associate−M

20

Full−W Assistant−M

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Calendar Year Fig. 3 Percentage in rank, Category I institutions: Full professors (Full), associate professors (Associate), assistant professors (Assistant); Within gender: Men (M), Women (W)

Academic Growth A critical issue in the story of whether or not equity exists today in academia is the growth of academic faculty as measured by the progression up the professorial ranks and attainment of tenure status. For each gender separately, Fig. 3 shows the percentage of all faculty, across all disciplines and so not just those in the mathematical sciences, across all US Category I3 institutions by rank, from 1994 to 2018 (obtained from the relevant AAUP Academe March issues containing “The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession”). Here, Category I universities are defined as those engaged in research as well as the usual instructional missions of higher education institutions. Thus, e.g., in 1994, 44.4%, 28.1%, and 21.6% of all men faculty were full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, respectively, while 18.2%, 27.4%, and 37.5% of all women faculty were full professors, associate

3 Categories are as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); Category I: PhD-granting, Category II: Masters- and Bachelors-granting, and Category III: Associate-granting with ranks

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?

431

100

100

professors, and assistant professors, respectively; 69.3% over all ranks were men faculty, with 30.7% being women faculty. An implication of these data, not shown in the plots of Fig. 3, is that higher proportions of women are in “Other” ranks (such as lecturers) than are men. It is observed that in the 1990s a higher percentage of the new assistant professor hires were women, but these did not translate equally to promotion up through the ranks to full professor. Some were promoted to associate professors; but we see that proportionately more of the associate professors are women, a reflection of the fact (not studied herein) that women stay in rank longer than do men before being promoted up, if at all. Euben (2001) showed a gap of 7.38 years longer that women resided in the lower ranks compared to men; see also Shaw (2007). When comparing faculty composition summed over all ranks (Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Other ranks), the data of Fig. 4 (left panel) pertain. This figure includes the percentage distribution of all faculty who are men and women for both Category I and Category I–III institutions. Thus, the percentages of men faculty are certainly decreasing with a commensurate increase in the percentages of faculty who are women. However, as we saw in Fig. 3, women are staying in the lower ranks longer. This is particularly evident in Fig. 4 (right panel) where the distributions for full professors are shown. Unquestionably, women are not yet attaining full professor status in proportion to their hiring numbers. A comparison of the plots in Fig. 4 for Category I and Category I–III institutions, tells us that the disparities for Category I institutions are larger than are those for the Category II and Category III institutions. The latter institutions have a greater instructional focus on the workload requirements than do the research-oriented Category I institutions. The gap between the genders, for each rank, has largely persisted with little change across these years. The numbers for women have increased, but their

60

80

Men − Category I Women − Category I Men − Category I−III Women − Category I−III

20

40

Percent by Gender

60 40 0

0

20

Percent by Gender

80

Men − Category I Women − Category I Men − Category I−III Women − Category I−III

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

1990

1995

2000

Year

Fig. 4 Rank distribution by gender: All ranks (left), full professors (right)

2005 Year

2010

2015

2020

432

L. Billard

80

Men Women

60 50

Percent Tenured

70

Men

30

40

Women

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Calendar Year

Fig. 5 Percentage tenured by gender

percentage compositions have not. To some, this is perhaps surprisingly so given the widely held notion that things have improved. Indeed, to the contrary, these data show that the reality does not match such perceptions. Previous arguments that the pipeline did not have enough women faculty to be promoted can no longer be sustained these thirty years later. The same disparity is seen when looking at the percentages tenured, shown in Fig. 5, for all institutions (except Category IV), from 1975 to 2018. [The data come from Academe, except those for 2016–2018 which come from the National Center for Educational Statistics.] These give the percentages of men (upper blue line) who are tenured, and the percentages of women (lower red line) who are tenured. As for promotion rates, the gap between the genders has continued to exist and is essentially unchanged, again contradicting perceptions that these growth statistics have improved.

Salary and How to Correct for Differences As for promotion and tenure, discussed in the previous section, the percentage gap between men’s and women’s average salaries has persisted and is largely unchanged since the 1970s. Figure 6 (left panel) shows the percent deficit of women’s average salaries compared to their men counterparts by rank, across all disciplines, for

20000

433

Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor

$ Deficit

10

5000

5

10000

15000

15

Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor

0

0

Deficit as Percent of Men's Salary

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

1970

Year

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year

Fig. 6 Women’s salary deficits, Category I institutions: Percent difference (left), Difference in $s (right)

Category I institutions, i.e., for the years 1975–2019, women’s average salary deficit =

men’s average salary − women’s average salary × 100%. men’s average salary

(2)

Thus, e.g., full professor women’s average salaries have hovered around 90% of the full professor men’s average salaries, while the deficits for associate professors have seen a slight increase from just under 5% in the 1970s to a deficit in the range of 7% in the 2010s. Percent deficits for the average salaries of assistant professor women have fluctuated widely between those for full and associate professors. Those are percentage deficits. However, because salary levels have risen considerably since the 1970s, this means that the actual dollar difference has increased sharply, as shown in Fig. 6 (right panel). Since it is apparent that salary differences continue to exist, let us now consider one approach to correcting the situation at any given unit. A unit is defined as a single department, or a combination of departments (see Billard (2017) as to how and what departments could be aggregated to form suitable units). To illustrate the methodology, we analyze the data displayed in Fig. 7; the men’s salaries (blue asterisks) are those from the mathematical sciences for an unknown year at an undisclosed institution, and suitably transformed so as to disguise any one person’s salary, while the women’s salaries (red triangles) also include some from the physical sciences. The essential methodology revolves around regression techniques as initially introduced in this setting by Scott (1977). The regression model defines the relationship between a response variable Y and predictor variables X = (X1 , . . . , Xp ). For concreteness, we shall suppose this is a

L. Billard 70000

434

Men

50000

Women

30000

40000

Salary

60000

Men − Correct Model Women − Correct Model Incorrect Model

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Years Fig. 7 Salary by years (since higher degree), regression by gender

linear relationship between the response Y = salary, here, and one predictor variable X = Years (for years since PhD degree). We also need an indicator variable for gender with gender = 0 for men and gender = 1 for women. Then, the model is Y = β0 + β1 X + β2 gender + β3 X ∗ gender + 

(3)

where  is the error term. The model parameters are β = (β0 , . . . , β3 ). The parameters are estimated by least squares methods and/or maximum likelihood methods for a given distribution of the error terms; see any of the many elementary texts on regression modeling, e.g., Seber and Lee (2012), Montgomery et al. (2012). For the data of Fig. 7, we obtain the fitted model Yˆ = 38799 + 671.740X − 1078.582 gender − 401.553X ∗ gender.

(4)

When gender = 0 for men and gender =1 for women, these become, respectively, Yˆmen = 38799 + 671.740X

(5)

Yˆwomen = 37720 + 270.187X.

(6)

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?

435

These regression equations are shown in Fig. 7, the blue line corresponding to the regression line through the men’s salaries and the red line being that through the women’s salaries. Unfortunately, the literature contains many examples when the incorrect model is used whereby the gender interaction term with (each) predictor variable is omitted. That is, the oft-used but incorrect model is Y = β0 + β1 X + β2 gender + .

(7)

For these data, this gives the (incorrect) fitted model as Yˆ = 38998 + 657.982X − 4491.438 gender.

(8)

When gender = 0 for men and gender = 1 for women, these become, respectively, Yˆmen = 38998 + 657.982X

(9)

Yˆwomen = 34506.562 + 657.982X.

(10)

These regression equations are shown in Fig. 7 by the green dashed lines. Notice these are parallel lines. Notice also that for larger values of the predictor variable X (i.e., as the number of years increases), apparent differences between men’s and women’s salaries seem to be smaller than they really are. Clearly, the model in Eq. (7), and hence Eqs. (8)–(10), is incorrect and should not be used. One approach to removing identified inequities is to rotate the regression (of Eq. (6)) through the women’s salaries so as to match that regression (of Eq. (5)) through the men’s salaries; see Billard (2017) for details. This methodology recognizes that some men have below average salaries for a variety of reasons such as lower productivity compared to their more productive colleagues, as well as salary compression or inversion; likewise, for women. By rotating the women’s regression line to match that for men, both women and men will have salaries scattered above and below the regression line. This is fairer to both men and women, fairer for the men with below average salaries and also fairer for those (few, clearly exceptional) women with salaries above the men’s average salaries. One consequence of this approach is that the total of all adjustments to women’s salaries will be lower in dollars than it would be if the AAUP approach (of Scott, 1977) is adopted. While this would be more appealing to administrators and less so to some women, it results in more justice and fairness to all faculty, surely a desirable goal. A more extensive study of how these salary inequities can be addressed can be found in Billard (2017). This includes a discussion of the importance of including the gender-interaction terms in the model, how best to aggregate departments into appropriate units for analysis, consideration of possible choices of predictor

436

L. Billard

variables, as well as a detailed study of why tainted variables such as rank should not be included (even though this may be an intuitive choice, but in fact rank should not be used as a predictor variable). Apart from other issues, including tainted variables in the model has the effect of making salary inequities seem to be smaller than they really are. Scott (1977) includes detailed analyses of the effects of including different prediction variables. That study also warns against the use of rank as a predictor variable especially as its inclusion results in underestimating existing inequities, and the study goes on to explain that since expectations regarding productivity and related measures are usually consistent within a given unit, there is no need for their use; this assumes it is possible to obtain such information for all men and all women within a unit, a very difficult goal to achieve in fact. Such data even so would still be tainted since it is well documented that it is harder for women to have their papers published than it is for men (see, e.g., Eagly and Carli, 2003; Jagsi et al., 2006), though the playing-field is leveled somewhat if doubleblind refereeing of submissions dominates. Gray (1990, 1993) and Gray and Scott (1980) are also useful resources on this question.

Conclusion More women are completing bachelors and doctoral degrees in the mathematical sciences. Increased numbers of women are being hired into the starting ranks of academia. However, disappointingly, as all these studies have illustrated, and despite perceptions to the contrary, it becomes abundantly clear that inequities continue to exist for academic women as compared to their men counterparts; indeed, differences as measured in percentages have barely changed in the almost fifty years since Title IX came into being. A few years after (Sandler, 2000) concluded that the “struggle for educational equity” has a long way to go, (West and Curtis, 2006) also concluded that the “ceiling (is still) rigid” and that “inequities persist.” The data presented in this article do not contradict these conclusions, unfortunately.

References Billard, Lynne. 1991. The past present and future of academic women in the mathematical sciences. American Mathematical Society Notices 38: 707–714. Billard, Lynne. 2017. Study of salary differentials by gender and discipline. Journal of Statistics and Public Policy 4: 1–14. Eagly, Alice H. and Linda L. Carli. 2003. The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly 14 807–834. Euben, Donna. 2001. “Show me the money”: Pay equity in the academy. Academe 87: 30–33. Gray, Mary W. 1990. Achieving pay equity on campus. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

Has There Been Progress for Academic Women Since Title IX?

437

Gray, Mary W. 1993. Can statistics tell us what we do not want to hear? The case of complex salary structures. Statistical Science 8: 144–179. Gray, Mary W. and Elizabeth L. Scott. 1980. A “statistical” remedy for statistically identified discrimination. Academe 66: 174–181. Jagsi, Reshma, Elizabeth A. Guancial, Cynthia Cooper Worobey, Lori E. Henault, Yuchiao Chang, Rebecca Starr, Nancy J. Tarbell, and Elaine M. Hylek. 2006. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—A 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 281–287. Montgomery, Douglas C., Elizabeth A. Peck, and G. Geoffrey Vining. 2012. Introduction to linear regression analysis. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sandler, Bernice R. 2000. “Too strong for a woman”—The five words that created Title IX. Equity and Excellence in Education 33: 9–13. Scott, Elizabeth L. 1977. Higher education salary evaluation kit. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Seber, George A. F. and Alan J. Lee. 2012. Linear regression analysis. 2nd. ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Shaw, Ines S. 2007. Issues after tenure. NSWA Journal 19(3): 7–14. West, Martha S. and John W. Curtis. 2006. AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay Marjorie Senechal

The Way It Was Midway through my PhD, I nervously gave my first-ever talk to an AMS meeting at the University of California in Berkeley. Olga Taussky Todd introduced herself to me afterwards with a cheery “Welcome to mathematics!” I was thrilled. Thrilled, but wary. Welcome to what? I knew that neither she, nor Julia Robinson nor Emma Lehmer, the other female superstars I met that weekend, held academic positions anywhere commensurate with their achievements. Come to think of it, they were the only women I met there. In 1963, the AMS was a back-slapping Old Boys’ Club. What was I getting into? Ironically, math itself—statistics—and a female statistician, Elizabeth L. Scott, would be the Old Boys’ Club’s undoing. Amanda Golbeck dedicates her biography, Equivalence: Elizabeth L. Scott at Berkeley (Golbeck, 2017), to the memory of women who were • discouraged from applying to graduate school because they were expected to become homemakers; • overlooked for fellowships and other financial support because they were married; • relegated to lesser positions because they were trained in the same field as their husbands; • denied tenure-ladder positions because it was presumed they would marry and leave the academy; • discouraged from applying for academic promotions because they were women;

M. Senechal () Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_38

439

440

M. Senechal

• paid lesser academic salaries because they were presumed to be geographically immobile; • needing, but had no access to, childcare on campus, and other such. Of course there weren’t many women at that AMS meeting! Someone had to stay home with the kids. These roadblocks were corollaries to the problem of educated women in American society more generally, a time when “woman mathematician” was even funnier than “woman driver.” The problem had no name. It’s just the way it was. You learned to live with it. The writer Isabel Wilkerson, discussing the subtleties of caste systems (Wilkerson, 2020), compares the caste mindset to the owners of an old, deteriorating house: When people live in an old house, they come to adjust to the idiosyncrasies and outright dangers skulking in an old structure. They put buckets under a wet ceiling, prop up groaning floors, learn to step over that rotting wood tread in the staircase. The awkward becomes acceptable, and the unacceptable becomes merely inconvenient. Live with it long enough, and the unthinkable becomes normal. Exposed over the generations, we learn to believe that the incomprehensible is the way that life is supposed to be.

Though she’s describing America’s racial caste system, it fits the post-war gendered caste system to a T. The problem with no name got one in 1963, the year of that AMS meeting: it’s the feminine mystique. Betty Friedan’s book of that title yanked open the curtains of American homes. Forget about Marie Curie and Sonya Kovalevskaya! Girls of that era were taught to desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own femininity . . . pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted to be poets or physicists or presidents . . . truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights—the independence and opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for. (Friedan, 1963, p. 2)

Desire no greater destiny or, failing that, pretend to. “Why can’t you be like Sara,” I can still hear my mother insist. (She found me insufficiently self-effacing in high school. Sara was a neighbor whose kids I babysat.) “Sara has a college degree, but you’d never know it!” My mother, who had majored in English at New York University, prided herself on faking the docile housewife. A woman’s happiness lay in her husband’s, she told me. He was her meal ticket. Friedan describes Adlai Stevenson’s 1955 address to the graduating seniors at her alma mater, Smith College, the nation’s largest college for women: Modern women’s participation in politics is through her role as wife and mother, said the spokesman of democratic liberalism. “Women, especially educated women, have a unique opportunity to influence us, man and boy.” The only problem is woman’s failure to appreciate that her true part in the political crisis is as wife and mother. I cringe to recall that I proudly voted for him the next year. Ten years later, when I began teaching at that same college, the mystique still lingered in its very fabric. Though its alumnae roster is a Who’s Who of Notable American Women an expensively-produced recruitment brochure assured prospective students that Smith would challenge but not rattle them. At Smith, we

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay

441

don’t take ourselves too seriously. We don’t try to change the world; we strive for “gracious and thoughtful behavior.” The goal of a Smith education, I heard its president say, is to “make your mind a nice place to live in for the rest of your life.”

From Farm to Faculty I grew up on a farm near Lexington, Kentucky. Not a horse farm or a tobacco farm like its neighbors: this farm was the now-famous (or infamous) Narcotic Farm, a Public Health Service hospital for 1100 incarcerated drug addicts on as many acres of rolling bluegrass. My father, a doctor, worked in its Addiction Research Center, trying to find a cure. I had the run of the place, and hung out with prisoners from many walks of life. They taught me how to grow watermelons and fly kites. The champion boxer Barney Ross gave me a lesson. And the jazz was world-class.1 I attended schools in Lexington, but left high school early for the University of Chicago. There I read Great Books, but I also had to major in something. I had no career plans; I was fleeing my mother’s life of afternoon bridge games. I chose math because I enjoyed it, because I was good at it, and because my father refused to pay tuition for courses outside the sciences. (He himself had majored in German, I learned later. The Nazis’ destruction of his cousins in the old country destroyed his faith in Bach and Goethe.) There were a few other women in my math classes at the University of Chicago, but none in its math faculty. Physics had one, with the curious title Volunteer Professor. Yet, I heard, she was even more eminent in her field than her husband, a chemist, was in his. Indeed, Maria Goeppert Mayer would share the 1963 Nobel prize in physics. Despite dire warnings of a lonely, unfulfilled life, I found graduate school the best of my post-bachelor options. But which graduate school? I wanted to stay in Chicago, so UC was the obvious choice. I’d had great teachers there, and I liked the Hyde Park neighborhood. But UC meant a year of cramming for a single make-or-break, up-or-out, oral exam. I wanted to try my hand at other facets of the profession, like research, teaching, and writing. A family friend at the University of Kentucky suggested the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), halfway to the city center. IIT’s master’s program was just what I wanted: the requisite courses and exams of course, but I would also do a research project and write a thesis on it, and teach undergraduates, not as a teaching assistant but in classes of my own. A 1940 merger of Chicago’s Armour Institute and László Moholy-Nagy’s “new Bauhaus,” IIT had a grassy, glassy campus designed by its Dean of Architecture, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Lester R. Ford, later editor of the American Mathematical Monthly and president of the MAA, skillfully rolled the mergees’ math departments into one. He

1 For

more on my unusual childhood: see Senechal (n. d.).

442

M. Senechal

chaired it for its first decade, attracting world-renowned European mathematicians fleeing the horrors of World War II. We’d admit you, but there’s a problem, Ford’s successor explained when I applied. The graduate students shared one large office; he’d have to find some other space for me. Why can’t I join the guys? I asked him. He couldn’t think of any reason, so I did. I was IIT’s first female math grad student, but it already had a female professor. Josephine Mehlberg, a Polish mathematician, had emigrated with her husband (and former fellow student) Henryk to Chicago after the war. Henryk Mehlberg taught logic at the University of Chicago; I had taken several of his classes but I did not meet Josephine then. When I enrolled at IIT, she was welcoming and supportive, and we became friends. But I didn’t know, until my internet search for background for this essay, that she had been a heroine of the Polish resistance. I finished my PhD at IIT (in analytic number theory, with Abe Sklar) in absentia in 1965, and soon reality struck. A year or so earlier, my then-husband had finished his (also in math) and was offered a job at the University of Arizona. Marjorie will finish soon, he told its math department chair. Will there be a position for her too? Of course, he replied. We’ll be happy to have her. So to Tucson we went. A year and a half later, degree in hand and babe in arms, I asked the chair to redeem his promise. I can’t hire you, he said. The university has strict nepotism laws. But you knew that when you lured us here, I protested. Of course, he replied, but I thought that once you had kids you’d forget about math. In fact (I reveal this for the very first time), I taught a course at the University of Arizona: an 8 a.m. section of pre-calculus assigned to my husband, to his dismay. So I taught it for him: gave the lectures, held office hours, made up and marked the exams. (He turned in the grades.) The students never knew that I was the wrong Professor Senechal, and the math department chair never knew at all. But stealth-subbing was not a long-term solution, so we looked elsewhere. Western Massachusetts has a plethora of excellent four-year colleges, and the University of Massachusetts was expanding its math department. UMass offered my husband (of course) a job. We visited the area and I looked around the colleges for a job of my own. Don’t try to line one up now, a sympathetic professor at Smith told me. The colleges aren’t interested in helping UMass hire. Something will turn up once you’re here. Nothing turned up on our arrival but, soon after we decided to have a second child, Smith asked me to sub for a year, for a woman expecting a baby. Me too, I replied, but that’s no problem, it’s due in Smith’s spring vacation. I was hired, the baby arrived on schedule, and my husband covered my classes for the next week.

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay

443

Then, baby in basket, I finished the semester. I still treasure the pillowcase a student embroidered for her. The incumbent resigned. I stayed on for the next 40 years. Smith’s excellent students were a delight to teach; the math department was small and, for the most part, congenial; and the faculty had some outstanding intellects and characters (Senechal, 2013). Scholarship was valued and could take many forms: research papers, textbooks, expository articles. I had the freedom to change fields and directions within them, and did. And, after decades of nurturing wives for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton men, Smith now welcomed women of all classes and races to its country-club-like campus. A friend, of my vintage, in the English department set aside her own scholarship to coach and tutor inner-city students after class. The grateful president of the college called to thank her.

Unraveling the Fabric of the Mystique By 1966, my first year at Smith, the feminine mystique was fraying but some threads remained taut. Here are a few that frapped me at the time: • A (senior, female) math-department colleague learned that she was being paid less than male faculty with similar resumes. When she complained to the college president, he replied, “No pipsqueak of a woman is getting a salary like that from me.” • I was appointed to the faculty committee on exceptions to rules. Students could petition to reschedule a final exam, should its posted date prove inconvenient. We received many petitions, most for the same reason: the date conflicted with her debutante ball in Boston or New York. Of course the poor dear can take the test another time! the committee clucked sympathetically. I—alone—voted no. • Smith had no provisions for childcare or family leave. Theretofore, this hadn’t been a problem: most of the older, eminent women on the faculty were single and (therefore) childless, and most of the (very few) who were mothers taught parttime. New hires were largely male because, I was told, the college was upgrading itself. Smith even had a men’s club, hosted by the president. • Then as now, reappointment, tenure, and promotion were fraught. But the reasons, then and now, were different. In those days the process was secret and vague. Senior members of the departments reached consensus somehow and forwarded it to the college-wide, elected, Committee on Tenure and Promotion, otherwise known as T&P. The president chaired it, voting only to break ties. The process was so secret that some candidates didn’t know they were being considered. What are the tenure criteria? I asked a senior colleague. Excellent teaching, first and foremost, she replied, and scholarship of some sort. But, she warned, those might not be enough. T&P looks out for the interests of

444

M. Senechal

the college as a whole. You might just not be the right fit at the time. Or the college may want to hire in another field. Or maybe your department is underenrolled and should be downsized. What? I screeched. Tenure can be denied for reasons wholly external to your record? Yes, she said, but don’t take yourself so seriously. If you don’t get tenure, you’ll find something else to do. In my tenure-decision year, T&P weighed 12 cases. Six were granted, six denied. Somehow I made it through, though no one in the department asked me about my scholarship or for input of any kind. I felt badly for my six unlucky colleagues. One was the friend in the English department I mentioned above. When she asked why she’d been turned down, a senior colleague told her (unofficially) that she’d unwisely neglected her scholarship. Had the president never told the committee he’d thanked her for setting it aside? Suspecting that the real reason was her overwhelmingly male department’s disdain for women, she (with another refusee) filed a complaint in 1972. After a six-year battle in and out of the courts (during which both found better jobs elsewhere), the case was settled without prejudice (Smith College v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 1978). The two women had done Smith an invaluable service in those six years: they forced the college to face the mirror. Not incidentally, Smith appointed its first woman president, Jill Kerr Conway, in 1975. My outrage on my friend’s behalf had landed me on a hastily-convened but weightily-charged pan-college Ad Hoc Committee to Study Tenure and Promotion. We set out to learn how things were done elsewhere, each of us culling our professional networks. I wrote to Elizabeth Scott at Berkeley, co-chair of its Subcommittee on the Status of Academic Women (1970). She sent me its 78-page report, written a few years before, with a note: This report is now somewhat out of date, but our problems have not really changed. In particular Berkeley does not yet have an approved Affirmative Action Plan (which would be directly concerned with procedures and policies of appointments and reappointments, tenure, part-time work, etc. I hope the Report will be of value to you. (Scott, 1973)

In fact, the report was invaluable. There is real power in numbers: the numbers Scott was then compiling, and the number of women around the country who were confronting the mystique. Our committee effected lasting change in Smith’s procedures and policies. “Tenure-tracks” now lead to decisions; they can’t be reimagined or removed along the way. Candidates now make the case for themselves, with CVs, statements, and dossiers. And much more. In a private meeting with Jill Conway soon after she settled in, we, a small group of young women faculty, suggested candidates for senior administrative positions. She followed our advice for the most part (Greene, 2004). Jill’s presidency transformed us, and the college too.

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay

445

It has been my great privilege to work with such creative administrators as Jill Conway and her successors Ruth Simmons and Carol Christ. The story has come full circle: today Carol Christ is the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley.

Reweaving the Fabric of Our Profession In a 1973 issue of the AMS Notices Cathleen Morawetz published a brief description of a typical woman PhD mathematician, based largely on responses to a questionnaire I don’t remember receiving. Even so, modulo a few edits (not made below), the description fit me pretty well: She was born in the United States and received her PhD before the age of 30 and within the last five years. She is married and has children. Her husband is also a mathematician and supports her professional efforts enthusiastically. Her job prospects are limited because she cannot move unless her husband gets a suitable job also. She has achieved roughly what she set out for, however, and is perfectly competent and is reasonably content about her future. . . . The school is almost certainly not one of the prestigious schools. (Morawetz, 1973)

I did receive a questionnaire from Cathleen requesting data for a directory of women mathematicians: my name, address, title, institution or employer, highest degree received and year, title of thesis and name of supervisor, citizenship, fields of mathematical interest, and other interests (e.g., administration). And bibliographic details of my five most important publications. Say what? At that time my sister Norma, a sociologist (and a frenemy of Betty Friedan), was writing a book on professional women’s decisions to have, or not to have, children (Fabe and Wikler, 1979). She ran ideas by me in 5 a.m. phone calls. What did I think of the title Up Against the Clock? You’ve got it! I shot back. I’m up at 5, even on the days you don’t wake me, to prepare my classes. I get the girls up around 6, fix them breakfast and help them get dressed, then I drive us from Amherst across the Connecticut river to Northampton. I drop them off at the Smith College Campus School, and then rush across the campus to my 9:00 class in the Science Center. And then on to my next class, and then I have an office hour, and then instead of lunch with colleagues in the faculty club, I pick up Jennifer from the kindergarten and hand her over to a student babysitter. I teach again at 2, at 3:30 I collect both girls and we head home, stopping for groceries along the way. While they play, I cook dinner. They go to bed at 8, and then I tackle the stacks of homework on my desk. That’s my life! Up against the clock! Great title! I don’t mean that clock, she said.

446

M. Senechal

Five papers? I asked Cathleen. (Subtext: written when? Between midnight and 5 a.m.?) I’m sorry, Cathleen replied, but we only have room to list your five best. That’s why, a decade after Olga welcomed me to mathematics, I was still wary. Would papers continue to be the only measure of the mathematician? Would the new AWM join the Old Boys, like I’d joined the guys, and become just like them? Or would it also restructure the profession and its reward system? What about the talks we give, the reviews we write, the conferences we organize? And our mentoring, and public outreach? What about our clocks? You know the answer: the AWM quickly broadened and deepened, making the profession I was wary of into one of which I’m proud (Greenwald et al., 2015). But reweaving takes many hands, many threads, and many years. In 1991, the October AMS meeting in Philadelphia coincided with the US Senate hearings on Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court. We were shocked into action by the evening news. Jean Taylor and I circulated a statement to as many women participants as we could find; they signed it, some men did too, and it was published in the AWM Newsletter (Senechal and Taylor, 1992): We are deeply distressed by the nature of Senator Arlen Specter’s questioning of Professor Anita Hill. It indicates that he has no conception of what it is like to be a professional woman. . . . The ability to ignore and to repress has usually been an asset, and it has been what society has expected of us. To now fault a woman for this is unconscionable.

We must create a climate in which inappropriate behavior need not be tolerated, by declaring that it will not be tolerated. Some people have compared Anita Hill to Rosa Parks. But Rosa Parks would be forgotten today if the blacks in Montgomery had continued to ride in the back of the bus.

The metaphor, and the message, are still timely today. Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, Caste, may be today’s Feminine Mystique. The curtains have parted again to show our profession, and American society, what still must be rewoven. Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank Amanda Golbeck, Meg Thacher, Maryjane Wraga, and several anonymous referees for their help and suggestions. I dedicate this paper to the memory of my sister Norma Juliet Wikler.

References Fabe, Marilyn and Norma Wikler. 1979. Up against the clock: Career women speak on the choice to have children. New York: Random House. Friedan, Betty. 1963. The feminine mystique. New York: W. W. Norton. Golbeck, Amanda. 2017. Equivalence: Elizabeth L. Scott at Berkeley. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Greene, David A. 2004. The women’s movement and the politics of change at a women’s college: Jill Conway at Smith, 1975–1985. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Welcome to What?: A Personal Essay

447

Greenwald, Sarah J., Anne M. Leggett, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century Mathematical intelligencer 37: 11–21. Morawetz, Cathleen. 1973. Women mathematicians. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 20(3): 131–32. Scott, Elizabeth L. 1973, April 16. Letter to Marjorie Senechal. Copy in procession of Marjorie Senechal. Senechal, Marjorie. n. d. Interview by Sally Marlow [Recording and transcript]. https://www.bbc. co.uk/programmes/articles/XLSVPPHVx5T5P41SGs7LTP/i-grew-up-on-a-narcotics-farm. Accessed 25 Dec 2020. Senechal, Marjorie. 2013. I died for beauty: Dorothy Wrinch and the cultures of science. New York: Oxford University Press. Senechal, Marjorie and Jean Taylor. 1992. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 22(1): 3–4. Smith College v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 376 Mass. 221, 380 N. E. 2d 121. 1978. https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1978/376-mass221-2.html. Accessed 25 Dec 2020. Subcommittee on the Status of Academic Women. 1970. Report of the Subcommittee on the Status of Academic Women on the Berkeley Campus. Berkeley: University of California. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED042413 Wilkerson, Isabel. 2020. Caste: The origins of our discontents. New York: Random House.

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections Judith V. Grabiner

I was recently the subject of an article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (Dumbaugh and Rice, 2020). But considering how things were when I was in high school in the mid-1950s, it’s amazing that I had a career at all, let alone in a profession involving mathematics. So I’ll share some memories of how things were back then—when the dinosaurs roamed the land and typewriters were not electric and tuition at the University of Chicago was $690 a year. There was a math club at my high school, and I was the only girl. I understandably but selfishly and un-woke-ably built half my self-esteem on feeling superior to all other girls who couldn’t do math. My trig and solid geometry teachers were women, but somehow they weren’t role models for me. I unappreciatively thought that I wasn’t going to be a “mere” high school teacher. And I suppose, since I got a National Merit scholarship, I must have scored high on the SAT (in those days, it may surprise you to learn, they did not tell you what your scores were!). Still, at that time there were many counter-messages. For instance, we all took the Kuder Test of Vocational Preference. My high school boyfriend and I had the same scores. We both scored high in the categories “scientific” and “mechanical.” But the recommendation he got was that he should become an engineer (he became a distinguished physicist); the one I got said that I should become a telephone operator. At the University of Chicago, I was often the only one, or one of two, women students in my mathematics classes. I had great professors, including Saunders Mac Lane, Hyman Bass, Irving Ezra Segal, Irving Kaplansky, Shlomo Sternberg, D. J. Hughes, Dana Scott, and Antoni Zygmund. Although I never had a class with Paul Halmos, I heard him give great lectures at the math club. In science, I

J. V. Grabiner () Pitzer College, Claremont, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_39

449

450

J. V. Grabiner

took physics with John Simpson and John Rader Platt, and I took pride in beating all the guys on the weekly exams. Also, I took a great humanities course with Herman Sinaiko, and discovered that the humanities were as interesting, and could be researched and taught as rigorously, as math and science. So I had wonderful teaching and great intellectual role models. They were all men. In retrospect I should have wondered about this more than I did. Two anecdotes from that time in college stay with me. First, I was standing on the staircase talking to a guy in one of my humanities classes who seemed interested in deepening our acquaintance. He asked me, “What are you majoring in?” I replied, “Mathematics.” He was a bit taken aback, with a look on his face that suggested he was thinking, “All math majors are brainiacs, and a girl math major?” But then he brightened up and said, “Oh, so you’re going to teach high school.” The second anecdote: I ran into Professor Mac Lane in the hallway in the math building near the end of my last year of college. “Where are you going to graduate school?,” he asked. “Harvard,” I answered. “That’s very good. There are really only three places, you know. You’ve been to Chicago, you can’t go to Princeton, so Harvard is the right place.” (Princeton was still all male.1 ) I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I was going to Harvard to study the history of science. Officially the graduate program in history of science was Harvard’s, but women students in the early 1960s were officially students at Radcliffe. My first year there, I had a friend who was a grad student in biology. She had just passed her general exams with distinction and had A’s in all her courses. She went to the professor who was the leading expert in the area of biology she was interested in, presented her credentials, and asked if she could do her thesis with him. And he said, “I never take women students.” Another friend, who was married and pregnant, was told by the male professor supervising her that she could not continue as a teaching fellow after her pregnancy began to show. And so it was. I spent the summer of 1962 doing research in Europe. To get permission to read manuscripts at the library of the Royal Society in London, I presented the kind of document they’d asked for: an official letter with the actual official wax seal of the place I was a graduate student. But it was from Radcliffe, not Harvard. An American scholar working in that library later told me, “You owe it to me that you got in. The librarian came and asked me if I knew whether this ‘Radcliffe College’ was a legitimate institution.” Harvard itself could be more than a little overwhelming, but I had the incredible luck of having I. Bernard Cohen as my senior professor. Bernard took his women students seriously, and therefore had a number of us. I was equally lucky to get to know Uta Merzbach,2 a more advanced graduate student in the history of

1 In 1961, Sabra Follett Meservey became the first woman admitted to Princeton as a graduate student, in Oriental Studies. Her admission letter began “Dear Sir:” (Princeton University Library, 2020). 2 Uta Merzbach (1933–2017) was to become the first Curator of Mathematical Instruments at the Smithsonian, and the author of, among other works, Dirichlet: A Mathematical Biography.

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections

451

mathematics, who was my first woman role model in what was to become my career as a historian of mathematics. Bernard and his wife, Frances Davis, who was the first woman reporter (for the London Daily Mail and the Chicago Daily News) to cover the Spanish Civil War, mentored, entertained, and argued politics and philosophy with all of his graduate students. Bernard let me give a lecture about the invention of the calculus in his history of science class, and evaluated my performance kindly but realistically. He was a legendary teacher, as well as an intellectual role model for me. Even my male grad student friends kept telling me, “You don’t know how lucky you are to have somebody like Cohen.” But again an anecdote. Each week there was a history of science colloquium, generally with a distinguished outside speaker—Bernard saw to it that his graduate students got to see cutting-edge scholarship, in areas ranging from medieval Islamic science to the philosophy of modern biology. At the colloquium, tea was served from silver teapots, with lemon slices on china plates and cream and hot water in silver pitchers. The women graduate students were expected to pour the tea at these events. And we just did it; that’s how things were. My second thesis advisor was Dirk Struik, who had just recently retired from MIT. Struik (whose sense of social justice is illustrated by his having joined the Dutch Communist Party in 1915, before the Russian Revolution) also took women students seriously. He was at the time just finishing his Source Book in Mathematics, 1200–1800, and it seemed to me then that he had read every single important text on mathematics written in those 600 years. He insisted that I remain aware of the social context of mathematics, no matter how technical the story I wanted to tell. Because he was tough with his criticism, the day he told me, “This is an excellent piece of work,” I knew I could believe him. Again, a prince of a fellow, though a fellow. I got married to my husband Sandy Grabiner, a Harvard mathematics grad student, who supported my career goals. Upon getting our degrees we easily moved into postdoctoral positions, he at MIT, I at Harvard. So far, all the lights had turned green for me. After postdocs, we started looking for permanent jobs. At that time, there were no national searches, there were no affirmative action guidelines, there was really no national advertising. As one department chair told me, “I found you by calling Cohen, since he’s the top man in the field.” That was how the oldboy network worked. The expectation was that if you were from Harvard, you automatically got on the short list of candidates for any job you wanted as soon as your thesis advisor made a phone call on your behalf. Bernard was of course happy to do this for his women and minority students as well as the old boys. However, 1969, when we went on the job market, turned out to be the first year that you could no longer get a job just on your eminent advisor’s sayso. The Harvard faculty members advising us were caught completely off guard. Furthermore, since we were an academic couple, we were thinking, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could both get jobs at the same school?” But in those days, there were “anti-nepotism rules” at many schools. When we naively asked a major public research university whether they were interested in us because we were both interested in them, both the math department and the history department said no,

452

J. V. Grabiner

adding, “We, like most public universities, legally cannot allow two people in the same family to be on our faculty.”3 We decided that Sandy would take the best job offer he had, at the Claremont Graduate School where R. C. James, a giant in Sandy’s field, was on the faculty. Surely, we thought, in greater Los Angeles, something would come up for me. But not so fast, as it turned out. Our first year in California, I was a sabbatical replacement for a historian of science at UC Santa Barbara. One of the younger historians told me that an older colleague had said when they were discussing my qualifications, “But we’ve never had a woman in this department!” (My informant said he’d replied, “Well, we’re going to have one now.” At least I did get the job.) After this I had one-term-at-a-time adjunct positions. One was jointly in history and math at Cal State Los Angeles, where I was lucky enough to have, as a senior colleague in the mathematics department, Professor Evelyn Boyd Granville. Professor Granville, who had been a student of Einar Hille at Yale, was the second African American woman in the US to get a math PhD (1949). She was a wonderful role model, caring about her students, concerned about Cal State students’ poor preparation for college mathematics and therefore deeply involved in trying to improve K–12 mathematics instruction. Her own success in overcoming the twin barriers of gender and race was inspiring to me and encouraged me to keep on trying to pursue the kind of career I wanted. I also learned how to teach nontraditional students from my multiethnic, full-age-range students at Cal State LA. This kind of teaching is different from what I’d done at Harvard and Santa Barbara. But I also learned that, as Professor Granville used to say, our job is to take the students we have, wherever they may be right now, and move them along closer to where they need to be. And it was while I was still at Cal State LA in 1971 that the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) was founded. I didn’t have a tenure-track job, I didn’t know what I’d be doing next term, let alone next year, but here at last was an organization that recognized that there were people with degrees and with talent who needed a spokesperson and who now would be able to band together and support each other. So I found inspiration in the AWM’s very existence. I had been fortunate in my male mentors, but other women were much less fortunate, and my few female role models had to accomplish what they did as individuals. Here with the AWM was a chance to be part of a community. I had no idea that the AWM would grow and achieve the prestige and presence and influence that it now has. But its very existence helped me keep going. In 1972, the Cal State system decided to found an experimental college (initially called “The Small College,” later the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies) at Cal 3 At this time, “anti-nepotism” laws, originally intended to prevent employers from hiring unqualified relatives, were interpreted, or exploited, to bar academic spouses, usually women, from being hired (Simon et al., 1966). Margaret Rossiter, in her pathbreaking Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940, suggests that such practices were of “dubious legality” (p. 195); nevertheless, they, and debate over their legal status, persisted into the twenty-first century. See Chandler (2002).

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections

453

State Dominguez Hills. They liked my interdisciplinary background in mathematics and history, and they hired me. All of a sudden I had a tenure-track job, was a member of a faculty with close to 50–50 gender balance and a range of ethnic backgrounds, and had the chance to teach more or less whatever I wanted. Utopia, though, it was not. Living on the freeway, as most of us did, presented many challenges, especially for women who had children. Balancing family and a one-hour-each-way commute was difficult. Childcare was a problem for many, and the institution could provide no support. Personally I was lucky because we lived in Claremont, which has excellent schools, and where my husband could walk to work. And I was also lucky to have a husband who continued to support my career 100%. There never seemed to be any spare time during the academic year, but I was able to spend summers, and, on one occasion, a single-term sabbatical, pursuing my research. Although I was working in a teaching institution, I recalled and believed one of Bernard Cohen’s maxims, “You can’t teach without doing research. Not necessarily published, but real research,” and followed also the advice of a medieval history colleague from Cal State LA, Kenneth J. Pratt, who memorably told me, “Unless your research passes muster with your peers, you can’t tell if what you’re doing is any good.”4 During my fourteen years at Dominguez Hills, I deepened my ability to use the history of mathematics to teach mathematics. In particular, I gained experience applying the idea that historical difficulties often resemble modern students’ difficulties. I found also that students, especially but not only first-generation students and women, appreciated my adding cultural and social and philosophical context to the bare-bones mathematics in the university’s standard textbooks. Then came California’s Proposition 13 and other instances of reduced revenues for public education. The Cal State system began to think about laying off faculty. But this time, a woman mathematician with feminist consciousness came to my rescue. This was Barbara Beechler,5 an algebraist who founded the mathematics program at Pitzer College. Barbara was a dedicated teacher, kept up with research in algebra, co-founded the Claremont Mathematics Colloquium (still going strong today), and was an officer, both locally and nationally, in the Mathematical Association of America. She told me about the Pitzer job and encouraged me to apply. “It’ll get you off the freeway,” she said, “and it’s an interdisciplinary place. They’ll like that you know history and philosophy as well as math.” And so it turned out. The first course I taught at Pitzer, and taught for each of my thirty-one years there, was “Mathematics, Philosophy, and the ‘Real World.’ ” The course grew out

4 I am still grateful to Ken Pratt for suggesting that I apply for a fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies, which I got and for which I am also grateful, since this fellowship supported my research between my episodes of teaching at Cal State LA. 5 Professor Barbara Beechler’s life is featured in the book by Margaret Anne Murray (2000), Women Becoming Mathematicians: Creating a Professional Identity for Post–World War II America. I wrote an obituary about Barbara’s career (Grabiner, 2003).

454

J. V. Grabiner

of my research, attracted a wide range of students, and eventually became one of “The Great Courses” produced by The Teaching Company. Meanwhile something else was going on throughout the world of scholarship, a new emphasis on multiculturalism. While giving a research talk at the Canadian national scholarly societies meeting, and attending many talks there about mathematics in non-European settings, I suddenly realized, “Wow! There are now sources in English that I can actually use in a course.” So I designed, and taught for many years at Pitzer, a course called “Mathematics in Many Cultures.” It attracted a multiethnic student population from the first. Because I required each student to give an in-class presentation on some kind of mathematics in some cultural setting, the diversity of the student population became an educational resource in itself. Recalling one of my teaching evaluations still fills me with emotion, because this student spoke for so many. The evaluation said, “It meant a lot to me to see people who shared my heritage contributing to mathematics.”6 And when I taught my upper-division course on the history of mathematics, I included a unit on “Women in Mathematics,” asking individual students to do reports, including as topics not only historical figures, but the founding of the AWM and interviews with women math faculty here in Claremont. As the years went by, as I attended professional meetings I saw changes in how both historians of science and mathematicians came to value work in the history of mathematics. Historians of science in the “old days” tended to shy away from the history of mathematics. I think I was the first to organize a session on the history of mathematics at a History of Science Society national meeting. This was in 1973 in San Francisco. It was in this session that Kenneth R. Manning, now, as of 2020, the Thomas Meloy Professor of Rhetoric and of the History of Science at MIT, first had a chance to present his thesis research on Christoph Gudermann (the teacher of Weierstrass) to a national audience. Ken had published his first paper while an undergraduate student in my history of mathematics class at Harvard. He was, I believe, the first Black American to get a PhD in the history of science. His bestknown work is the book Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just, which won the History of Science Society’s Pfizer Award in 1984 for the previous year’s best book in the history of science. Ken and I both attended an 80th birthday celebration in Boston for Dirk Struik in 1974, at which the two of us were able to share our admiration and trust for a professor who took each of us seriously at a time when there were others who did not. Responding to changes in society’s attitudes to science, the history of mathematics began to move from being concerned largely with questions internal to the development of mathematics into more social and general historical issues, as Dirk Struik had so long advocated. Further, because of the increasing role of women and other underrepresented populations in academe, the history of science as well as the history of mathematics have increased their consideration

6 That all mathematics has been done by white Christian Europeans is one of the myths I hope I have helped dispel in Grabiner (2007).

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections

455

of the role of women, of studying the great world civilizations that aren’t in Europe, and of the mathematics of traditional cultures. There are books like Marcia Ascher’s Ethnomathematics, Paulus Gerdes’s Geometry from Africa: Mathematical and Educational Perspectives, and George Gheverghese Joseph’s The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics. There are also sourcebooks in English with primary documents illustrating the mathematics of Egypt, Babylonia, China, India, and the Islamic world (Katz, 2007; Katz et al., 2018). Similar changes have taken place at the national Joint Mathematics Meetings. I was once told, “You’re on this committee to choose speakers, because they said we have to have a woman on it.” But still, for whatever reason access to organizing was broadened, we have seen its fruits. The percentage of women at JMM giving talks, organizing sessions, serving on panels, and standing in the hallways mentoring onthe-go, has continually increased. At national meetings, the Association for Women in Mathematics began to have a presence. Through sponsored lectures by first-class mathematicians who also were women, the AWM provided existence proofs for this set of great speakers, and mathematicians took note. It was a special kick to go to an Emmy Noether lecture at the Joint Meetings as far back as 1980 and see prominent male mathematicians in the audience, since it was clear that they came for the mathematics. Since 1996, a similar AWM-sponsored lecture series took place at the Mathematical Association of America’s summer MathFest. The series was renamed the Etta Zuber Falconer lecture in 2004.7 While revising this article I recalled how impressed I was with Karen King’s Falconer lecture at the 2012 meeting in Madison, focused on how important it is for pre-college teachers to be well grounded in the reasoning habits of mathematics so that their students can learn real mathematics and learn it well.8 It is worth mentioning that other groups of mathematicians who are not white European-descent straight males, and educators focusing on students from underrepresented populations, have also organized and developed a presence at national mathematics meetings. Though I didn’t attend this year’s Joint Meetings, I did look over the program, and, for sure, fifty years ago there certainly would not have been material for an AMS blog post “Round-Up of JMM 2020 Sessions on Issues of Diversity, Equity, and Social Justice” (Leyva, 2019). In 2020 there was. At an earlier meeting in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I saw a number of “micro-inequities” scenarios dramatized. The subsequent discussion, with the attendees broken up into small groups, was an exercise both in self-education and consciousness-raising. Before leaving the subject of the AWM, I’d like to mention the Newsletter. Besides highlighting the achievements of women mathematicians, an accomplishment that makes each of its issues an important historical document, the Newsletter’s

7 The title honors Professor Etta Zuber Falconer (1933–2002), longtime Professor of Mathematics at Spelman College, who devoted her career to increasing the number of highly qualified African Americans in mathematics and mathematics related careers. 8 Professor King’s career is described on the Mathematically Gifted & Black website as a February 26, 2020 Honoree for Black History Month. See also Dewar (2020), Walker (2020).

456

J. V. Grabiner

reviews covered a wealth of books that mainline mathematics journals did not, and its reviews were in greater depth on those women-in-math topics that other journals did review. I’ve done a couple of such reviews myself, one on a book about Émilie du Châtelet and another on Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Also for the AWM, I wrote a Newsletter review of the documentary Navajo Math Circles.9 Upon receiving my copy of the film, I showed it in my “Math in Many Cultures” class, and my review includes comments from some of my students. All in all, as the nation has seen college students from a greater variety of backgrounds, and as mathematics departments have increased the diversity of their faculty, there has been increasing interest throughout the profession in the history of mathematics, including mathematics outside the European tradition. I’m happy to have participated in these changes. Thinking back, I wish I’d been better educated so I’d have understood exactly why my graduate algebra class at Harvard had 98 men and 2 women (both women became professors of mathematics; I don’t know about all the men). Likewise, I wish it had been more widely known earlier that, let alone why, women American mathematics PhDs went from zero percent in the middle of the nineteenth century to almost 30% today.10 One thing’s sure, I’d say to Lawrence Summers:11 That can’t be a biological change. And I wish I’d known in high school what I know now. I’d have worked my head off helping my female classmates get more into mathematics. And I’d have had more respect for the heroism and achievement and quality of my women high-school mathematics teachers, whose generation didn’t have the opportunities that I did and who nonetheless taught good mathematics to so many students. Final reflections: The world I grew up in, went to college in, got my PhD in, and went through a variety of jobs in, is now different. Why? It’s not because of some reified abstraction called “social change.” It’s because of the efforts of many people. Like the founders of the AWM. And mentors and colleagues like Cohen and Struik and Evelyn Boyd Granville and Barbara Beechler,

9 The review appeared in the July–August 2016 issue of the Newsletter. In 2017 Professor Tatiana Shubin of San José State won the Dolciani award from the Mathematical Association of America for her work bringing Math Circles to the Navajo. For the film itself, see Csicsery (2016). See also the book (Auckly et al., 2019). 10 That women don’t do mathematics is another of the myths I hoped to dispel in my article “Why Should Historical Truth Matter to Mathematicians? Dispelling Myths while Promoting Maths” (Grabiner, 2007). Up-to-date statistics on American PhD mathematicians are regularly published in the Notices of the AMS. See, for instance, AMS (2020). 11 In 2005, the economist Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, advocated a variant of the biologically-based “greater male variability hypothesis” to explain the paucity of women in STEM. For an enlightening discussion and analysis of this claim, see Hyde and Mertz (2009). Summers’ remarks provoked much controversy. There was an AWM panel in 2006 at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, “Lawrence Summers: One Year Later,” with panelists Richard M. Dudley, Mary W. Gray, Ellen E. Kirkman, Mary Beth Ruskai, Alice Silverberg, and Karen Uhlenbeck. Silverberg presented an interesting response focusing in part on the history of women and mathematics at Harvard (Silverberg, 2006).

Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Reflections

457

and, among those who helped others than me, Chandler Davis and Lee Lorch. Also, it’s because of the civil rights movement and the movement for LGBTQIA+ rights and the lawyers and courts who ended many previously legally allowed types of discrimination. The newly recognized role of “ally,” exemplified by the male mentors and colleagues who took me and my aspirations seriously, is a role that still needs filling in these days—especially because acts of discrimination still exist even when they’re no longer openly admitted to. I’ve been witness to, and I hope have contributed something to, many of the changes these anecdotes reflect. The AWM has been important throughout. Let’s keep on pushing to make things better.

References AMS. 2020. Annual Survey: PhDs awarded. http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/ phds-awarded. Accessed 15 Jul, 2020. Auckly, Dave. Bob Klein, Amanda Serenevy, and Tatiana Shubin. 2019. Inspiring mathematics: Lessons from the Navajo nation math circles. Berkeley, CA: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute and Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Chandler, Timothy D. et al. 2002. Spouses need not apply: The legality of antinepotism and nospouse rules. San Diego Law Review 39: 31–78. Csicsery, George Paul, dir. 2016. Navajo math circles. Oakland, CA: Zala Films. DVD. Dewar, Jackie. 2020. In Memoriam: Dr. Karen Denise King (1971–2019). AWM Newsletter 50(3): 27–28. Dumbaugh, Della and Adrian Rice. 2020. A template for success: Celebrating the work of Judith Grabiner. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(3): 336–344. Grabiner, Judith. 2003. Remembering Barbara Beechler. Mathematical Association of America Southern California-Nevada Section Newsletter XLV(1): 6–7. Grabiner, Judith. 2007. Why should historical truth matter to mathematicians? Dispelling myths while promoting maths. Bulletin of the British Society for the History of Mathematics 22: 78– 91. (Reprinted in Judith V. Grabiner, A historian looks back: The calculus as algebra and selected writings (MAA Spectrum, 2010) 243–255.) Hyde, Janet S. and Janet E. Mertz. 2009. Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences https://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801. short Katz, Victor J., ed., with Annette Imhausen, Eleanor Robson, Joseph W. Dauben, Kim Plofker, and J. Lennart Berggren. 2007. The mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: A sourcebook. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Katz, Victor J., Menso Folkerts, Barnabas Hughes, Roi Wagner, and J. Lennart Berggren, eds. 2018. Sourcebook in the mathematics of Medieval Europe and North Africa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Leyva, Luis. 2019. Round-Up of JMM 2020 Sessions on Issues of Diversity, Equity, and Social Justice. Inclusion/Exclusion blog. https://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2019/12/31/ jmm2020-jediroundup/. Accessed 15 Jul, 2020. Merzbach, Uta C. 2019. Dirichlet: A mathematical biography. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Murray, Margaret Anne. 2000. Women becoming mathematicians: creating a professional identity for post–World War II America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Princeton University Library. 2020. Coeducation: History of Women at Princeton University. https://libguides.princeton.edu/c.php?g=84581&p=543232. Accessed 15 Jul, 2020.

458

J. V. Grabiner

Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Silverberg, Alice. Women at Harvard. 2006. AWM Newsletter 36(3): 17–20. Simon, Rita James, Shirley Merritt-Clark, and Larry L. Tifft. 1966. Of nepotism, marriage, and the pursuit of an academic career. Sociology of Education 39(4): 344–358. Struik, Dirk. 1969. Sourcebook in mathematics, 1200–1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, Erica. 2020. A model of a mathematical life: In tribute to Dr. Karen D. King (1971–2019). AWM Newsletter 50(3): 16–19.

Snapshots of Five Decades: My Career, Women in Mathematics Departments, and AWM Tina H. Straley

In 1971, the Association for Women in Mathematics was formed. In that same year I received my doctoral degree in mathematics from Auburn University. In this article I give snapshots of each decade from 1971 to the present of the status of women in mathematics, the evolution of AWM, and the trajectory of my career. I consider how the status of women in the mathematical sciences has changed over these past 50 years and how AWM has grown in size and complexity to address that evolution. I focus on women pursuing and holding doctoral degrees and women doctoral faculty at colleges and universities, that sector of the profession to which I belong and look at how my career choices responded or did not respond to the factors affecting women in the profession. My professional journey is complete, but the AWM is only taking a moment to celebrate its past as it plans for the future. This article concludes with thoughts about that future.

Before AWM At an AWM panel in 1981, Alice Schafer described times before AWM: “By the 1920s women in this country were receiving approximately 6% of the doctorates awarded in mathematics, a figure that remained relatively constant until the beginning of the 1970s.” Not all programs were open to women; for example, Princeton did not admit women to their graduate program in mathematics until the late 1960s, and at Harvard women had to sit in the halls for classes taught by some professors who refused to admit them to the classroom. Women were almost never

T. H. Straley () Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_40

459

460

T. H. Straley

employed at prestigious research universities; they took faculty positions mainly at women’s colleges and small liberal arts colleges. Women found employment but had low wages, high teaching loads, and little support for research. The number of women in academe both as students and instructors decreased relative to men as the level of education increased. Seldom were women represented among officers or in committees of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, as speakers at professional meetings, editors of research journals, colloquium lecturers, or in tenured positions at the leading departments. The National Science Foundation had no women program directors in mathematics. By 1980, there were three women with tenure among the five departments considered to be the leading departments by mathematicians (Schafer, 1981). Although large numbers of women were engaged in the workplace during World War II, by the 1950s a woman’s place in society was back in the home or in a stereotypically female job. In elementary school, I taught myself addition of fractions with different denominators because I was absent from school when that was explained. That self-taught lesson was the first time I remember enjoying mathematics. Although it began a lifetime of enjoying mathematics, I did not know what exactly I wanted to do, but I knew that education was to be my ticket to a career because academics was where I excelled. A few years after graduate school, I attended a talk given by a famous chemist from a Jewish, immigrant family, as were my parents, who immigrated at about the same time. He said his mother wanted him to go to college. He asked her, “What am I going to do with a college education?” She answered, “I don’t know but when something comes along, you will be ready.” This has been my career plan: always be ready when an opportunity comes along and my rule is: when an opportunity is presented, take it. Many of my academic and professional choices appear to have been wrong when I made them. Being from a lower-income household, I had no way to finance an education. In my senior year, I sent away for college applications. When I received them, I realized that there were application fees so I threw them away except for the University of Florida (which was my state university and had the lowest application fee) and Emory University. Although I was accepted to Emory, I was not awarded financial help. I don’t know if quotas for women and students from Florida affected my not getting financial support, which in those days was based on qualifications, not need. Luckily, a scholarship from a local organization that paid for tuition, books, and fees anywhere I enrolled enabled me to attend University of Florida. Not applying to other colleges and universities and, especially to women’s colleges, was my first academic mistake. At the end of my first year, my friends decided not to return to the University of Florida. While staying with my sister and her family and working in Atlanta for the summer, I decided not to return to Florida as well. I could attend Emory and not live in the dorms, but I inquired too late for the fall term. The Dean of the Business School at Georgia State College, a family friend, suggested I major in Actuarial Science, in the GSC Business School. The State of Florida paid for my out-of-state tuition to major in actuarial science, because there was no such program in Florida.

Snapshots of Five Decades

461

Not returning to the University of Florida, a major university where I had done very well, was my second academic mistake. Finances determined that I stay at Georgia State and not go to Emory, my third mistake. At the end of the year, my actuarial science advisor laid out the program, mostly coursework in business. I asked when I would take courses in science and humanities. He said, “When you are a math major.” Meanwhile, my professor started every day of Calculus III asking if I was a math major yet. It was in this course that I began to be intrigued by the mathematics. Although I noticed that the number of women in my classes was small and getting smaller as I progressed, it never occurred to me that the reason may have been discouragement. I remember thinking that if I majored in math, I would always be able to get a job. I finally declared for once and for all, I was a math major. That was a very good decision. The actuarial course was not a complete waste. I appreciated the calculus applications in business; and I noticed another math major taking the course because he was the only other student to make an A on a surprise pop final. We met on the day of the actual final exam when he offered to give me a ride home in the rain. I realized later that he made that offer having no idea where in Atlanta I lived. His name, Wilt (William) Straley. Years later, I was a co-advisor to the Golden Key Honor Society, which recognized business students, at Kennesaw State College. The speaker at the annual dinner was Michael Mescon, my old family friend and still Dean of the College of Business at Georgia State University. He told the following story: “I met a former student of mine when I was walking along a street in downtown Atlanta. I asked him how he was doing. He told me that things were not going so well; he could not find a position he liked. I asked him what he really wanted to do, and he replied that he always wanted to be a toreador. I told him that is great but there are not many positions for toreadors in the City of Atlanta.” The story got the expected laughs. In my closing remarks, I said, “Dr. Mescon gave me great career advice encouraging me to become an actuary, which is a wonderful job, but I did not take his advice because I always wanted to be a toreador.” Going against the grain and being a woman in mathematics was the best academic choice I made. Georgia State nominated me for a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship for Graduate School which could only be used at an institution different from my undergraduate college. Instead I enrolled in the new masters degree program at Georgia State, for which I was offered an assistantship, and because Wilt had already begun the program. Not pursuing the Woodrow Wilson fellowship nomination was another academic mistake. After receiving my masters degree, I taught in the high school I had attended. Amid the beginning classes given to first-year teachers, I was assigned the calculus class of eight students, seven senior boys and one junior girl. It was the smartest class of students I ever taught. The students did theorem proving! At the end of the year, all the calculus students attended our wedding. I then returned to Atlanta and taught at Spelman College for a year. Department chair Shirley McBay was at the beginning of her stellar career, and she was truly inspirational as an educator and a woman mathematician. I loved the atmosphere at Spelman; it was my first and only experience in a woman’s world of mathematics. I also experienced one of the nation’s greatest tragedies close up. Martin Luther King

462

T. H. Straley

was assassinated and his body laid in state at the campus chapel. Facing the students when classes resumed was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do. The late 1960s was a time of great change for women and minorities in the mathematical sciences with the recent passage of the Civil Rights Act and the landing of men on the moon. The National Association of Mathematicians (NAM) was formed in 1968. Although both AWM and NAM were formed at a time of great turbulence and great potential for change, change did not come quickly or easily and the journey for both women and minorities in the mathematical sciences is not yet complete. In the summer of 1968, Wilt and I attended a National Science Foundation institute in topology and linear algebra at Vanderbilt University. Wilt received a full stipend and I received half because I was the wife. During the workshop, Billy Bryant, the faculty co-organizer, announced to the class that my getting only 50% of the stipend but doing all the work was wrong, and I would be awarded the full stipend. The class applauded, and although I felt vindicated, I also was embarrassed for everyone to know that I was treated as second-class. Wilt was interested in topology, so we chose to attend Auburn University to pursue doctoral degrees because of its strength in topology and because it offered me a National Science Foundation Traineeship. This provided three years of academic support plus an additional tax free $1200 per year for living expenses—which more than paid our rent! The day before classes began we visited the department offices. A graduate student, Jim, invited us into his office. Other graduate students drifted in, and each time someone showed up, Jim introduced us as “Wilt Straley and his wife, Tina.” After a few times, I said, “I am not here as Wilt’s wife, I am a new graduate student.” That was the only time at Auburn I was thought of as a secondary partner. Auburn was an enlightening experience. Most of the graduate classes were taught using the pure Moore method1 in which the students were expected to be highly competitive. Surprisingly, I found myself up for the task. I intended to study algebra but soon realized there was no one at Auburn to work with in that area. Again, I apparently made a mistake. However, Auburn was a very good choice. Charles “Curt” Lindner joined the faculty the next year. His areas were combinatorics and universal algebra. I did not have teaching responsibilities, I started taking courses with Lindner as soon as he arrived, and I found an area I loved and a wonderful major professor. At Auburn, Wilt and I were one of two couples, and the four of us became very close friends. Joy Reed, the woman in the other couple, was the first of many women mathematicians with whom I became lifelong friends. I completed the PhD degree in 1971, in exactly the three years covered by the traineeship. I was one of the 9% women receiving doctoral degrees in the mathematical sciences and the only woman among the 11 students completing the doctoral degree in mathematics at Auburn (also 9%). At the same ceremony in which I received my degree, Auburn graduated the first woman with an engineering

1 In the pure Moore method of instruction, students work individually from definitions and a list of theorems in order to prove the theorems. During class, students present their proofs and are critiqued (Legacy of R. L. Moore, 2013).

Snapshots of Five Decades

463

degree. Upon degree completion, I received invitations from universities to apply for tenure-track and postdoctoral positions. However, I chose to stay at Auburn because the mathematics department very kindly gave me an instructor position for the two years until Wilt finished his degree. As it turned out, delaying a tenure-track or postdoctoral position was another mistake. In the year I received my doctoral degree, the AWM was founded at a meeting of the American Mathematical Society in Atlantic City by women who decided “to form an association with the purpose of improving the status of women in the mathematical community to ensure that women will have the same opportunities in mathematics as men” (Schafer, 1981). The disparities that I encountered were only a part of the AWM agenda. In the first issue of the AWM Newsletter, May 1971, Chairman Mary Gray reported on how to file complaints against universities and colleges to the Health, Education, and Welfare Department of the Federal Government. Examples she cited were bunching women at lower academic ranks, the low number of women in administrative positions, and comparing the percentage of women in a department with the percentage of women holding earned doctorates in the field (Gray, 1971a). The September 1971 AWM Newsletter reported on a panel on women in mathematics at a meeting of the Mathematical Association of America at Pennsylvania State University “whose attendees were people already in agreement that discrimination exists but there were few ideas of what to do about it.” At this meeting the organization decided to change the name to the Association for Women in Mathematics rather than the Association of Women in Mathematics to be more inclusive of men. Gray reported on a resolution for the AMS to actively support equal opportunities for women which had been presented at the AMS business meeting and had received sufficient votes to be put on the agenda of the AMS Council despite some heckling (Gray, 1971b). Women were in small numbers and had low status throughout the sciences. Gray reported that women were prohibited from applying to the Rhodes Scholarship program. In the National Science Foundation, women accounted for 9% of those at GS-13 level2 and above, 3.1% of review panelists, 12.7% of fellowship recipients, and none of the top positions in the mathematics section. The consultant staff, which reviewed research grant applications, was 3% women. At the National Institutes of Health, figures for women were even worse with no women in 87 positions at the GS-16 through 18 levels and women only 2.5% of grant review panelists (Gray, 1971c). Furthermore, starting salaries for new recipients of the doctorate in mathematics for nine-month teaching positions showed women earning 93% of men’s earnings at the median level and only 83% at the maximum salary level (Gray, 1971d).

2 A senior position in federal employment typically requiring both graduate education and specialized experience.

464

T. H. Straley

1972–1981 At a mathematics conference in the winter of 1972, MAA President Victor Klee asked me if I were a member of the Association for Women in Mathematics. I had never heard of it. I asked Professor Klee why I would belong to an organization of women mathematicians. He responded that it was not an organization “of” women mathematicians but an organization “for” women mathematicians, and he was a member. That preposition was significant to me; I could see a need to promote women in the mathematical sciences, but I was not cognizant of a need for women to network and unaware that men networked in ways that excluded women. In 1972, I responded to two surveys funded by federal grants to study the attractors and repellers for women pursuing advanced study of mathematics. The survey asked about my teachers and mentors. Shirley McBay, department chair when I was teaching at Spelman College, was my sole female role model. The only mathematics class I had, in all of college and graduate school, taught by a woman professor occurred in my last term of graduate school classes. I realized that my mentors and role models were primarily men. I started thinking about the participation of women in mathematics. I remembered that organization Victor Klee told me about. I don’t know how I found it without the internet, but I joined AWM in 1972, in its second year of existence. I am not quite a charter member, but close. The number of women in the profession grew over the decade of the 1970s, especially at the doctoral level, and so did AWM. The Association did not just advise its members on how to act and react to civil rights legislation, its officers and leaders worked on gaining recognition for women throughout academe, including within the other mathematics societies. A report on the AMS Council Meeting of January 1972 appeared in the February AWM Newsletter. AWM Chairman Mary Gray attended representing AWM, but she was not initially allowed to speak. Further action was needed on AMS’s 1971 resolution to “work actively for equal opportunities for women,” and specifically include more women on programs and panels, committees, and governing boards. Several Black mathematicians attended the same meeting. One was allowed to speak about AMS nominating procedures and Gray was also (Gray, 1972). In the January AWM Newsletter, a reader suggested a closer affiliation with NAM; but taking the initiative to do so was left to someone else. In the March 1972 AWM Newsletter, an article on the MAA pointed out that President Victor Klee had been very effective on the issue of involving women. At that time Dorothy Bernstein served as a governor-at-large on the MAA Board of Governors (she was later MAA president), Mary Gray was a member of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM was a very influential program of the MAA, not solely a committee), and several other influential positions were held by women. In 1973, when Wilt completed his degree, the job market had tanked. We were naïve to think we could find two positions in the same department or even in the same geographical area. The two-body problem was relatively rare and nepotism rules were still in place. Colleges and universities did not recognize the issues confronting academic couples. No institution to which

Snapshots of Five Decades

465

we applied was interested in hiring a couple. We found positions in the Atlanta area, which is where we were from, but these were far from ideal. Wilt took a position in the Business School of Georgia State. I took a temporary position at Kennesaw Junior College. When I interviewed, I was eight months pregnant. The president of the college asked me if I really could handle the job with a new baby. He revealed that the department chair at Auburn had addressed the issue in his letter and assured him that I could do it. Imagine that the issue of my motherhood was not only asked of me but included in a letter of recommendation! In my first year at Kennesaw, I was the only woman and the only PhD in mathematics. During that first year I chaired the search committee for hiring two more doctoral mathematics faculty. I left a message for an applicant, a graduate student at Georgia Tech, to call me back at home. I left my name as “Dr. Straley,” to sound important. My mother, who was visiting, told me when I arrived home that there was a call for Wilt from someone named Steve. She told the caller Wilt could be reached in his office at Georgia State. I asked my mother why she assumed the call was for Wilt. Her answer was that he asked for “Dr. Straley.” So much for recognition at home. After much confusion between Steve and Wilt, we did eventually get in touch. The story ends well, the department hired Steve; but I was extremely embarrassed. The academic life I found was not anything like what I planned. At Kennesaw I taught three classes a day, all at night in the first year. One quarter, I taught three sections of trigonometry in a row with no break. By the third class I could not remember if I just said something or I said it in a previous class. High-quality childcare was not easily available. I visited a nursery where all the babies were in cribs while a sole attendant watched them from a chair. My marriage ended in divorce when my daughter was three years old. Child care was a constant problem. When my daughter was recovering from the chicken pox, I put her on a pillow on my desk chair in my office while I taught class nearby. I was not mother of the year, although I am happy to say, Jessica does not share my assessment. She now juggles her own career as a professor of English Literature and family responsibilities (see Fig. 1). I looked forward to the AWM Newsletter, and I read every issue thoroughly. It was a way to stay abreast of developments in mathematics in a fairly quick way; and the articles depicted a life for women in mathematics that I hoped to rejoin someday. In those early years the general atmosphere in the department at Kennesaw was exciting as we prepared to become a four-year college. It was also aggressive; besides me, the faculty were all men about my age. In a meeting to design the new mathematics major, I suggested that we have a BS and a BA track. The latter would have less emphasis on science and more coursework in the humanities. I was attacked so harshly that I wanted to cry. Instead, I vowed “those bastards would never do that to me again.” One colleague made sexual comments about me in every meeting for four years until I went on leave to Emory University. When I returned the sexual comments stopped. I don’t know if that was because we had hired another woman PhD; thus, I was no longer the only woman in the room. Many years later, when I was Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs that colleague headed a unit that reported to me. For many years, we had a very good relationship. He

466

T. H. Straley

Fig. 1 Tina and Jessica Straley, 2006 MAA Study Tour to China

strongly encouraged me to take the AVP position because we would work well together. One day I confronted him about how I felt all those years ago. He was shocked and sincerely sorry. I wished I had done that when it was happening, but I never would have said anything then. I felt, as I am sure so many women did, that I had to play by the same rules as the men and not bring attention to the fact that I was a woman. So instead, I learned to play by those rules very well. At Emory University in 1978–1979, I was able to resume research and published a paper the following year. I was co-director of a faculty–graduate student seminar in universal algebra and there were several members of the department with whom I could talk about my work. I was one of about 12 women faculty members from across Emory invited to discuss their lives and careers with women students. Many of the questions were about life and work balance. I told of considerable challenges I faced as a single, working mother and being torn between the time I was working

Snapshots of Five Decades

467

and the time with my child. A member of the medical school faculty declared there were absolutely no difficulties in having both a career and a family. Her husband was a medical doctor, and she waited to attend medical school until they had the resources for her to have full-time housekeepers and childcare providers. I thought she was from Mars. Just recently, I was heartened to hear women mathematics faculty on an AWM panel at the JMM in 2020 talk about childcare providers at home, their abilities to juggle career and family, and negotiating with their administrations to meet their needs. I am delighted that my situation is no longer the reality today, but not all women in our profession have it as well as portrayed by these panelists. While at Emory, I was invited to be a panelist during a one-day program designed to inform and encourage women students on professions in mathematics, science, and engineering. Through a series of presentations over a full day, college women learned about STEM (not yet a term) careers from women in those careers. I was greatly impressed, but I found one thing very wrong with the program: it was too late for the audience. Girls still in high school needed to participate in such a program. The AWM was evolving rapidly from a fledgling organization. In 1980, it began to participate as an association at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, sponsoring a panel on “The ERA and the Mathematical Community.” However, the AWM would not hold its own meeting at the JMM that year because the latter was held in Biloxi, Mississippi, a non-ERA state. I must admit I attended that Biloxi meeting. The May–June 1981 AWM Newsletter contained types of articles that would become staples of future newsletters including book reviews, full-length articles, and the job ads. The November–December 1981 issue announced the AWM Emmy Noether Symposium to be held in March 1982 at Bryn Mawr College celebrating Noether’s birth centenary, and that Julia Robinson would deliver the Emmy Noether Lecture at the Cincinnati JMM in January 1982 just as she assumed the office of AMS president-elect (Srinivasan, 1981). In 1981, AWM Treasurer Donna Beers reported that the AWM mailing list had 1000 recipients, including 82 institutions in the US plus 52 members in Canada and abroad (Table 1). The numbers of women with doctoral degrees and careers in the mathematical sciences grew significantly over the 1970s. The percentage of women granted doctorates in the mathematical sciences increased from 7.8% in 1971 to 16.2% in Table 1 Percentages of women on full-time doctoral faculties, 1980–1981 (AMS CEST, 1981, p. 609)

Instructor Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor

Total 12% 10% 7% 2%

Group I Tenured 0% 67% 7% 2%

Total 15% 9% 6% 2%

Group II Tenured 0% 40% 5% 2%

Group III Total Tenured 23% 100% 11% 13% 7% 6% 3% 3%

Groups I, II, and III are the rankings of institutions according to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils

468

T. H. Straley

1978. The percentages of women associate professors and professors were smaller than the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to women a decade earlier and well behind the percentage for 1978. The large percentages of tenured women assistant professors in Groups I and II show that a much larger proportion of women than men remained at this level with tenure. At the end of the decade I was a tenured, associate professor and had been at Kennesaw for seven years. In 1979, Dorothy Bernstein became the first woman elected president of the MAA, and of any major mathematical sciences society. Women in the profession, the AWM, and I were all making progress but still had a long way to go.

1982–1991 In 1983, Julia Robinson became the first woman president of the AMS. At the end of the decade, Lida Barrett became the second woman president of the MAA in 1989, and in 1990, Marcia Sward assumed the position of executive director of the MAA, the first woman to head one of the major mathematical sciences societies. In the early part of the decade, I asked my women colleagues in the School of Science and Mathematics to join me in creating a one-day program like the one at Emory, but for high school girls. The college president gave me her blessing but no financial support. I had never had a grant; I had never run a program; I had never raised money. Raising money then was nothing like it is today. Based on telephone conversations only, I received donations of $1000 each from the Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Delta Airlines, and IBM. Local merchants donated smaller amounts. The most interesting donation came from Avon. The vice president invited me to meet with him at the Avon headquarters. The Atlanta facility was one of their major distribution centers; it was an impressive technological operation designed by their own engineers. At the conclusion of the tour, he wrote a check for $1000 and presented me with a box of Avon products for the participants. This same fundraising routine with the same donors continued for the five years I ran the program; when I became department chair I turned the program over to my colleagues. The first program, titled Women in Mathematics, Science, and Technology: FutureScape was held in 1983; 200 female high students and 50 teachers and counselors from schools from seven neighboring counties participated. A total of 34 women in the community with careers in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology served as presenters including women representing the Center for Disease Control (the CDC), Yerkes Primate Center, Lockheed, Delta Airlines, IBM, and Coca-Cola. One presenter was a science themed novelist. The participants met in small hands-on workshops that encouraged conversations between students and presenters. The program was so well-received that the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Education organized nine similar programs across the state, starting in 1985, located to achieve geographic balance and minority participation. The system

Snapshots of Five Decades

469

office raised funding for these other programs and each site raised small amounts locally. I reported on FutureScape in the AWM Newsletter in 1985 (Straley, 1985). AWM programs grew rapidly in the 1980s. In 1985, AWM held a symposium on Sonia Kovalevsky together with a program for high school seniors which grew into AWM sponsorship of Sonia Kovalevsky Days, encouraging high school girls to pursue careers in the mathematical sciences, held at colleges throughout the country. The program format was very similar to FutureScape. The 1985 AWM newsletters announced the AWM Speakers’ Bureau. The AWM Workshops for Women Graduate Students and Recent PhDs, funded by federal agencies and held in conjunction with major mathematics meetings such as JMM and the annual SIAM meeting, began in 1989. In the same year, the AWM established the Alice T. Schafer Prize, recognizing an undergraduate woman for excellence in mathematics. The January–February 1990 Newsletter announced a $2000 contribution from the MAA towards the endowment of the Schafer prize. The 1990 AWM newsletters included calls for nominations for the Louise Hay award recognizing contributions to mathematics education. The AWM secured funds from the NSF and ONR to support women graduate students to attend the AWM workshop at the JMM. The Education Committee turned its attention to sex bias in the classroom as reflected in the Education Column, a regular AWM Newsletter feature. In the late 1980s, I became the chair of the Kennesaw mathematics department, a board member of the Georgia Coalition for Excellence in Mathematics Education (supported by the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) and businesses and industry in Georgia), and the newsletter editor for MAA’s Southeastern Section. I hosted the MAA section meeting with the help of the entire Kennesaw mathematics department in 1991. By personally calling minority-serving institutions and asking for session chairs and presenters, the attendance by African American mathematicians significantly increased. When I was section chair two years later, a section history had been printed that did not mention the discrimination African American members faced in trying to attend meetings in the 1950s and 1960s. The omission was yet another insult. In order to partly remedy the situation, Sylvia Bozeman of Spelman College and I agreed that she would write a separate history of African Americans in the Southeastern Section. It was funded by MAA and sent free of charge to all section members. Shortly thereafter, Sylvia was elected governor of the section; she was the first African American person elected governor of any section in the MAA. Sylvia has been widely recognized for her many contributions to mathematics, especially in mentoring and encouraging African American women. Kennesaw grew rapidly, and the department of mathematics had at least one new position each year. I always sent an advertisement to the AWM Newsletter At this time my career was fairly typical of women in mathematics in academe; I was a department chair of a baccalaureate program of a state college and I was active in the profession outside my department. I became part of a small group of women administrators, primarily department chairs in the School of Science and Nursing at Kennesaw, who supported and helped each other. This was my first experience of networking with women. We remain close friends still.

470 Table 2 Women doctorates from 1980 to 1990 (Jackson, 1991, p. 718)

T. H. Straley Group I II III

% Women 14.6% 18.4% 20.7%

Number of women 435 230 229

Total 2972 1248 1107

Groups I, II, and III are the rankings of institutions according to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils

As department chair I took on the challenge of college algebra, which was as unsuccessful a course at Kennesaw as it was across the country. I asked the faculty to create a new course from scratch incorporating real world problems, problem solving, independent and group work, and presentation following the recommendations of the recently published NCTM Standards. Two outstanding teachers in the department, Chris Schaufele and Nancy Zumoff, designed the new course wholly as mathematical modeling of CO2 pollution in the environment, named Earth Algebra. We started with a grant from Georgia Power Company, where I had a connection through the Georgia Coalition, to cover adjuncts for two course releases for each of Nancy and Chris, a total of $6000. This work led to large grants from NSF and FIPSE, at the Department of Education, totaling over $250,000. The course was highly successful in raising both student grades and retention and was adopted at colleges across the country for College Algebra, liberal arts mathematics, and even honors courses. The Georgia Board of Regents included Earth Algebra as a substitute for College Algebra in the Core Requirements. Women’s participation in the mathematical sciences continued to grow in the 1980s; however, percentages of women receiving doctorates grew partially because the numbers of men increased at a lower rate than did the numbers of women (see Table 2). In 1990–1991, the number of doctorates in the mathematical sciences awarded by US universities to US citizens was down to 461 from 567 a decade earlier. Of these 112, or 24%, were awarded to women, an increase of 10 women and an increase of 6% points (McClure, 1991). Table 3 shows that the percentage of women faculty was far below the contemporaneous percentage of women graduate students. This difference may still be a lag in time between women getting degrees and becoming part of the profession, in particular in higher ranks. However, a pattern is emerging: there are lower numbers of women on faculties of research universities than women in the profession and more women in the profession are at masters and baccalaureate level colleges and universities. AWM’s January–February 1991 Newsletter had a new masthead and a new look. New affiliate memberships were created for other mathematics societies. The first affiliates were MAA and AMS.

Snapshots of Five Decades

471

Table 3 Doctoral women full-time faculty fall 1991 (McClure, 1992, p. 577) Group Number of women I + II + III 448 IV 155 V 42 M 595 B 936 VI 88

% women Number of women tenured 7% 224 14% 53 7% 15 13% 361 17% 503 7% 50

% Women tenured 5% 7% 4% 11% 14% 5%

Groups I, II, and III are the rankings of institutions according to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. Group IV: US departments or programs of statistics, biostatistics, and biometrics with doctoral programs; Group V: US departments or programs in applied mathematics/applied science, operations research, and management science with doctoral degrees; Group VI: doctorate-granting departments (or programs) in Canadian universities; Group M: US departments granting a masters degree as the highest degree; Group B: US departments granting baccalaureate degrees only

1992–2001 In 1991, Deborah Haimo became the third woman president of the MAA. In 1995, Cathleen Morawetz became the second woman president of the AMS. In the September–October 1992 AWM Newsletter, President Carol Wood reported on membership, which had grown considerably in the previous decade. In addition to 1500 individual regular members, there were approximately 1300 student members, plus contributing and institutional members, for a total of over 3100 members. AWM participated in the SIAM annual meeting and the International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, held in Edinburgh in July 1999. AWM sponsored a lecture and reception at the AMS-sponsored meeting on “Mathematical Challenges of the Twenty-First Century,” and sponsored five AWM Scholars at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000. AWM sponsored two conferences, one at MSRI on “Careers in Mathematics for Women” and one on “Connecting Women in Mathematical Sciences to Industry” at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications in September 2000, organized jointly with IMA. It increased attention to education, sponsoring a panel on “AWM and K–8 Education: What Should We Do,” at the JMM 2001 as well as organizing an MER-AMS-MAA session on education and an AMS-AWM-SIAM Special Session. The Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days Program was going strong. In the early 1990s, I continued as chair of the mathematics department at Kennesaw, chaired the University System of Georgia Advisory Group for Mathematics, was editor of the MAA Notes book series, and was chair of the MAA Southeastern Section. Recognizing the large numbers of teacher preparation majors in my department, I dedicated new positions for faculty with degrees specifically in mathematics education and created a model for shared advising and supervision with the School of Education. My work on Earth Algebra, mathematics education, and as a grant reviewer led to an invitation to apply for a program officer position in the NSF

472

T. H. Straley

Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). My professional life was going well but my personal life was in the doldrums. The offer from NSF presented an exciting new opportunity and I joined DUE for two years, 1993–1995. Lida Barrett was the associate head of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources at NSF. She had been chair of the mathematics department at the University of Tennessee and Dean of Arts and Sciences at Mississippi State University. Lida devoted much of her career to mentoring, especially members of underrepresented groups in mathematics. I met her when I interviewed for the position at NSF, and from that moment on she became a mentor and advisor. Working at NSF was both fun and enriching. Being in DUE meant working with and getting to know the people who were leading mathematics education reform across the nation. I was lead program officer in DUE for teacher preparation, multi-disciplinary programs, and the mathematics part of the instrumentation program; I participated in the Calculus Initiative, and was one of the developers of the new initiative on Mathematics across Disciplines. Being in DUE also meant working closely with the other program officers, especially those in mathematics. It was at this time that I became life-long friends with Liz Teles who was both a program officer in and champion of two-year college issues. NSF sought to encourage women and other underrepresented groups in its programs. Even though the program officers in mathematics in DUE were two women and either one or two men during the time I was there, we had to make a concerted effort to ensure fair representation on review panels and in programs. Our first lists were always mostly white men from research universities. Mentoring and support given by AWM, especially to new members of the profession, is a testament to the work it takes to encourage and support women in the profession. Being able to network, hear the stories of women who have “been there,” have a community within the community, are advantages provided by AWM that were unknown when I entered this profession. AWM ensures the names of women active in the profession are in people’s minds. Although I had contracted to stay at NSF for two more years, I returned to Kennesaw State College in 1995 because I was offered the position of Associate Vice President for Scholarship and Graduate Dean. I made very good decisions in both going to NSF and in returning to Kennesaw, and both decisions were hard to make. In 1996, Kennesaw State College became Kennesaw State University. This was a long way from my start as a temporary assistant professor at Kennesaw Junior College 22 years earlier. Being AVP and Graduate Dean turned out to be my favorite of all the positions that I held throughout my career. My primary responsibilities were to assist faculty in getting research funding and to develop new graduate programs and resources. For example, I worked with the graduate program directors to establish graduate student research assistantships, which they had long advocated. I also established and found funding for seed programs for faculty support that led to grant applications. One of the most enjoyable programs I started was a monthly interdisciplinary research seminar in which faculty discussed works that would hopefully lead to collaborative research and some did! Continuing my interest in interdisciplinary studies, Brian Winkel of the West Point mathematics department and I were the principal investigators of an MAA project funded by NSF

Snapshots of Five Decades

473

Fig. 2 Tina Straley speaking at the AWM Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference, MSRI, July 1996

for interdisciplinary faculty development workshops, titled Mathematics Across the Disciplines. At AWM’s July 1996 Julia Robinson Conference, I was on a panel on academic job diversity (see Fig. 2). I was especially delighted to be on the same panel with Alice Schafer. The panelists were at different career stages and at diverse academic settings so as to present both variety and contrast of institutions. I myself had personally experienced quite a lot of job diversity. The panelists responded to questions regarding hiring, work environment, and promotion, the responsibilities of departmental and central administration at different institutions, the role of mathematical research groups in career development, and the influence of funding agencies. Each panelist was the lead respondent on an area; I led the conclusion with a look forward by way of the concept of change—in the mathematical climate and demands on individuals. The MAA and AWM initiated the AWM-MAA lecture at MathFest in 1996. The meeting was held in Atlanta, and I was the local organizing chair. In 2004, when I was MAA Executive Director, the lecture was renamed the AWM-MAA Etta Zuber Falconer Lecture. I had the good fortune of knowing Etta Falconer through the MAA Southeastern Section community. I was delighted that the renaming of the lecture recognized this outstanding woman, one I knew personally. The 2001 Annual Survey of the Mathematical Sciences showed how women in mathematics fared at the conclusion of the decade and of the century (see Table 4). The survey showed that the number of full-time graduate students in Groups I, II, III and Va

474

T. H. Straley

Table 4 Doctoral women full-time faculty, fall 2001 (Loftsgaarden et al., 2002, p. 933 and p. 937) Group I, II, III, Va M B I, II, III, Va, M, B IV

Number of women 790 769 1527 3086 321

% Women 11.5% 23% 25% 18% 23%

Number of women tenured 367 465 870 1703 121

% Women tenured 8% 20% 21% 15% 14%

Groups I, II, and III are the rankings of institutions according to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. Group IV: US departments or programs of statistics, biostatistics, and biometrics with doctoral programs; Group Va: US departments or programs in applied mathematics granting doctoral degrees; Group VI: doctorate-granting departments (or programs) in Canadian universities; Group M: US departments granting a masters degree as the highest degree; Group B: US departments granting baccalaureate degrees only

decreased from 10595 in 1992 to 9361 in 2001. The number of women graduate students over the same period decreased from 3045 to 2899. But the percentage of women increased from 29% in 1992 to 31% in 2001 because the number of men decreased more sharply than the number of women. Although women were more prominent in the profession, overall patterns of employment had not changed: the percentage of women in faculty positions was smaller than their representation in graduate school. Percentages of faculty women at masters and bachelor degree institutions were twice their counterparts at research universities; and women were at lower ranks at the latter. During the JMM meeting in San Antonio, Texas, in 1999, the talk was all about Marcia Sward retiring as MAA executive director. I had an opportunity during the meeting to tell Marcia how sorry I was that she was leaving as she had done such a great job. The next day, I was approached by Professor Wade Ellis, who said he was on the search committee for the new executive director, and had a question for me. I assumed he would ask if I had suggestions for candidates. Instead, he told me the search committee wondered if I would apply! I was truly blown away; I actually backed up several feet. My response was, “ME?” I would never have thought of applying and I was very happy in my position at Kennesaw, but I followed my rule, “If an opportunity arises, take it.” This new position allowed me to work for an organization I loved and had been part of for many years, to again work on a national level, and to return to the Washington, DC, area. I followed Marcia Sward as the fourth executive director of MAA and the second woman in this position. Surprisingly, that meant that at that time 50% of the executive directors of MAA had been women.

Snapshots of Five Decades

475

2002–2011 I served as MAA executive director for 12 years, 2000–2012. MAA was a memberrun organization, which I considered to be its greatest strength. The more than 50 members of the Board of Governors represented each section and special interests. I designed a process of continual strategic planning, which afforded many opportunities for all members to have input on the directions MAA was to take. New bylaws gave members more opportunities to influence governance, such as an elected nominations committee. I am very disappointed that MAA has since adopted new bylaws which restrict the size of the governing board to nine people and leave little opportunity for member input into governance. In 2001, Ann Watkins became the fourth woman president of the MAA, a decade after Deborah Haimo was president. Working with each of the presidents of MAA with whom I served was a pleasure but my relationship with Ann was more personal than with any of the men. I was very fortunate to have outstanding women advising and supporting me during my tenure at MAA. As a past president of the MAA, Lida Barrett again became an advisor. In addition to Marcia Sward becoming a close personal friend, she was a great sounding board and confidante and the only other person who had been in my shoes (see Fig. 3). Sadly, Marcia passed away too young. My friendships deepened with the two secretaries with whom I served, Martha Siegel and Barbara Faires. The executive director oversaw management and the secretary oversaw governance. Thus, Martha and Barbara, in turn, were my

Fig. 3 Marcia Sward, John Ewing (AMS executive director), Tina Straley, 2001 United States of America Mathematical Olympiad ceremony, Washington, DC. Photo courtesy of MAA and Robert Allen Strawn

476

T. H. Straley

closest colleagues; we spoke almost daily and gossip was often a fun part of our conversations. I was very lucky to serve so closely with these remarkable women. The first fundraising challenge was financing the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO), to be held in Washington, DC, in 2001. With an introduction by Ron Graham, IMO Treasurer John Kenelly and I negotiated $2,000,00 for IMO 2001 and $1,000,000 per year for five years for the MAA American Mathematics Competitions (AMC) program with the Akamai corporation, an internet routing company founded by mathematics professors from MIT. At the opening IMO event at the Kennedy Center, the executive directors of the large mathematics societies, the AMS, the MAA, SIAM, NCTM, and ASA were introduced together onstage. What went through my mind then and now is the query, “Which one is not like the others?” I wondered if anyone else, in particular the girls, noticed that there was only one woman in the group. The MAA is headquartered in three historic buildings in Washington, DC. Two beautiful townhouses serve as offices and conference rooms but meetings of more than 20 people were very difficult to accommodate; thus few members had the opportunity to enjoy use of the buildings. The third building, an old, dilapidated carriage house, was used for storage. Because it was the only large open space, my dream was to convert it to a meetings center. With the aid of Gerry Alexanderson, the MAA secured the largest gift in its history: $5,000,000 from Paul and Virginia Halmos to transform the carriage house into a beautiful and modern meetings facility. Additional funds were donated by Virginia Halmos in a challenge grant that brought a total of another $1 million to support programs in the Carriage House Meetings Center. The Carriage House has brought members and guests to the MAA headquarters from near and far for meetings of the MAA and of other math organizations, conferences, workshops, and talks. AWM was also receiving increased numbers and amounts of grants and gifts at this time. By 2002, AWM was funded by NSF for the Mentoring Travel Grants for Women to aid junior women to develop a long-term working and mentoring relationship with a senior woman mathematician. Sonia Kovalevsky Days continued to be held around the country supported by the National Security Agency, Coppin State College, and Sandia National Laboratories. A very interesting part of representing mathematics in Washington, DC, and in the country, is collaborating with other organizations, especially those in mathematics, particularly through CBMS and JPBM. In 2001 both AWM and MAA participated in the National Summit on the Mathematical Education of Teachers, hosted and organized by CBMS. In addition to the mathematical sciences societies, I interacted frequently with leaders of the mathematics and science societies through the Council of Engineering and Scientific Society Executives (CESSE), for which I served on the Board of Directors, AAAS, the National Academy of Sciences and the Coalition for National Science Funding. I met frequently with the program officers at NSF and the Science Committees in Congress. I also regularly attended black-tie events at beautiful and historic places around Washington, DC. Through CESSE I attended meetings in beautiful spots around the country, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. This was one of the perks of the job.

Snapshots of Five Decades

477

Fig. 4 standing: Joan Feigenbaum and Carolyn Gordon; sitting: Tina Straley and Jean Taylor, 2004 panel on leadership in professional societies and the research community, AWM leadership workshop, University of Maryland, March 2004

In 2004, I was a panelist in the AWM workshop titled “After Tenure: Women Mathematicians Taking a Leadership Role” (see Fig. 4) where 30 junior participants (mostly recently tenured faculty) and a dozen senior participants discussed leadership from many different angles within one’s department, in research, and in professional societies, and the pros and cons of taking on leadership positions. Speakers, both male and female, represented NSF, NSA, professional societies, and academe. In visits to the AMC staff of the MAA on the campus of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, I met Judy Walker who invited me to be on a panel on Careers in Mathematics at the 2009 Annual Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics. MAA had several activities designed for women and girls. The Tensor Foundation funds the MAA summer programs for girls. Marie McKellar, the Tensor Foundation director and funder, and I created a similar program for underrepresented minorities. The MAA produced a timeline poster of women mathematicians that was sent to colleges and universities. I was invited to be on a panel at the “Most Powerful Women” Conference, which grew out of the Time magazine list of most powerful women. Exxon-Mobil was a sponsor and paid my expenses. I was on a

478

T. H. Straley

Table 5 Doctoral full-time women faculty fall 2011 (Cleary et al., 2012b, p. 1424) Group I, II, III, Va M B IV All

Number of women 1294 972 2112 613 4991

% Total women 26% 19% 42% 12% 100%

% Women of all faculty 17% 29% 29% 31% 25%

Groups I, II, and III are the rankings of institutions according to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. Group IV: US departments or programs of statistics, biostatistics, and biometrics with doctoral programs; Group Va: US departments or programs in applied mathematics granting doctoral degrees; Group M: US departments granting a masters degree as the highest degree; Group B: US departments granting baccalaureate degrees only

panel chaired by the first woman astronaut, Sally Ride, on STEM programs for women and girls. The conference itself was a window to a unknown world to me. I was in the buffet line in front of Martha Stewart. Speakers included Melinda Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Warren Buffett, the only male speaker. The registration form had a checkbox for arriving by automobile, commercial airline, or private jet. I was met at the airport by a private limousine. I overheard one of Martha Stewart’s staff members complaining about having to return home in the First Class section of a commercial airline rather than the corporate jet. I had thought First Class was the apex of travel! Another touch of luxury I experienced was going to the airport from a JMM meeting in New Orleans in a limousine provided by the hotel. When I got out, alone, of the long, stretch limousine with tinted windows at the airport, people stared at me wondering who I could be. When I boarded the plane, I knew I was back to reality as I sat in a middle seat in Economy. At the beginning of the new century, the percentage of women at US university departments in the mathematical sciences had increased from the previous decade. However, women continued to have a disproportionate number of positions at the lower degree granting institutions (see Table 5). By the end of the decade, 41% of doctoral male faculty were at Group I, II, III, and Va doctoral institutions, but only 26% of women doctoral faculty were. Forty-two percent of women doctoral faculty were at baccalaureate institutions. Although the gap for women at the research universities had narrowed, the overall pattern was the same. The percentage of women at masters level institutions had decreased and the percentage of women at baccalaureate institutions had significantly increased. The percentages of tenured women doctoral faculty in each group were: 4% in Group I Public; 2% in Group I Private; 6% in Group II; 8% in Group III; 8% in Group IV; 1% in Group Va; 23% in Group M; and 49% in Group B. These percentages are well below the percentage in each group for women in all but the M and B, where tenured women were overrepresented. Women held 2% of all postdoctoral appointments. Thus, the portion of postdoctoral appointments going to women was 8–10% points below that of women graduate students, which hovered near 30% for at least a decade. This may have contributed to smaller percentages of women who were full-time faculty members

Snapshots of Five Decades

479

at higher ranking universities. The percentages of women doctorate recipients varied by category: Group I public, Group I private, and II are 25%, 22%, and 26% respectively; Group III is 35%; Group IV is 46%, and Group Va is 26% (Cleary et al., 2012a,b, p. 1087, p. 1425–1426). Many societies, including the MAA, lost membership and revenue in the economic downturn of 2008. One counterbalance to decreasing faculty membership has been increasing student memberships. At the beginning of 2002, the President’s Report in the AWM Newsletter welcomed student chapters and invited the creation of new student chapters. Students accounted for a significant part of the AWM membership, expanding its reach and programming from pre-college students through women in academe. Several societies including MAA and AWM had increased the numbers of departmental and contributing members. Another source of new members for several organizations was international members. In the January–February 2011 AWM Newsletter, President Georgia Benkart reported that membership was up 12%. The number of student chapters grew by 6. In addition the AWM was reaching out to organizations abroad with missions similar to AWM to be affiliate members. However, the core membership was (and is) individuals in the profession in the US and Canada. In 2010–2011, the total number of women doctoral faculty was 4991 with 2113 non-doctoral women faculty, making the pool for AWM “regular” members very small, and AWM competed with many societies for these members. In 2011, the AWM celebrated its 40th anniversary with several mini-symposiums and a banquet at the JMM, an embedded meeting at the International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the “40 Years and Counting: AWM’s Celebration of Women in Mathematics” research conference at Brown University, and a Student Chapters Poster Session in addition to the usual activities at MAA’s MathFest. Contests, prizes, named lectures, travel grants, research collaborations, and mentoring have become part of the fabric of AWM. AWM activities spanned the advancement of women from high school students through senior faculty, educational issues, research opportunities, recognition, and public policy.

2012–2020 At the end of 2011, the 40th anniversary year of AWM and of my receiving my doctoral degree, I retired from full-time employment. I became a consultant for and a board member of the Educational Advancement Foundation (EAF), directed by Harry Lucas, and a founding Board member of the Foundation for Mathematical Learning by Inquiry (MLI). When I was a graduate student at Auburn University, most of my graduate classes were taught by the Moore Method; and I used modifications of the method in particular courses throughout my teaching career. One of the best teaching experiences I had was a geometry class for prospective teachers, all women in this instance. Students presented their proofs with the support, encouragement, and suggestions from me and other students. At the final

480

T. H. Straley

Table 6 Doctoral women full-time faculty fall 2017 (Golbeck et al., 2019, p. 1723) Groups All doctoral math Masters and bachelors Statistics and biostatistics Totals

Number of women 1838 3367 713 5908

% Women 21% 31% 32% 27%

Number of women tenured 730 1921 262 2913

% Women tenured 15% 28% 32% 23%

the students distributed buttons that said, “I survived Dr. Straley’s Geometry Class.” These modifications are known as Inquiry Based Learning, which is what EAF supported. I worked on all aspects of the organizations but a particular focus of mine was on strategic planning. In 2017, Deanna Haunsperger became president of the MAA, 16 years after Ann Watkins was president. Deanna is the fifth woman to be president in the 105-year history of the MAA. In 2019, Jill Pipher became the third woman AMS president. As of 2020, the executive director of AMS is a woman, Catherine Roberts. The numbers of women in top leadership positions in associations and in the academic community is still small even though women have served as executive directors and presidents of the societies and women mathematicians have become high-level administrators, including presidents, of colleges and universities. The latest data available as of this writing indicate that in 2017 the total number of full-time graduate students in doctoral mathematics departments was 13,896. Fulltime women graduate students in doctoral programs accounted for 30% from 2008 to 2017 (Golbeck et al., 2019, p. 1728). Table 6 shows that women continued to be underrepresented in doctorate-granting institutions and underrepresented relative to the general population in masters and bachelors level colleges and universities. The percentage of doctoral women faculty in bachelors level institutions grew to 43%, larger than in past decades. The Fall 2017 Survey included data on department chairs. The total in all categories was 1509. Of these, 1066 were men and 395, or 26%, were women. In the doctoral mathematics departments, women were 27 of the total of 121, or 18%; in statistics and biostatistics departments, women were 23 of 101, or 23%; in masters level departments, women were 44 of 173 or 25%. In bachelors departments, women were 301 of 976, or 31% (Golbeck et al., 2019, p. 1721). AWM president Ami Radunskaya advised AWM to continue interventions against bias, gather data, continue workshops and studies, and stated that AWM should educate against stereotypes and encourage research collaboration networks, and “increase visibility of mathematicians from other underrepresented groups by supporting and partnering with organizations like NAM, Mathematically Gifted and Black, and Lathisms” (Radunskaya, 2019). It is interesting to note that a suggestion to partner more closely with NAM appeared in the AWM Newsletter in 1971, its first year. The May–June 2020 AWM Newsletter reported on the fall 2019 AWM Capitol Hill Days, conducted biennially since 2015. Unfortunately, the events planned for

Snapshots of Five Decades

481

2020 had to be cancelled. Together with my work with EAF and MLI, I was able to continue my involvement in the mathematical community and stay connected with friends and colleagues. I no longer serve on these boards, but I have continued to serve on MAA committees, attend JMM, and review for NSF. At the beginning of my career, I did not see any special value to women as mentors, mentees, and even particularly as colleagues. I have since formed very close relationships with both men and women in my mathematical family but most of my closest and longestlasting relationships have been with other women. I hope that I have been a mentor and as valuable a colleague to women as they have been to me. I still enjoy those close relationships with my colleagues, both men and women, who became my lifelong friends. It is a wonderful way to be retired.

Conclusion Over the years I have been very involved with strategic planning in a variety of settings: the graduate programs at Kennesaw State University, MAA, CESSE, EAF, and MLI. Thus, I appreciate the importance of looking back in order to look ahead. How have we done over the past 50 years? The number and percentage of women in the mathematical sciences in academe have increased significantly from 1971 to the end of the twentieth century, and have since leveled off. Women make up approximately 50% of undergraduate mathematics majors, 40–45% of masters-level graduate students, and approximately 30% of PhD students and of faculty positions. The percentages of women in the mathematical sciences are lower than in some fields, such as biology, but higher than others, such as physics. Although the number and the percentage of women in the profession has grown over the past 50 years, the growth in faculty appointments has largely been at masters and bachelors level institutions. In the doctoral departments, the percentage of women in 2017 had only reached 21% but was 43% in bachelors-granting departments. Women have made great strides in being recognized and being active in the professional societies, but it is still the case that women are in the minority of the profession in important aspects. At research universities, mathematics remains a male-dominated profession. In 2017, the total number of full-time faculty in the mathematical sciences was slightly over 20,000. The core membership of AWM are women full-time faculty. In 2017, these numbered 5908, and 2913 had tenure. Of this pool of potential members, some are members of more than one society and some do not join any. Many societies have reached out to members outside of North America and to students, as has AWM. Although students now comprise a significant portion of AWM membership and fit well within AWM’s mission of promoting women in mathematics, students are transient members; some who continue into graduate school in the mathematical sciences may continue their membership and some will come back to membership after getting a doctoral degree. But most will never become regular members. With the number of new doctorates in the mathematical

482

T. H. Straley

sciences not growing, AWM might not significantly grow its core membership in the foreseeable future. The AWM has accomplished a great many things in the past 50 years with a relatively small population. While it is difficult to attribute the advances women have made only to AWM, the organization can certainly take a lot of credit. The small pool of potential members is a concern, however, because members are a dependable funding base and an association depends on the work of its member volunteers. Although the numbers of AWM members may increase with members from abroad as it did with expansion of student membership, AWM should reach out to other communities as well. In particular, the mission of NAM coincides with that of AWM. There are women who are leaders in both societies and each society can complement and enforce what the other is doing. An Education Column is a staple of the AWM Newsletter and AWM has participated in national educational initiatives. However, AWM does not have a strong relationship with NCTM and other mathematics education associations. Similarly, AWM ties with AMS, SIAM, and MAA are very strong, but not with ASA and AMATYC. AWM has accomplished a lot by influencing and collaborating with those societies with which it has a strong relationship and can do the same with these other societies. With women comprising approximately a third of the mathematical sciences doctoral faculty in higher education, the need for AWM continues. While AWM strives to increase the number of women through mentoring, recognition, and programs for women and girls, the most pressing goal for AWM is to ensure that women are treated equitably through pre-college to graduate degrees and then in employment in both academic and non-academic arenas. Mentoring is a cornerstone of AWM. The work should not be left to AWM alone, but AWM should lead the way for its members to be mentors. Similarly, AWM should lead by example in creating communities and networks but not be the sole source of support. When I completed my doctoral degree 50 years ago, I thought that my career would be teaching and research at a university. That is not the career I had. I started with a temporary position at a two-year college. There were times I thought I was stagnating. However, my career was always evolving. Ultimately, I had wonderful experiences that I had never dreamed I would have. I feel very fortunate to have had the career I did. This article started in 1971 with AWM Chairman Gray explaining how to file complaints with HEW for violations against women of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court recently used the Civil Rights Act to protect LBGTQ+ persons against job discrimination. With greater societal support for the Black Lives Matter movement, we may see further steps taken towards equal treatment of all people. But laws are not enough to make changes. For women in the mathematical sciences, AWM is still very needed and will likely be in the years leading to its 100th anniversary.

Snapshots of Five Decades

483

References American Mathematical Society Committee on the Economic Status of Teachers (AMS CEST). 1981. 25th Annual AMS Survey, First Report. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 28(7): 608–612. Cleary, Richard, James Maxwell, and Colleen Rose. 2012a. Report on the 2010–2011 new doctoral recipients. Notices of the AMS 59(8): 1083–1093. Cleary, Richard, James Maxwell, and Colleen Rose. 2012b. Fall 2011 Departmental Profile Report. Notices of the AMS 59(10): 1423–1431. Golbeck, Amanda L., Thomas H. Barr, and Colleen A. Rose. 2019. Fall 2017 Departmental Profile Report. Notices of the AMS 66(10): 1721–1730. Gray, Mary. 1971a. HEW. AWM Newsletter 1(1): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1971b. The Penn State meeting—Chairman’s report. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 1–2. Gray, Mary. 1971c. Fellowships and grants. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 3–4. Gray, Mary. 1971d. Statistics. AWM Newsletter 1(2): 4. Gray, Mary. 1972. Chairman’s report—the AMS Council meeting. AWM Newsletter 2(2): 1–3. Jackson, Allyn. 1991. Top producers of women mathematics doctorates. Notices of the AMS 38(7): 715–720. The Legacy of R. L. Moore—R. L. Moore and the Moore method. 2013. http://www. legacyrlmoore.org/method.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2020. Loftsgaarden, Don O., James W. Maxwell, and Kinda Remick Priestly. 2002. 2001 Annual Survey of the Mathematical Sciences, Third report. Notices of the AMS 49(8): 928–938. McClure, Donald E. 1991. 1991 Annual AMS-MAA Survey, First report. Notices of the AMS 38(9): 1093. McClure, Donald E. 1992. 1991 Annual AMS-MAA Survey, Second Report. Notices of the AMS 39(6): 573–581. Radunskaya, Ami. 2019. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 49(1): 2. Schafer, Alice T. 1981. Before AWM. AWM Newsletter 11(2): 6–7. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(6): 1. Straley, Tina. 1985. Women in mathematics, science and technology: FutureScape. AWM Newsletter 14(5): 21.

Women and Mathematics: A Perfect Combination Eileen L. Poiani

Once upon a time before personal computers, a heroine employed on the Princeton University campus transformed handwritten mathematical dissertations into works of art. Her magic was performed on a manual typewriter with removable keys like a printing press which she deftly and patiently changed to match the various sizes of parentheses and brackets and to capture the symbolic notation. Countless doctoral dissertations like mine at Rutgers and others at Princeton bear the expert typing of Euthie Anthony to whom we all owe enormous gratitude. My doctorate was granted in 1971, the same year that AWM was founded, and my career, a hybrid of teaching, research, and administration, unfolded in parallel with AWM’s development. Like my dissertation, my career and my work in outreach were shaped by people, places, and technology in New Jersey and in the broader mathematical community.

Life Before AWM The journey that led this only child to that momentous occasion of earning her doctorate in mathematics harkens back to the 1918 influenza pandemic. My maternal great grandfather settled along the Morris Canal in Nutley, New Jersey, about 12 miles from New York City. My paternal grandfather settled in Newark, New Jersey, just eight miles away. At the age of nine, both my parents lost their mothers, who were only in their late twenties, to the flu. Like those afflicted today by COVID-19, their family lives were forever disrupted. But both families believed

E. L. Poiani () Saint Peter’s University, Jersey City, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_41

485

486

E. L. Poiani

in the power of education and hard work, so their generation and my cousins in my generation and beyond have carried on with determination and resilience. Like my mother, I attended the Nutley Public Schools. In 1957, the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union further stimulated my interest in mathematics and science. Essentially, Sputnik was the STEM of that time and my love of mathematics was fueled by the race to the moon and my inspiring high school mathematics teachers, all of whom were men. In my speech at our ninth-grade promotion exercises in 1958, I clearly was sold on mathematics as the foundation of science and the launch pad for technology, in saying: Our schools will be called upon to supply an increasing number of persons with a wide range of skills, many in new fields resulting from the growth of technology. The welfare and security of our people as a whole may well depend on the extent to which we are able to educate each young man and woman to his or her full capacity.

Decades later in 1984 my view of mathematics was confirmed. Admiral Grace Murray Hopper was the Saint Peter’s University commencement speaker that year and I was her host. Though famous for being a computer pioneer, she affirmed that she was first and foremost a mathematician. After graduating from high school, I went on to Douglass College, the women’s college of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, where I majored in mathematics and minored in French. Between my junior and senior years at Douglass, I had an internship with Bell Labs (at its military installation in Whippany, New Jersey) where I wrote a program in Fortran II to plot on microfilm the path of a shot to the moon. (Although Fortran is an old scientific programming language, it is still in use. According to a NASA expert in climate change research, many climate change models today continue to be written in Fortran.) From Douglass I went on to study for my doctorate at Rutgers. My father, who always encouraged my mathematical pursuits, had been an engineering troubleshooter at Bendix Aviation for over 35 years when he was forced into retirement in 1967. To assist at home, I decided to change from full-time to parttime graduate study and seek a teaching position. Contrary to my father’s advice to continue full-time and finish my degree, I applied for teaching jobs and visited Jersey City, New Jersey, for the first time to interview at Saint Peter’s University (then College): The Jesuit University of New Jersey, located just across the river from downtown Manhattan. I had other job offers in New Jersey, but accepted the position at Saint Peter’s starting in fall 1967, aiming to head for a public university after a few years. But the rest is history and I am still at this richly diverse institution committed to social justice. Saint Peter’s first admitted women to its day session in 1966. One-third of the day freshman enrollees were women who ranked at the top of their high school classes. The Rutgers graduate program was male-dominated and so was Saint Peter’s as I became the first woman in the Department of Mathematics with nine male departmental colleagues. Furthermore, there were only six other women on the entire faculty. Although most everyone was ostensibly cordial, it was a new

Women and Mathematics: A Perfect Combination

487

environment. The determination, resilience, and independent spirit bred at Douglass and through my upbringing afforded the momentum to go forward. Princeton entered the picture when my Rutgers dissertation advisor, Benjamin Muckenhoupt, arranged for me to sit in on some courses and use the library at Princeton University for research. My advisor was a product of the Zygmund School of mathematical analysis at the University of Chicago and was the best advisor a student could have had. “Muckenhoupt weights” are named in his honor. Albany, New York, about 141 miles from Nutley, appeared on my radar when my advisor accepted a visiting professorship at SUNY Albany. I was writing my dissertation and needed to discuss things in person (no internet or email) so I traveled many a time to Albany on a day when I did not teach, leaving in the wee hours of the morning and returning at night, sitting outside his office until he had a break between classes. How well those walls of snow remain in my memory. My road to the doctorate then ran from New Brunswick to Nutley to Jersey City to Princeton to Albany and back in a zigzag order. During my journey there were no designated support places specifically for women mathematicians. Credit for the opportunity to enter the state and national mathematics scene goes to the Saint Peter’s chair of the mathematics department, Francis A. Varrichio. He kindly encouraged me to become involved with the New Jersey Section of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA). I became an MAA officer and later the governor of the New Jersey Section.

Life as AWM Begins Dramatic social change was afoot in the 1960s into the 1970s with the 1963 publication of Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the Clean Air Act of 1970. Folk and soul music dominated the charts. Like the women who were the “hidden figures” behind the NASA calculations that led to John Glenn’s successful orbit of the earth in 1962 and beyond, women were rarely seen in the professorial ranks of academe. After many drives to Princeton to meet with my typist and after intense proofreading of my dissertation, I was awarded the doctorate in special function theory at Rutgers in June 1971. It coincided with the time of the 1971 founding of AWM. Fifty years after suffrage made women visible at the ballot box, women were gaining entrance as undergraduates at Ivy League colleges. Dartmouth was the last to admit women in 1972. A year later, “High School Math as the Critical Filter in the Job Market,” a study by sociologist Lucy W. Sells, identified lack of enough school mathematics as limiting women’s access to many college majors at the University of California at Berkeley. In his 1976 American Mathematical Monthly article, “Mathematics and Sex,” John Ernest described similar findings for students at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

488

E. L. Poiani

Our mathematics department at Saint Peter’s started a lectureship program in the early 1970s which I coordinated. My colleagues and I, often with a student, went to high schools in the New York–New Jersey metropolitan area to give talks on various mathematical topics and encourage students to take four years of high school mathematics in order to be prepared to take calculus and keep all career doors open. The program also sought to reduce “math anxiety” experienced particularly by women and other groups underrepresented in mathematics. At the same time, IBM leaders had been hosting a reception for winners of the USA Mathematical Olympiad and could not help but notice that no girls were among them. The American team was chosen from the top achievers to enter the summer International Mathematical Olympiad. Consequently, no American girls ever participated in the international competition. So IBM representatives approached the MAA to develop an intervention program to attract girls to mathematical pursuits. In 1975, IBM agreed to support a secondary school lectureship intervention program in conjunction with the MAA to encourage more young women to study and excel in mathematics. The MAA must have become aware of the Saint Peter’s lectureship initiative through an article I wrote and approached me to develop a program and become its founding director. So the Women and Mathematics (WAM) lectureship program was created starting with regions in the New York–New Jersey region and the San Francisco Bay Area. The program expanded across the country to nine regions, adding Boston, Connecticut, Chicago, South Florida, Southern California, Oregon, and Seattle. I served as the WAM director for six years as well as the New York–New Jersey coordinator and a speaker; after that, I was an advisor to the program. WAM speakers were drawn from all walks of mathematical life from education and corporations to government, business, and research. All of us were volunteers. Among the distinguished speakers in my region were Anneli Lax of the Courant Institute at NYU and Mary P. Dolciani after whom the MAA headquarters in Washington, DC, was named. The fulcrum of WAM was placed at the sophomore level to encourage students to take at least four years of high school mathematics because some states did not even have a minimum mathematics requirement. MAA President Henry Pollak opened the door to Bell Labs so I could recruit statisticians as speakers who also developed outcomes evaluation forms that were completed by the host teacher and students after every WAM presentation in order to assess its impact and improve the program. I even enlisted my mother to assist with the tabulations and reviews. Because guidance counselors influence student course selections, WAM sponsored several conferences for them entitled MODE (Math Opens Doors Everywhere). The first two were held in New Jersey and Chicago. The Blacks and Mathematics (BAM) program was modeled after WAM to encourage underrepresented students to enroll in college-preparatory mathematics courses. Sponsored by the MAA with a grant from the Exxon Corporation starting in 1977, Etta Zuber Falconer, for whom the AWM Falconer Lecture is named, directed BAM and was the Atlanta regional coordinator from 1977–1980. This program operated in Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, Houston, and Washington, DC.

Women and Mathematics: A Perfect Combination

489

Life with the AWM-Advantage My local involvement with MAA enabled me to take my students to meetings and support their enthusiasm for mathematics. This gave me entrée to attend national mathematics meetings and to learn about AWM. At the meetings, I was able to attend AWM sessions and meet AWM leaders who had been “mentors from a distance” through their writings and lectures and enabled me to bring back information about AWM to my departmental colleagues and students. Like my counterparts from small and medium-sized colleges, we were not in the mainstream of the large research universities and it tended to take somewhat longer for us to become involved with the network of a new organization. AWM provided the anchor and resource that I needed to navigate my solo situation. AWM was the quintessential mentor. Many young women enrolling at Saint Peter’s decided to major in mathematics so the AWM resource materials, tshirts, programs, and opportunities were inspirational for them. When I received my AWM newsletters, I shared them with the students and incorporated the history of women in mathematics in my courses. If a national meeting was nearby, I encouraged them to attend. It was an honor to have made a presentation at the November 1997 Sonia Kovalevsky Day at Norfolk State University, a program sponsored by AWM, which, like WAM, is intended to encourage high school women to study and excel in mathematics. The topic of my presentation was “Connections and Patterns.” I also served on AWM’s selection committees in 1999 and 2001. To effect substantial change in attitudes towards women in any field, especially a male-dominated field like mathematics, takes perseverance and persistence. It should be noted that it was not until 1998 that the first American woman became a member of the International Mathematical Olympiad Team. Melanie Matchett Wood, an extraordinarily talented mathematician and Princeton PhD, broke that barrier and has been a professor of mathematics at several prestigious universities. Through the years very few women have made the international teams, implying the need to continue our resolve to attract more of them to mathematics. Created in 2012, the European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad seeks to bolster the engagement of young women in mathematical competitions. Over the decades, influencing women and the underrepresented at all levels of education to pursue their study of mathematics has been my sustained commitment (see Fig. 1). My goal is to foster an appreciation for the power of mathematics in order to enhance career opportunities as well as to advance the quality of life in the digital age and whatever comes next. Women and mathematics are truly a perfect combination that AWM has fostered for 50 years and counting. In my recent talks to K–12 teachers and to students about STEM, I normally state that “STEM” is a misnomer because you cannot do “S, T, E” without “M.” So the acronym should be METS (not the baseball team) in order to prioritize the place of mathematics.

490

E. L. Poiani

Fig. 1 AWM Fellows Diane Souvaine, Roselyn Williams, Eileen Poiani, Marge Bayer, Maura Mast, Leslie Hogben, Sarah Greenwald, Michelle Manes, Alissa Crans, 2020 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Denver, CO. AWM Fellows are individuals who have demonstrated a sustained commitment to the support and advancement of women in the mathematical sciences

Pi Mu Epsilon, the honorary National Mathematics Society established in 1914, is also a significant part of my mathematical life. Its purpose is “the promotion of scholarly activity in mathematics among students in academic institutions, and among the staffs of qualified non-academic institutions.” The New Jersey Epsilon PME chapter at Saint Peter’s recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, so it is similar in vintage to AWM. Decades ago I was elected a member of the national PME Council and had the honor of being elected the first woman president in its 75-year history, serving from 1987–1990 (initially as president-elect). During my tenure the name was officially changed from Pi Mu Epsilon Fraternity to Pi Mu Epsilon Society. My hybrid career was fostered by the mentorship of four Jesuit university presidents of Saint Peter’s University. I taught for nearly 35 years, from finite mathematics and calculus to differential equations and advanced analysis, from creating the mathematics for humanities course to complex variables. My administrative role started with being asked to direct a self-study for regional accreditation that led to two more; then leading institutional research and strategic planning; and handling trustee matters. Many of my administrative responsibilities involved problem-solving for which mathematics is the perfect preparation. With the Jesuit values of developing the whole person and social justice, and with prior experience in the field of student life, I pivoted, becoming the Vice President for Student Affairs, the first woman vice president at the university, for 12 years. My current administrative role as Special Assistant to the President

Women and Mathematics: A Perfect Combination

491

includes responsibility for sustainability, a tobacco-free campus, and co-chairing the University’s sesquicentennial commemoration in 2021–2022. Prior to 1971, women of mathematics did not have the AWM-Advantage. I am very grateful for the mentoring that I received along the way from colleagues, men and women, and from association with several mathematical organizations, each with its own culture. But it would have been advantageous to have had a network like AWM of women mathematicians to share expectations and experiences; to learn together how to balance the roles of family and career; to explore the routes to publishing articles and books; to figure out how to fit into the world led by our male mathematical counterparts or create a new one; to chart the uncharted layers of academic life; and to appreciate our own absolute value. For women of mathematics to move forward, they needed professional development that only a professional association could provide. The very name of AWM underscores that this association is for women. Mary Gray had the foresight and determination to found AWM and to her goes our deepest gratitude. According to the United States Census and Statistics Department, the life expectancy for women has risen from 75.3 in 1971 to 80.5 in 2020, with variations by race and ethnicity. Present and future generations are likely to have multiple careers which may span different fields over a lifetime. Many of those careers will have names that do not exist today, but many will rely on mathematics. The complexities of society, climate change, technology, pandemics, and the unknown make the need for human support systems and community even more critical. The words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (aka RBG) speak to the past, present, and future of AWM: “Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” Mary Gray led that fight and mapped a new pathway that significantly advanced the role, recognition, and visibility of women mathematicians over the past 50 years and will continue to multiply their networks and opportunities for generations from A to Z, Alpha to Omega, ad infinitum.

Part VIII

Outreach, Inreach, and Mentoring: Grade School to Grad School

Women Count! A Quarter Century of Sonia Kovalevsky Days Betsy Yanik

The title is obvious but will specifically link to a variety of observations in this article. Women count in the sense that, although women have not always been viewed as equals to men in mathematics, women have shown themselves to be equally capable as mathematicians. I personally felt that the need to correct this view influenced the major emphasis in AWM’s early years on promoting and advancing the visibility of women in mathematical research. Part of me understood, and in large part agreed, with this priority. However I am a faculty member at Emporia State, a comprehensive university in a rural setting in Kansas, with a relatively large teaching load. I distinctly remember my reaction to hearing, at an AWM panel at a national meeting in the early 1970s, “to be taken seriously we have to produce outstanding research.” It seemed a whole group of women mathematicians, myself included, didn’t fit under that tent. I have seen the interests and pursuits of AWM become much broader and more inclusive over the years. Many AWM presidents have had a particularly strong commitment to promoting educational and outreach work as well as research excellence (see Fig. 1). The AWM outreach program that I am most familiar with is the Sonia Kovalevsky Mathematics Day. The namesake of this program, Sonia Kovalevsky (1850–1891), was the first woman in modern Europe to receive a doctorate in mathematics. She made significant contributions in partial differential equations and was awarded the prestigious Prix Bordin from the French Academy of Sciences. In addition to her mathematical accomplishments, Sonia Kovalevsky was an advocate of women’s rights and an author of several novels and essays. The beginnings of AWM’s involvement in recognizing Sonia Kovalevsky began in October 1985 when AWM hosted a Sonia Kovalevsky celebration at Radcliffe

B. Yanik () Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_42

495

496

B. Yanik

Fig. 1 Betsy Yanik, Edith Prentice Mendez, Karen Dee Michalowicz, Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Hyman Bass, Debra Borkovitz, panel on mathematics educators and mathematicians working together, 2003 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

and the Mary Bunting Institute. Part of this celebration included a program for high school seniors which became a model for subsequent Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days. The first AWM Sonia Kovalevsky High School Day was held in 1987 at Simmons College in Boston (Beers, 1987). In 1989, AWM received funding from the Exxon Educational Foundation (EEF) to support an AWM grant program for the development of Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days at successful applicants’ institutions. This EEF support was continued for many years. The AWM Newsletter has included articles about various Sonia Days around the country for a number of years (e.g., Greenwald et al., 2015; Reid and Trowell, 2019; Schaposnik and Unwin, 2019). While AWM funding is not currently available for Sonia Mathematics Day events, they continue in many locations throughout the country. My institution began its Sonia Kovalevsky program in 1994 when two of my colleagues were awarded an AWM grant (which was renewed in 1995). I assisted with this program each year and in those same two years, I became the codirector (with a biology colleague) of Emporia State’s Expanding Your Horizons conference, a STEM outreach program for middle school girls. After these two years, my mathematics colleague, Marvin Harrell, and I became co-directors of both programs. In 2018, both these programs celebrated their 25th anniversary. There is much to say about how that longevity was attained, but first I’ll provide more details of our Sonia Kovalevsky Day work and highlight some of the insights gained from this experience. The AWM funding for the first two years of the Sonia Kovalevsky Mathematics Day program was of critical importance. It allowed the organizers time to work on the logistics of hosting the program, connecting and communicating with invited speakers and contacts at local schools, making reservations for rooms and meals, gathering supplies, and generating many necessary documents such as application forms, acceptance letters, program booklets, and participant certificates. After these

Women Count! A Quarter Century of Sonia Kovalevsky Days

497

Fig. 2 Betsy Yanik leading a secret code workshop at Sonia Day, Emporia State University

AWM-funded years, we were able to spend the necessary time to locate funding to maintain the program. Most Sonia Days have similar overall formats. The day’s typical activities include both career discussions and hands-on workshops led by women mathematicians (see Fig. 2), an invited speaker, and a closing ceremony. Some years, Emporia State added a unique component to our Sonia program. Working with our theatre department, we wrote a script for a theatre major to deliver a first-person monologue as Sonia. The theatre student would perform her narration with a Russian accent and dressed in a period costume, a long black skirt with a long-sleeved, high-collared black blouse. There are some additional local features to our conference schedule. We hold an hour-long problem solving event in which the participants are grouped into teams of three students each (see Fig. 3). As problems are displayed proctors roam about the room checking the work of the teams. The first few teams to correctly solve the problem are invited to have one of their group come forward and explain their solution. Each member of these teams then select a candy from a table full of goodies in the front of the room. There are ample opportunities for everyone to enjoy some candy, and teachers are also invited to make candy selections. While their students are in hands-on workshops, the high school teachers meet with a representative from the State Board of Education. This session usually centers on details about the state mathematics assessments. The teachers also have their own hour session to compare notes about how their schools are handling a variety of curricular issues.

498

B. Yanik

Fig. 3 Sonia Day problem solving session, Emporia State University

After over 25 years of directing outreach programs, I think some noteworthy observations about STEM outreach activities are: The Need Is Still There Especially in our rural areas and disadvantaged urban areas, young women lack opportunities to interact with female STEM role models. Seed Money for Beginning Outreach Programs Is Crucial Having funding for the first few years greatly enhances the viability of maintaining a program. After beginning with two years of AWM funding, we are organizing our 27th Sonia Kovalevsky Day. For many years, AWM awarded funding to approximately 10 sites per year to support the hosting of a Sonia Day conference, and several of the organizers wrote short articles in the AWM Newsletter reporting on the success of their programs. It is discouraging to note that currently AWM has not been able to find funding to continue this grant program. The “Reach” of an Outreach Program Is Often Unknown But Can Be Surprisingly Expansive When discussing these outreach programs in a variety of public settings the question arises, “Have you tracked the future careers of participants?” While a logical question, most host sites lack the resources required to track participants over several years, especially if the host institution has a variety of outreach efforts. But sometimes we fortuitously hear about unanticipated impacts. My favorite story of this unexpected reach comes from a local newspaper article highlighting the academic accomplishments of a young woman from a small neighboring, rural, high school. When asked what she might choose for a career, the young woman responded that she would like to work in the area of cryptography at the National Security Agency (NSA). We had just had Sonia Day on our campus a few weeks before with a speaker from NSA at our luncheon. The surprising part is that this young woman, though selected to participate, was unable to attend. Hearing secondhand about the speaker from friends had a profound impact upon her vision of future opportunities. Outreach Work Can Be “Habit-Forming” At our institution, we created a summer residential weeklong program, MASTER IT—Mathematics and Science To Explore

Women Count! A Quarter Century of Sonia Kovalevsky Days

499

caReers, Investigating Together, about five years after the establishment of the Sonia and Expanding Your Horizons programs. This was followed by the Si Se Puede and Summer Scholars outreach programs for Hispanic/Latino youth, a oneday fall conference and weeklong summer workshop, respectively. AWM has also experienced this proliferation of outreach efforts. AWM members participate in the National Math Festival and the USA Science and Engineering Festival, and AWM runs an annual essay contest in which middle school, high school, and college students write biographical essays about female mathematicians. Our colleagues have generous spirits. Most outreach work relies upon women mathematicians to volunteer their time and talents. The response to requests for assistance is gratifying. Contributors often respond with enthusiasm and the comment, “I wish a program like this existed when I was a young student.” In 2004, I was notified that I would be a recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. The award weekend in Washington, DC, was quite memorable, especially meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The most inspirational parts of the award program were learning of other awardees’ work in innovative outreach programs and the call to action to take this honor and use it to expand mentoring efforts. This led to the creation of two Hispanic/Latino programs at our institution. This was a natural choice for our outreach expansion since our public school population is roughly 50% Hispanic. To mirror the Expanding Your Horizons program for middle school girls, a program for Hispanic/Latino middle school students was created, namely Si Se Puede Hacer Ciencias y Matematicas. A few years later, a nonresidential summer program for Hispanic/Latino students called Summer Scholars was begun. Now to return to the title of this article. One possible future endeavor that I would recommend when funding opportunities increase is the return of Women Count conferences. The Women Count conference, formerly funded by NSA, was a biennial one-day conference. The conferences offered between 2001 and 2009 were held the day before MathFest (see Fig. 2). Approximately 30 participants representing both prospective and experienced directors of outreach programs assembled to investigate numerous components of hosting an outreach program, such as program format, age level of participants, application and selection processes, examples of particularly engaging hands-on activities, possible funding sources, and assessment procedures. Even many years after the event, participants have frequently praised the usefulness of these conferences. As mentioned before, the need for mathematical outreach programs, particularly for underrepresented groups, remains compelling. Although the Women Count conferences were not an AWM initiative, AWM is perfectly positioned to reinstate them if and when funding sources become more available for outreach work. It is an ideal method of reaching out to colleagues who are interested in organizing outreach work and seek advice and tips on the “nuts and bolts” issues common to all outreach efforts. Another source of information for beginning outreach-program directors is the annual MAA mathematical outreach poster session at MathFest.

500

B. Yanik

Fig. 4 Betsy Yanik, Virginia Kasten, Genevieve Knight, Kathleen Sullivan, session on Expanding the Vision: Increasing the Participation of Women, 2001 Women Count conference, Madison, WI. For many years, Knight was a Co-Principal Investigator on grants that funded AWM’s SK Days

In conclusion, AWM should be proud of its strong track record in outreach work. One can hardly imagine the initiatives the next 50 years will bring (Fig. 4).

References Beers, Donna. 1987. Report on the Sonia Kovalevsky High School Mathematics Day. AWM Newsletter 17(5): 8–9. Greenwald, Sarah J., Amber L. Mellon, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. Women in mathematics badge (yes, an actual badge!) for girl scouts. AWM Newsletter 45(1): 17–19. Reid, Denise and Sandy Trowell. 2019. 24th SK Day held at VSU. AWM Newsletter 49(4): 30–31. Schaposnik, Laura P. and James Unwin. 2019. Sonia Kovalevsky Days: The potential to inspire. AWM Newsletter 49(5): 6–8.

Twenty Years of the AWM Mentor Network Anna Ghazaryan, Rachel Kuske, and Emille Lawrence

The year 2021 brought us another anniversary for AWM, the 20-year anniversary of the AWM Mentor Network. Even in days of prolific activity through social media, the AWM Mentor Network still provides important connections for women and girls in mathematics. Historically the Network has been a resource for advising at all levels—undergraduate and graduate students studying and researching mathematics (comprising the largest percentage of the mentees in the Network), postdocs and early-career faculty in mathematics, and also high school and grade school students just getting into their mathematical studies. By connecting mentees with experienced mentors, the Network addresses the needs for mentoring opportunities, not unlike the needs that motivated its establishment in 2001.

Origins and Early Days of the AWM Mentor Network A number of critical elements came together in the founding of the AWM Mentor Network, illustrating the importance of timing. Break-out activities at the 2000 Institute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) career workshop

A. Ghazaryan Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Kuske () Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Lawrence University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_43

501

502

A. Ghazaryan et al.

“Connecting Women in Mathematical Sciences to Industry” highlighted the need for more opportunities available to women for networking and career guidance from those with experience and expertise. The graduate and postdoctoral participants repeatedly mentioned the gap in connections that they experienced in finding career and professional advice. These gaps were not necessarily due to any individual shortcomings of their “in-person” contacts, such as research advisor or mentor. But a common theme was their need for a range of expertise that often was not available locally, while at the same time they had had limited opportunities to expand their networks outside of their local contacts. The participants emphasized the value of expanding their sources of experienced mathematicians and scientists who could advise them on a larger range of critical issues for their careers, just as they were experiencing at the workshop, and they were eager to have regular access to such mentoring. But how to expand the networks for junior researchers and mathematicians? Here’s where the timing was important. One of the participants was Rachel Kuske, who had just been tenured at the University of Minnesota (UMN), so she could empathize with the importance of early career advice. The needs expressed during the break-out sessions resonated with her, since Kuske had these opportunities through different postdoctoral appointments and semesters spent visiting other research groups. It struck her that not everyone may have access to such opportunities or have the flexibility to travel to them. But this was, after all, the year 2000! As a follow-up, she raised the question with organizers and senior researchers at the conference: shouldn’t someone establish a place to find mentors online? The follow-up discussions and advice highlighted opportunities for Kuske, also providing valuable lessons for her about taking the lead in moving new initiatives forward. She could also see that she was quite fortunately placed with access to a number of resources, not the least of which was a nearby mathematics institute (IMA). The timing was right to get the wheels turning, bringing together a few critical pieces that could support the needs highlighted at the IMA conference. At that time the AWM webpage was playing a larger role in its activities under the expertise of web editor Tammy Kolda, providing a platform to link mentors and mentees together through online requests. Kuske also received critical advice to proactively recruit a foundational group of mentors before advertising the Network, tapping into connections through IMA and other mathematics institutes. This step provided the ability to respond to the flood of requests once the Network was advertised, so that the Network was not suffocated before it could get started. Since its inception in 2001, the Mentor Network has grown steadily. By 2003 there were over 200 mentees, about 50% undergraduates, 25% graduate students, 10% each of recent PhDs and high school students, and a few teachers and elementary school students. In terms of interests, mentees were often motivated by multiple interests as indicated on their request forms, with over 60% indicating academic interests, nearly half with interests in industry, including actuarial science, and over a third indicating interests for both “math/life balance” (the wording on the sign-up form) and mathematics education. The Mentor Network continued to grow and by 2015–2016 there were over 350 mentees and 250–300 mentors on

Twenty Years of the AWM Mentor Network

503

record, with some of these rotating out of the Network over time. More recent data just before 2020 indicate that the number of new matches continues at a pace of about 70–80 each year, with some of these continuing for more than one year. Furthermore, these data illustrate that the need for new mentors has grown (see opportunities below). The representation across the participating groups mentioned above has continued steadily throughout the first 20 years.

The AWM Mentor Network Committee and the Network in 2020 In 2009, to accommodate the complexity of its operations, AWM created the Mentor Network Coordinating Committee to manage the Network. The committee consists of six members, one of whom carries duties of a chair. Rachel Kuske and Anna Ghazaryan co-chaired the committee from 2008 until 2010. Following a smooth transition with Kuske taking an advisory role for the purpose of continuity, Anna Ghazaryan then chaired the committee until 2017. The composition of the committee was (and is) intended to reflect the multifaceted diversity of AWM’s community, as reflected in the 2020 committee membership: • • • • • •

Emille Lawrence (chair), University of San Francisco Jessie Hamm, Winthorp University Jessica OShaughnessy, Shenandoah University Genetha Grey, Salesforce Michelle Dunn, Data Science Company Omayra Ortega, Sonoma State University

From the participant point of view, the activities have been essentially the same for 20 years. The Network’s success has largely depended on its personalized and volunteer aspects. Much of the effort is provided by the many volunteer mentors, together with the activities of the AWM Mentor Network Coordinating Committee in setting up mentor–mentee pairs. Those requesting mentors fill out an online form, indicating the stage of their studies or career, general areas of interests, and any particular preferences in matching to a mentor. After their request, they are asked to make a time commitment; this avoids the problem of having mentees who lack serious interest in engaging with their mentors. Likewise, there is a form that those volunteering as mentors can complete in order to facilitate the mentor matching process. The members of the Coordinating Committee rotate in monitoring the requests and helping to identify the best available mentor for each mentor request. In 2020 the AWM continues to host the Network’s webpages through which the requests are made, with new technological developments, e.g., Google forms, added to allow the committee to streamline the application process and improve tracking and support of mentor–mentee pair participation. Preferred communication between mentees and mentors has evolved from email and phone to include video calls.

504

A. Ghazaryan et al.

Experiences of Participants and Impact of Participation Once a year, the Committee sends out a request for feedback from the mentees and mentors. The responses are used to keep the mentor and mentee lists up to date and get a general feeling of the impact of the Network. Comments from the surveys reveal how mentor–mentee pairs are interacting; while not all were successful, many had regular contacts over extended periods, often at least six months to a year, with some continuing longer. While most interactions were primarily based on email or online contact, in a few cases the pairs were in the same geographical region and could meet in person, a few managed to meet at conferences, and there have even been some cases where joint papers were written. Over the years, the feedback from participants has typically been positive. It also serves as tangible validation for the work of the mentors and the Coordinating Committee. The responses suggest that there are two prevalent types of mentor– mentee relations. Some mentoring requests are driven by an immediate need of advice: My mentor was very helpful with some difficult decisions I was trying to make about whether to go back to school. I got the help and advice I needed and was able to make a good decision about my future.

Other requests are based on a desire for long-term, sustained support: Through the years, we have grown very close. I gave her support through health crises and harassment from colleagues. I’ve been able to give her feedback on her manuscripts and proposals, help her connect with colleagues she did not know, and give advice on her tenure case. I really care about her and have lost sleep worrying about her on several occasions.

Most of the time the mentors find the process very fulfilling. Indeed, it seems to be an opportunity to make a positive impact on someone’s life: My mentee graduated this past spring with her PhD and has accepted a faculty job. She has been quite busy with finishing school, being a wife and mom, and with moving . . . I think we have both gained from this mentor/mentee relationship. Thank you for the opportunity. Mentoring experiences take me back to my early years when I arrived to the United States as a young woman. I remember being very scared to ask people for advice. If it wasn’t for my great mentors I would not have moved forward in my career. I want to model their mentoring practice to young women mathematicians and hopefully help them in the future career. It’s hard to describe how gratifying it is to hear that the advice I offered resulted in a tangible change in someone’s life and career. To be able to guide someone and help them along their mathematics journey is rewarding because it allows me to help them avoid mistakes and help them reach their greatest potential.

A survey from 2019 shows a fairly steady rate of successful matches and regularity of communication. Most participants (about 80%) confirm that the match was a good fit, with about 20% reporting it didn’t work out or requesting a new match. Most active pairs report regular communication ranging between a couple of times a month to a few times a year, with about once a month being the most common.

Twenty Years of the AWM Mentor Network

505

Comments from the past and present chairs of the Coordinating Committee also provide insight into the motivation for a high level of participation in the Network. Emille Lawrence, the 2020 chair, observes: I can point to times in my own life in which having a supportive mentor was the difference between my continuing to pursue higher heights and giving up altogether. I know many women who have similar testimonies. Even today as I am a mid-career professional, I look to trusted mentors for advice or for a second opinion. Mentoring makes a difference at every stage of one’s career trajectory. This is why I am so invested in the work of the AWM Mentor Network.

Anna Ghazaryan’s motivation to stay involved with the Network was rooted in her own professional experience. She says: I know that gender bias is real. For many, it comes along with cultural, ethnic, and racial bias. Regardless of it being intentional or subconscious, it always hurts. It is important not to normalize incidents where an achievement is belittled, an authorship is questioned, and a potential is doubted—just to name some among others. One must fight back. For me, helping others navigate this often times discouraging environment is a way to fight back on a bigger scale.

Kuske recalls a variety of ups and downs in the first decade of the Mentor Network, and having to sort through a number of challenges that arose as it grew and evolved. But the motivating constants through the changes were—and are— the critical need for mentorship of individuals, the ongoing positive impacts, and the dedication of the mentors and those sustaining the Network. The requests and surveys repeatedly illustrate these constants, highlighting the significant impact that even a brief word of advice or encouragement can have on a mentee’s direction, motivation, or perspective. Having personally experienced this impact of mentorship, and seeing it regularly for junior and senior colleagues alike, Kuske continues to be inspired by the on-going work of the Network participants.

Maintaining the AWM Mentor Network With the online request form and the suggested guidelines and commitment before confirming the matches, the Mentor Network is designed to be as low-maintenance as possible. However, it is not completely automated by AI (yet!). Maintaining the network requires a combination of detailed administrative support, funding, and communication with the participants. One critical component is the administrative assistant, usually a part-time undergraduate assistant. Over time, this role has gained more and more importance, as a first contact for tracking requests, in helping to identify possible matches to suggest to the Committee, in making database updates, for follow-up checks on mentees’ commitments to the guidelines, in conducting regular surveys for capturing members’ experiences and preferences, and in offering assistance with advertising. One particular assistant, Daiana Becker-Santos, played a critical role in sustaining and improving the Network, working with Kuske from 2004 to 2011

506

A. Ghazaryan et al.

while she was an undergraduate and graduate student at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Over the first five or six years of the Mentor Network, the administrative assistant’s work was funded from a series of one-time funding opportunities, such as an internal university grant at UMN in support of diversity, and temporary support from the UBC dean’s office. After 2007, funding for the administrative assistant has been provided by the US and Canadian mathematics institutes. This sustained funding model is due to the leadership of Barbara Keyfitz, who at the time was the director of the Fields Institute, and who realized that this could be a valuable way for the institutes to jointly support increased diversity in the mathematical sciences. Important information directing network maintenance comes from regular surveys of the mentor pairs, complementing the information received at the time of sign-up. With active pairs confirmed, broken links repaired, and different pairs set up as needed, it is then clear which mentors are free to take on new mentees. The modernized forms provide possibilities for improved support of participants: basing matches on different aspects of the requests besides area of expertise, and more frequent contact with pairs to provide any needed support or matching updates.

Opportunities for New Mentors In the early days of the Mentor Network, concentrated efforts were occasionally needed to recruit additional mentors. As the Network expanded, the types of requests fluctuated, and at certain times requests increased for mentors in a particular research field or with experience in industry. In the first five to ten years, there were also regular efforts to advertise the Network, after which increases in requests generated the need to recruit additional volunteers. Improved tracking helps the Committee to better track active mentors, and to better identify the mentors for whom contact information and engagement is up to date. The updated surveying and tracking shows that in 2020, with the constant flux of active mentors, there is once again a critical need to recruit new mentors. Mentors are needed in all areas, but given the expansion of opportunities for mathematicians recently, mentors in BIG (business, industry, and government) careers are in particularly high demand. Through the combined activities of the volunteer mentors, the Coordinating Committee, the assistant provided through mathematics institute support, and the AWM website, we can safely say that more than a thousand mentees have benefited from the Network. While the mode of contacts, needs, and directions all evolve with technology and mathematical interests, the need for mentorship has only become more important as we see the increasing representation of women and girls in mathematics. It is clear that the Mentor Network goes beyond its immediate purpose of providing advice to women in mathematics. As one of the mentors said, “it does help in creating a sense of community and belonging for the members of the next generation of women mathematicians who choose to be part of it.” We look forward to these mentoring efforts continuing for many years to come.

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College Charlene Morrow and James Morrow

In 1982, the SummerMath Program at Mount Holyoke College (MHC) welcomed its first group of students—all high-school-age women. It was the only program of its kind at the time. Like the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM), SummerMath was founded in response to a growing awareness of the lower participation rates of women in mathematics and mathematically-based careers along with the idea that something should be done about it.

Historical Influences on the Founding of SummerMath In the 1960s and 1970s, one major idea was that girls and women were anxious about mathematics, so they should be helped to reduce that anxiety. The problem, however, was still located within the person, and there was little recognition that the environment was actively hostile to the participation of women. Sheila Tobias’s popular book Overcoming Math Anxiety (1978) really over-sold the math anxiety idea. There were also theories about women, by nature and motivation, being less creative mathematically, and less able to reach the highest echelons of achievement. After all, where were they?! Camilla Benbow and Julian Stanley received a lot of attention for their 1980 claims faulting women’s nature for their absence among top scorers on tests showing talent, on the International Mathematics Olympiad teams, and on lists of prize winners. These ideas are still stubbornly, and wrongly, rooted in quite a few educators’ minds. Meanwhile there was barely any attention being paid

C. Morrow () · J. Morrow Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_44

507

508

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

to the absence of minority women in science and mathematics. Shirley Malcom was one of the few voices speaking up on this issue (Malcolm, 1990). Nevertheless, the spotlight was focused on the inequities of women’s participation in mathematics, and the mandate for change was not going away. In a creative effort to bring more awareness about the source of the problem coming from a hostile environment, AWM began doing skits at the major mathematics meetings that highlighted “micro-inequities”; that is, the everyday ways in which women are kept in their place in the mathematics classroom or other settings. In fact, AWM was formed in 1971 as a way for women to consolidate their power into a strong voice for change, and we are celebrating 50 years of advocacy in 2021. In the psychology community, a parallel body of work posited that women often had different ways of approaching learning than men did, and thus were not wellserved by the educational system. This work is best represented in the 1986 book Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky et al., 1986) and was very influential in the way we were thinking about educating women in mathematics. As key historical female role models were being rediscovered and highlighted, there was, of course, pushback, and not all of it came from men. If the gold standard was “how men do mathematics” (which translates to “how the best mathematics is done”), then women would not want to be claiming to do mathematics in some other, less recognizable and less respected way, if they wanted to claim the highest levels of achievement. This is a complicated topic, and we are not giving it proper depth here, but it is an important factor to consider in all fields where equity is an issue. At the same time, there was also a growing recognition that there was a widespread cultural dislike of mathematics, and that the approach to teaching and learning mathematics in the USA and in many other places in the world was not generally doing a good job of creating solid mathematical understanding in the general population or encouraging students to choose to study mathematics beyond high school. New approaches were being developed and instituted in schools, and at SummerMath. Our approach was based on the well-known developmental psychology theory of Jean Piaget, which states that the child is an active agent in knowing how the world works. The basic idea in mathematics learning is that students have to be actively engaged in making meaning for the problems they are asked to solve. As originally planned, the focus of the program was to be on innovative learning approaches in mathematics, but not specifically as a single gender program. However Elizabeth Kennan, then president of MHC, a women’s college, insisted on the SummerMath students being all female. We mention this bit of history in order to highlight the fact that a gender-related approach to learning was not built in from the beginning. The only nod to gender had been to offer workshops to reduce math anxiety—a hot topic at that time—to explain why women were underperforming and underparticipating in mathematics. In 1986, when we were hired as directors, there had been two different directors over four summers. There was a fair amount of skepticism about our hiring because we did not come from a mathematics education background as others had. Jim

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

509

Morrow is a PhD mathematician with teacher certification, and Char Morrow is a PhD clinical psychologist with an emphasis on the psychology of women. We inherited a core staff interested in and dedicated to improving mathematics learning. They were delighted to have an opportunity in the summer to teach in a freer and more connected way, more suited to what they saw as helpful to students. We and those core staff members worked together for the next 24 years.

Moving Toward a Program Model Focused on Students’ Strengths and Equity As we assumed the directorship, we saw the need for three major changes: • to make SummerMath more intentional about women as mathematics learners. • to help students focus on their strengths rather than their weaknesses. • to make the program more diverse.

Making SummerMath More Intentional about Women as Mathematics Learners We began by building in explicit learning elements from the psychology of women that made the classroom environment one that valued women’s culture and helped students feel less like outsiders. One of the main sources of inspiration for this approach was the newly published book, Women’s Ways of Knowing (WWK), mentioned above. Charlene Morrow had been involved in a discussion and research group hosted by the authors and saw the potential application to SummerMath classes. For a complete and in-depth discussion of these ideas see Morrow (1996, 2006). From the WWK work, the factors that seemed most relevant for SummerMath were voice, communication in a believing mode, and first-hand experience. Having a voice means that you have the ability to express, explore, and refine ideas in your own words. Too often students believe that the “numbers speak for themselves,” and that there is nothing more to say; whereas the joy and beauty of mathematics is to be able to see and articulate the depth within succinct mathematical statements. We also wanted students to understand that being asked questions did not mean that their ideas were wrong, thus we practiced the believing mode of questioning. Often (not always) when students are asked to “tell me more” or “draw a picture to solve a problem,” incorrect ideas will come to light without students having to be told they are wrong. So much of education takes place in the “doubting mode,” where the student is assumed to be wrong until she proves herself right. WWK research has shown that the doubting mode is a deterrent to class participation for so many women. Finally, women are too often cast in the role of bystander as male

510

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

classmates take on the role of doing and talking. At SummerMath there is no “back of the classroom” where students can hide and not participate. First-hand experience is required of everyone in all classes.

Moving Toward a Focus on Students’ Strengths We in no way want to give the impression that we think any answer is fine or that there are no right answers in mathematics, but we wanted to make sure that making sense of mathematics and seeing that there are ideas underlying “the numbers” was the focus of learning. There was too much focus on uncovering misconceptions. Students are very often nervous about “being discovered” to have some wrong ideas about mathematics and try to hide all of their ideas. If teachers try to discover and root out students’ misconceptions, many students will feel inhibited from actively building understanding. We deemed that this should not be the end goal for students. We wanted to refocus students’ attention squarely on what they do understand—thus casting mistakes in the role of important information along the way. Conversations in the classroom were dedicated to building mathematical understanding. Taking the “misconceptions” language out of the culture was an important philosophical and procedural point for teachers.

Making the Program More Racially, Ethnically, and Economically Diverse At the same time that gender issues in mathematics were coming to the fore, there was increasing attention on the rights and needs of people who were underserved by education in general, and by mathematics and science in particular. Since mathematics is such a strong gatekeeper for educational opportunities, many of us became focused on reducing this barrier. A major focus of these efforts were communities of color, which were very likely to have fewer resources. But even where resources existed, discrimination reduced opportunities. We heard more than one story of an African American student arriving for an honors class only to be asked by the teacher, “Are you in the right classroom?” Furthermore, it is easy to lump people of color together into one category. In fact, the effect of specific identities (e.g., African American, Latina, urban, suburban, or rural) can be very different. We tried to pay as much attention to these multiple aspects of identity as we could. The effect of overlapping identities is a reference to the important idea of intersectionality, and we encourage the reader to pursue further reading in this area. We wanted to have both majority and minority students, both well off and poor students, see that the world of mathematics is comprised of many different types of people, some of them lost to public view, as was shown by the recent popular

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

511

film Hidden Figures. We also wanted to contribute to the further diversification of mathematically based fields. Through experience, feedback, and discussion, we saw over and over that having a successful classroom experience often required advocacy outside of the classroom so that each student felt supported enough to take the risk to accept challenge and trust herself. As we live through 2020, we see how much racial and economic injustice is still so present in our lives and we reflect on the privileged time we had with students and staff at SummerMath to create an alternative experience for a short period of time, which gave us some faith that change is possible. We instituted a grant-writing program that would diversify the student body both economically and racially. We increased targeted recruitment of students from underserved communities, ensured that we had a safe and welcoming environment for students of color, and made sure that we assessed how well we were achieving these goals. We also began to form a network that would support this effort. One of our guiding principles in this work is that you can’t just open the door and expect women and/or women of color to walk in and be ready to fully participate or even want to be in the same old environment. This is one of the reasons that forming a network of contacts and mentors was so critical. The composition of the SummerMath student body steadily changed over time. While virtually all of our students were white in 1986, by 2001 the combined number of African American and Latina students made up 68% of all students at SummerMath and 80% of all students received a large amount of financial aid.

Key Elements of SummerMath Classrooms Below we describe how we incorporated principles of women’s education and development, and social justice. For an in-depth look at these ideas and a more comprehensive discussion of our data and analysis, see Morrow and Morrow (1993), Morrow and Morrow (1995), Morrow (1999).

Active Approach to Learning Mathematics SummerMath was an intensive, multi-week program (initially six weeks, then later four weeks) for high-school-aged women that provided new perspectives and new experiences of mathematics, computing, and science. Virtually all students were in residence each summer. The residential program was critical to creating a strong, close-knit community at SummerMath. No particular grades, courses, or test scores were required for program participation. Our student body was very diverse in mathematical background: Some of our students had achieved good grades in math, some had not, but all were academically motivated and desired a new and more positive relationship with mathematics. Furthermore, some students wanted to

512

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

remove mathematics as a barrier, and some wanted to be able to choose careers that would require mathematical study. For all students our approach was to help them replace unproductive methods of learning mathematics (e.g., blind memorization of facts or relying on the teacher for knowing whether a solution is right or wrong) with problem-solving approaches that require student explanations that are developed with a student partner and support of a teacher and teaching assistant. We emphasized multiple approaches to problems, including drawing pictures to reach a solution. One of the most unusual and dramatic aspects of our learning approach was that we did not confirm whether students’ solutions were right or wrong. Instead, students had to work on their own reasoning until they were convinced that they had a correct solution. Both students and teachers at first found this approach challenging. Imagine if you were a teacher who could not tell a student whether she was right or wrong, despite her claim that you are the authority. This approach is extremely empowering, but so scary at first. Each weekday all students participated in a Fundamental Mathematical Concepts (FMC) class, a computer programming class (Logo), and a set of two-week applications workshops, all characterized by activity, questioning, discussion, and discovery. Logo classes used the same classroom practices described above. Students, working in pairs, designed and completed final projects that were often quite sophisticated. The two-week workshops (e.g., Brain Imaging, Architecture, Origami, Astronomy) offered a wide variety of insights into how mathematics can be applied, and were always hands-on. Our goal was to send students back to school with the ability to work through frustration, think mathematically, have a more full picture of what mathematics is, and be able to envision a place for themselves within the world of mathematics. Reaching this goal required both students and staff to have a great deal of support, explicit strategies, patience, and belief in the process. Assessment was embedded in the learning process. Students and their teachers had ongoing discussions. Students evaluated their own progress at mid-program and discussed their assessment of themselves with their instructors. At the end of SummerMath, teachers wrote comments to their students about progress in classes and made suggestions for further work. The following quote about teaching female students from one of our long-time teachers who started as a college student teaching assistant, earned her PhD in mathematics, and is now a tenured professor, illustrates voice and communication in a believing mode in context: I learned to really listen to (and value) what students were saying and how they were thinking about a problem, and to craft my responses in the moment based on what they had shared. I developed an ability to ask broad, open questions from a place of curiosity, instead of posing suggestive queries that were really hints in disguise. I learned to meet every student exactly where she was, to completely believe that each one could move forward from her current position, and to convey that belief to my students.

A critical program practice was that, for an entire week before the students arrived, the staff of 35 people met to prepare to support our students. All staff, whether teachers or residential staff, did mathematics and computer activities

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

513

using a constructivist and active learning approach; engaged in community-building exercises; and raised consciousness about issues such as racial and gender equity. We looked within for potential points of connection that could foster the growth and development of our students. In the words of a long-time staff member who was a head-resident, workshop leader, and administrative assistant: The heart of that [staff preparation] week for me was an honest, open and vulnerable conversation . . . on issues of diversity and equity. We talked about racism, homophobia, sexism, classism, ableism in a safe space—through the lens of our own personal (often very painful) experiences, and, we were asked to consider all those issues in the lives of the young women students who would arrive for the program in a matter of days.

SummerMath Outcomes We spent a significant amount of time and a sustained effort finding out how students experienced the program and what the impact was on them. Students spent a class period at the end of the program filling out a multi-page reflection and selfassessment questionnaire and an attitude survey (which they had also completed at the beginning of the program). Students also received detailed feedback from teachers. We have reported these results in detail elsewhere (e.g. Morrow and Morrow, 2006). Here we give a snapshot of the findings that have been most consistent over the years.

Self Confidence A core goal related to building on strengths, as opposed to a focus on weaknesses such as anxiety, was to help students improve their self-confidence. To measure such change we used an adaptation of the Mathematics Attitudes Scale (Fennema and Sherman, 1976), which asks for self-assessment of self-confidence. Students completed the survey both pre- and post-program. To give a concrete idea of the impressive positive change in self confidence, we include Table 1, which shows this change using a 9-point scale where 1 represents “no confidence,” and 9 represents “extremely confident.” Note that the average change across all categories of students was two full points. The results shown are typical of changes in self-confidence reported in all years. We wanted to ensure that all racial groups were experiencing improvements in self-confidence. Fully 25% of students described themselves as being in more than one racial category, so we asked them to identify their most salient category, which is what we used for analysis. Note that all subgroups experienced significant positive change, which is typical of all years. Moreover, though the amount of change varies, well over 90% of students in all years reported positive change.

514

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

Table 1 Changes in self confidence (higher number indicates more positive rating) for SummerMath 2005 students by racial category, where n is the number of students. Note that the results shown here are typical of changes in self-confidence reported in all years

n Students of color African American Latina Asian/Asian American Native American European American All students

18 6 7 1 12

Before 5.0 5.8 3.3 4.9 2.0 5.9 5.3

After 7.2 7.5 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.3 7.3

Change +2.2 +1.7 +3.7 +2.1 +3.0 +1.4 +2.0

Table 2 Changes in beliefs about self for SummerMath 2005 students. Results indicate the percentages of students who gave more positive ratings at the end of the program. Note that the results shown here are typical of changes in beliefs about self that were reported in all years and are consistent across all racial categories Capable Enthusiastic Nervous Interested Discouraged Persistent

More 34 30 1 22 0 32

Same 10 11 16 20 9 12

Less 0 3 27 2 35 0

% More positive 77% 68% 61% 50% 80% 73%

We added a question to the survey asking about students’ perception of mathematics as the domain of white people. Data across all years surveyed showed a substantial reduction from beginning to end of program, meaning that after the program students saw mathematics less as an endeavor dominated by white people. The biggest changes occurred for European American students.

Beliefs About Self A second core area of interest was students’ beliefs about feelings and habits they had obtained from the program. Table 2 shows the dramatic positive shift in attitudes and feelings about mathematics within the four weeks of SummerMath. It is taken from year 2005 and is typical of virtually all of the SummerMath years. Most categories are far above 50% in the “More Positive” direction every year.

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

515

Typical End-of-Program Student Comments FMC was helpful and it made me take my time with math and really understand what was going on in the problem. [Now in school] I’ll be more confident in math and I will take my time and understand the problems I need to solve. I know that I am able to do a problem if I just sit there and not give up. Last year that was what mainly happened, I just gave up on problems very easily. But now I know that I AM capable of doing any problem if i just give myself time. [Different for me in mathematics classes in the fall:] putting more effort to finishing hard problems. I loved that we got to build [in Architecture] our own dreamhouse! We got to do measurements and design everything! It’s awesome. [I learned] too much to write.

Parent Comments Six Months Post-Program . . . her confidence soared! . . . Her geometry teacher is only so-so, but she has the confidence/ability to try and learn on her own. Received a big grade on math this quarter—she is sooo pleased with herself! Ginny’s competence in math and confidence in herself and her math abilities increased as a result of her SummerMath experience. Her maturity increased; her willingness to try new things increased, as did her openness to new ideas. What Ginny brought home from SummerMath was an “I can do this” attitude.

Student Comment Six Months Post-Program I think SummerMath helped my confidence level in math. I don’t feel nervous about answering questions in class any more. I learned how to work well with others and get along with other people better.

We have also received many letters from students over the years about the effect that SummerMath had on them. Interestingly, these insights usually take some time to rise to the surface—the recognition of impact is not so immediate as for the parents quoted above. We regularly receive stories such as this one: I was in your program years ago. I joined the military, and when I left, I decided I wanted to attend Veterinary School. I found out I would have to take a calculus course, and I was intimidated for a moment until I remembered my SummerMath experience and the strategies I used to solve problems. I knew I could do it, and I was successful!!

The Birth of a New Program: SEARCH The development in 2005 of SEARCH (Summer Explorations and Research Collaborations for High School Girls) was influenced by AWM’s programs that

516

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

serve young women in high school, such as Sonia Kovalevsky Days, Mentor Network, and Student Essay Contests, as well as the many inspiring stories documented in books such as Case and Leggett (2006). SEARCH was designed to help girls see beyond high school mathematics. It was also built on the foundations of SummerMath and the research atmosphere of Mount Holyoke College’s “Lab” course (Mount Holyoke College Mathematics Department and Bruce, 1997). Our goal to start a new program grew out of seeing so many girls who are very able mathematically choose to stay within the safety of the known, like wanting to review and/or get a head start on next year’s course rather than try something new. We thought that a challenging, but supportive, program that introduced them to the world of higher-level mathematics would encourage them to pursue mathematics in college. Our idea was to give girls a chance to see what they might be missing, without having to define themselves as “eat, sleep, and breathe” mathematics students. What we found is that, most of the time, it takes an adult mentor to convince these young women that they could actually handle such an experience. When students did come, however, their minds opened to mathematics in wonderful ways. We held the SEARCH program for 5 years with an average of 10 girls each year, and the results have been wonderful and interesting, as described below. SEARCH students spent the day together as a group from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. with some short breaks and lunch. They usually spent about 1.5 hours on a task before turning to something new. The room was large with various seating configurations in different areas, lots of board space, a computer projection system, and lots of mathematical equipment and “toys.” There was rarely a time when students were quiet and listening to a teacher talk. Problem posing/solving was the usual mode. Their explorations were punctuated by periods of sharing solutions (partial or finished) and talking about ideas. The groups were consistently diverse. The 2006 program had 4 African Americans, 1 Asian American, 1 Latina, 4 Caucasian Americans, 1 Turkish student, and 1 student whose family had just emigrated from Afghanistan. In 2005, there were 2 African Americans, 1 Asian American, 4 Latinas, and 3 Caucasian Americans. The other years were nearly as diverse. Early morning topics were taught by visiting PhD women mathematicians, each of whom spent a week with the program. Each visitor had previously taught in SummerMath, so was well versed in our teaching approaches. We also had two undergraduate assistants. The week-long classes were Modular Arithmetic, Polygons into Polyhedra, Symmetry and Groups, and Graph Coloring. Finite Geometries, with SET, a pattern recognition game, was taught throughout the program by one of the program directors. In afternoon sessions students learned to use Excel, Maple, and PowerPoint. The final few days were spent on individual projects, consulting with each other, the instructor, and TAs. We celebrated by having a “conference” where results were presented and discussed. Later in the afternoon, inspired by Mount Holyoke’s REU (research experiences for undergraduates) and Sonia Kovalevsky Days, we invited local women mathematicians in research positions to make a short presentation followed by informal

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

517

time to talk and ask questions. Students sometimes had a weekly tea and cookies with MHC’s REU students. Tea and cookies with the REU students was very important and meaningful to me. The independent work I’ve done here has really made me more enthusiastic about pursuing higher education in math.

SEARCH Outcomes This month has really been a factor in my wanting to be a math major. I want to help other people see what a wonderful subject it is.

In addition to our own end-of-program data collection, similar to that described for SummerMath, an in-depth study of SEARCH was done (Morrow and Schowengerdt, 2008). All results indicate that SEARCH students left the program with a changed (and more positive) view, both of mathematics and of themselves. End-of-program feedback showed improved confidence, both in ratings and comments over the course of the program. This is especially notable, given that SEARCH students were quite confident in mathematics to begin with, and shows us that there is still room for improvement even for students already interested in mathematics beyond high school. In their writing, students pointed to the development of mathematical voice, (i.e., the ability and willingness to explain ideas and ask questions), being less afraid to be wrong, and having someone listen to and value their ideas as being related to their feelings of improved confidence. They specifically pointed to the program structure, which addressed them as whole persons. Students said that they gained a broader view of the scope of mathematics, mathematical applications, who can be a mathematician, and how it feels to be a mathematician. They also developed new views of themselves and developed new ways to approach mathematics. Thus their stance and behavior vis-à-vis mathematics shifted. Finally, they indicated a growing awareness of gender issues in the culture of mathematics, and how to stand up for themselves when they encounter discrimination.

Typical SEARCH Student Comments I learned that you shouldn’t let your gender stop you from learning. I am more likely to consider a math major because I understand more math and I like it. 11th grader from Midwest US, African American I surprised myself at the number of conjectures I made. I realized I am very good at math. Now I know that even if I do not enjoy calculus, there are so many other classes to take. 10th grader from Northeast US, European American

518

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

I grew more confident and learned if I work hard and ask questions I can figure out any problem. I learned what it is like to be a girl in a male dominated subject, but I am definitely going to consider a major in mathematics. 11th grader from SW US, Latina SEARCH helped me realize that I have a strong mathematical mind. Math is in my future, but if you were to tell me I was going to major in math a year ago, I would’ve begun hysterically laughing. Now I don’t have to be intimidated by my guy friends. 12th grader from East Coast US, European American

Longevity: How and Why Did SummerMath Continue for 28 Years? SummerMath was a strong resource for young women for over a quarter-century; we maintained a core philosophy of both learning and teaching and also maintained a large number of core staff members for lengthy periods of time, a few for virtually the entire period of time, 1982–2009. Such a core, and its institutional memory, was very important to staff cohesion and staff commitment to the program. Our strong core served as a base and a community into which new staffers were integrated each summer. Below, we discuss specific key factors that contributed to the longevity of SummerMath.

Commitment of Mount Holyoke College Throughout the Life of SummerMath MHC provided the fantastic infrastructure in which to conduct the program. It was always the College’s program, and many departments cooperated with us before, during, and after the summer in order to have a comfortable environment in which to live and learn. Financial support was never in question. We were given a budget and allowed to plan and operate in advance of collecting funds. This offered a huge degree of stability. Our students had wide use of MHC spaces, including dormitories, library, sports facilities, and much more, thus giving them an in-depth taste of college life. In addition to our directing SummerMath, we held faculty positions in each of our departments (Mathematics & Statistics and Psychology & Education), which allowed us and our work to be known and embraced by MHC and to be respected outside the college community. Our advisory committee, consisting of faculty colleagues, was a forum for generating ideas and supporting us personally and professionally. They were unfailing advocates for our work. We especially want to acknowledge Harriet Pollatsek, Professor of Mathematics, MHC, who served on

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

519

the committee for its entire 28-year existence. In addition Don O’Shea, Professor of Mathematics, MHC, provided invaluable advice and support during his 14 years as Dean of Faculty.

Grant Writing Scholarships were a main avenue for recruiting a diverse group of students. Most of our funders provided excellent post-program support and mentoring. We wrote grants for scholarships from a wide range of agencies nearly every year for a total of nearly $1.5 million. The NASA Office of Equal Opportunity Program (EOP) awarded us over $1 million from 1989 to 2005 mainly for scholarships for minority students, but also to support a program for teachers, GenderWise, when National Science Foundation funding for GenderWise ended. The NASA EOP had a large number of Black female scientists who we could point to as role models. We had support for SummerMath and SEARCH from a wide variety of other sources, including the Massachusetts Educational Opportunity Program Ronald McNair Fund, the Mathematical Association of America’s (MAA) Tensor and Tensor/SUMMA Programs, and the American Mathematical Society’s (AMS) Epsilon Program. Charlene Morrow received an NSF POWRE grant to provide release time and funding to study higher level mathematics.

Working with Community Recruiters and Mentors As we increased our recruitment of students of color we expanded our network of recruiters and mentors beyond those associated with the granting agencies. This network turned out to be essential for our success and amazing partners for us. Our liaisons worked to connect students and their families with us to establish trust before the program began, and they worked with students after they returned to their home environment. There were also many campaigns by community organizations to financially support a student or two in need. We count over 30 such community organizations. Here are some reflections by a dedicated teacher who raised money for a full scholarship for one (or more) of her students every year for 16 years, for a total of 19 students: The students were mostly first-generation Americans, frequently with English as a second language, who had shown that they were up for thinking more deeply about math. During the program, I visited them and they took me to their classes and showed me around Mount Holyoke. I figured after both experiences—my inquiry-based class and SummerMath—my students became fearless mathematicians with math interests far beyond the traditional curriculum.

520

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

In these times of challenging educational inequities, SummerMath shared the best of math with students who traditionally would not have this advantage. I believe that the SummerMath experience showed them a new side of math and of life.

Examples of other community organizations with whom we worked for multiple years are Black Student Fund (Atlanta), Fund for a College Education (Palo Alto), Girls’ Action Network (New York), American Indian Science and Engineering Society (Boulder, Albuquerque), Thurgood Marshall Academy (Washington, DC), and New Mexico Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (Albuquerque). Our connections within this network gave us other opportunities to offer programs for underserved students, from a program for young mothers returning to school, to women studying at a local community college to Latinx middle school students and their teachers in our own economically depressed community.

Publicity SummerMath was covered, not infrequently, in national news media. It was an advantage to be at a highly respected college, and to be directing a unique program that addressed issues that were receiving national attention. Our most notable piece of attention was a four-minute segment on ABC News, which filmed SummerMath for eight days, and thoroughly showed many aspects of the program in action. They displayed the program in an amazingly authentic way. For many years we received inquiries as a result of this piece.

Professional Connections with Educators, AWM, and SUMMA The moment we took on the directorship of SummerMath, we began forming a new professional network for ourselves, one that would be more based in mathematics education, but also connected with women mathematicians and social justice professionals with the mathematics community. Professionally we were living at the intersection of at least three different professional communities: Gender and education; mathematics and mathematics education; and social justice in mathematics. The most natural draw for our work was with mathematics educators, particularly those working for gender equity within that community. After all we were directing a pre-college program. In the spring of 1986, a few weeks before we were to direct the program for the first time, we attended the annual National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) conference. We had a bit of “deer in the headlights” look about us, but we were immediately taken under the wing of a group of educators who would become close colleagues for the years to come. We were invited to a Women in Mathematics Education (WME) meeting, and found our interests merged

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

521

perfectly with theirs.1 In fact, it wasn’t long before the SummerMath office became headquarters for WME, and we were its executive directors from 1988 to 1998; Charlene Morrow served as WME president from 1991 to 1993. During the time we directed SummerMath, WME provided deep and ongoing relationships with colleagues too numerous to mention. We also had quickly discovered AWM. Our relationship with AWM was not ever formal, but we attended many AWM events at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, and thus met women who expanded our knowledge of the world of women research mathematicians. We fondly remember influential conversations with Alice Schafer, one of the founding members of AWM, who was extremely supportive of the ideas behind our work. She helped us articulate the important place for pre-college programs for young women who were not necessarily interested in mathematics. We also had several interesting conversations with Jean Taylor, a past-president of AWM and an MHC alum. Like Alice, Jean was keen on widening the pipeline of potential female math majors and mathematicians. Magnhild Lien, a past executive director of AWM, attended our GenderWise workshop and was enthusiastic about introducing her graduate TAs to some of our approaches with students. Another avenue of connection to women mathematicians in the AWM community came from writing for the book Notable Women in Mathematics (Morrow and Perl, 1998). Our goal of a socially just program was immensely helped by our participation in the organization Supporting Underrepresented Minorities Mathematics Achievement (SUMMA). We had many conversations with William Hawkins, the SUMMA director, and were inspired by his leadership and directorship. We presented at and benefited from the series of annual conferences that brought many of the other directors of outreach programs also supported by SUMMA. Notably, at a SUMMA conference we also met Florence Fasanelli, who supported and mentored us and helped us write successful Tensor grants for program support.

It Took a Village Our programs ended in 2009 as a result of funding agencies being less willing to put money directly into student scholarships. Nevertheless our “village” lives on in our many students who changed their relationship to learning—both mathematics and in general—and influenced those around them. Students spent their last days of the program thinking together about how to create the same kind of learning partnerships they found so helpful at SummerMath and SEARCH. Our students and staff have gone on in both mathematics and other fields to further study, careers, and jobs, and we hear from many of them about ways in which SummerMath has affected their lives—sometimes decades later.

1 WME is an NCTM affiliate founded in 1978 that promotes the mathematics education of girls and women.

522

C. Morrow and J. Morrow

Last Words: The Voices of Our Core Staff SummerMath had as deep an impact on our staff as on our students. In 2020, we asked our core staffers to reflect on what stands out for them regarding their participation in SummerMath and SEARCH. Their words give some insight into the ideas and feelings that brought people back every summer to reconnect and celebrate this way of approaching life, both within and beyond mathematics. I loved witnessing the transformation of the SummerMath students from resistant, unsure learners to curious, engaged learners who see themselves as mathematicians and capable, future college students. I use peer feedback, pair work, and community building today in my own teaching. SM and SEARCH office manager and residence coordinator, public school teacher I have always wanted to ask students to figure things out for themselves and at SummerMath that is exactly what we did. It worked only because, as a teaching staff, we supported each other in the difficult process of asking questions of students and then listening to them carefully and thoughtfully. SM instructor and coordinator, SM biology workshop designer/instructor, MHC biology lab director At first, I was deeply skeptical that struggling math students could work to come up with a strategy to solve an unfamiliar problem. I watched in amazement as students did solve problems, and build confidence, and mathematical skills. It’s been 24 years since working at SummerMath, but to this day I credit SummerMath for redefining my vision of teaching and learning. SM TA, SEARCH instructor, professor of mathematics department at Salem State University I loved how the students were so enthusiastic and willing to engage with ideas and take risks. I used my experience to construct authentic assessments of achievement for Regents Exams in New York State. SM designer/instructor, high school mathematics teacher I tried to make the residential experience mirror the values of the classroom: giving students personal support, treating them as individuals; and listening to them closely. Working for SummerMath was one of the most formative work experiences of my life, remaining with me for over 30 years. SM instructor, SM head resident, SM administrative assistant, and GenderWise coordinator Being a SummerMath student expanded my view beyond that there is a single “right way” to solve a problem, and that even proving that you have a correct answer is not always the ultimate goal. I also learned that math is a way of representing the real world. As a result, I am a more effective communicator and thinker as a journalist, educator, and food analyst. SM student, SM TA, cheesemonger, journalist, educator When I began at SummerMath at age 25, I had a great deal of self-doubt about competing as a graduate student in a male-dominated mathematics program. Teaching at Summermath and SEARCH gave me a support network as I went through graduate school and then onto my career. I learned to create networks with other women to deal with sexism.

The SummerMath and SEARCH Programs 1982–2009, Mount Holyoke College

523

SM and SEARCH instructor, professor of mathematics at Salem State University All of the SummerMath/SEARCH staff were supported so that they, in turn, could support students socially, intellectually, and emotionally. Now, in all my interactions with people I try to find out where they are coming from, assume that they are trying, and try to help them get out of their own way. SM TA and instructor, SM workshop designer/instructor, SM administrative assistant, Survival Center assistant director Acknowledgments We, broken-heartedly, do not have the voice of one of our longest-serving, most-dedicated, and much beloved FMC teacher, Stan Samuelson, who we lost to COVID-19 in 2020. His mentorship echoes in the voices of many staff whose lives were so changed by their participation in SummerMath and SEARCH.

References Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Benbow, Camilla and Julian Stanley. 1980. Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science 210(4475): 1262–1264. Case, Bettye Anne and Anne Leggett, eds. 2006. Complexities: Women in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fennema, Elizabeth and Julia Sherman. 1976. Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 6(1): 31. Malcolm, Shirley. 1990. Who will do science in the next century? Scientific American 262(2): 112. Morrow, Charlene. 1996. Women and mathematics: Avenues of connection. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 18(1, 2, 3): 4–18. Morrow, Charlene. 1999. Ensuring that all children are powerful technology users. Mathematics Education Dialogues. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Morrow, Charlene. 2006. Effective mathematics learning environments for females. IOWME Newsletter 20(3): 16–28. Morrow, Charlene and James Morrow. 1993. Whose math is it, anyway? Giving girls a chance to take charge of their math learning. Initiatives 55: 49–59. Morrow, Charlene and James Morrow. 1995. Connecting women with mathematics. In Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture, eds. Pat Rogers and Gabriele Kaise, 13–26. London: Falmer Press. Morrow, Charlene and James Morrow. 2006. The SummerMath program: Description and outcomes 2004–2006. South Hadley, MA: Mount Holyoke. Morrow, Charlene and Teri Perl. 1998. Notable women in mathematics: A biographical dictionary. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Morrow, Charlene and Inga Schowengerdt. 2008. Stepping beyond high school mathematics: A case study of high school women. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM): International Reviews on Mathematical Education 40(4): 693–708. Mount Holyoke College Mathematics Department and J. William Bruce. 1997. Laboratory in mathematical experimentation: A bridge to higher mathematics. New York: Springer-Verlag. Tobias, Sheila. 1978. Overcoming math anxiety. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Mentoring and Providing Community for Young Women Deanna Haunsperger

Looking for Community: My Graduate School Experiences When I started graduate school at Northwestern University in 1986, I felt like I had to prove myself on so many fronts, as I was not the typical graduate student. I am from a small farming community in Iowa. I use a wheelchair to get around. I am in the first generation in my family to go to college, so no one in my family understood what graduate school would be like, myself included. I hadn’t done well on my Math GREs. And I’m a woman. I steeled myself for whatever lay ahead. When my entering class in graduate school walked in the doors, waiting for us were about 40 faculty, two of whom were women, and about 40 graduate students, two of whom were women. Of the 80 people daily walking the halls of the math building at that time, a total of four were women. Fortunately for me (and as legend has it, somewhat by a fluke), my entering class was composed of six men and six women. The first time all 12 of us were together, I could feel my muscles relax somewhat. I had other women in my classes! I still had plenty that I felt I needed to prove to others, and to myself, but I also felt that I had entered on a wave of change that was happening in mathematics, and my existence in graduate school would not be questioned, at least not because I was female. My entering class became close over the next few years, studying together and supporting each other. That support was vital in helping me to see that I didn’t need to prove myself to others and that I fit in. It’s amazing how much physical, emotional, and mental energy goes into maintaining a wall to protect oneself from being judged and to tell oneself that you fit in. All that mental processing time could

D. Haunsperger () Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_45

525

526

D. Haunsperger

have gone into mathematics. At that time, I didn’t know, nor have time for, anything beyond the library stacks and the walls of Lunt Hall. After my fourth year of graduate school, I married fellow mathematician Stephen Kennedy who was a postdoc at the University of Delaware. I decided to do my final year of graduate school from a distance, and the University of Delaware welcomed me and let me teach a few courses for them. But I had left the comfort and support system of the women in my graduate program—my little community that was gender-balanced. I had been wrong about my time in graduate school having been a sea-change moment in mathematics where suddenly the representation of women would be equal with that of men. Perhaps in my little cove at that particular moment it had been, but not in the larger mathematical community. I felt a burden begin to weigh on my shoulders again that I would need to find a community in which I felt I belonged. During my year at Delaware, I learned about the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM). I’m sure I’d heard mention of the AWM earlier, but I was too focused on my own research. As I was close to finishing my PhD, I learned about the graduate student workshop and “The Future of Women in Mathematics” symposium sponsored by AWM at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in 1991. I applied to give a talk, and I was thrilled to receive an email back from Rhonda Hughes, AWM President 1987–1989, inviting me to do so. A former AWM president had written to me! An established group of women mathematicians was waiting to receive me and welcome me in. I met some bright, strong, female mathematician leaders at that conference, and I learned that I didn’t have to go searching for a community of women who understood my interest in math and who had similar questions and concerns about making a life as a mathematician that I did, such a community already existed in the AWM (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 Deanna Haunsperger speaking at the AWM graduate student workshop, 1991 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Francisco, CA

Mentoring and Providing Community for Young Women

527

Fig. 2 Jill Dietz and Deanna Haunsperger at AWM’s 20th-anniversary celebration dinner, 1991 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Francisco, CA

Starting SMP, the Carleton College Summer Mathematics Program for Women My first job was a visiting position at St. Olaf College, known for its bigtent philosophy towards mathematics education and mathematics. That fall the American Mathematical Society (AMS) published a special issue on women in the Notices (September 1991), featuring articles by former AWM presidents Alice Schafer, Bhama Srinivasan, and Lenore Blum (who wrote a history of the AWM), along with an article by future AWM president Jean E. Taylor, and many other prominent women mathematicians. My new colleagues and I read that issue with great interest. From our vantage points, we had no idea that the poor situation for women was that pervasive and had gone on for that long. We all pondered what we could do to effect a change. Not long after that, Stephen Kennedy and I had a conversation with a St. Olaf student, a young woman just returning from a summer program for women in mathematics at Mills College. She said she had so many good ideas and plans, but now she was entering her senior year, and there wasn’t time to adjust her class schedule and plans to reflect all that she had learned in her summer program. That conversation made a deep impression on Stephen and me, and a year later in 1995 when we moved to permanent positions at Carleton College, the Carleton Summer

528

D. Haunsperger

Mathematics Program for Women was born.1 Our plan was to catch young women interested in mathematics after their first or second year of undergraduate study and, over the course of a one-month summer program, help them learn some of the tools and construct the community they would need to be successful in graduate school. From 1995 to 2014, our community of participants grew every summer with an influx of new undergraduates. As the earlier participants continued on to jobs and graduate school, then advanced degrees, we added new components to our program to continue to provide support and encouragement and mentoring that those alumnae needed along the way. We also encouraged these women to advise and mentor and look out for each other, roles they enthusiastically assumed. Starting in 2005, we added a symposium during the summer program for former participants who had earned PhDs. These women (and sometimes trans men) would return to Carleton, share experiences with each other, discuss navigating difficult career decisions, and give talks on their research fields as part of the symposium. Additionally, the PhDs acted as role models for the current participants who were often awe-struck by the power of having 20 women PhDs standing in front of them who had been in the SMP summer program just a few years earlier. In 2010, we began (organized by SMPers Alissa Crans, Jen Bowen, Pam Richardson, and Katherine Crowley) a workshop held in conjunction with the Joint Mathematics Meetings each year where former participants who were currently in graduate school in mathematics could get together to receive mentoring and give practice talks. We wanted women at every stage of their development to feel supported and welcome—to feel like they belong in mathematics. After the NSF repeatedly declined to continue funding SMP, our summer program ended in 2014, but our community didn’t end. We now have 343 young women and trans men who entered our community when they were undergraduates. Of those, 112 hold PhDs in the mathematical sciences, eight more hold PhDs in cognate disciplines, about 80 more hold terminal master’s degrees, and 38 more are still in graduate school. That is, over two-thirds of the students who came to SMP as first- or second-year undergraduates with some interest in mathematics now hold (or are working towards) advanced degrees in the mathematical sciences. Funding SMP was an investment in the future of American mathematics, and it’s still paying off, each year, with women finishing PhDs and master’s degrees, and entering careers in business, industry, and government. Moreover, each of these women understands the importance of belonging to a community and receiving mentoring at an early age; many have gone on themselves to mentor young people and build communities wherever they are.

1 The Carleton SMP was funded at the beginning by the National Security Agency and throughout its time by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Lloyd Douglas at the NSF championed our program and many other programs supporting women and members of underrepresented groups in mathematics, and we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Mentoring and Providing Community for Young Women

529

AWM and the Communities of the Future The AWM gave me a place early on in my career where I could find a community of women in mathematics when I needed one, and we tried to do the same thing for female undergraduates with the SMP. One strength of the AWM that I hope we find new ways to leverage is the collection of AWM student chapters. SMP was only reaching 18 or 20 new students a year, yet over the years impacted hundreds of students. The AWM has over 100 student chapters which welcome hundreds of new students each year into small supportive communities at their home institutions. We could also create online AWM student chapters that would allow students at any college or university to find their own small communities. Then these many small communities could come together in a meaningful way each year, perhaps at a regional or national workshop or week-long summer program, to form one large, supportive network across the country reaching thousands of young people each year. I love reading the AWM Newsletter each time it comes out and seeing the inspiring things that young people are doing in their AWM student chapters. I think this kind of outreach is the most important work we can be doing. The sea-change I had hoped for earlier is still coming, and it’s going to be with the young people of our community. Let’s get them ready to take on the leadership roles of the future.

Advisor Actions: Reach Out, Listen, Provide Timely Information—Advisee Reactions: Overwhelmed, Informed, More Confident and Connected William Yslas Vélez and Alex Julia Hinojosa Christensen

Enthusiasm Sincerity Life Stories Reliance on Resources Just-in-time Advising

Introduction from William Yslas Vélez In my second year in college I decided I was going to earn a PhD in mathematics even though I had no idea what one did with that degree. Looking back, this was such an odd decision to make. My GPA was close to a 2.0 (with 4 being an A) and even though I worked hard and was very interested in learning mathematics, A’s in courses were scarce. Faculty were not supportive. They seemed distant, aloof, and unable to connect with students. The only advice I got from faculty was bad advice. I began my faculty career in 1977 at The University of Arizona (UA). By the mid-1980s I was faculty advisor to the student chapter of the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. I spent a good deal of time working with the students, advising them, looking for opportunities. This was my training ground for learning how to promote the careers of students. At the same time, I was advising mathematics majors and I began more intensive efforts to encourage minority students to take more mathematics and to consider becoming mathematics majors. My own experiences as an undergraduate shaped my interactions with students. I did not earn good grades, yet I had enough mathematical ability to earn a PhD in mathematics. If a student told me that they wanted to study mathematics, then I would provide support. My decision to continue in mathematics enriched my W. Y. Vélez () · A. J. H. Christensen The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_46

531

532

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

Fig. 1 AWM President Ruth Charney with William Yslas Vélez when he received the AWM M. Gweneth Humphreys Award for “his success in instilling confidence in first generation and minority students” and “outstanding achievements in inspiring undergraduate women to discover and pursue their passion for mathematics,” 2014 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

life. My enthusiasm for mathematics shaped the way that I taught. In almost every class that I taught, I was able to convince at least one student to become a mathematics major. To this day I sincerely believe that mathematics opens up a world of opportunities. In talking to students I would tell them the stories of previous mathematics majors and how they used their mathematical training in pursuing their career choices. As an advisor, it is helpful to have stories to recount. The advent of the internet and email allowed me to reach students with messages of the importance of increasing the mathematical content of their course curriculum. Rather than reach out to pre-college students to inform them of the importance of mathematics, I focused my efforts into reaching into our mathematics classes. I called this inreach (Vélez, 2015). I would focus on students already enrolled in mathematics courses at UA (see Fig. 1). In describing my inreach activities I thought it would be more effective to give an example of how I (WYV) communicated with one student, Alex Julia Hinojosa Christensen (AC), over her four years of study, and also have her reactions to my advising.

A Dialogue WYV My inreach activities resulted in me sending out about 5000 emails per semester. I would look at enrollments in our upper division courses, look at the background of the student and based on courses taken and grades, I would send out

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

533

a message to that student. I paid particular attention to first-year students in Calculus II and III in the fall semester. I was astounded at the quality of the students arriving at our university. Between 25% and 35% of the students enrolled in Calculus II in the fall semester were first-year students. More incredible was that 20% of the students enrolled in Calculus III in the fall semester were first-year students! When I first mentioned this to the department they were incredulous, yet this pattern has persisted for years. Amazing students are arriving at our universities and we need to tap into this potential. Of course, all of these students received a message from me. Alex was one of the students that was enrolled in Calculus II for the fall semester in her first year of study. On June 8, 2016, I sent Alex an email message. I congratulated her for her high school preparation, suggested that she add the mathematics major and I invited her to attend the Orientation Session for new mathematics majors in August 2016. This email contained a program of study that would allow her to complete the mathematics major program. Here is that program of study. Fall 16: Calculus II Spring 17: Calculus, Linear Algebra (sophomore level) F17: Differential Equations, Formal Mathematical Reasoning and Writing (at this point the math minor is complete) S18: Methods of Applied Math F18: Probability, Linear Algebra (senior level) S19: Mathematical Modeling, Statistics

As is typical of students, I received no reply. However, it does not mean that the students did not read the message. AC I received an email from Dr. Vélez in June of 2016 after I had committed to attending the UA. I can find this email in my inbox, and I remember reading it, but I don’t remember if I took action on any of the invitations it presented and continued with my college preparations. Part of this preparation was enrolling for classes. I had always liked math and knew that I wanted to continue taking math courses in college. Therefore, I enthusiastically enrolled in the honors section of Calculus II for my first semester. I also wanted to try out computer science that first semester, because I had heard it would be a good fit for my problem-solving brain. Other than these two things, I really wasn’t sure what my undergraduate or career goals were. I had so many interests and passions that I couldn’t narrow it down. I also was struggling to find a career where I could balance my extroverted, social, and service-oriented personality with my mathematical and programming strengths.1 WYV Students began enrolling for the spring semester in October and I saw that Alex had enrolled in Calculus III. I was also very pleased to see that Alex was continuing in her study of programming. Taking programming courses in the first year of study opens up employment opportunities for students. Mathematics majors should be encouraged to take programming early in their university studies. AC For my second semester of college, I decided to continue with computer sciences classes because programming seemed to be a strength of mine. I also 1 WYV: Interesting. Alex’s comment makes me think that sending messages before students are actually on campus may not be effective.

534

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

decided to take Calculus III along with my other science courses. I took this math course without really consulting with an advisor. Rather, I enrolled in it because it was the natural next step after taking Calculus II.2 WYV I sent Alex a message on October 25, 2016, noting that she had enrolled in Calculus III and asking her to stop by my office to talk about the possibility of adding the mathematics major. This time she promptly replied, and we met in my office a few days later. AC I remember this first meeting with Dr. Vélez very well. I was flattered by his email and slightly surprised that he took the time to reach out to me. During the meeting, he told me all the reasons that having a degree in mathematics would be advantageous to my future. He also suggested that I add a second math course the following semester. At that point, I wasn’t really interested in doing so. Dr. Vélez had lofty mathematical goals for me before I had them for myself and it was a little overwhelming. I didn’t see myself becoming a teacher and I wasn’t sure what other doors mathematics could open for me. I was also more interested in exploring other areas of study and couldn’t do that with multiple math courses in my schedule. As a result, I was hesitant to commit to a math major and decided to keep taking math classes while I continued exploring instead. WYV On November 1, 2016, I sent Alex an email pointing out that it was easy to add the mathematics major, and just as easy to drop it. You are not making a commitment to complete the mathematics major when you add it, you are just trying it on for size, to see if it fits. I began to inform Alex of the resources that are available for mathematics majors. Here is part of that message: You should consider applying to be a Math 100 UTA. Here is a link to the application. http:// math.arizona.edu/academics/undergrads/opportunities/utas/m100 The following site describes the career paths of some of our math majors. In particular, please look at the profile of the math major who went to work at the CIA. https://www.nsf. gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.jsp There are many paid summer research programs for undergraduates. Please look at the following website for opportunities. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.cfm If you have a few minutes, I suggest that you look at the following video “A Community of Mathematicians,” that showcases some of the experiences of our math majors and how that math major benefited their careers. Here is the website for the videos. http://math. arizona.edu/ugprogram/mcenter/resources

In her third semester of study, Alex enrolled in the sophomore level course in linear algebra and in her fourth semester, she took differential equations. After these two courses she only needed six more mathematics courses to complete the mathematics major. It was on March 27, 2018, in her fourth semester, that Alex finally added the math major. 2 WYV: I find it interesting that calculus III was a natural next step. Many departments design mathematics courses for specific majors that do not have a natural next mathematics course. Such courses prevent students from continuing in mathematics.

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

535

AC After going through my first two years of college “casually” taking math courses, I met with another one of my advisors to try and plan for adding a minor in math. When I got to his office, we discussed my current course load and career goals. Then, he mapped out the courses I would need to take in order to complete the mathematics major in four years. The flow chart he presented was perfect for me to see just how manageable this would be, and I decided to add mathematics as a secondary major to my nutritional sciences degree that I had declared at the end of my first year. For the math major specialization, I was between the applied mathematics and probability/statistics options. I ended up choosing the probability and statistics option just because the courses worked out better with my schedule. (There was only one course difference between the two.) At that point, I was still planning to work in the field of nutrition, but I figured having math on top of that would only help me and it added a fun variety/balance in my coursework. WYV In summer 2018, Alex took nine units of course work so that she would be able to spend the fall 2018 semester in Chile. She did not want to get behind on her coursework. Few students have the opportunity to spend a semester abroad. Such an experience is so valuable. AC A lot of big decisions were made in spring 2018. I added my mathematics major, but I also decided that I really wanted to study abroad. I have always loved Spanish and came into college with a strong background. As a result, I only had to take three courses to complete my minor and did so by the fall semester of 2017. Oftentimes people go abroad to earn a minor in another language, but because I already had mine, my main motivation for studying abroad was to live in another country and interact and learn from the people there. This decision to go abroad forced me to put school on the back burner for a bit, as I was making no forward progress toward my degrees and only earning a few credits to finish my general education courses. However, even though it meant a very busy summer of courses beforehand and semesters with credit loads at or over the limits afterwards, it was worth it. My experience taught me a lot about myself and my priorities and I loved being immersed in the Spanish language and the Chilean culture. WYV In my work at the Math Center I contacted thousands of students each semester via email. If a student responded to an email and came to my office, that initial meeting lasted about 20 minutes. I had 20 minutes to convince a student that taking more mathematics would be beneficial to their career (Vélez, 2015). When put in perspective, working with one student is not that time-consuming. I spent about a total of three hours talking to Alex during her four-year course of study, yet these small conversations changed her career aspirations. I want to provide students with timely information, connect them to the resources available in the scientific community and have others impact their careers. I am always happy to serve as a resource and I am available to students if they have questions. Alex was now a mathematics major and I was her advisor. It was time to use available resources to

536

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

promote her interests in mathematics and also to listen more carefully to her career goals to provide timely advice. Since Alex had a 4.0 GPA, I thought that graduate school in the mathematical sciences might be a possibility, but she was not sure. A research opportunity might prove useful. In August 2018, she was already in Chile and we had several email correspondences regarding summer 2019 research possibilities. Rather than developing a research plan for her, I was connecting Alex to the existing resources that were available. AC After returning from Chile, it was time for me to really focus on my mathematics major. The second semester of my junior year was the first time I had ever taken two mathematics courses at once. I decided to take the proof-writing course, and at first was enrolled in the applied mathematics course as per recommendation by Dr. Vélez. I quickly learned that this specific course was not a good fit for me at the time, so in the first week of the semester I changed my schedule to take probability theory instead. At the time probability theory required the proof writing course as a prerequisite, so I had to work to get approval from the professor and math department so that I could take those two courses at the same time. I am very happy I did because I greatly enjoyed the probability course and taking the proofs course was essential before I could take any of the remaining courses I needed. WYV Given her interest in nutrition and the fact that she was taking a course in probability, I thought that she might be interested in biostatistics. On March 13, 2019, I sent a message to Dr. Monica Vasquez, a biostatistician, asking her to talk to Alex. Monica had been my advisee as an undergraduate and over the years Monica has been willing to talk to students about her own career as a biostatistician. AC As I was still trying to determine what field of mathematics I wanted to go into, Dr. Vélez connected me to one of his former students. I set up a phone call with her and was able to hear about her job, educational background, and experience. This was a very useful conversation because, although I determined biostatistics likely wasn’t the field for me, I was able to learn more about how to pursue postgraduate education in mathematics from Monica. At this point in time, I wasn’t really set on going to graduate school in math, I was just working through the major requirements. I was very new to the “world” of mathematics so I had no idea what research in that field was like. I thought it was important that I learn if it was something I enjoyed before deciding to go to graduate school. I remember that in a previous conversation, Dr. Vélez had mentioned something called a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) and explained that I could get paid during the summers to do research. So, I knew that the coming summer I wanted to participate in an REU. In order to make this REU happen, I spent time researching programs and getting application materials ready both while I was in Chile and at the beginning of the semester, using the links that Dr. Vélez provided me as starting blocks. I applied to four REU programs for the summer of 2019. I got accepted to the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Undergraduate Program (MSRI-UP) REU program, which was an absolute joy to be a part of. It connected me with a

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

537

huge support system and network of mathematicians and friends and opened many doors. After this experience, I was pretty sure graduate school in math was the next step for me. I loved my experience at the MSRI-UP. The people were incredible and the work was really fun. I had a research team that worked very well together and I couldn’t believe that I was getting paid to do math all day. All of those pieces put together made it seem like I had really found a place where I excelled. At the end of the program, we had submitted three papers for publication, including some related to working in research teams and generating new research questions. All of these have now been published and I continue to do work with this fabulous research team. WYV It now appeared that Alex was thinking about graduate school in the mathematical sciences and I wanted to connect her to another important resource, the Math Alliance. On April 18, 2019, I wrote to the Math Alliance recommending her to become an Alliance scholar and to participate in F-GAP, the Facilitated Graduate Application Program. F-GAP is a program specifically aimed at helping minority students gain entrance in graduate programs in the mathematical sciences. In June 2019 the Math Alliance and the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications organized its first Mentor–Mentee workshop held in Minneapolis. This meeting brought together the F-GAP students and their mentors for a two-day workshop. The activities for the F-GAP students turned out to be tremendously motivating and the post-evaluation of the workshop showed that over 90% of the F-GAP students were definitely committed to pursuing graduate studies. AC The June workshop was focused on career opportunities in mathematics. I remember when I first received the invitation to attend I was very excited. It seemed like the perfect conference for me and I quickly emailed Dr. Vélez asking if he had heard of it. While awaiting his reply, I found out that he was actually one of the people in charge of making it happen. This workshop was great and connected me with professors and mentors in mathematical fields that I could see myself working in. For example, I met a professor who was a representative from the Association for Women in Mathematics.3 This was my first introduction to AWM and inspired me to look into the student chapter at UA. This conference was prior to my REU, so it was the first time I could actually see myself pursuing graduate education in mathematics because it was the first time that I saw firsthand the doors it could open for me. I know many other students there felt the same way, making that conference a perfect example of how Dr. Vélez was inspiring not only me, but also many others to pursue mathematics. WYV With summer 2019 plans established, it was now time to plan for the fall semester of 2019. Alex’s work at MSRI-UP resulted in three papers published. Alex was still not sure what area of mathematics interested her. To be safe I recommended 3 WYV: I have encountered several student chapters of AWM in my visits to mathematics departments. These chapters serve to enrich the student activities in the department and I was pleased to see yet another connection made for Alex.

538

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

a change of course work for that fall semester. Most graduate programs in applied mathematics and statistics require both advanced calculus and linear algebra and that is what she took. For the spring semester she continued on with two courses, statistics and stochastic processes. That completed the probability/statistics option of the mathematics major. AC Advanced Calculus was my first proof-intensive course and my experience taking that class was very challenging and at times a little discouraging. Writing proofs and the analytical thinking that the course required were very new to me, and I needed a lot of practice. Over the course of that semester, I had a few peers and current graduate students tell me I should give up because I wasn’t good at writing proofs and that’s “all I would be doing in graduate school.” I don’t know if my being one of a few female students had anything to do with it, but I am stubborn and only let their lack of confidence motivate me to succeed and work harder. Dr. Vélez also did not let me give up. I stopped by his office in fall 2019 to talk about courses for my final semester of undergrad, and we ended up working through a couple of proofs together after I mentioned Advanced Calculus was a challenge. He pointed out that it would take practice, but I was more than competent. I just had to use the materials I had learned and apply them in order to come up with new results. WYV Looking at Alex’s senior year in college I felt that I have been successful in integrating her into the mathematical life of the country. I saw her at the SACNAS conference in Honolulu in November 2019. AC I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to attend the SACNAS conference in Hawaii. I obtained funds for Society to attend the conference of the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) from the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute and presented the research I had done the previous summer while at the conference. I also presented this same research at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in January 2020. My trip to JMM was funded by the American Mathematical Society because I was presenting my research there as well. It has been cool to feel a part of this new mathematical community and see familiar faces at these events. These conferences are also a great chance for me to reconnect with good friends that I have made, especially those from my REU, and network with new people. WYV In January 2020, I saw Alex with Dr. Pamela Harris, her research supervisor at MSRI-UP, and a bunch of students from that program at JMM. She was surrounded by mathematical excitement and she had made friends in the mathematical community. Alex graduated from the UA in May 2020 with majors in mathematics and nutritional sciences, and a minor in Spanish. She was able to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA. After receiving several offers to attend graduate programs in applied mathematics and statistics, she accepted an offer from the UA in the Interdisciplinary Program in Applied Mathematics. I would not have predicted that applied mathematics would have been her career path. Alex had now completed her undergraduate degree and was now in graduate school. My interactions with her would now be greatly diminished. However, I

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

539

wanted her reaction to a question: Did she think that I had treated her any differently because she was a female? I personally did not think so. AC I agree with Dr. Vélez’s statement that he didn’t treat me any differently than he would have if I were a male. I think that is exactly the point. Dr. Vélez did not let the fact I was a woman make me a less competitive applicant or put a damper on my potential. He treated me with the respect, support, and rigor that he would have any other male in the department and acknowledged the fact that I had a place in the math community. In my opinion, there are people who overlook women and do not treat them as equals or viable mathematicians. That is the problem. So, maybe Dr. Vélez didn’t support me “more” because I was a female. The key was that he supported me “even though” I was. Dr. Vélez sees students who have potential and that he feels could benefit from advising, and he does his best for them, regardless of their gender. WYV I have thought about this question—do I treat female advisees differently? On the one hand, yes. I connected Alex with a female role model. On the other hand, no. I view my interactions with all students as part of my professional duties. My meetings with students are in this light. I do not take students out to lunch, nor have them over for barbeques at my home. I deeply care about the careers of my advisees and I will strongly advocate for them (see the examples in the next section). I am lucky if I can meet with a student for 20 minutes in a given semester. In that short time, I go over schedules, possible career paths, and opportunities. I always probe as to how students are doing in class. When I ask a student how they are doing, I will not accept the word, “fine.” I want to know the grades the student has earned on exams and homework assignments. This knowledge allows me to provide advice. If the student is doing poorly, then we discuss what might be affecting this. I often refer students to the website, coursera.com, to take a course on learning how to learn. And I want feedback from the student to know if the course was helpful. If the student is doing well, but is having problems in some course material, then I will ask the student to present some problem from the course and work through it. This gives me some insight into the student’s potential. Over the years I had had many conversations with students who had difficulty with some concept yet went on to earn a PhD in mathematics.

WYV: Other Examples of Advising Students I want to emphasize the point that I made at the beginning. If a student wants to study mathematics, then I will support that student. I don’t care what their grades have been. If the student wants to continue in the study of mathematics then I am behind them. Here is a typical conversation that I have had with a student. After the usual hellos, what’s your major, what are you thinking of doing, I get down to encouraging the student to add the mathematics major.

540

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

Me: I would like for you to add the mathematics major to your engineering major. Student: [Looking stunned] What! I got a C in Calculus I in my first semester here. Me: The first time I took calculus, I dropped it. I replaced it with college algebra and trig. I got a D in that course. Then I took calculus in my second semester and earned a C. Compared to me, you look brilliant!

I don’t usually inquire about students’ personal lives. However when there is something odd about a student’s schedule or grades are poor I feel that I have to inquire, as I mentioned before. Here are some examples of those interactions.

Using Financial Resources I saw that Jose’s grades had dropped one semester. I sent an email and asked the student to come in. Jose had taken on a job and was washing dishes at my cousin’s restaurant, El Charro (one of the oldest restaurants in Tucson). He worked until 2 in the morning, a recipe for failure. For the following semester I was able to support him as an Undergraduate Teaching Assistantship and also to find him employment on campus. Jose went on to earn a master’s degree in mathematics and is currently in a doctoral program in a STEM field.

Looking Beyond Grades Joe came in to see me. He said that he wanted to go to graduate school in mathematics. His grades were a disaster. He had taken many upper-division math courses and failed or got D’s in most of them. How could Joe even think that this was a possibility? He told me again that he wanted to pursue graduate studies and that he thought he had the potential but there had been some issues that always came up each semester that prevented him from succeeding. Though I hated to inquire, I felt that I had to better understand the problems that the student had. He told me that he had been living at home. Two family members in the home had been having mental issues and each semester there were several incidents at home that prohibited him from concentrating on school. I asked if those issues were continuing. Yes, but he had been able to obtain some help for them and moved out on his own. He was now doing much better. I knew of an upcoming student conference and I told Joe that I would call a faculty member from an masters-granting institution who would be attending this conference. I explained the situation to this faculty member and asked him to have a mathematical conversation with Joe at this conference to gauge his mathematical knowledge. I provided funds so Joe could attend the meeting. Joe went on to complete the MS in mathematics at this university, then transferred to a PhD-granting university where he completed the PhD.

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

541

Patience Jose Luis transferred from a community college and declared engineering as a major. At the community college, he had taken three semesters of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra and discrete mathematics. He lived along the US–Mexico border. I mention this fact because students who come from rural backgrounds sometimes lack information about careers and the university system. In his first semester he enrolled in the introduction to proof course. That is very unusual, especially in the first semester. I look at the academic background of every student who enrolls in an upper division mathematics course. I sent Jose Luis a message suggesting that he add the math major to his program of study and that he only needed five more mathematics courses to complete the math major. In our first meeting, I asked him why he only enrolled for two courses, eight units. He said it was because of tuition. I pointed out that after you enroll in seven units the tuition is the same for seven units as it is for 20 units. The look on his face when he heard this was so sad. Jose Luis was going through school on a shoestring and this would postpone his completion of his degree. Eventually, Jose Luis dropped the engineering major and decided to select the comprehensive option (advanced calculus, abstract algebra, linear algebra, complex variables). Since he seemed to be interested in pursuing graduate studies in mathematics, I nominated him to be a Math Alliance scholar, attend the Field of Dreams conference, and participate in the Facilitated Graduate Application Process program of the Math Alliance. Did Jose Luis have the ability to succeed in graduate school? I never had him in a class. However, when an advisee comes into my office and mentions that they are having difficulty in a class, I inquire. I ask the student to tell me about a problem from the course. This gives me some insight into the student’s abilities. I thought that Jose Luis had a deeper understanding of the content than most students. However, Jose Luis would earn A’s and E’s in his mathematics courses. Why didn’t you drop the course, I would ask. Answer: I don’t know? It took Jose Luis three years to complete the math major and towards the end, he lost direction. He missed home. He missed the family get-togethers on the weekends, the ambiance of the Mexican society along the border. He wouldn’t answer my emails. He fell in love with someone back home. Me: Are you applying to graduate schools? Jose Luis: No. I was really discouraged by my lack of materials [GRE test] and kinda low GPA [∼3.2]. I hope I can apply to graduate school next year with all my application materials ready to go. Me: I think that you are wasting another year. Jose Luis: I feel like I am too, but it’s already too late to apply.

It was late January and it wasn’t too late, but he was in love and mathematics was put on the back shelf. He graduated and returned home. In the border communities, there are not many technical job opportunities, but crossing the border into Mexico is easy and the Mexican lifestyle is very inviting, especially when you are in love.

542

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

A year passes by and I get a message from Jose Luis. The job prospects are not good along the border. He will consider graduate school. I suggest that he apply for programs that only offer master’s degrees. He finally gets his information together. I contact faculty that I know around the country, Florida, Iowa, Texas, California, Arizona. Some of those places are just too far for Jose Luis to consider. He applies and then he gets an email offering him a teaching assistantship. He forwards me the message and asks me if he was accepted into the graduate program. He can’t believe it. Academia can be a mysterious and daunting place. Patience.

Advocacy I met Josefina in her second year of study. She was a math education major. I suggested that she apply for a summer internship, which she did. These experiences can be life changing. When she returned from that summer experience, she told me that she had changed her plans. She was going to graduate school. In her third year of study, she took advanced calculus, abstract algebra, linear algebra and complex variables. She was a 4.0 student. She then asked me if she should stay another year and take graduate courses or should she apply to graduate school. I suggested that she apply for graduate school, but she should be selective. She applied to only a few schools. I was confident that all of these would accept her. Boy, was I in for a surprise. She was turned down by everyone! I called two of the schools and spoke with the graduate directors. One graduate director told me that they only accepted students who had taken graduate courses and done research. I emphasized that this student completed the degree in three years, why should she wait? I said that if they accepted an international student and turned down Josefina, they were ill-serving the country. I called the second graduate director and again explained the situation. The graduate director said that Josefina was on the wait list. The next week, Josefina was accepted into the second graduate program. Josefina completed a PhD there. One of the problems that continues to plague US students is that graduate programs continue to ignore well-qualified US students in favor of international students.

Double Majors I am amazed that students can graduate with two majors or two degrees. I always suggest to students that they add the mathematics major to their program of study. I point out that within a year or so, they will have a better idea of where their interests lie and then one of the majors can become the minor. Many of the students who add the mathematics major change it to a minor. I still consider this to be a success. Having more mathematics is simply beneficial. Nevertheless, many students complete two majors. Josefina took linear algebra from me in her first

Advisor Actions—Advisee Reactions

543

semester and took up my suggestion to add the mathematics major in addition to her engineering major. When I found out that she had won a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, I gifted her with a book on linear algebra. The following is a message I received from Josefina. Dr. Vélez, Thank you so much! I have been meaning to reach out to you to thank you for encouraging me to do the math major. Adding that second major has been monumental for my grad school applications as well as what I can do in environmental engineering. I am so thankful for all you have done for me in my college career. Also, just as a funny side note, Linear algebra is still the only B I have gotten in my life! That class was really challenging for me!

I need to make one correction to Josefina’s message. The only thing that I did was to work with her in the linear algebra class that she took from me, to propose a course of study for her, and recommend the mathematics major. She would come to office hours on a regular basis and I could see her struggles. I helped her understand the material and, in the end, she was able to succeed in the class. She was assigned an advisor in the department and I had little professional contact with her after that.

Assessing Potential Maria José was one of the students arriving with credit for two semesters of calculus. She was a physics major and she enrolled in Calculus III in her first semester. I sent her a message congratulating her on this accomplishment, suggesting she add the mathematics major and also to enroll in the sophomore level course in linear algebra that I was teaching. This advising produces the amazing fact that 10% of the students in the sophomore level course in linear algebra are first-year students. Most of these students do very well and continue with the mathematics major. Maria José had problems. She came to my office hours often, but she was struggling. In the end, we both agreed that she should drop the course and retake it the following semester. Her first semester grades were very good, with a B in Calculus III. In her second semester, she continued on with physics and earned a B in linear algebra that semester. Most first-year students are not competitive for Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. However, for those students who take Calculus III and Linear Algebra in their first semester, then follow that up with Differential Equations and Introduction to Proof in their second semester, REUs are a possibility. Over the years, I have helped many of these students obtain REUs in their first summer. Though national REUs are out of reach for most first-year students, there are many local research programs that are available. Many life science labs hire undergraduates to help in the lab. If a student starts early enough in a lab, there is a possibility of having their name on a research paper before they graduate. I have placed many mathematics majors in life science labs over the years and these experiences have often transformed their career paths of students. In fact, given

544

W. Y. Vélez and A. J. H. Christensen

the growth of mathematical applications to the life sciences, I recommend that mathematics majors take biology or chemistry in their first year. For example, suppose a biology lab has openings for a first-year student. A typical curriculum for a biology student in their first year is a year-long course in biology, perhaps some chemistry, and a math or statistics course. Now compare this curriculum to a first-year mathematics major: A year-long course in biology or chemistry, two semesters of calculus, and at least one semester of programming. Mathematics majors are simply more competitive. Going back to Maria José. As is common for many students who have two majors, she attended summer school to catch up on general education requirements. In her second year of study, she continued with both majors. Her grades in physics that year were mostly C’s, perhaps indicating less interest in that subject. She also earned a C in the introduction to proofs course. At the end of her second year she had completed the requirements for a physics minor and she changed the physics major to a minor. Also, she only needed four more math courses to complete the mathematics major. The question now was what those courses would be. This depended upon what career path she might take. I still wanted her to consider graduate school, though perhaps not in pure mathematics. I suggested a summer REU where she could learn about statistics and that was how she spent her second summer. For her third year, I suggested courses in chemistry and biology and she also took probability theory in case she wanted to pursue graduate programs in statistics or biostatistics. Her grades improved dramatically. She was still undecided as to graduate studies. For her third summer, I was able to find her an internship with a data science company. This gave her a new direction, though she was still unsure. In her fourth year of study, she took courses in advanced calculus and linear algebra, in case she would apply for graduate programs. She also took courses in economics, data science, and programming. In the end, she decided not to pursue graduate school and she accepted a position in a company doing data science.

A Question for Mathematics Departments I decided that in my last years as a faculty member, my contribution to the profession would be to encourage students to add mathematics as a major or minor. Inspiring students to continue mathematical studies should be one of the goals of a department and the necessary resources need to be allocated for this effort. The critical question is whether or not departments will take on this responsibility?

Reference William Yslas Vélez. 2015. Inreach is the New Outreach. MAA FOCUS 35(4): 4–5.

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics Helen G. Grundman

The Distressing Mathematics Collective (DMC) is an unusual, yet extremely effective activity for encouraging and enabling women (and other) students to thrive in mathematics. It’s hoped that the following description of its many facets will enable others, faculty and students, to bring some or all of DMC’s benefits to their mathematics departments.

Introduction I think that I have always loved numbers, patterns, and solving problems. While in elementary school, I decided that I wanted to teach. To me, the obvious conclusion was to become a math teacher. Although more than one of my college professors encouraged me towards graduate school, my sights were set on high school teaching. Thus, I was teaching high school when a friend of mine, a PhD graduate student who’d been urging me to follow the same path, explained how there were too few women role models in mathematics. I found this fact upsetting and quite motivating. Becoming a role model gave me a reason to go to graduate school beyond the undeniably tempting lure of being paid to teach about four hours a week and spend the rest of my time learning math. Later, when on the job market, I decided that accepting a tenure-track position at Bryn Mawr College would be an excellent step in continuing my efforts to serve as a role model.

H. G. Grundman () Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_47

545

546

H. G. Grundman

Fig. 1 Helen Grundman, Suzanne Weekes, Emina Soljanin, AWM panel on mentoring, 2017 JMM, Atlanta, GA. Photo by Kate Awtrey, Atlanta Convention Photography, courtesy of AMS

Bryn Mawr is a small, elite, liberal arts women’s college. It cares about both teaching and research, and has a PhD program in mathematics, each of which was a requirement for me. In addition, when I was hired, the mathematics department chair was Rhonda Hughes, a recent AWM president. Who better to mentor me in being an effective mentor and role model for young women mathematicians? During my 25 years at the college, I used a wide variety of strategies for drawing students in, creating community, making students comfortable talking with me, and generally setting the stage for effective mentoring. I spoke about these at an AWM panel in 2017 (see Fig. 1). Some of these strategies were pretty common: talking with students informally before and after classes, offering homemade cookies to students who visited my office, etc. Others were less common. For example, the Math Shakespeare Reading Group was a big success for many years, attracting a wide range of students. But looking back, I know that none of these compared with what was called the Distressing Math Collective.

Young Women and Mathematics Young women, and others underrepresented in math, tend to question their place in mathematics. Should I really major in math? Am I just weird for liking math so much? Do I belong here? Since societal norms and gendered upbringing are often contrary to “typical” academic behavior, young women can be unsure what is appropriate. Should I ask questions when I don’t understand? Is it OK not to

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

547

understand? Is it OK to interrupt with a question? Should I speak up if someone says something that I believe is false? When, as a child, one is trained to be quiet and submissive, these can be very difficult questions to answer. Of course, there are many more questions shared by large numbers of mathematics students. Why does it seem like everyone else knows more than I do? How do other students know about topics in math that I’ve never seen? How can I get up the nerve to ask a question at a math talk? And, particularly for those who want to go on in mathematics, there are questions about giving talks. What if I can’t even imagine myself giving a talk in front of an audience? How do I prepare a talk? What if I don’t know the answer to a question? What if someone challenges something I say? These sorts of questions are indicative of issues that push many students away from continuing their mathematics studies.

Context: Mathematics at Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr College offers AB, MA, and PhD degrees in mathematics from a department known for excellence in both teaching and research. Undergraduates with AP or similar credits often enter the AB/MA program, in which they complete both degrees during their four years at the college. The graduate program is small and supportive while demanding and rigorous (with an excellent history of job placement). The undergraduate program offers a wide range of courses and independent research experiences, giving students who want it a strong basis for continuing to graduate work in mathematics. At the same time, Bryn Mawr offers math majors who are not interested in continuing to graduate school in mathematics an excellent background for whatever direction they choose to pursue. One thing that I’ve always loved about the department is that it does not have an elitist view of mathematics. As a whole, we believe that everyone can do math and can thrive as a mathematics student. We understand that our mathematics major can help to prepare students for a very wide range of careers and pursuits. In 2012, the American Mathematical Society recognized the department with the Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement by a Mathematics Department. One small, but I think significant, piece of this picture of success is the Distressing Math Collective.

DMC: A Student Colloquium . . . Kind of Over the years, the Distressing Math Collective has been many things, and I’m sure that it has continued to evolve since my retirement. (Hence, some of what I write here may already be out of date.) But what it has always been is student driven. From the beginning, I managed to take a backseat, having the students decide just what

548

H. G. Grundman

the Collective should be. At times, I stepped in to set some ground rules (e.g., treat each other kindly and no throwing things) and provided refreshments to encourage students to attend. So what is the Distressing Math Collective? It wasn’t my idea. A student came to me suggesting that we should get some math students to learn about distressing mathematics, including both proofs of mathematics statements that contradict one’s intuition and apparently (but not) correct proofs that contradict known facts, then give lectures on these topics to first- and second-year students. The thought was to share how fun and interesting mathematics is. Two students, one from Bryn Mawr and one from Haverford (Bryn Mawr’s sibling school), worked with me to come up with the name (“collective” was preferred over “club”), gather some interested students, and watch the Collective evolve. At the first meeting, in the fall of 1997, eight or so Bryn Mawr and Haverford students spontaneously started playing around with abstract mathematics and logic, mixing serious contemplation with complete silliness, while I joined in the laughter and made only occasional comments. During the early meetings, discussions often led to impromptu short talks, such as the time that one student went to the board to explain category theory by making an analogy with the New Jersey transit system. The group quickly started deciding who would plan to explain what bit of distressing math at the next meeting. Students would volunteer to talk about any mathematics that they found interesting. In this way, DMC quickly evolved into an informal student colloquium. The original idea of giving lectures specifically designed for younger students disappeared as the lectures, aimed at anyone who showed up, became the core of the regular meetings. In different years, typical attendance has ranged between six and fourteen, with around five to ten who came to almost every meeting, others who came often, and still others who came just once or twice a semester. The regular attenders have been mostly undergraduates at the two colleges, but, at one time or another, have also included graduate students and alums, visiting faculty and faculty from area colleges and universities, a high school student (who now has a math PhD), and random friends and significant others, many of whom were not math majors. Initially, the Collective grew mainly through enthusiastic word-of-mouth, but later the weekly announcements went out to the entire Mathematics Departments at Bryn Mawr and Haverford, and some faculty even instituted course requirements that included “enrichment activities,” which could be fulfilled by attending a math colloquium or a DMC talk. DMC is both similar to and very unlike what one usually thinks of as a student colloquium. First of all, most of the students at these colleges are incredibly overcommitted with classes, athletics, and extra-curricular activities, and are often very stressed. Quite honestly, they don’t have time, and really shouldn’t take the time, to put together polished math talks for fun. We didn’t want conscientious students to decline an invitation to give a talk because of lack of time. So, as a group, we set a policy that speakers should not prepare very much at all. (Of course, they did prepare a little anyway.) This actually made DMC a more interesting experience,

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

549

since it became the audience’s responsibility to help the speaker get through the talk. There are no introductions, nothing formal. The speaker writes the title on the board and just starts talking. Those of us who already have math degrees (graduate students, visiting faculty, alums, etc.) take seriously our responsibility to be role models. When a speaker goes too fast or skips details, we ask more questions, sometimes directing the questions towards other audience members instead of the speaker, to get everyone involved. When the speaker goes too slowly, we jump in with questions that lead the speaker to skip unnecessary details. Other audience members often learn these techniques and use them as well. By tradition, there is no shame in getting confused in the middle of giving a DMC talk. Speakers who aren’t sure of their topics generally find themselves helped along by the entire audience. Trying to figure out what is going on in an incompletely prepared talk is considered one of the really fun parts of DMC. By design, DMC is an audience participation activity. Members of the audience are not expected to sit quietly and pay attention. This, again, sets DMC apart from a standard student colloquium. Students returning from the previous years help to set the tone and returning non-students help make it clear to everyone that the audience members are not simply being unreasonably rude: a rowdy audience is to be expected and is part of the fun. Irrelevant questions and nonsense help everyone remember not to take the meetings too seriously. Any diagram requires creative interpretation and labeling; any equation needs to be questioned or elaborated upon; easily misinterpreted word choices are quickly misinterpreted, then explained by another audience member. One idle comment on the subject of the talk can lead to a volley of further comments and quips, with much laughter, and then even more side comments. Importantly, these jokes and comments are never at the expense of the speaker, though they do require the speaker either to figure out how to regain the attention of the audience in order to continue or just to be very patient. Since there are often guest speakers, a rule of sorts developed that says that everyone has to be polite and listen to the speaker the first time they give a DMC talk. (The rule was “be nice” to the speaker, wording that I always disliked, since not being nice was, frankly, never tolerated.) But for speakers who had previously given talks, particularly, if they were regulars, talks were a time for jokes, side comments, side conversations, and, of course, eating snacks. One very quiet student, who was part of DMC from the start, came up with a unique method for getting back the audience’s attention. Basically, since there was no way he would raise his voice over the din, he would just turn to the blackboard and continue writing out his talk. He would fill a board or two, then someone would notice and start calling out to him to stop and tell everyone what was going on. After someone had garnered everyone’s attention for him, he would go back to where he’d been and explain what he had written out. We were very impressed. Once, during a talk on the mathematics of Sona sand drawings, the speaker drew a diagram called “Chased Chicken” and there was an immediate demand for an explanation as to why it was called “Chaste Chicken.” (Hilarity ensued as multiple

550

H. G. Grundman

members of the audience tried to explain the question by spelling out words to the speaker and each other.) What is important, here, is that at DMC the speaker and the audience are all engaged in both the math and the merriment. The jokes are not at anyone’s expense and speakers are always complimented and thanked for their talks. For a regular, giving a talk can be an exhilarating experience in which one never really knows what might happen next. For many years, it has been a tradition that if someone comes into the room late, after the lecture has started (particularly if the speaker has already filled a number of boards), the audience informs the speaker that they have to “start over,” repeating or reviewing the talk for the new audience member. This usually leads to high comedy as the speaker talks very quickly, pointing at things on the board, and skipping almost everything. (This also ends up discouraging people from coming late, since everyone notices their attempts at sneaking in!) Through giving DMC talks, students gain confidence in their mathematical knowledge and in their ability to communicate it. They learn to think on their feet and not to bother with being nervous about being in front of an audience. Through taking part in DMC, students learn that mathematics works well as a collaborative group effort; that asking questions and struggling with others to figure out answers is both effective and a lot of fun; that rather than always following a straight line, wandering off on mathematical tangents (pun intended) often leads to whole new areas to consider. Seeing a regular at DMC give a talk, get confused in the middle, and have the audience help them find their way out, can give a new student the confidence to give their first math talk. Inexperienced speakers are often coaxed into better practices with carefully worded, polite questions. In general, many of the regulars enjoy the challenge of coming up with questions to clarify something in the talk, to make a joke, to pull the group off on a tangent, or just to keep the conversation going at the end of the talk. Some years I recruited the speakers, but most years students took over that task along with sending out the weekly announcements. When possible, the announcements included talk titles, but sometimes, when not given a title, we’d make something up. Some years, speakers were asked to provide both a serious title and a silly title to put in the announcement. The speakers seemed to enjoy the challenge. Among my favorite titles were “The Banach-Tarski Paradox, or How to Cut a Cake, not Fairly, but Generously”; “Your GPS and the Implicit Function Theorem, or Finding Yourself Through Mathematics”; and “Perfect 3-Shuffle, or How to Cheat at Poker in a Post-Nuclear Apocalyptic World.” In the early fall, students who have done summer research and already have talks prepared are often recruited as speakers. In the spring, many students come to DMC to practice draft versions of their senior research talks. (In the past, when students claimed they had nothing to talk about, they were sent to me and I’d give them a topic or a relatively easy article to talk about. Mathematics Magazine and Math Horizons were both very useful for this! Sometimes a whole group of students would come to my office and search through articles to find topics they liked.) Graduate students frequently give talks about their research or something from one of their courses. Regular attenders majoring in other fields have even been pressed

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

551

into giving short talks on some overlap between math and their fields. (Faculty are also sometimes invited to speak, but the audience is usually quite passive during those talks, following the rule about being nice.) I once asked a regular who was preparing to give a talk at a conference if she was nervous and she responded, “Not at all. I’ve given talks at DMC. I can give a talk anywhere!”

DMC: A Math Club . . . Sort of In many ways, the Distressing Math Collective is a club. A DMC meeting is a time and place for people to come together and enjoy the fact that there are others who, like them, enjoy talking, learning, joking, and wondering about mathematics. Each week, the regulars greet each other warmly and check that everyone is well, asking after anyone who is missing. (When my husband, who was also a regular attender, missed a meeting because he was in the hospital, a group of students, with my permission, ended the meeting by piling into a car and going to visit him!) At the same time, DMC is definitely not an exclusive club. It is a club to which all are invited. Newcomers are enthusiastically welcomed, even when it is clear that they came only to satisfy a course requirement. We know that for students who had thought of math as a solitary activity, DMC can cause quite an awakening. And although the regulars all know that not everyone wants to come to DMC every week, we also know that we don’t want to miss our chance at recruiting someone who would enjoy doing so! Playing cards after the talk has become another important part of DMC. Again, this wasn’t really planned, it just happened. I brought cards to the early DMC meetings and, after the talk and the post-talk discussions, I taught everyone some card games. The standard, which has now been played at DMC for decades, is a logic and memory game I learned in graduate school called Fish (aka, Canadian Fish or Literature). The game requires exactly six people, all of whom want to think. (It makes sense that the game is popular in math departments, programs, and conferences.) Basically, each player is trying to figure out what cards everyone else has while giving out as little information about their own cards as possible. We randomly choose which six will play the first game, though often people volunteer to watch the first game or do homework while waiting to play in the next game. Sometimes, we’ve had enough people to have two games of Fish going at once (which was both amusing and very confusing, since we are in one small room, hearing all of the information from the other game). The card playing has been known to go quite late, as no one really wants to end the meeting. The game playing is important for many reasons. The first is that it is a motivator for students to come to the meetings. Some students admit that playing Fish is the main reason they come to DMC meetings, though they are given a hard time if they actually miss the talk. Another is that it actually is an educational game, with many students teaching each other logic and strategies as they became more used to the card play. Yet another is that it is a social bonding experience. Each player

552

H. G. Grundman

has to learn the others’ names and interact with them, and afterwards, everyone has something in common. Mathematicians who play Fish sometimes meet up at conferences for a game and during the COVID-19 pandemic, I’ve been running weekly online Fish games with DMC alums and other friends. When I was the faculty sponsor of DMC, I usually had one or two co-organizers. I’ve been told that having the responsibility, as an undergraduate student, of cajoling and convincing others to give talks led them to develop skills that have turned out to be extremely useful later in life! But being willing to do this was never a requirement for being a co-organizer. It was surprising to me how most of them, even the very reserved ones, rose to the occasion. It was even more surprising to me how well the students kept DMC going, even when sabbaticals had me living elsewhere for entire school years.

DMC: Mentoring in a Safe Space Peer mentoring is a major aspect of DMC meetings, though it might not be obvious if one isn’t looking for it. Throughout the meetings, mixed in with the jokes and the random banter, in the free-flowing stream-of-consciousness conversations, students raise major and minor concerns, complaints, and requests for advice. Students discuss the math topics at hand, but also the mathematics classes being offered, various summer mathematics programs and employment opportunities, study skills, overdemanding instructors, time-management strategies, etc., all of which are topics for peer mentoring. They also talk about social and political issues, dorm life, personal problems, and popular culture, some of which, again, are topics for peer mentoring. A common topic for students new to DMC is majoring in math: what it entails, why to do it, how to do it. Current graduate students are tremendous mentors. Most of them work as teaching assistants and so have a lot of knowledge about courses, including the coursework and the instructors. They are also excellently positioned both to answer questions about graduate school and to take the role of an absent older sibling, one who might actually know what it’s like to be an over-committed undergraduate who likes math. Even the card-playing portion of the meeting allows for a lot of mentoring. The game requires logical thinking and trusting teammates. It can be very stressful, so it’s important that everyone remembers that it’s a game. Many students have had to learn that winning isn’t everything and that they could have a good time, even if their teammates made lots of mistakes. Some students had to learn patience and some had to learn to make decisions in real time (without considering every single possibility). All of this learning went on through mentoring from all of the regulars, students and non-students. At the same time, students who need to vent to a sympathetic ear or to get some moral support find it at DMC. Importantly, the low-stress silliness of the meetings, and the fact that the regulars obviously care about each other, convinces students

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

553

that DMC really is a safe space. Students are sufficiently comfortable with the nonundergraduate regulars that most have stopped filtering what they say. Further the atmosphere is one in which anyone, even a professor, can jump into conversations, asking relevant questions or adding their own insights. This meant that I could serve as an on-call mentor when the students were getting in too deep, or could intervene when a student was giving advice with which I didn’t completely agree. At DMC, I learn how students are doing, how they are feeling, and what their issues are. From the conversations, I can gauge whether they’d appreciate an intervention and, if in doubt, I can always ask. A major problem for academics is that some students, particularly women, have been trained not to impose on or complain to their instructors. The fact that it really is a safe space and that there is such a range of expertise among regular DMC attenders has led regulars to feel free to bring up virtually any issue. Simply put, there is little that compares to spending relaxed, honest downtime with a group of students one evening each week for gaining their trust. The networks and mentoring relationships developed at DMC have persisted. Many former regulars have turned to me for advice, guidance, or simply support, as they make their way through their lives.

Do It Yourself DMC At this point, I’m hoping that I’ve convinced at least some readers that their math departments could benefit from having something like DMC. Unfortunately, I’ve probably also convinced them that I wasn’t really responsible for most of it. Still, now that I know what the students and I created and what has been found to be useful to women (and other) students, I do have some advice for anyone hoping to replicate the DMC model. First of all, what is the goal? What I recommend is to try for: a (mostly) studentrun organization with enthusiastic regular attenders and an avenue for bringing in more students; a weekly meeting featuring a 30–45 minutes (or possibly shorter) math talk followed by playing easy to learn, but very challenging, games; and a relaxed, supportive atmosphere that enables everyone to take part in both the mathematics and the fun. But some readers’ goals may be different. I encourage those readers to take what is useful in the following and ignore the rest. Where to start depends on where the department already is. Perhaps it has a math club; perhaps it has a student colloquium. Does it make more sense to push an existing structure towards the DMC model, or to start something new from scratch? DMC is sufficiently different from what most departments have that the latter really is a viable choice. Use judgment about the need for rules at meetings and whether to start with some (probably the safest way to go) or to do what I did and simply make up rules when they’re needed. By the time I retired, there were three well-established rules at DMC: no throwing things; be polite to first-time speakers; and speakers must give a

554

H. G. Grundman

quick recap, from the beginning, to anyone who comes in late (Niemi-Colvin, 2015– 2016). The first rule I made up on the spot, when I felt it was needed. The second was created by students who realized that others were afraid to talk after seeing how often speakers were interrupted. The third grew out of a joke made once, when one student arrived after three chalkboards were already filled with math; it was strongly suggested that the speaker needed quickly to recap everything. (It is a fun tradition, but not really a rule, since new speakers are often exempted.) If I were doing it again, I would probably institute some sort of rules about being mutually supportive and treating everyone kindly during the meetings. The social honor codes at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges meant that we didn’t have to be explicit about such things, and DMC was always incredibly supportive, but I think it could help to have this explicit in the foundation of the group. If I were trying to start DMC now, I would begin by identifying two or three students who enjoy mathematics and are sufficiently gregarious to be able to drag a few friends to some meetings. I would brainstorm with them as to what would make for a fun evening, pushing the idea of having someone give a short, very informal math talk each week, followed by game playing. With luck, the students would have some other ideas for activities, but there’d be no problem if they didn’t. I would make sure that these co-organizers were on-board with whatever rules I felt were needed and that enforcing the rules would be a community effort. I would recruit the first two speakers (possibly from among my co-organizers), making clear that I’m less interested in polished talks than in having them present some interesting math ideas and get the audience talking. Then my co-organizers and I would put together a flyer and an email announcement, with information about the first meeting, including the title of the talk, and make plans for some social media advertising. I then, with flyer in hand, would focus on attracting some more students for the first meetings, emphasizing that it’s about seeing some new math and having fun. I’d talk it up in my classes, but also ask to visit other classes to make announcements. In general, I would not encourage other faculty to come; the presence of more faculty, particularly senior faculty, can discourage students from taking possession of the organization. As I mentioned, some faculty, usually visiting faculty, became regulars at DMC, but this wasn’t until the organization was well-established. It’s good to be prepared to suggest topics and sources for the talks, since not having a topic is a common concern. Organizers can scan magazines, as we did, or go to some of the standard “distressing” topics: All horses are the same color and other misuses of induction; some infinities are bigger than others; an object with finite volume and infinite area (so which can be filled with paint, but not painted); some proofs that 0 = 1; and the Monty Hall problem. But there’s no need to stay with this sort of talk. Just encourage topics or aspects of the topics that will be new (and perhaps interesting) to most math students. I suggest having a second meeting of the co-organizers, including the first speaker, to discuss ways to get the audience involved in the proceedings. Make it clear that this is not to be like a class or a colloquium, and that the student giving the talk has the easy job. It’s up to the non-speakers to get the audience involved and

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

555

talking. The idea is to interrupt with questions and comments, both math-related and not. Encourage the speaker to take part in any conversations and not worry about getting through the talk (though it would be nice if the talk did get finished, eventually). Also make clear that the speaker is not expected to answer random questions, the audience is. If someone asks an off-the-wall question, the speaker can just ask the audience if anyone knows. The goal is to normalize both the audience’s creatively taking an active part in the proceedings and their not treating the speaker as an expert. Discuss with the co-organizers the importance of keeping the comments and conversation positive (and within the rules). In particular, encourage them to model this sort of behavior during the meetings. Make sure that they will support any intervention if someone acts out in ways contrary to group’s goals. A simple “That’s not funny” from a student, followed by a redirecting comment or joke from someone else does wonders, as does a faculty member’s saying something and having a student immediately agree, then moving the conversation onward. Students acting out will look to their peers for approval; the reactions of the co-organizers can make all of the difference. My experience is that if not encouraged, difficult students either change their behavior or simply don’t come back. As far as getting used to interrupting speakers goes, both faculty and students can start by asking the usual sorts of questions for more explanations. When reasonable, try to involve the other students. Ask a nearby student, “What did they just say?” or announce “I’m sorry, I’m sure you said this, but what does the B stand for?” Ask the room, “Does this relate in some way to linear algebra?” Then, if no one responds, turn to a co-organizer and ask “What do you think? Maybe not?” And, of course, get the co-organizers to join in by making jokes and random comments. If the speaker is proving all horses are the same color, ask the speaker if they’ve ever ridden a horse, or ask the audience if they like horses. After the proof, ask whether all dogs are the same color, then ask if all dogs are the same color as the horses. (OK, there is actual math hiding in these questions, but that’s not the point.) Ask “What about jelly beans? Do we get to decide on the color?” Again, aim the questions at the audience and hope that the co-organizers will join in. Puns, even bad ones, should be encouraged. Once a norm is established that interrupting is OK, little effort will be required to keep the meetings lively. The first meetings are probably the trickiest. Make sure that the student coorganizers know that they, not a faculty member, will be running the meeting. Make sure that they will help in setting the tone, encouraging silliness, and bringing the focus back to the math talk, when it wanders too far astray. The faculty member’s role is to help to break the standard rules of silence, engaging both the speaker and the audience in conversations and silliness. After an interruption, whenever there’s a lull in conversation, either make a joke or attract attention back to the talk. Ask a question reminding the speaker where they were. Importantly, when the talk is finished, lead the applause and ask a follow-up question or two. (Again, questions can be more effective when directed to the audience.) Thank the speaker profusely and express appreciation for the topic. Enthusiasm for mathematics is a major binding agent at DMC.

556

H. G. Grundman

Be prepared to support a speaker who gets lost or confused during their talk and make sure that the co-organizers will be ready to do likewise. Jump in with questions like, “Oh! So, does that mean that those two are equal?” or by asking questions of the co-organizers, “Do you think, maybe, this is like those weird things that happen in set theory?” I sometimes offered support by commiserating with the speaker: “This always confuses me! Can we go back a few steps?” While doing this, strive to communicate enthusiasm for the fun of figuring out the mathematics. The idea is that everyone in the room should be enjoying the challenge. Depending on the material, try turning to someone else in the audience and asking “Do you know enough about this to help us out here?” Above all, protect the speaker. Thank them for bringing such a confusing topic to the group, and if they apologize, explain how it’s much more fun when the group gets to try to figure things out. Food is all important for attracting students and getting them to return. I would find out whether the department is willing to reimburse me for snacks, but if not, I’d just pay for them myself. Most years I brought inexpensive snacks like soda, cookies, and pretzels, and everyone was happy. Other years, the co-organizers provided the goodies. One year, the co-organizers paid for food with money from a college fund for student groups; another year the students all decided that each speaker had to bring the food the following week. (That sounds to me like a disincentive, but it worked amazingly well!) Be sure to survey attenders regularly as to food allergies or other restrictions and make a point of providing something for everyone. At the very first DMC meetings, I brought homemade cake and other desserts, but after a few weeks, the students suggested less sugar. Again, I let things evolve. Sometime in the first or second meeting, loudly ask a co-organizer if they are looking for more speakers, and how much preparation is required. They can just answer or decide to make an announcement. With luck, that week’s speaker can confirm that it didn’t take much time to prep. Be ready to offer a topic and resource to potential speakers, and to note that it is perfectly acceptable for a speaker to bring notes or even a book to look at during their talk. This helps clarify for students that preparing a talk does not need to take much time and that giving a talk does not have to be stressful. I urge everyone to learn the rules for playing Fish (Lerner, n. d.) and teach it at each meeting. Strongly emphasize the puzzle aspect of the game, rather than the competition. Changing teams every game helps with this, and with getting to know each other. Come prepared with alternative games, in case there are too few people. If there are too many people, then get a game started and engage the remaining students (with talking or with another game), until they can join in the next Fish game. And, of course, if Fish doesn’t catch on with the students, try something else that does. Look for a game that is challenging and enjoyable and, in some way, connected with math. Of course, even in writing this, I am hoping to improve the numbers of women in mathematics and, more generally, to aid in correcting the imbalances of the mathematics community’s demographics. With this goal in mind, it is crucial that a supportive, enthusiastic atmosphere is maintained at the meetings. Try to dampen

Mentoring and Empowering with (Sometimes) Distressing Mathematics

557

any competitive behaviors and intervene immediately if anyone acts inappropriately. Being rowdy does not mean teasing or demeaning others. Women, and other groups that are minorities in mathematics, don’t need yet another non-supportive activity. Those who are enthusiastic about math want to know that there are others like them. And those not yet hooked on math may be enticed by seeing others so engaged. At least one student has told me that the enthusiasm at DMC is what led her to major in mathematics and another told me that DMC was the deciding factor in her decision to matriculate at Bryn Mawr College.

Final Thoughts Girls are often, at a young age, trained into behaviors that reinforce the obstacles to a career in mathematics (or any of a wide range of other fields). Although removing the obstacles is an important goal, I have trouble believing that this can be accomplished in time to allow the current generation of young women to fully succeed. Working to reverse some of the effects of this training, to give young women a larger catalog of behaviors from which to choose, is something that can help immediately. To be clear, I am not in any way “blaming the victim.” What I am doing is blaming those who do the training, including those of us who reinforce gender-specific norms of behavior that are causing many of the problems. I believe that DMC helped many young women, and others, to develop in ways that helped them overcome whatever barriers were put in their way. For me, DMC has always been a family; a community of joy, compassion, and empowerment; and a safe place where all of us grew in many ways, while having an awful lot of fun. I hope that others will be inspired to create equally positive experiences for their students.

References Lerner, Michael. n. d. [rules for Fish]. http://mglerner.com/fish.php. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Niemi-Colvin, Seppo. 2015–2016. The (not so) distressing math collective. Bryn Mawr Math Alumnae Newsletter.

A Few Memories and Insights from a 50-Year Career Naomi Jochnowitz

Despite fighting for women in mathematics in my own way with every ounce of my strength for a very long time, I never played an official role in the AWM, probably because I am not an “organizational person.” I did, however, consider its formation, near the start of my graduate career, to be momentous, rushed to read its newsletters each time they came out, and took pride in its successes over the years, which I think illustrates an important point, namely that the existence of the AWM positively impacted women in math in general, even those without visible connections to the group. Some contributors to this volume, such as former and current AWM presidents, have played critical roles in establishing, sustaining, or revitalizing the AWM. Some are responsible for the creation of major innovative programs or the support of new policies to increase the opportunities for women in mathematics. The cause we are all fighting for needs people like these with the vision to formulate bold plans, the courage to implement innovative designs, and the political aptitude to work toward far-reaching change. I often envy those of my colleagues who have the ability to perform these important tasks so well. But I believe each of us should concentrate on what we do best, and there is also a need for those of us whose major strengths lie in nurturing each student, one student at a time. We too have had significant impacts on advancing the causes to which the AWM has dedicated itself, but our contributions have been quieter, and at times harder to pin down. When my colleagues Michael Gage and John Harper first mentioned the possibility of nominating me for AWM’s M. Gweneth Humphreys award, which I was both humbled and honored to have received in 2016, I told them that they

N. Jochnowitz () Department of Mathematics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_48

559

560

N. Jochnowitz

were wasting their time since there was no way I could possibly win this award, as I had never been active in the AWM, nor established any new programs benefiting women in math. But they pointed out that Humphreys herself was similar to me, in that her strengths lay with her ability to reach individual students, rather than in creating institutional change. In this article, I will share some memories and insights gained over the years in an attempt to partly explain why I do what I do.

Things Aren’t Always as Simple as They Seem George Mackey, a wonderfully unique person and a true character, taught my yearlong graduate real analysis course, and I always enjoyed chatting with him whenever I was at or visiting Harvard. He held some politically incorrect views about women in math, which he openly articulated and truly believed, but he didn’t have a personal stake in these, and was just looking for a premise that could explain the historical paucity of women mathematicians. I was in his office one day when he scooped up some letters and blurted out “Look what I wrote. It wasn’t so bad what I wrote. You don’t think it was so bad, do you?” Apparently some years earlier a group of women mathematicians, presumably the so called “Boston Mafia” which later morphed into part of the AWM, had written a letter accusing Harvard’s math graduate program of bias in admissions decisions, as evidenced by the small number of women in each entering class. Of course, their argument wasn’t airtight, as most damage to women in math happens long before applying to graduate school, so the percent of women accepted could have mirrored that in the applicant pool, but Mackey, after insisting that the department’s decisions were “sex-blind,” volunteered that history has shown women were on average less mathematically gifted than men. After the original letter writers wryly indicated exasperation in response, Mackey sought reassurance that what he wrote “wasn’t so bad.” I felt like he wanted absolution in the name of womankind, and wasn’t sure how I should reply. Nevertheless, after hesitating briefly, I said, I disagree with everything you believe. But I have seen how supportive, encouraging, helpful, and kind you are with female students, whereas I know many mathematicians much younger than you who believe “all the right things” but can’t relate properly to female classmates or colleagues. And if I had to choose between these two approaches, I would choose yours anytime.

I should add that Mackey’s thinking evolved in later years, since he saw the number of women in math increase, knew there had not been a genetic mutation, and had no personal stake in clinging to his views. And Mackey’s women PhD students both speak highly of his caring mentorship, open-mindedness, and lack of prejudgment of anyone.

A Few Memories and Insights from a 50-Year Career

561

Sometimes We Just Can’t Win When I was a Tamarkin Assistant Professor at Brown, an NSF reviewer used the fact that I wasn’t attending Harvard seminars on a weekly basis (which, since I lived 60 miles away and didn’t drive, would have been hard to do) to conclude I wasn’t serious about research. But later, when I regularly attended these seminars while a Science Scholar at Radcliffe’s Bunting Institute, another NSF reviewer wrote that since I was doing this, they had no way of knowing if my proposal contained my own ideas or ones I got from people attending those seminars.

Only If We Firmly Believed We Were Not I don’t think anyone of any gender should be pushed to study advanced mathematics if they aren’t so inclined, but all too often I see talented women students at all different levels held back by a lack of confidence. I think I can empathize with such students because women of my generation were allowed to be good in math, but only if we firmly believed that we weren’t. I remember one meeting of women math grad students and undergrads at Harvard, where each graduate student encouraged the undergraduates saying, “Just because you don’t feel you are that good doesn’t mean you aren’t that good” or “Don’t be scared off by the men, as they sometimes present themselves as being better than they are” or “There are lots of really good women in math; why right here in this room, there is some amazing math talent,” and then each of us in her own way added words to the effect that “I, of course, happen to not be that good.” It wasn’t until everyone had spoken that I pointed out what had just occurred. How could each of us individually not be that good, and there still be some amazing math talent in the room? When I told this story to some (male) students in one of my graduate algebra classes at Rochester, and also related how I used to introduce myself to random strangers my first year at Harvard saying, “My name is Naomi. I was admitted to Harvard by mistake. Who are you?,” I think they missed the point at first. They said, “But you just thought you had to say such things” and “You just said that to be accepted by the men, right?” I don’t think they understood that we really believed it (and in some ways I still do). That’s how things were back then. In fact, I think those were the “official rules.” I know things are changing, but I don’t know how fast. That first meeting between women grad students and undergrads was prompted in part because the ratio of men to women in undergraduate majors at Harvard had recently been publicized, with the math ratio being 14 to 1, causing us to realize how outnumbered the women undergraduates must have felt. The overall ratio of men to women undergraduates at that time was 2.5 to 1, which means the 14 to 1 ratio has to be considered in that context. But if you were a woman undergraduate

562

N. Jochnowitz

taking an advanced math course back then, this fact would not have made you feel less isolated, because you would have still looked around the classroom and seen 14 men for each one of you. Moreover, further motivation for these meetings was provided by some newly announced research of Elizabeth Tidball, showing that women graduating singlesex colleges were more likely to get math or science PhDs. At the time, I found that surprising, since the girls in my high school who applied to women’s colleges were not among the more studious ones, with some saying things like “I want to date boys, not compete with them,” so it seemed to me that women choosing schools like Harvard would be more likely to pursue math or science careers. Thus, something must have been happening to discourage women once they got to places like Harvard, and this prompted the women grad students to reach out to the undergrads and offer friendly encouragement and support. (A similar phenomenon was noted when I was on the faculty at Brown, when it was reported that women undergraduates entered that school with higher grades, exam scores, and career goals, but graduated with lower aspirations than their male peers.)

The Messages Today Are More Subtle Although the overall picture is slowly improving, I believe today’s undergraduates are still being subjected to powerful messages, albeit more subtle ones than in my day, that math past a certain point is primarily for men. Because of my background, I am especially sensitive to such messages, and feel a personal responsibility to do everything I can to counteract them. I once went to the first meeting of an honors abstract algebra course I was teaching at Rochester and found 20 men and 0 women (I eventually recruited several women, but that took a few days). Among those 20 men, there were some very gifted students, including two of the three members of our Putnam team that ranked tenth in the country that year, and others who merely thought they were that gifted, with the group as a whole giving out “vibes” that they were “super-duper” smart. This even had an effect on me, in that despite having taught this class before and knowing that my first lecture was pitched at exactly the right level, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was going too slow, and felt pressure to skip material or speed up. I am proud to say I stood my ground, continuing my lecture the way I had planned, except I found myself apologizing for doing so (“many of you may have seen this before” and “don’t worry if the pace feels slow, as it will pick up and the course will be challenging”). I realized only later that despite having a Harvard PhD and almost 40 years of teaching experience including having taught similar courses at Dartmouth and Brown, I had picked up vibes from some of the men causing me to react as described above, and I wondered what effect such vibes could have on a bright undergraduate woman taking her first abstract algebra class.

A Few Memories and Insights from a 50-Year Career

563

Must One Be Intellectually Intimidating to Earn a Math PhD? I remember an incident from 30 years ago, when I served on a committee for a woman computer science graduate student, now a full professor and department chair at a major research university. Financial support in computer science was beginning to dry up, so they decided to get stricter about admittance to PhD candidacy. After I mentioned that this student felt intimidated by one of her classmates, one of her committee members said “Let’s turn that around. Whom does she intimidate?” At that point, I stopped the meeting, pointing out that you don’t have to be able to “intimidate” someone to get a PhD in computer science (or math). Oddly enough, he defended his word choice saying, “I meant intellectually intimidate,” implying that intimidating someone was good, as long as it was on an intellectual level, and while relieved that he wasn’t advocating the threat of physical violence, I shuddered at the implications of his response. The prevalence of such attitudes and their more subtle offshoots negatively impacts students of all genders, but its effect on women can at times be particularly harsh.

Being a Graduate Student at Harvard in the Early 1970s Before I started graduate school at Harvard in 1971, a guy I was dating tried to discourage me from going, even though he had never had substantive math conversations with me. This threw me into a state of panic, which worsened when I heard that a fellow math major a year ahead of me at Tufts had already dropped out of Harvard’s program. In fact, I was the third Tufts alumna to have gone on to math graduate study at Harvard, and both others left after a semester, so I began graduate school feeling the weight of the world, or at least the future of top math majors from Tufts, on my shoulders. I learned fast that the top math majors (all women) in my undergraduate classes spoke differently than the men in Harvard’s graduate program, some of whom talked with an air of “bravado” stubbornly insisting everything was “trivial,” which I now realize was a defense mechanism, but which at the time I interpreted as meaning everyone was smarter than me. One of my fellow graduate students tried to reassure me by asserting, Most mathematicians talk like they know twice as much as they do, whereas you talk like you know half as much as you do, but when people hear you talk, they think you are like most mathematicians, so they think you are talking like you know twice as much as you do, which means what they think you know is one quarter of what you know.

I was the only woman among 16 entering math students, and the only woman in all my classes throughout my graduate career. I took the final exams for my firstyear courses in a building that did not have any women’s bathrooms (I was forced to “liberate” a men’s room, at one point). When a first-year student decided to leave the program during my third year, she was told “We’ll miss seeing your pretty face.”

564

N. Jochnowitz

Moreover, when I relayed this to a distinguished visiting mathematician, he couldn’t understand why I was upset, insisting that “it was just a nice compliment.”

Why I Do What I Can to Support Women in Math I have been at Rochester since 1982 and for periods of time was the only woman faculty member in math, computer science, and statistics combined. My name has been passed around to women students in a variety of STEM fields who wanted a sympathetic female professor’s support, and there have been numerous notes slipped under my door by women thanking me for “saving” their majors or degrees. Some of my colleagues and I are approximately the same age, so in that sense there were similar forces impacting our lives. Except girls good at math were raised differently than boys good at math in the 1950s, and I believe this gave me a perspective somewhat different than my colleagues. I received the same signals as other women of my generation, causing us to feel less good at math than we were, and although I was able to partly overcome these, I cannot claim to have been immune. All these factors had an influence on my life, and are largely responsible for who I am today. In particular, they help explain many unique elements of my teaching, as well as my desire to strongly support women in math. Partly because of my own experience, I feel a special affinity for talented students unaware of their own strengths. I believe I have a kind of radar helping me detect such individuals, often recognizing their potential before others do. I am happy to provide maximal support, since I know with the right encouragement, these students can develop the confidence needed to let their natural creativity shine through, sometimes with rather spectacular results. Often (not always) these students are women, and I see glimpses of my younger self in them. By symmetry, such students identify with me, and I become a much appreciated role model and friend. Most importantly, my students know I am always on their side and am not there to judge them, rather to help them do their best. They don’t have to prove to me how good they are. Instead, it is my responsibility to prove to them how good they can be! In doing this, I am simply repaying a debt for what others did for me, starting with Barry Mazur, my thesis advisor.

Celebrating AWM’s Fiftieth Anniversary: Mentoring PhD Students Chi-Wang Shu

The fiftieth anniversary of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) is a big event to celebrate. Over the past fifty years, AWM has been playing an instrumental role in promoting and supporting women in mathematics, with significant success. Recently, more and more faculty members and researchers are women, and more and more women mathematicians have been playing leadership roles in academia and professional societies. Women are now presidents of the two major mathematical societies in the US, namely the American Mathematical Society (AMS) and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). This is a great achievement and the trend will definitely continue. Over the past 30 years, I have supervised or co-supervised 50 PhD students; among them 22 (44.0%) are women. In my experience, there are no gender differences in research ability and potential. My approach to training students is not much different for male or female students, the most important thing is always to build up their confidence and good research habits. If there is any difference, it would be that extra encouragement, through role models of earlier academic sisters, is helpful to strengthen the self-confidence of female students that they can do well. Here, I summarize a few points which I view as important in the training of graduate students: • Encourage them to take more courses, including courses not immediately relevant to their thesis research, in order to broaden their knowledge base so that they have better long-term potential in performing research in the coming years. Instead of getting into research quickly with small projects, it would benefit them much more to take more courses at the beginning, and throughout their graduate student training period, to expand their knowledge base.

C.-W. Shu () Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_49

565

566

C.-W. Shu

• Most students, at the initial stage of their thesis research, will encounter a difficult period of transition from course learning to doing original research. Many students are not afraid of difficult homework problems, since they know that these problems have answers and as long as they work hard they will most likely get the solutions. However, for an original research project, no matter how small, even the advisor would not know whether there is a solution or what the final result would turn out to be. It could very well happen that, after a few months of effort, little or no progress is made. This could discourage the students, making them doubt their research abilities (one thing I often hear from students at this stage is that “I am not sure I can do original research” or “I don’t think I will ever become a capable mathematics researcher”). Often they also ask whether it is possible to change to a different research project. At this stage, the most important thing is to give them encouragement, to discuss the problem with them in detail, and to tell them that it is normal for any research to encounter such “non-productive” periods. It would also be wise not to switch research projects, unless it is clear that the original research project is flawed. Once this difficult initial stage is over and the students achieve results, even just small results, their confidence will significantly increase and they will feel truly happy about their first research “product.” • While different advisors have different styles of supervision, I tend to supervise students with frequent, in-depth discussions, especially at the initial stage of their thesis research. I always tell students that they are my first priority, they can drop by my office at any time without appointments, and I will drop whatever I am doing at that time to talk with them. I would encourage students to come and see me regularly, even when there is no progress in their research. Often, a blackboard discussion would clear up many confusions that could linger for a long time if the students were dealing with them without help. Frequent and regular discussions would also serve as a reminder to students to plan their work more efficiently. • I would tell students that the main purpose of PhD training is to train students “how to do research.” The PhD thesis itself may or may not be a major piece of high impact work, but a good training in “how to do research” would benefit the students for many of the coming years in their career. This includes how to choose research topics (at the beginning of the PhD study, most likely the research topics are suggested by the advisor; but at a later stage it would be important for students to think about suitable research topics themselves), how to do a literature search to understand what has been done and what are the main concerns and open issues in this topic, and how to come up with possible approaches to address these issues and try these approaches. Students will be very happy when they come up with novel ideas themselves and pursue these ideas successfully to obtain new results. • Independence in research, especially in choosing research topics, is worth a bit more emphasis. At the beginning of the PhD study, I find it more efficient for the advisor to suggest suitable research topics, and it is better to have at least two possible research topics for the student to choose from. Depending upon the progress of the student, at a later stage, especially when the student has already

Celebrating AWM’s Fiftieth Anniversary: Mentoring PhD Students

567

obtained enough results to fulfill the minimum requirement of the PhD degree, it would be worthwhile to ask the student to come up with new research topics, from reading the literature and from listening to seminar and conference talks. This is especially important if the student plans to pursue an academic career. • The period before graduation is another crucial period for many students. They would need to find a suitable job after their PhD in this period. For students who would like to continue in academia, most likely this would be a postdoc job in applied mathematics. While a strong PhD thesis is the most important factor in securing a postdoc job, other factors, such as whether the particular research topic is “hot” or not, could also play roles. It is not uncommon that, even though the student has very strong thesis research, a postdoc offer still does not come at the early stage of the job hunting season. Many students would then get anxious, and would question (again) their suitability in pursuing an academic career. At this time, an advisor would be very helpful to ease such concerns, by telling students about examples of previous students in similar situations who later became very successful in academia. After all, one only needs one postdoc offer, and whether it comes early or late in the job hunting season does not matter. • It is a good idea to keep close contact with students after their graduation. The advisor could still provide helpful advice, especially during the initial stage of their academic career, including the postdoc period and tenure track period. Collaborative research with them at this stage is also a plus, as long as they have also other research projects which are sufficiently diversified so that they will not be considered as too narrow and only continuing their thesis research. • It is also a good idea to encourage students to discuss and possibly collaborate among themselves. An active and friendly peer group is a definite plus, not only during PhD study but also throughout their academic careers. Of course, the items listed above are only my partial experience, and they may not apply to all students. Each student is unique, requiring special considerations tailored individually. Pinpointed encouragements at the right time are very important in boosting the morale and confidence of students, so that they will gradually find pleasure in their research and will really get excited after they have obtained new results and published new papers. Out of my 50 PhD students, 33 are now in academia, and among them 16 (48.5%) are women. Many of my women students are now active researchers in applied mathematics, who have made significant contributions in their areas of research. They have obtained various honors such as AFOSR Young Investigator Award, NSF Career Award, Simons Fellow, SIAM Fellow, and Sloan Research Fellowship. I am extremely honored to have been elected as an AWM Fellow in 2019 (the class of 2020), with the citation “for his exceptional dedication and contribution to mentoring, supporting, and advancing women in the mathematical sciences; for his incredible role in supervising many women PhDs, bringing them into the world of research to which he has made fundamental contributions, and nurturing their professional success.” This is the best reward for my modest effort in promoting and supporting women in mathematics.

568

C.-W. Shu

My students, especially female students, have benefited a lot from AWM activities and events. They in turn have played their role in promoting such activities and events after they become seasoned in academia. I am sure AWM will be even more successful in the coming years in helping achieve the grand goal of equal representation of women in mathematics!

Part IX

Education and AWM

The Story of the Education Column in the AWM Newsletter Jacqueline M. Dewar

Introduction The AWM Newsletter has published a wide variety of articles about education as illustrated by the following excerpts taken from seven articles spanning nearly 30 years. In the May–June 1992 AWM Newsletter, Tan Rui Fen (East China Normal University, Shanghai, China) wrote about initial explorations with computer assisted instruction (CAI) in selected Chinese schools: “In recent years many key schools in China have been equipped with microcomputers; meanwhile various CAI experiments are being tried out by mathematics teachers (many of whom are women). They produce software, practice in classrooms, and analyze the achievement and ability of students in experimental and control classes” (p. 7). Fen described three different ways CAI was being used: for demonstration as part of the teacher’s exposition; independent study with the computer by students to review and practice; and as a replacement of regular classroom instruction for a whole chapter or section with teacher-designed software instruction. Among the outcomes reported were: the faster feedback loop enabled by CAI served to individualize instruction and “[b]y providing a powerful visual means, representing an active concrete image, CAI helps to cultivate the ability of abstract thinking” (p. 8). Not surprisingly, the need for further research was noted. The July–August 1993 issue contained an article by Sally Lipsey about the mathematical education of Florence Nightingale and how she put it to use. Lipsey noted “Only after long emotional battles was Florence permitted to have tutors in mathematics. (One of her tutors was J. J. Sylvester.) . . . One of the pioneers in the

J. M. Dewar () Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_50

571

572

J. M. Dewar

graphic method of presentation of data, she invented colorful polar-area diagrams to dramatize medical data” (p. 11). When this article was published, not many in the mathematics community were aware of Nightingale’s use of mathematics and statistics to campaign for medical reform. Twelve months later, Lipsey wrote about a pioneer mathematics educator, Catharine Beecher (1800–1878), and her basic arithmetic textbook, Arithmetic Simplified,1 published in 1832. Beecher was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s half-sister and “a strong advocate of high quality education for girls in the era of few such advocates” (p. 11). She thought students should not only learn to understand rules and operations but also learn to communicate their understanding of mathematics “in concise and appropriate language” (p. 12). Despite claims of excellence and endorsements for the textbook, “it did not sell very well. Beecher blamed the publisher for pricing it higher than other arithmetic texts and wrote that many narrowminded men would not even look at it because it was written by a woman!” (p. 12). In the May–June 2007 Newsletter, Ginger Warfield provided a fascinating analysis of the similarities and differences between the mid-twentieth century New Math movement (seeking to include more abstract mathematics in the curriculum), and the Reform Math (based on the NCTM Standards2 published in 1989 and revised in 2000), along with the controversies each generated. Critics of Reform Math, which emphasized problem-solving and conceptual understanding over computational fluency, argued that students must first develop computational skills before they can understand mathematical concepts. This debate came to be known as the “Math Wars.” Among Warfield’s many insightful observations was: One of the fatal weaknesses for the New Math was that parents couldn’t understand their children’s homework and couldn’t help them. When the education establishment told them it was actually nonsense, they were easily persuaded. It was their support of the opposition that helped the tide to turn against the program. Now we are again sending home homework that parents don’t understand, and to make matters worse, instead of looking to the parents like something alarmingly abstruse, it looks like a race around invisible obstacles towards an unfamiliar goal. (p. 21)

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Language Arts, released in 2010, aimed to establish consistent standards across all 50 states and ensure that high school graduates are prepared for college programs or to enter the workforce. A November–December 2013 Newsletter article by Cathy Kessel informed readers about three different types of reactions to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics. The first of these concerned teachers’ opinions of CCSS gleaned from data obtained in four separate national surveys (and neatly summarized by Kessel in a table). The surveys asked teachers about their familiarity with the

1A

digital copy of the second edition of Beecher’s text is available online through Google books. full titles of these two standards documents published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) are Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics and Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, respectively. 2 The

The Story of the Education Column

573

CCSS (e.g., whether they had read the standards for their grade level), whether they approved of the standards or perceived their quality to be as high or higher than their current standards, and how much professional development they had received or how prepared they felt to implement them. Most teachers responded that they were familiar with CCSS. (Across the four surveys, the percentage of positive responses ranged from 78% to 86%). Kessel further reported: “. . . most teachers approve of the Common Core standards, but many teachers have received little or no related professional development or feel what they received was inadequate” (p. 19). The article also mentioned two faulty analyses of the Standards by mathematicians and discussed political campaigns being waged against the Common Core. In a March–April 2017 Newsletter article, Suzanne Lenhart described several programs in Africa intended to create long-lasting partnerships between US and African mathematical scientists and train junior researchers in biomathematics. She wrote: “The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa was a reminder that the world is ill-prepared for a severe disease epidemic or any similar global sustained public emergency. The risk of future global severe infectious disease outbreaks in an increasingly connected world is greater than ever” (p. 29). She reported that a 2016 workshop held in Dakar, Senegal, explored how mathematical models could be used to understand and forecast disease transmission dynamics and to evaluate the effect of different interventions and changing on-the-ground conditions on epidemiological outcomes. The workshop originally sought to concentrate on the responses to the recent Ebola outbreak, while gaining insight from responses to HIV/AIDS. . . . However, during the workshop, the Zika virus outbreak “hit the headlines” and became an important sub-theme of the workshop. (p. 29)

Lenhart encouraged readers to look for opportunities to participate in workshops in Africa. A tribute to Dr. Karen King (1971–2019) written by Erica Walker appeared in the May–June 2020 Newsletter issue. Walker provided these beautifully insightful descriptions of King: “If there is a Venn diagram that can be made of people who are mathematicians, mathematics educators, mathematics education researchers, and policymakers—Karen would sit comfortably in the intersection of all four of those groups” . . . “a great connector of people and ideas” (p. 16). After detailing many of King’s contributions and accomplishments, Walker observed: “We have lost a number of giants in our mathematics professional community in recent years—Karen was one of them. . . . May we all be inspired by her commitment to mathematics and mathematics education, wherever we situate ourselves in the profession” (p. 19). How did this eclectic collection of articles come to be written and published in the AWM Newsletter? The simple answer is that each of these was written for what came to be known as the Newsletter’s Education Column. To flesh out this answer further, this article will explore the story behind the Education Column. As might be expected, the Education Column has experienced a number of changes over the years—in writers, perspectives, and how it operates. This article delves into these. Many historical markers are identified: when the Column began; when it first appeared with an identifying label; how the label changed several times;

574

J. M. Dewar

its initial connection to the AWM Education Committee and later separation from the Committee; and who the Column editors (and many of the writers) have been. The article also describes the different ways that the Column has been managed, some of the topics it has covered, and how its perspectives have broadened and diversified.

The Early Years of the Education Column (1982–1987) AWM published its first newsletter in May 1971. Fittingly, the AWM Newsletter contains evidence that the precursor to today’s Education Column emerged from the Education Committee.3 The first indication of a “column” related to the Education Committee appeared in the President’s Report in the March–April 1982 issue: “Evelyn Silvia reported on the Math Education Committee, which she chairs. The Committee will write a column from time to time in the WME4 (Women in [sic] Mathematics Education) newsletter, and WME will reciprocate with columns in our newsletter” (p. 1). That very issue carried the first report from WME on page 4. Titled “News from Women and Mathematics Education (WME)” and written by WME President Joanne Rossi Becker, it described WME’s work to influence the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and some of the resources WME offered related to mathematics education. The second news report from WME, titled “News from Women and Mathematics Education (WME),” appeared three issues later. Also written by Becker, it contained information about various mathematics education related meetings and resources. In the following issue, the President’s Report stated that a report from the Mathematics Education Committee was delivered to the Executive Committee meeting. It also noted: “Evelyn Silvia, who chairs the Education Committee, has written two guest columns for the WME Newsletter. We hope to have a continuing cooperation with WME” (p. 2). So, there was a reciprocal exchange of two newsletter articles during 1982 between WME and the AWM Education Committee. Unfortunately, the exchange did not continue on a regular basis; it would be almost seven years before the Newsletter contained another WME piece. In the March–April 1989 issue, a short piece reprinted from the WME newsletter about the EQUALS and Family Math programs5 appeared as part of the AWM Education Committee Column. Three additional items from the

3 AWM

Newsletter issues are available via the AWM website. (Women and Mathematics Education), an affiliate of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, was founded in 1978. Its current mission (as stated on its website) is to advocate for equity and high-quality teaching and learning of mathematics for all students, especially related to girls, women, and underrepresented minority students. 5 The EQUALS and Family Math programs, offered since 1977 through the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley, provide workshops, curriculum materials, and publications in mathematics and equity for PreK–12 teachers, parents, and families. See its website. 4 WME

The Story of the Education Column

575

WME newsletter were included in later issues,6 but these appeared separately from the Column, which in those years bore the label “Education Committee.” Several things are worth noting about these early years (1982–1987). First, early references to the Education Committee sometimes included a version of the word “Mathematics” in the name of the committee, and sometimes not. Eventually, the Committee became known as the Education Committee. (From now on, when a reference to the Committee is not part of a quote, for simplicity it will be called the Education Committee or just the Committee.) Second, based on the information about exchanges with WME, it appears that the Column initially came into being in part because of the efforts of the Education Committee to make connections with other professional organizations with similar missions. Third, in these early years the columns are not yet labeled as an “Education Committee Column” or “Education Column” as they were later.7 After 1982, the next article that is clearly connected to the Education Committee appeared in the July–August 1984 issue. Sally Lipsey wrote an article titled “What’s Happening in the Northeast?” that began as follows: “As a member of the Mathematics Education Committee of AWM I am writing this report about three different types of programs to encourage women to persevere with mathematics and related careers” (p. 13). This was the first of a number of articles appearing over the years that reported on what was happening in various states or geographic areas of the United States. At times, a formal request appeared at the end of the Column (see, for example, the May–June 1990 issue) for volunteers to be “state reporters” who would be responsible for an annual report on mathematical education in their state especially as it related to women and math. More details about the state reports appear later in this article. Fairly early on, the Column reported on the international scene. In the November–December 1984 issue, in an article titled “Some Aspects of Sex Inequality in Sweden,” Lipsey wrote: “This article (written as part of my work for the Education Committee of AWM) will describe (with some emphasis on math education) how traditions in the labor market and school system perpetuate inequality, and what the government does as an antidote” (p. 9).

The Sally Lipsey Years (1988–1997) Mentions of the Education Committee’s work in the President’s Report or the appearance of an article clearly identifiable as connected to the Committee occurred sporadically until 1988. In fact, some years (1983 and 1985–1987) nothing at all appeared from or about the Committee. In her September–October 1987 President’s

6 See

the May–June 1990, March–April 1992, and May–June 1992 issues. lack of label made it more difficult to recognize which columns were the work of the Education Committee in the early issues. 7 This

576

J. M. Dewar

Report, Rhonda Hughes announced that Lipsey would chair the Education Committee and stated, “The charge of this committee is to prepare articles for the AWM and WME (Women in Mathematics Education) newsletters and to respond to requests for information that are directed to AWM on math-ed related issues” (p. 2). This is the first clear statement that the Committee was responsible for producing content for the Newsletter. As part of her role as Committee chair until 1996 and then as Column editor, Lipsey saw to it that something produced by or connected to the Committee appeared in nearly every Newsletter through 1997. For example, in the January– February 1988 issue, Suda Kunyosying, a member of the Education Committee, reported on a panel about women and computers that took place at the third annual Eastern Small College Computing Conference, held on October 16–17, 1987, at Marist College in New York. The article ended with a survey for AWM Newsletter readers about computing, to be returned (by US mail) to the AWM Education Committee, c/o Lipsey. This was the first of many requests by Lipsey to get input from readers on various topics. During these years the articles were primarily concerned with two things. One was collecting and sharing information about or experiences with activities and programs related to the education and participation of girls and women in mathematics and occasionally science or computer science. For example, reports on activities for girls held during Mathematics Awareness Month appeared in a number of issues.8 As already mentioned, the first article that reported on happenings in a particular geographic region in the United States was written by Lipsey in July–August 1984. When producing content for the Column became part of the Committee’s responsibility, in her role as Committee chair, Lipsey actively sought out volunteers, called “state reporters,” to submit annual reports on mathematics education activities in their states. Between 1990 and 1995, the Column published reports of activities from California, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia. These reports covered happenings across all education levels from K–12 to graduate school and sometimes even included career and professional events. The July–August 1991 state report from Texas by Beth Porter actually covered all of these in a single article. It was a compilation of responses to the questionnaire she had sent to a variety of institutions in her state. Included in her report were: K–12 activities such as a MATHCOUNTS competition for middleschool students and Expanding Your Horizons career days for girls; a conference on technology focused on incorporating graphing calculators into middle school through college mathematics; a symposium on supporting and encouraging women in mathematics and science; and various awards and grants received by Texans. Porter also reported that “Dr. Karen Uhlenbeck was the second woman to have the honor (the first being Emmy Noether in 1932) to present one of the plenary

8 See the March–April 1991, January–February 1994 and 1995, January–February and March– April 1996, and January–February 1997 issues.

The Story of the Education Column

577

addresses at the 1990 International Congress of Mathematics in Kyoto, Japan” (p. 18). Following Porter’s article, another call for volunteers to be state reporters appeared: “The Education Committee would like to make sure that every state is represented in our column. Would you like to become a member of our committee as a ‘state reporter’?” (p. 19). The request noted that information “might be based on material from a state department of education, state or local educational institutions, or other sources” (p. 19). Porter’s survey forms would be provided to volunteers for use if they were interested. Occasionally there were reports on activities in foreign countries, for example, Uganda in January–February 1991 and China in May–June 1992. The other major focus was seeking information or opinions from the readers or their reactions to national recommendations. An example related to a national recommendation appeared in May–June 1991, when Lipsey wrote about the call to employ more applications in the teaching of mathematics made by the Mathematical Association of America, the Mathematical Sciences Education Board, and NCTM plus business and industry. The Column ended with a reader survey that asked: 1. If you have information about a non-academic organization supporting programs for math education of women, please send details. 2. If you are not a teacher, tell us what you do. 3. If you are a teacher, tell us what you think about curriculum reform that calls for teaching math mainly through applications. (p. 18)

Other survey topics included: integrating mathematics education with art (September–October 1988); how institutions were observing Mathematics Awareness Week or Month (January–February 1990); and interesting programs for women who were “returning students” (March–April 1990). Sometimes feedback was encouraged by ending the column with a simple question: Any comments? This question occurred at least ten times from March– April 1992 through May–June 1994. Columns occasionally reported on the results of a survey (e.g., feedback from a survey on women and computer education appeared in January–February 1989). Lipsey wrote 13 columns (two of which were mentioned at the beginning of this article) and contributed surveys to, or made specific requests in, at least seven others. In addition to Lipsey, there were many contributors to the Column. The most frequent contributors during these years were Suda Kunyosying (ten columns) and Regina Baron Brunner (six columns) who mainly wrote about activities and educational programs for girls and women in mathematics or science.

Naming and then Renaming the Column (1988–1996) The first time an article appeared with a label identifying it as the “Education Committee Column” was November–December 1988. The label was probably requested by Lipsey, who had become Education Committee chair in 1987 (Anne

578

J. M. Dewar

Leggett, personal communication, November 14, 2019). The next issue contained an article that was clearly the work of the Education Committee, but it was not formally labeled as a “Column.” In the following three issues, a longer label, “AWM Education Committee Column,” was used. For some unknown reason, the label “Education Column” with no reference to the Committee appeared in the September–October 1989 issue. After that, through November–December 1990 the label was “Education Committee Column.” Another change occurred when the Newsletter went to a two-column format in 1991. The three-word label was too long to fit on one line, so it was shortened to “Education Committee.” The first mention of the Column having an editor appeared in the September– October 1995 issue, where Lipsey is identified below the Column (p. 20) as Education Committee chair and Column editor. Lipsey had essentially been de facto Column editor since 1988, but was officially appointed Column editor only during 1996–1997. In 1996, more changes occurred in the Column’s label. That year, a new Mathematics Education Committee was appointed by AWM President Chuu-Lian Terng. A new broader charge that did not include responsibility for the Column was developed by the Committee and subsequently approved by the AWM Executive Committee. (For more details on the new committee, which later came to be called the Education Committee, and its 1996 charge, see Hsu and Dewar’s article in this volume.) In her President’s Report in the July–August 1996 Newsletter, Terng wrote: “For the past several years Sally Lipsey has been editing the Education Committee column. . . . I am happy to report that Sally has now accepted the title of Mathematics Education Column Editor” (p. 2). That same issue contained a Column by Lipsey with the label “Mathematics Education.” In the very next issue, the Column appeared with the label “Education Column.” From then on, except for one issue, the Column has been labeled “Education Column.” The exception occurred in January–February 1997 when the old “Education Committee” label was used, probably by accident (Leggett, personal communication, November 14, 2019).

The Separation of the Column from the Committee Initially, the Column and its unlabeled precursor were tightly connected to the Committee; in fact, they were the work of the Committee. As noted earlier, the precursor served as a vehicle for connecting the Committee and AWM to other professional organizations such as WME. After 1988, the Column served the Committee as a two-way communication channel with the readership, informing readers about issues and activities in mathematics education and using surveys to learn about their concerns, interests, and experiences related to mathematics education. The invitation to join the Education Committee that appeared in the January–February 1989 issue also made it clear that “preparation of material for publication in the Newsletter” (p. 5) was a major activity of the Committee.

The Story of the Education Column

579

In mid-1996, the word “Committee” disappeared from the label on the Column. After Lipsey’s official appointment as Column editor separate from the 1996 Committee (a position she held through the end of 1997), the Column continued to inform readers about activities, programs (e.g., Teach for America), and reports, but there were no more surveys seeking input from the readership. According to Ginger Warfield (personal communication, February 21, 2020), by the time she became Column editor in 1998, the connection between the Column and the Committee had been severed.

The Ginger Warfield Years (1998–2006) Warfield recalls her recruitment as Column editor taking place as follows: “I was collared at [a meeting] by my friend Sylvia Wiegand who was, I think, then president of AWM. ‘Ginger!,’ she said, ‘We have just lost our education editor and you need to take over!’ She then exercised her considerable powers of persuasion, and I agreed” (Warfield, personal communication, February 15, 2020). During her nine-year term as Column editor Warfield contributed 45 columns, an average of five columns per year, and found various writers for the other columns. She continued to write one column per year until 2017, producing an additional 11 columns and bringing her total to 56. Over the years she informed readers about special programs, panels, and reports related to mathematics education, discussed hot button issues such as the Math Wars, testing, and the Common Core State Standards, and described innovative lessons and assignments. The value of conversation was a theme she returned to many times. In fact, in her final column in May–June 2017, she highlighted the conversations that had taken place over the 20 years she planned annual gatherings of the Washington [State] Teachers of Teachers of Mathematics (WaToTom),9 noting that the last was replete with “conversations still as compelling, passionate and just plain fun as they were 19 years ago” (p. 14). Reflecting on her time as editor, Warfield noted “From a personal standpoint I benefited from having to focus and formulate what I felt needed communicating to folks supporting women in mathematics (not just to women, since it is the Association for, not just of, Women in Mathematics)” (personal communication, February 15, 2020).

9 WaToTom formed in 1998 as a group concerned with how best to prepare future teachers of K– 12 mathematics. Participants have included K–12 teachers, higher education faculty members, and representatives from Washington State’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

580

J. M. Dewar

Six Years Without a Column Editor (2007–2012) In 2006, when Warfield was ready to pass on the editorship of the Column, the Education Committee was asked to suggest someone appropriate to take over the Column. Finding someone willing to take responsibility for six columns a year seemed unlikely, so when the Committee met at the 2006 Joint Mathematics Meetings, it considered the idea of having several contributors. As a stop-gap measure, a few people volunteered to write a single article and others were recruited, some of whom had previously written for the Column or the Newsletter. By mid2007, a cadre of writers came together and a regular rotation began. Patricia Hale, Pat Kenschaft, Mary Morley, Warfield, and Jacqueline Dewar each wrote one column per year, while Betsy Yanik and Lenhart shared responsibility for one.10 Although each issue now had an assigned writer, some of the writers had trouble remembering their deadlines. When the Column copy did not appear by the deadline, it would fall to Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett to chase down the writer. In 2009, feeling quite guilty as the writer whom Leggett had had to nudge two years in a row, Dewar volunteered to keep track of all the deadlines. Her offer was gratefully accepted, and she began to email a reminder to each author a month ahead of her deadline, followed by another reminder two weeks later. By 2012, Dewar’s role was expanded to that of Column editor at the request of the AWM Newsletter Editor. She continues in that role today. This approach to staffing the Column has been quite successful. In fact, every person who joined the regular rotation of writers that began in mid-2007 continued to submit an annual column well beyond 2012 when Dewar became Column editor. Once the rotation of writers was in place, the Committee and Column continued to operate completely independently. A way had been worked out to keep everyone “on schedule,” the Column had not been part of the Committee’s charge for 15 years, and reports of the Education Committee’s activities have been appearing as stand-alone articles in the Newsletter. (See, for example, the reports on three panels organized by the Education Committee for the Joint Mathematics Meetings that appeared in the March–April 2016, 2017, and 2018 issues.) Upon reflection, it seems likely that this separation had a positive outcome for both the Committee and the Column. Not having responsibility for the Column must have freed up some time and energy for the Committee members to focus on other tasks and issues. (Many of the significant issues and tasks that the Committee has taken on since the adoption of its 1996 charge statement are described by Hsu and Dewar in this volume.) Meanwhile, since implementing the rotation of writers, an

10 It

may be worth noting that this initial group was far less diverse than the current set of contributors. All save one were faculty members at four-year institutions (some PhD-granting, some not); the exception, was a test developer at College Board, who then began teaching at a twoyear college. One had a PhD in mathematics education and the others PhDs in mathematics. As far as the author knows, there were no women of color, nor any department chairs or administrators. A concerted effort has been made over the last several years to increase the diversity of perspectives.

The Story of the Education Column

581

Education Column has appeared in every issue of the Newsletter, offering readers a spectrum of perspectives and issues.

After 2012 Since 2012, the Column has continued the practice of having six writers in a regular rotation, each responsible for providing material for one of the six annual issues. These regular contributors choose what to write about. As a general guideline, the Column publishes anything related to K–16 or graduate school education, administration, teaching practice, or educational research in mathematics, statistics, mathematics education, or teacher preparation. The subject matter can relate to women, but need not. Contributors in the rotation have written on a wide variety of topics that reflect their concerns, interests, or expertise, such as: • experiences they have had – see, for example, Megan Breit-Goodwin, writing on learning how to teach with inquiry-based methods (January–February 2020); • perspectives on teaching and learning rooted in their own experience – Minerva Cordero, on underlying causes of low success rates in mathematics (March–April 2020); – Erica Walker, on the power of storytelling (May–June 2018 and 2019); • work in their areas of expertise – Anna Bargagliotti, on K–12 statistics teacher education (July–August 2020); • issues of concern to them – Pat Kenschaft, on standardized testing (September–October 2014); • trends they want to bring to readers’ attention – Jacqueline Dewar, on the new majority college student (November–December 2018). In order to acknowledge everyone who has held a spot in the rotation from 2007 through 2020, one more name must be mentioned—Jessica James Hale. While a graduate student in mathematics education, Hale substituted for her mother Patricia Hale in January–February 2013 and then entered the rotation in her place for a short while. The invitation to write has been open-ended. Writers may contribute for as long as it fits their interests and available time. Occasionally the Column has published two articles in one issue. A wonderful example occurred in the July–August 2014 Newsletter. A piece on the growth of online learning in K–12 by Morley, writing in her regular rotation, appeared along with an unsolicited piece submitted by Natalie Piehl, a high school sophomore. Piehl

582

J. M. Dewar

wrote about the detrimental effects produced by boys’ dismissive behavior toward girls in her advanced math class. As Piehl explained in an author’s note at the end of her article, the “article originated as part of an activism project for my history class where we were encouraged to contribute to the resolution of an issue of our choice, in my case the lack of women in STEM” (p. 13). Beginning in 2016, as additional information became available on a previous topic, the Column sometimes included a brief update. The first of these, concerning p-values, appeared in May–June 2016 under the label “Addendum.” They are now appearing under the Education Column banner with the title “Revisiting” followed by a subtitle indicating the topic. Examples can be found in November–December 2018 and January–February 2019. The Column editor (a position held by Dewar since 2012) keeps everyone on schedule, reviews initial drafts, and offers editorial suggestions. As noted in each issue of the Newsletter, all Education Column queries and material are directed to the Column editor, who reviews unsolicited material for possible publication in the Column. If it is not accepted for publication, the Column editor may suggest revisions or another more appropriate publication venue. The editor also serves on the Newsletter Team, which helps the Newsletter Editor in proofreading a near final draft of each issue. Another of the Column editor’s duties is to recruit a new writer when a slot opens up in the rotation. The current Column editor usually consults with the Newsletter Editor before extending an invitation. In the last few years, as openings have occurred, the Column has made strides in diversifying the voices and perspectives of its writers. Among the writers in 2020 are two- and four-year college faculty members, a statistics educator, a department chair, and an associate dean; two have doctorates in mathematics education, the others in mathematics. At least two of the writers are women of color and another is slated to join the rotation in 2021.11

Closing Thoughts The Column has operated under several different models before taking on its current form. Initially, through the exchange of newsletter articles with WME, the Education Committee sought to connect with other professional organizations with similar missions. When Lipsey was at the helm, first as Education Committee chair and later as Column editor, the Column served as a conduit for gathering and reporting information, often about activities, programs, or resources related to women and mathematics in specific states or geographic areas. It branched out to include information about women in science, computer science, and engineering and occasionally reported on national studies or published research. The focus on gathering reports from across the nation necessitated having many different

11 Kenschaft

wrote her last column in 2020 and Yvonne Lai has agreed to fill her position.

The Story of the Education Column

583

contributors during those years. That changed when Warfield became editor, because she wrote a large majority of the columns herself, aiming to convey what she felt needed communicating to individuals (men as well as women) supporting women in mathematics. The year 2007 marked yet another change: the advent of six regular columnists, writing in rotation. Through the end of 2020, the total number of these individuals has been 12. These writers, who represent an increasingly wider set of perspectives, backgrounds, and interests, make their own choices about what topics to pursue in each of their columns. In the last decade or so, many new complex issues that go beyond gender have emerged as challenges in both K–12 and higher education. In recent years, the Education Column writers have taken on many of these: charter schools; teaching data analytics in K–12; the influence of major foundation funding on K– 12 educational policy; online learning in K–12; college-level MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses); the growing use of contingent faculty in collegiate level mathematics instruction; for-profit higher education; stereotype threat; and the increasing diversity of the undergraduate student body in terms of race, ethnicity, and first-generation students, just to name a few. They have also reported on personal experiences with outreach programs, mathematics competitions, Sonia Kovalevsky days, mathematics honor societies, memories of learning mathematics at home as part of family life, the scholarship of teaching and learning, writing a departmental history, and more. Still, at its core, the basic focus of the Education Column—to inform AWM members about education—remains unchanged. Acknowledgments The author is most grateful to the AWM Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett for her gracious help throughout the research for this article and for giving it one final read, to Cathy Kessel and Ginger Warfield for answering several of my questions about the Column’s history, to Pao-sheng Hsu for reviewing multiple drafts of this article, and to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades Erica Dakin Voolich

In 1971, when AWM started, I was teaching seventh and eighth grade mathematics, I never even heard anything about AWM. Why would I have? At the time, AWM was a tiny organization focused on women in universities. In 1980, I returned to teaching math after seven years out of the classroom, starting my family, weaving, and analyzing weave structures, and teaching workshops on weaving. I took a job as the math specialist at a small K–8 school, Cambridge Friends School (CFS). I was the only math specialist, everyone else was a generalist—teaching many subjects including math. It was a school without an adopted math textbook series until eighth grade for algebra. The lower grade teachers had lots of math manipulatives in their classrooms. And everyone had access to the mimeograph machine and ditto masters! Oh, those smelly masters and the challenge of correcting if you made a mistake in creating the worksheet. I had taught seventh and eighth grade in my previous jobs, so I was familiar with what should be the content and went about developing lessons, using lots of supplementary materials from companies like Creative Publications, Dale Seymour, and Cuisenaire, along with logic puzzle books, and supplementing with my favorite textbook, Mathematics, a Human Endeavor. I was teaching with a philosophy of emphasizing problem solving and not just skill development. So I was always looking for good resources and great ideas to adapt to my classroom. I was learning from speakers at conferences, reading the NTCM journals, but what I did not have were any math colleagues to learn from or to collaborate with. The seventh and eighth grade teachers were each expected to develop a mini-course that students could choose to take over six weeks. I developed a tessellations class and a logic class.

E. D. Voolich () President, Somerville Mathematics Fund, Somerville, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_51

585

586

E. D. Voolich

I had not taught fifth and sixth grade before—and in my interview for the CFS job they had wondered if I could manage those grades—but it was like a breath of fresh air each day—less hormones and enough knowledge to play with math ideas when students were given the chance to try something new. So, I’d spend time as needed teaching “fair sharing” (also known as division) and over a couple days deriving the long division algorithm. Once that was mastered then I could challenge students with pentominoes, or probability games (what’s fair?), for example. Lacking a cohort of math colleagues at my school led me to look for others, who had similar interests. I’m not sure how but over the years I found the International Study Group on the Relations Between the History and Pedagogy of Mathematics (HPM), the Benjamin Banneker Society, and the ethnomathematics group (many folks from the HPM were involved with this group too). The HPM group was wonderful—it was college professors who welcomed a couple of middle school teachers to their meetings at NCTM and invited us to speak at their conferences in Brazil, Canada, and Australia in the 1990s. Whenever I had a question about a resource in a professional journal or book, they would go to their library and make a copy of the article and mail it to me. I had developed an interest in the history of math and incorporating parts of this into my teaching when appropriate. I had also become interested in making math more “human.” Where did these ideas come from? All of this wasn’t handed down with the Ten Commandments! When I became interested in the mathematicians, that’s when I started looking for information on women mathematicians. This was about the mid-1980s. So, I looked for resource books on mathematicians and needed to also add ones focused on just the women. I happened to hear about the Association for Women in Mathematics, I don’t know how, but I did. And surprise, they had an office at Wellesley College which was not far away. I discovered their newsletters also had some biographical information. So, one school vacation, I paid the office a visit, and about this time I joined AWM. I don’t know which year, but probably mid-1980s. I think it was Lori Kenschaft who welcomed me and answered my questions. I figured that my seventh and eighth graders could learn about mathematicians. The girls researched women and the boys researched men. In seventh, the students would write about someone, in the format of “The Rest of the Story”—a radio program on the air then. First someone is profiled, telling a story that you wouldn’t expect, and then the rest of the story revealed the name of the person at the end. The eighth graders would research and then come in and role-play a visit from the mathematician. The library in this school, and in the next one I taught at, ended up with an unusually large collection of books which included the biographies of both women and men mathematicians. If a new book came out, I bought it! When I started teaching at this school, I was still giving weaving workshops based on my books on multi-harness overshot and parallel shadow weave. By the end of my twelve years at CFS, I had added teaching classes as an adjunct at Wheelock College and presenting at NCTM and local mathematics conferences.

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades

587

Then in September 1988, a letter came from Alice Schafer via the AWM. Dear Professor Voolich, At the invitation of the Chinese Mathematical Society, the Citizen Ambassador Program of People to People International has asked AWM to join in selecting a team of women in the mathematical sciences to visit China in the summer of 1989. The delegation will exchange ideas and experiences with Chinese counterparts in pure and applied mathematics, focusing on mathematics issues as well as the role of women in mathematics. I have been appointed delegation leader and am pleased to invite you to join us in this project. . . .

Well, I wasn’t exactly a professor, but traveling to China with women in math to meet women in math? REALLY! I got really excited, decided I wanted to go, but it was well beyond the family budget of a teacher in my small school. When the members of the 1987 delegation discussed the expenses of the trip, I learned that most of them had received sizable grants from their institutions to help defray the costs of the trip. . . .

and, this was well beyond the budget of the schools too. But, I was determined to go and as a result I learned a new skill, fundraising! Lots of people and places donated, including AWM, CFS, Wheelock, and it all added up to enough to make it possible for me to go. When it came time to go, we needed business cards in English (one side) and Chinese (the other side). Our favorite Chinese restaurant wrote it out for me and my husband’s school print shop printed them. I had my talk all written, and bags were practically packed for a trip leaving for China on June 13, 1989, and then the news broke. Starting April 15, Chinese college students started demonstrating peacefully for democracy in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The government troops put down the protests using tanks on June 4. If you have seen the picture of the lone college student staring down a tank in Beijing, that was the beginning of the end of their demonstrations. Our trip was canceled. Luckily, we were able to reschedule the trip and instead left for three weeks in China on June 14, 1990. The delegation leader was Alice T. Schafer and she was assisted by Pao-sheng Hsu. As we traveled to each city we would visit local universities, listen to talks by members of our delegation and by women in the local universities. We did a little bit of sightseeing, but the focus was on meeting the women mathematicians in China. Each day, a recorder was appointed, notes about conversations were taken and copies of our talks were included in the “Journal from the Delegation” that we all received after the trip was over. Everywhere we went we were warmly welcomed; we had conversations sharing ideas and answering questions, in addition to the formal talks given by both us and our Chinese counterparts. Here is where we visited and who were our presenters in each city and location: Beijing • Peking University • Institute of Mathematics, Chinese Academy of Sciences: Ruth Rebekka Struik, Stephen Hobbs

588

E. D. Voolich

Fig. 1 Alice Schafer with students at Tsinghua University, 1990

• Applied Mathematics Department, Tsinghua University (see Fig. 1): Gloria Hewitt, Frances Rosamond • Institute of Applied Mathematics, Academy of Science: Clara Lim, Carolyn Mahoney, Suzanne Lenhart • Beijing Applied Mathematics Research Institute • Department of Mathematics, Beijing Normal University: June Trudnak, Paosheng Hsu Xi’an • Xi’an Jiaotong University (see Fig. 2): Anne Leggett McDonald, Gerard McDonald, Alice Schafer, Suzanne Lenhart Fuzhou • Fujian Women’s Federation: Alice Schafer, Frances Rosamond • Fuzhou University: Jacqueline M. Dewar, Suzanne M. Lenhart, Gerard McDonald, Katye Oliver Sowell • Fujian Normal University: Erica Voolich • Institute for Environmental Science • Economic Information Center of Fujian: Stephen Hobbs, Sharon Rewerts, Melissa Wilson, Ellen Torrance • Hwa Nan Women’s College: Nancy Davis

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades

589

Fig. 2 Alice Schafer pointing at announcement of our arrival, Xi’an Jiaotong University 1990

Guangzhou • Guangzhou Association of Intellectual Women • South China Normal University • Chinese Association of Science and Technology Much time was spent at these various stops exchanging ideas and answering questions on both sides. Alice Schafer would speak about the AWM, Frances Rosamond about women in the MAA, and Jacqueline Dewar about programs to encourage girls to study math and science. A more detailed description of our trip and which includes the details of the women we met and the topics discussed is in my article, “People-to-People Women in Mathematics Delegation to China: June 14–July 3, 1990” in the January–February 1991 AWM Newsletter. When we departed for China, I knew only my traveling companion who was also my best friend. I was the only middle school teacher, and a part-time adjunct. When we returned, I had met a number of women who I would re-connect with over the years ahead and this led to many things that I would otherwise probably never have done. What a bonus AWM’s China delegation was to me. What follows are really all these connections going forward, many that might not have happened without my joining that delegation. Over the next decade, I immersed myself in teaching at Solomon Schechter Day School of Greater Boston (SSDS), a different K–8 school, attending and leading workshops and writing math articles and two supplementary math textbooks. A Peek into Math of the Past: Mathematical Historical Investigation for Middle School

590

E. D. Voolich

and Pre-Algebra Students was a result of more than a decade of research on my part, coming out in 2001; Investigating with Power Solids (1997) incorporated some discrete math and history in a hands-on solid geometry. I was a member lurking in AWM but not involved beyond the annual check-ins the group that went to China did with each other every year, and still do. Then Suzanne Lenhart wrote an article in the November–December 2000 AWM Newsletter that announced I had won two awards: MAA’s Edyth May Sliffe Award for Distinguished Junior High Mathematics Teachers in 2000 and a Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, the nation’s highest honor for STEM teachers, in 1999. Suzanne described the work I had been doing in my seventh grade classroom, and had incorporated into books and articles. She ended by saying that I would be a panelist for the January 2001 AWM panel discussion on “AWM and K–8 Education” at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in New Orleans. On the panel, I was definitely surrounded by important women in math who already were making a significant difference in their own worlds (see Fig. 3). The panel was moderated by Suzanne Lenhart (then president of AWM), and the other panelists were Shirley Malcom, Judith Roitman, and Virginia (Ginger) Warfield. Ginger Warfield wrote in the Education Column of the March–April 2001 AWM Newsletter about the panel and the question of what should we do in K–8 education. She summarized each speaker’s main points: Shirley Malcom, of the AAAS, set the scene by observing that mathematical education is a civil rights issue and pointing out the obstacles that students, especially but by not means exclusively women and minority students, must overcome in order to participate in it.

Fig. 3 Ginger Warfield, Judy Roitman, Shirley Malcom, Jean Taylor, Erica Voolich, AWM panel discussion, AWM and K–8 Education: What should we do? 2001 Joint Mathematics Meetings, New Orleans, LA

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades

591

[Ginger said] K–8 teachers have more influence and face more challenges than all of the rest of us, and that while attempts to “fix them up” are both wrong-headed and guaranteed catastrophic, efforts to support them by finding out where their needs are and trying to meet those needs are absolutely mandatory. Erica Voolich, . . . supply[ed] the “view from the trenches” and by making some very specific suggestions of things to do (and not to do). Judy Roitman of the University of Kansas tied all of our messages together and reaffirmed them, then showed us the way to find mathematics problems and projects to use in following some of Erica’s suggestions.

I spoke from the perspective of a middle school teacher. I gave examples of successful visits to my classroom from over the years. From a Tufts University professor father who talked about how you could analyze any Escher drawing to see what tessellating templates he used, and how it related to symmetries. To a grandmother who brought her 18-wheeler to school and taught students that balancing loads on the truck was like balancing an equation—and then took the kids and showed them how to balance a load on the truck before letting them climb inside the cab. I encouraged the mathematicians to reach out to their local schools and ask what the teachers needed rather than to start by telling the teachers what to do. I gave a list of seven ideas to consider of what you might offer when reaching out the local schools. Ginger’s article included more details from each speaker, the list of my suggestions of what readers could do to volunteer in schools and a challenge: “Between now and the end of the school year, I challenge you to follow up on one (any one) of Erica’s suggestions.” Ginger encouraged people to report back to her what they had done in response to her challenge. In 2004, I reported on what I had done in response to my suggestions. But, first an important detail needs to be mentioned. My Presidential Award came with a stipend to be used to improve math and science education in my school. I asked if I could use part of the money to improve math education in my community too—a blue-collar immigrant community of four square miles with a density of about 18,500 people per square mile. This was the impetus for me to start a math scholarship organization. I wasn’t totally sure how to start a charity, so I sent letters to some local friends and asked them to come to some meetings over the summer of 2000 to brainstorm how to do this. Alice and Dick Schafer had moved to the Boston area, and I thought, “Why not ask Alice?” Maybe she would remember me from the trip to China a decade ago. The worst that could happen is she was busy, not interested or would just say no. BUT, give Alice Schafer a chance to encourage and support students in math, and she was all in, even at age 85—let’s help the kids, not just the girls. Alice and Dick showed up for every meeting for the next couple years, as long as she was able. As she aged and was unable to participate, I would visit her and she would always ask about what the Somerville Math Fund was doing. The Schafers were part of our founding board and cheering squad. When we were trying to figure out how to get our organization registered as a non-profit, known as a 501(c)(3),

592

E. D. Voolich

Alice said, “When we were starting the AWM, I figured out how-tos and you can do that too.” Years later, when reading about the early years of the AWM in Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett’s book Complexities: Women in Mathematics, I saw her account of the process. When I took over the presidency . . . I asked Mary [Gray] what I could do; she suggested getting AWM incorporated. . . . When it came to obtaining tax exemption status from the IRS, the lawyer said he would do it and I said first I would try. He said I could not do it, but I did. . . .

It turned out we didn’t need to do it ourselves, because we were able to start out as part of the Dollars for Scholars organization as our fiscal agent. A month after the paperwork was submitted, we received our charter and 501(c)(3) status for the Somerville Math Fund with a mission to celebrate and encourage math achievement in Somerville, MA. Fifteen years later we actually did get our own separate 501(c)(3)—yes, we could do it. My original idea for a math scholarship organization was one that not only had renewable math scholarships for college for local kids, but also support for the K– 12 teachers, encouraging math, so that the students in Somerville would be better prepared for the scholarships. Following my own advice that I would give in my speech to the AWM panel in 2001 described before, I did not tell the teachers what to do when I wanted to help them. K–12 teachers could apply for grants for materials to support the work they were doing in their classrooms—teachers know their own students and their needs. Now, the Somerville Math Fund is 20 years old, we have awarded a total of $445,000 in four-year mathematics scholarships to 99 students and $131,215 in teacher grants to support 335 teachers’ projects. With middle school teachers and high school volunteers, we run a city-wide Pi Night celebration for middleschoolers. We also run a high school engineering challenge, Scrapheap Showdown. Now we award seven to eight renewable scholarships ($1,500 per year for four years) for students who are studying math or using math in their major. Each year we give a renewable scholarship to a young woman in Alice Schafer’s name. And, connecting back to the trip to China, in 2002, the Somerville Math Fund had enough money for one scholarship but not enough for two. We had two candidates who deserved a scholarship, one had been born in Fuzhou and immigrated three years before. I put out a letter to my “China fellow travelers,” and enough donations came in that we were able to award our young woman from Fuzhou a scholarship too. Some of those AWM China trip donors still make annual contributions. Meanwhile, back to Ginger Warfield’s challenge. When I spoke on the AWM Panel in New Orleans, the Somerville Math Fund was just a year old. So, three years later, I wrote a response to Ginger’s challenge and to my own suggested list (see July–August 2004 AWM Newsletter). I described the city and working with the teachers and what I was trying to do at that point. I still encourage people to volunteer to help in their local schools, but cautioned them “ask what people need

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades

593

and then see how you might be able to help them.” Teachers have often had a lot of experience of people who have never taught telling them how to teach. As a result of talking about how to help your local community on the AWM panel in 2001, I was invited by Suzanne Lenhart to contribute to the SIAM minisymposium on Applied Mathematics Outreach: Bringing Relevance to Middle and High Schools Math Experience, at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, in Boston, MA, January 2012. I spoke about “Scrapheap Showdown and Pi Night: Two ways to Reach out to the Local Community.” Suzanne arranged for other local groups working with students to also present. Another pleasant surprise that arose out of my connections to AWM and HPM was a request to review the book, Complexities: Women in Mathematics by Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett, for Convergence: A Magazine of the Mathematical Association of America. Such a job, to have someone ask me to read a book I wanted to read. After my talk at New Orleans, I was asked to join the AWM Education Committee. Unfortunately, since I didn’t get to professional mathematics meetings, my committee attendance was sparse except during conference calls. However there was a committee that grew out of the Education Committee, that I did participate on, and that was the AWM Partnership Committee, 2005–2014 made up of Pao-sheng Hsu, Suzanne Lenhart, and myself. In January 2008, Pao-sheng Hsu, Suzanne Lenhart and I reported back to the Education Committee on the formation and what we had accomplished so far for the Partnership Committee: The program was constructed by combining two ideas together: Suzanne Lenhart had wished to extend the AWM Mentor Network to include K–12 teachers; Pao-sheng Hsu had wanted to connect mathematicians with people who teach in K–12 settings, formally or informally, in conversations and in work. The idea of a partnership was brought up in the AWM Mathematics Education Committee, and the committee agreed that it would be a partnership and not a mentoring program. Erica Voolich, a teacher and a member of the education committee, joined the organizing group of three. . . . Almost immediately, we received requests for a partner. The organizers started matching participants early October 2006, and have been meeting over the phone roughly once a month to make matches. Soon after we started, we felt the need for a database on the participants in order for us to function. On searching for a database program, we were advised that by keeping the mechanics simple would avoid the problem of becoming dependent on an expert. So a database was made using Excel. . . . With the help of Holly Gaff, we started at the end of November 2007, a listserv for participants who have been matched. So there have been conversations among them. Using the listserv, we invited participants who were attending the January Joint Mathematics Meeting in San Diego to join us at the Noether Lunch. Two participants came and we were able to discuss their experiences with them.

594

E. D. Voolich

Pao-sheng Hsu gave an interim report at the 10th International Conference of the Mathematics Education into the Twenty-First Century Project, in Dresden, Germany, September 11–17, 2009. Recommendations We feel that other countries would benefit from this kind of program and attract teachers and mathematicians from local areas. Since there is definite benefit in partners exchanging visits, to be able to attract participants within a small area is an advantage. Such a program needs a great deal of caring for. Keeping in touch with participants individually would be one way to help them to persist and the partnership to grow. Even though ultimately it is up to the people involved to work in their partnership in a direction of common interest to them, we wonder whether sometimes a little intervention may help in overcoming an impasse—something we have not tried. Electronic communications is a big help: a listserv for the community to share its experiences and expertise. We also learned to use it with an awareness of its idiosyncrasies: the word “partnership” on the subject line of a message may trigger an anti-spamming tool to block the message; some people are just receiving too many incoming mails; sometimes we do not have a way of knowing that a message does not reach an intended receiver. Collaboration requires a willingness to work with diverse perspectives and to negotiate an outcome that both sides are happy with. Even some of those respondents who wanted to continue working with the same partner reported that they had encountered some difficulty in communication. They seem to be telling us that the difficulty is not insurmountable. We should build on this wish that the benefits of a partnership will be worth the effort.1

We did lay down the Partnership Committee, with the hopes that what was learned could possibly be used by others. Definitely we wanted to continue to encourage the college and professional level mathematicians to reach out and connect with the K–12 teachers, both as professionals at their own level with possibly something to share and learn from each other. When I first joined the AWM, it was focused on professional equality for the women mathematicians and but one of the wonderful things to see as the AWM evolved these past 50 years, it also extended its focus to the girls—some future mathematicians. One of AWM programs that I loved is the Student Essay Contest—a chance for a student to interview a woman mathematician. For decades in my class, everyone researched and role-played a visit by a mathematician, most were historical. Girls researched women; boys, men. When the AWM’s Student Essay Contest started in 2001, I suggested my students enter—it was an opportunity to talk to someone using math today. In 2006, Annie Davis took the bait and interviewed her cousin, Margo Levine who was hoping to finish her doctorate at Northwestern University that year. It was fun to read Annie’s essay all these years later—Margo is definitely humanized—going from wanting to be a poet, to majoring in civil engineering in order to build bridges, to working on building nanostructures: “Her current research is trying to develop equations on how the minuscule structures, quantum dots, grow. (Quantum dots are on the order of nanometers.)”

1 The

report can be seen at http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/Hsu255-258.pdf.

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades

595

Annie’s essay not only won the Middle School Prize but also the Grand Prize in 2006, so her essay was published in the AWM Newsletter and is posted on the website. I love the extent that the AWM contest has grown and I hope that it continues to grow and reach out to students to interview many more women mathematicians. You can read all about it elsewhere in this book. The final activity I was asked to do for AWM’s Education Committee was to attend the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) Forums on School Mathematics in October 2009, 2010, and 2011 in Reston VA. The AWM is one of the member societies of CBMS and the Education Committee decided to send a team to the discussions about the Common Core Standards that were being developed. This was a chance for AWM to continue reaching out and hoping to have some influence on the education well-below the college level with the development of the Common Core State Standards. The team included Pao-sheng Hsu, Cathy Kessel, Karen Marrongelle, and Erica Voolich. I was especially pleased that AWM decided to send a team each of the three years, and also decided to include someone who was actually a classroom teacher—me. Members of the AWM Education Committee had experiences working with schools in varying degrees, some were preparing future teachers. In many of the breakout discussions I was the only one in the room with actual classroom experience, it was like a “voice crying in the wilderness”—most of the other folks from other organizations were college professors and representatives from testing companies. This was especially true the first year when the focus was on the content of the proposed standards. The second year, there were representatives from successful teacher development programs, who were on teams from other organizations and in some cases were presenters. To successfully implement standards that “shifted down the content to earlier in the grades,” there would need to be extensive revision of teacher preparation programs, re-training of existing teachers, and also changes in how teachers are supported. This concern was expressed in the report that the AWM team sent to the Education Committee in January 2010: 1. We noted that the standards draft has two sections that discuss instructional issues for particular groups: “English Language Learners in Mathematics Classrooms” and “Access for Students with Disabilities.” We suggested that a section on instructional issues related to beliefs about effort and ability also be included. Research in this area was cited (but not discussed) in the draft Career and College Readiness Standards. It indicates that beliefs about effort and ability make a difference in learning, and that these beliefs can be addressed by instruction. This is relevant for many students, but especially relevant for groups that are sometimes stereotyped as lacking “innate ability” in mathematics—girls and women, African Americans, and Latino/as. 2. Our second comment is that we consider the goal of having common standards and these standards, despite their imperfections, as an important and worthwhile step in US mathematics education.

596

E. D. Voolich

However, students’ mathematics achievement depends on more than mathematics standards. A sizable number of students may have difficulty in reaching the standards for their grade levels due to factors not directly related to classroom instruction. Various forms of support may be necessary. Students may need support outside of the classroom in learning and becoming proficient in their classroom work. (We offer the Harlem Children’s Zone as an example of such support.) Schools may need to have a plan to help such students. Teachers may need to be supported in deepening their knowledge of mathematics, curriculum, and assessment. Teacher evaluators may need to understand the intent of the standards as well as their words—and may need informed discussion about how to evaluate the teachers who must bring those standards to life in the classroom. Moreover, a process of implementation may need to be planned. Some schools may now be using curricula in grades 4 or 5 that focus on the [new] standards for grade 3. Students in those schools will need to learn the content that they have missed when their school adopts the new standards. We therefore urge that states consider the implications of implementing these standards and plan accordingly. Without preparation, they may find themselves disappointed in their high school graduation rates after these standards are in place. We feel that if the states adopt these standards, it will be a step forward in improving mathematics education. But to give our full support to these standards, we would like to know that systems of support will be in place when they are implemented.

AWM had one last surprise for me: the AWM Service Award for helping to promote and support women in mathematics through exceptional voluntary service to the Association for Women in Mathematics, 2013. Total surprise. Thinking back to the mid-1980s when I went looking for more information on women in math for my seventh and eighth grade classroom and discovered the AWM which had an office at Wellesley College. It seemed “so innocent” when Lori Kenschaft welcomed me to the office, answered my questions and encouraged me to join. Then came that fateful letter from Alice Schafer in September 1988, suggesting I could join a delegation of women in math to meet women in math in China! That trip to China led to many connections with women mathematicians and experiences that I could never have predicted when I decided I wanted to go (see Fig. 4). Who knew I would be involved in all the things mentioned in this article over the next decades. Thank you.

The Improbable Member of AWM Who Stuck Around for a Few Decades Fig. 4 Pao-sheng Hsu, Dick Schafer, Erica Voolich, 2012

597

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee Pao-sheng Hsu and Jacqueline M. Dewar

Introduction In 1981, ten years after AWM was founded, President Bhama Srinivasan invited volunteers to serve on a Mathematical Education Committee. As she recalled later to President Lenore Blum, the early years of AWM were preoccupied with political issues and “tension had begun to surface among various (and sometimes conflicting) constituencies” (Blum, 1991, p. 747). The Committee on Mathematics Education was one of the several new committees she formed to address this tension. This article chronicles the activities of AWM’s Education Committee from its inception in 1981 through 2020. The Committee has contributed articles to the Newsletter, supported AWM programs in the mathematics education of girls and women, and generated an AWM program independent of the Committee. As the Committee evolved, it began to participate in responding to documents from other organizations and organize panels at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. It continued to work on providing or improving resources on women in mathematics. The article also recounts the efforts by the Committee or some of its members to gain greater recognition for the work of women in mathematics education. With the exception of the period from August 2010 to August 2012, the first author (Hsu) was a member of the Committee from 1996 to 2018 and served as chair in 1996 and 2009 and as co-chair 2014–2018. The second author (Dewar) was a member of the Committee from 2004 to 2018 and served as co-chair 2014–2018. In describing the Committee’s work from 1981 to 1996, the authors P.-s. Hsu () Columbia Falls, ME, USA J. M. Dewar Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_52

599

600

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

relied on information available from the Newsletter and communications from past Committee members. They have access to original source materials from 1994 up to 2019 in the form of correspondences among Committee members, communications with or from AWM officers and past and current Committee members, and official documents such as Committee minutes, as well as supporting reports and articles from the Newsletter, to chronicle a history of this Committee. Sometimes, discussions are illustrated by quotes taken from emails (without attribution). The authors’ selection from the materials reflects their perspective. Readers of this article may catch a glimpse of how the Committee worked over the years. The form of AWM’s Education Committee has changed, as well as its name, its charge, and the foci of its activities; but it has remained a group of volunteers committed to the advancement of mathematics education for all. This is a story of their endeavors.

Some AWM Interests Before 1981 Articles appearing in the AWM Newsletter (hereafter referred to as the Newsletter) from Issue 1 in 1971 through the end of 1972 reported on some of the “political issues” that preoccupied AWM in its early years. They described matters such as: discrimination against women in mathematics departments including anti-nepotism practices; opportunities and advice for women mathematicians and graduate students seeking employment, including tips on vitae-writing; the image problem of “whether women can do math”; and the status of women in the American Mathematical Society (AMS). The women’s movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s was very much in evidence. Also, as Mary Gray (1991, p. 7) noted, “In the early days many of the AWM activists came out of the civil rights and anti-war movements . . .” Attention to various constituencies in the organization also grew. A November– December 1972 Newsletter article titled “Broadening the scope of AWM” reported receiving several requests for more items relevant to non-PhD mathematicians— students, high school teachers, two- and four-year college faculty, industrial mathematicians, computer analysts, unemployed. The May–June 1977 issue announced the formation of a new AWM Council with representatives for Mathematics Education, Academic Employment, Teacher Education, Applied Mathematics, four-year State Colleges, Equal Rights Amendment, Retired Women, History of Mathematics, and two-year Colleges. The AWM bylaws made provisions for the Council in 1979. This Council has since ended, but many AWM members still come from these various constituencies. Then, as in 2020, the mathematics community in the US included a variety of people, among them, mathematicians who work in academia, government, or industry, prekindergarten–12 teachers, mathematics teacher educators, and mathematics education researchers. Each group has its own culture and value system, sometimes

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

601

creating tension when members from different groups interact or compete for priority or resources.

Some Educational Activities in the US: 1980s to 2020 The publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) brought national attention to shortcomings in public education. A series of standards documents presenting mathematical goals for all K–12 students was published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) from the 1980s to 1995, culminating in the publication of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics in 2000. Many mathematicians had strong reactions to some of these documents (see, for example, Jackson, 1997a,b). In 1991, the AMS established a Committee on Education to serve as a channel for communication and cooperation with other organizations on matters pertaining to education and to provide a forum for the discussion of mathematics education issues. Its charge also includes advising the AMS leadership and members on education issues, as well as organizing elements of AMS meetings related to mathematics education. Concerned about the shortage of reliable information on the learning of mathematics by schoolchildren that could be used to guide best practice, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Department of Education, in 1998, asked the National Research Council to establish a Mathematics Learning Study Committee. This group of 16 members from diverse backgrounds, including four mathematicians from research universities (none of them women), reviewed and synthesized research on the teaching and learning of mathematics from prekindergarten to grade 8 to produce Adding It Up (National Research Council, 2001). Eleven years later, the Engage to Excel report recommended experimenting with having college mathematics courses taught by faculty in mathematics-intensive disciplines other than mathematics. It also suggested funding a new pipeline to produce K–12 mathematics teachers from mathematics-intensive disciplines other than mathematics (PCAST, 2012, p. vii). This brought home to mathematicians in research-intensive universities the urgency of attending to mathematics education at the undergraduate level.

The Education Committee: 1981–1996 The earliest mention in the AWM Newsletter of an Education Committee seems to be in the July–August 1981 President’s Report. After listing the AWM committees— NSF Committee, Archives Committee, Maternity Leave Policies Committee— President Srinivasan asked for interest in serving on those or other possible committees: “For example, would you be interested in being on a Mathematical

602

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

Education Committee, which, among other things, would look into ways of attracting more high school girls to mathematics?” (Srinivasan, 1981a, p. 2). Thus, a tone was set for the charge of the Committee. In the following issue, Srinivasan reported that she had heard from “Beth Broman, a high school senior in Lincoln, Neb., who is interested in serving on the Math. Education Committee” (Srinivasan, 1981b, p. 1). In March–April 1982, she reported that Evelyn Silvia was appointed chair of the Education Committee. After Srinivasan’s appointment of members in 1981, the Newsletter started reporting on the Committee’s activities. Initially, the Committee made contacts with Women and Mathematics Education (WME), an affiliate of NCTM whose focus is on K–12 mathematics education. A more formal Committee was instituted in 1987, with a charge that included producing articles for the AWM and WME newsletters and responding to requests related to mathematics education. The Committee also started a regular column in the Newsletter. Srinivasan indicated that the Committee would occasionally contribute columns to the newsletter of the WME and WME would reciprocate with columns in AWM’s Newsletter. During 1982, there was a reciprocal exchange of two newsletter articles between WME and the AWM Education Committee.1 At the end of 1982, the Newsletter contained a questionnaire that invited AWM members to suggest activities or projects for the Committee to pursue. A year and a half later, Education Committee member Sally Lipsey authored an article on three programs to encourage women to persevere in mathematics, engineering, and other scientific fields. Another article by Lipsey on aspects of sex inequality in Sweden appeared in the Newsletter at the end of 1984. After that article, nothing appeared in the Newsletter about or from the Education Committee until the September–October 1987 issue when President Rhonda Hughes announced that Sally Lipsey was chairing the Committee and the charge of the Committee is “to prepare articles for the AWM and WME Newsletters and to respond to requests for information that are directed to AWM on math-ed related issues” (Hughes, 1987, p. 2). The Committee had taken on the role of informing the AWM membership about programs to promote girls’ and women’s success in science and mathematics and related issues around the world. For example, four months later, Education Committee member Suda Kunyosying reported on a computing conference of eastern small colleges, and attached a questionnaire (on Women and Computer Education) for readers to return to Lipsey. A year later, a summary of responses to this survey was published in the Newsletter. In the March–April 1988 Newsletter, President Hughes mentioned Lipsey’s Mathematics Education Committee report to the Executive Committee. That Newsletter also noted that the Committee had eight active members (“the healthiest sized committee”), and that they had one written article on their actions, with three more in the works. At that time, AWM had four committees in addition to the Executive Committee: Mathematics Education, Committee on Relationship

1 The first WME guest column, written by Joanne Rossi Becker, appeared in the March–April 1982 Newsletter.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

603

with Other Organizations, Speaker and Journals Committee, and the Task Force on Maternity Leave Policy. In her article six months later, Lipsey adapted a report on a collaborative project by the Consortium for Educational Equity at Rutgers University and the Montclair Art Museum called “Mathematics in Art/Art in Mathematics,” writing that the project “aimed to help students to increase their ability to visualize and solve mathematical problems in creative and untraditional ways” (Lipsey, 1988, p. 9). Her article ended with a Reader Survey to solicit help for the Education Committee to identify projects aiming to “alleviate the problem of women and mathematics” (p. 9). Yet another request for indications of interests for Committee work appeared four months later to solicit members, articles, or research for a report for the Committee. Categories of suggested interests listed were: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Programs, Reports, School/Community News, and State Activities. Responses were to be sent to a postal address, as it was before email was widely used.

A Newsletter Column Identified with the Committee Although members of the Education Committee, acting on part of their charge, had produced articles on education for the Newsletter periodically since 1982, the first article specifically labeled as an AWM Education Committee Column appeared in November–December 1988. In it, Lipsey reported on a study on women in science and engineering. From March–April 1989 on, an Education Column or an Education Committee Column appeared in almost every issue of the Newsletter. Column contributors Ann Moskol and Geraldine Taiani were identified as members of the Committee, but there were others who were not. The contents of the articles continued to include science, engineering, and technology. Indeed, the work of the Committee was to produce the Newsletter’s Education Column (see Dewar’s article on the Education Column in this volume). The name of the Committee as it appeared in the Newsletter varied, sometimes with a version of the word “Mathematics,” sometimes without.2

How the Education Committee Communicated and Met The authors contacted Lipsey, Kunyosyin, Moskel, and Taiani to inquire whether the Committee had held in-person meetings. Lipsey replied (personal communication to Hsu, November 14, 2019) that she had met regularly with Silvia. She indicated that the members met when they could, either at conferences or when they were near

2 For example, in the January–February 1991 issue, both the Table of Contents and the title of the Column listed the Committee’s name as Education Committee without the word “Mathematics.”

604

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

one another geographically. Taiani (personal communication, February 29, 2020) said that the members of Committee did not meet in person. This probably means that they did not hold Committee meetings at one place, but some members did meet together in person. In the July–August 1996 issue of the Newsletter, President Chuu-Lian Terng announced, “For the past several years Sally Lipsey has been editing the Education Committee column. . . . In recognition of this contribution, I am happy to report that Sally has now accepted the title of Mathematics Education Column Editor” (Terng, 1996, p. 2). This marked the end of the original Committee.

The (Mathematics) Education Committee: 1996–2020 Birth of the Current Committee It was a tumultuous birth. The work of two AWM members, Naomi Fisher and Hsu, became the catalyst for the formation of a new Education Committee in 1996. Fisher was co-director of the Mathematicians and Education Reform Network (MER).3 Hsu, whose prior connection with AWM was assisting Alice Schafer in leading a 1990 People-to-People “Women in Mathematics” delegation4 to the People’s Republic of China, with AWM members as delegates, had been interested in mathematics education research since 1987. From 1990 to 1995, the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS),5 in its series Issues in Mathematics Education, had published four volumes of MER workshop proceedings. The topic of reform was very much in the discussions among mathematicians interested in education, including some in the research community. During 1994–1995, Fisher and Hsu worked to develop a proposal for a new AWM program, somewhat modeled on an MER project, to build a community of mathematicians, mathematics educators, and K–12 teachers. The proposed AWM

3 The MER Network was an NSF-funded project that sought to promote greater participation by mathematicians in precollege mathematics education. It strove “to promote and develop efforts to: inform and interest mathematicians in precollege mathematics education, attract a pool of mathematicians who are willing to make a sustained commitment to working in precollege mathematics education, develop organizational support to advise mathematicians in planning and implementing precollege mathematics education projects, increase communication between the mathematics community and the mathematics education community, and sensitize the mathematics community to the importance of having mathematicians work in school mathematics and to consider models for institutional recognitions for work in school mathematics” (July–August 1990 Newsletter, p. 16). For a history of MER, see January–February 1996 Newsletter, pp. 18–21. 4 An announcement of the China trip appeared in the July–August 1988 Newsletter, p. 2; its rescheduling in the November–December 1989 Newsletter, p. 18; withdrawal of AWM sponsorship in the May–June 1990 Newsletter, p. 16. 5 CBMS is an umbrella organization for mathematical societies. Among its 19 members in 2020 were AWM, AMS, and MAA.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

605

program was intended to strengthen the infrastructure of mathematics education reform and to promote women mathematicians’ participation in it. After discussions with NSF program officers, and a go-ahead from AWM President Terng at the 1995 Burlington, VT, Summer Meetings, a proposal was drafted in late August 1995, to be refined and sent to NSF by October 2, 1995, the deadline for submission. Fisher, Hsu, Judy Roitman, and Schafer would be the co-investigators, with input from mathematics educators. The program would, over a period of four years (1996– 2000), select 24 Fellows—teachers of mathematics in elementary and secondary school, school administrators, and college and university faculty in mathematics and mathematics education—who would pursue activities in mathematics education and the project would highlight their efforts within the mathematics community. There was to be an Advisory Board consisting of Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Judith T. Sowder, and Erna B. Yackel, as well as an outside evaluator, Karen Graham—all members of the mathematics education research community. The draft budget included a line item (to be filled in) for AWM administrative support. When the draft was sent to Terng at the end of August 1995, she consulted the AWM office and her AWM colleagues—managing office work and subcontracting were difficult to work out for the proposal. A group of eight started discussing the draft. On September 10, Terng signaled the co-investigators that the proposal would go forward. By September 13, heated discussions were taking place over emails among a list of 25 with an advisory capacity at AWM, including past AWM presidents, members of the Executive Committee, and the treasurer. In these email communications, participants variously described the discussions as “direct talk,” “constructive dialogue,” “everyone is a free agent.” Some questions raised were: “How does it serve women?” “Why is this an AWM activity?” The title “Fellows” was an issue: “Suggested change to Associates, or Partners.” The proposal had allowed for male Fellows on the advice of the NSF officer to whom the proposal was to be sent. That became a major reason for objection. Many changes were suggested for the draft. A voice of support came from a past president, Linda Rothschild: “I believe that AWM should be progressive and daring; we should not set our sights too narrow. We can be leaders in the mathematical community and support some appropriate proposals which are not exclusively for women.” On September 14, she sent a second message reiterating her support: “I read the proposal . . . ; I think it is appropriate for AWM to sponsor it.” Alas, on September 16, 1995, Terng sent an email to the four co-investigators that in order to respond to the concerns raised in the discussion, the October 2 deadline for submission could not be met. She gave three principal reasons for not submitting the proposal at that time: The under-staffed AWM office could not manage the proposed project along with its existing workload; there was not enough time to rewrite the proposal to accommodate the online discussions; AWM needed to have a bigger share in the proposal and the budget. So, in 1995, such a project was unable to garner support from a group who had influence on decision-making in the organization; and AWM’s ability to provide administrative support was limited. In the same message, Terng also observed: “. . . AWM has not developed a clear policy mission in regard to women involved primarily in mathematics education, and

606

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

I feel that it is important for us to rectify this problem.” (This echoes the sentiment expressed by Srinivasan when she founded the original Mathematics Education Committee in 1981.) At the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in Orlando, FL, Terng convened a meeting on January 11, 1996, to discuss a recommendation to the Executive Committee on whether funded mathematics education proposals should be restricted to women only. On January 16, 1996, a Mathematics Education Committee was appointed, with members Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Naomi Fisher, Judy Green (who was treasurer), Hsu, Glenda Lappan, Judy Roitman, Kay Smith, Carol Tascione (who was executive director), and Sylvia Wiegand, with Hsu chairing. Hsu was aware that previously an Education Committee had published articles in the Newsletter, so she requested that the name of the committee be Mathematics Education Committee. For the remainder of this article “the Committee” will mean the (Mathematics) Education Committee.

The (Mathematics) Education Committee: 1996–2000 In appointing the Committee, Terng charged it with recommending grant proposals in mathematics education to the president of AWM. However, the Committee wanted a broader charge statement. Before drafting a new statement, the Committee collected and reviewed the charges of the Committee on Education of the AMS and the MAA Education Coordinating Council, which at that time coordinated about 13 MAA committees dealing with education issues. Meanwhile, Fisher and Hsu continued to explore the possibilities of writing a proposal to be submitted to NSF on June 1, 1996. Discussions on email by the Committee about what its charge should be continued from April to June. The Committee voted on the following draft Charge Statement and sent it to Terng on June 6, 1996: The Committee shall: • Provide a forum for an informed discussion of topics on women in mathematics education; • Inform and make recommendations to the President and the Executive Committee on matters relating to the cultivation, advancement and support of participation of women in mathematics education; • Promote the mathematical education of girls and women; • Identify areas in which the Association may develop activities to serve the needs of women in mathematics education; • Articulate concerns from the perspectives of women on issues related to mathematics education and disseminate information on gender issues in the mathematics classroom; • Encourage cross-profession communications and co-operations in working towards the improvement of education in mathematics at all levels; • Establish contact with committees with a specific interest in women in mathematics education of other organizations. One of the activities of the committee will be to propose projects in mathematics education.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

607

The Committee and its charge were approved by the AWM Executive Committee and an announcement was published in the March–April 1997 Newsletter. Tascione left the AWM executive director position in June 1996 and went off the Committee. Then, in November, 1996, the program for which the unsent proposal had been intended was cancelled by NSF, making the proposal’s status precarious. Yet the Committee met on January 10, 1997 at JMM in San Diego, CA, to discuss possible “actions” by the Committee on the prospect of writing another proposal. Given that circumstances surrounding the objection to the original proposal were not easily changed, such a project seemed very unlikely. The agenda included three additional items: learning mathematics in the eyes of undergraduate students; mentoring graduate students in mathematics; evaluation of teaching at the university level. In her May–June 1997 President’s Report, Sylvia Wiegand announced that Virginia (Ginger) Warfield was the new chair of the Committee. During June, a few Committee emails discussed a JMM panel for the following year. In the September– October 1997 Newsletter, Wiegand wrote, “The AWM Education Committee will coordinate (with MER, . . . ) a section of the special session on Mathematics and Education Reform; the focus of the AWM section will be professional evaluation (including teaching) and gender” (Wiegand, 1997, p. 1).6 Other than that, there are few email records of Committee discussions during this period; activities might have involved members individually.7 In writing about AWM’s history in the 1990s, past presidents Jean Taylor and Wiegand (1999, p. 28) noted, “. . . the Education Committee was revitalized at Orlando, FL, January 1996 . . .” Since then, the name of the Committee has been this shortened form.

The Education Committee: 2001–2020 After 2001, the Committee became more active. It began by supporting AWM Programs relating to the education of girls and women (Sonia Kovalevsky Day, Essay Contest), gradually moved to discussing a new program (Teacher Partnership Program) and to strengthening its own governance. Then, in 2009, it started to participate in national discussions on educational issues. The Committee also began to have more communications with AWM presidents, including suggesting potential new members. The Committee’s practice of holding an in-person meeting at JMM for those who attended was augmented by having a telephone conference call afterwards so all members had the opportunity to participate in “live” discussions at least once a year. Normally when the Committee undertook a task, depending on

6A

report on this panel appeared in the March–April 1998 Newsletter, pp. 21–22. July 15, 2000, the Committee members were: Amy Cohen, Fisher, Green, Ferrini-Mundy, Hsu, Roitman, Warfield (chair). 7 On

608

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

the schedules, interest, and expertise of individual members, volunteers would form a subcommittee to work on the task. In the following, the names (last name only if the full name appeared earlier) of Committee members are listed (sometimes in footnotes) as the discussions or final work on a particular project may reflect the participants’ perspectives. This documentation of work and discussions is intended to illustrate how the Committee evolved to its recent working mode. This evolution has been, and will be, a continuing process shaped by its members.

Supporting AWM Programs and Proposing a New Program In 2000, President Taylor wrote that “The incoming President, Suzanne Lenhart, has said she intends to make AWM’s activities in the K–12 area a main focus of her efforts, and I am delighted to have her taking over that aspect” (Taylor, 2000, p. 3). In April 2001, President Lenhart told the Committee that she wanted “AWM to make a bigger impact in the education area.” At that point, while AWM had programs related to mathematics education, the organization’s efforts concentrated on promoting women’s participation in mathematical research. Lenhart asked for suggestions for prospective new members for the Committee,8 and also for a discussion on whether women with doctorates in mathematics education could be included in the AWM workshops held at JMM, as a way of reaching out to them. The Committee did the former, but saw difficulty with having a PhD in mathematics education join an all-day workshop with most of the talks on research in mathematics—the two research communities use different methodologies and languages.9 In May, 2001, there were lively discussions within the Committee on gender and mathematics.10 Some members of the Committee took an active role in organizing an AWM panel at JMM in 2002 in San Diego, CA, Mathematics After High School: How to Promote Success for More (see the March–April 2002 Newsletter, p. 26). In 2002, the agenda for the Committee meeting at JMM was: funding for a 2003 Women Count conference;11 collaborating with the NCTM; bibliography on education on the AWM website. Hsu, Cathy Kessel, Lenhart, Warfield, and Yanik attended. That year, Lenhart, in her capacity as president, also forwarded to the Committee information she received related to mathematics education. This marked the opening of a channel between the Committee and the president. 8 According to the records available to the authors, this marked the first time that the Committee was asked to suggest prospective new members. 9 See, for example, Annie Selden’s talk at 2002 MathFest, Two Research Traditions Separated by a Common Subject: Mathematics and Mathematics Education, reported in the November–December 2002 Newsletter, p. 10. 10 In 2001, the Committee members were: Susan Addington, Hsu, Kessel, Teri-Jo Murphy, Neil Portnoy, Roitman, Erica Voolich, Warfield (chair), Elizabeth (Betsy) Yanik. 11 This was a conference for directors of outreach programs to encourage girls in mathematics.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

609

In 2001, AWM started its Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics (see Howle and Lewis’s article in this volume), and some Committee members were recruited to judge the essays. By the end of that year, Yanik, then a member of both the Committee and WME, was appointed as WME liaison to AWM. AWM’s Mentor Network also started in 2001 (see Ghazaryan et al.’s article in this volume). There were discussions on expanding the Mentor Network to include K–12 teachers, teaching mathematicians, and mathematicians working in industry. At the 2003 JMM in Baltimore, MD, Karen Dee Michalowicz, president of WME, was on an AWM Panel that the Committee helped to organize, titled Working Together: Cooperation of Mathematics Educators and Mathematicians (see the March–April 2003 Newsletter, p. 13, and photo in the May–June 2003 Newsletter, p. 23). Michalowicz attended the Committee meeting in which reprinting of the winning essays of the AWM Essay Contest in NCTM publications was discussed. This is the last record the authors have of an explicit connection of the Committee with WME. President Carolyn Gordon continued the practice of soliciting suggestions for new members from the Committee. She also conferred with the Committee on her response to a request from the NSF Directorate of Education and Human Resources Portfolio Review Initiative External Review Group. By the end of 2003, a draft proposal was written to expand the AWM Mentor Network to an AWM Partnership of School and University Teachers of Mathematics (PSUT). The Committee did not favor the idea of “mentoring” K–12 teachers because few AWM members had experience teaching at that level.12 Questions about membership on the Committee arose within the Committee. For example, is the AWM treasurer an ex-officio member of the Committee? Should there be a term limit for membership? Where do these names come from? Does the Committee need a member specializing in gender studies? (The last question was also discussed when the Committee was formed in 1996; the consensus then and again in mid- and late-2000s was that one could be consulted as needed. The issue has not arisen since then.) The Committee agreed that it needed to include a member from the K–12 community.13 In 2004, Gordon formed a Committee on Committees (CoC) to recommend appointments to various committees, and volunteers interested in serving on a committee were encouraged to contact the CoC (see September– October 2006 Newsletter, p. 5). The Committee continued to discuss the PSUT proposal. Hsu and Lenhart communicated with Rachel Kuske, director of AWM’s Mentor Network, concluding that the proposed additional work would be too much for one person. The proposed project eventually became the Teacher Partnership Program (TPP), independent of

12 In

2003–2004, the Committee members were: Hsu, Kessel, Lenhart, Murphy, Portnoy, Voolich, Warfield (chair), Yanik. 13 By mid-2004, the Committee list was: Amy Cohen, Jacqueline Dewar, Hsu, Kessel (chair), Lenhart, Portnoy, Anne Teppo, Voolich, Warfield, Carolyn Yackel, Yanik.

610

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

the Mentor Network, with Hsu, Lenhart, and Erica Voolich as co-organizers. Drafts of the TPP proposal and guidelines were reviewed by the Committee and modified according to its suggestions. These were sent to President Barbara Keyfitz in May 2005 for her feedback. The organizers responded to her concerns: explain how the program matches the mission or goals of AWM, and why it was not restricted to women only (an uncanny echo of the concerns raised ten years earlier). Arguments for the TPP sent to Keyfitz and the Committee included: The mathematical community has been urged to work with teachers. As an organization, AWM will greatly contribute to the community as well as to the profession by working with teachers to improve the educations of students at all levels. . . . As the organization matures, it ought to think about contributing to the larger community in a unique way.

In September, the Executive Committee approved the TPP, with the understanding that AWM would not provide any resources. The Committee again reviewed documents drafted for the program and advised that the program needed a disclaimer on liability. Such a statement was added. With the help of Holly Gaff, AWM web editor, the TPP was launched in August 2006 (see September–October 2004 Newsletter, p. 2). Initially, the program made some successful pairings (see Seshaiyer, 2008; Seshaiyer and Kappmeyer, 2016). Its timing, though, coincided with the advent of social media, which eventually had an effect on the viability of the program. The agenda for the Committee meeting at the 2006 JMM in San Antonio, TX, included: essay contest; TPP; AWM bibliography; new chair for the Committee;14 and Warfield’s request to be relieved of responsibility for the Education Column. The Committee recommended that Lenhart and Yackel be co-chairs. That the Committee deliberated on its next chair indicated a turn in the governance of the Committee.15 (For the results of the discussion on the Education Column, see Dewar’s article in this volume.) Although she was no longer a Committee member after she became president, Kessel remained on the email list. In 2009, the Committee met at JMM in Washington, DC. The agenda items were: Essay Contest, SK Day, newsletter column, TPP, and student chapters. Yackel volunteered to monitor the SK Days reports. This assistance was no longer needed when AWM established a new Programs, Meetings, and Awards Committee in January 2009. Discontent began to bubble up in the discussions: “We seemed to be doing adhoc things about various programs.” The Committee’s charge was brought up— new to some members of the Committee. Meanwhile, an earlier opinion that the Committee should participate in discussions of educational issues at national forums was repeated: “It does not matter whether gender is a major component of the issue, I think that if we participate, we will bring our concerns and contributions to the discussion.” 14 Kessel,

who was then chair, was to become president of AWM in January 2007. 2006, the Committee mailing list was: Cohen, Dewar, Hsu, Kessel (chair), Lenhart, Voolich, Yackel, Yanik.

15 In

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

611

The in-person Committee meeting in 2009 at JMM was followed by a conference call meeting. Subsequent discussions documented on emails included: . . . the need for the committee to coordinate with the president, the executive committee and the executive director so that they could help the committee in carrying out its charge. For example, when information related to education arrived at AWM, it could be forwarded to the committee for the purpose of information or discussion. When any action related to education is being contemplated on, the education committee could be included in the discussion.16

On Membership and Strengthening of the Committee In the 2000s, the president informed Committee members of her appointments (sometimes asking each member of their willingness to continue serving). More recently, the AWM executive director informed the Committee chair of new member appointments with terms of service. As with other AWM committees, terms of service start on February 1 or August 1, usually lasting for three years with some members serving more than one term. Since 1996, members have had degrees in either mathematics or in mathematics education, and since 2000, there has been a member from the K–12 community. Most, but not all, members have had positions at an educational institution (K–12, two- or four-year, MA- or PhD-granting), or a governmental agency. Since 2006, the Committee has suggested who would be chair. Some members do not attend JMM regularly. Consequently, in 2009, the Committee began to use conference calls to conduct business, usually in February (for those who were not at JMM) and again in September (to welcome new members). As before, discussions continued on email throughout the year. In September 2009, a listserv for “Friends of the AWM Education Committee” was set up to allow current and past members of the Committee, as well as anyone who requested to be included, to hold conversations or share or seek information on matters related to the Committee activities or mathematics education, as well as for camaraderie. Most frequently, it has been used for the purpose of arranging an informal gathering at JMM or MathFest. At the 2011 MathFest in Lexington, KY, Committee members Dewar, Pollatsek, and Susan Wildstrom met informally at lunch and came up with the idea of orienting new members with an information sheet about the Committee. A document, drafted by Dewar, was reviewed by the Committee and finalized in 2012. It includes sections on the Committee’s charge, basic membership facts, expectations of members, and examples of recent Committee activities and contributions to AWM. Revised nearly every year to reflect the latest work of the Committee, it was emailed to each new Committee member until mid-2018 and made available to new members in a Google drive folder after that. 16 In

the second half of 2009, Committee members were: Dewar, Horn, Hsu (chair), Kessel, Lenhart, Karen Marrongelle, Susan Nickerson, Harriet Pollatsek, Voolich, Yanik, Zuev.

612

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

Mathematics Education Resources on the Website From its inception, the Newsletter, and later especially the Education Column, has been a source of information related to mathematics education for mathematicians and teachers of mathematics at all levels. A bibliography was compiled by AWM members on materials broadly pertaining to women in mathematics. In addition to providing resources, this work also served as a way to improve the visibility of women in mathematics. In mid-1998, Tamara Kolda announced that an AWM website had been created containing an extensive collection of links to online resources for women, and to sites about mathematics, women in mathematics and science, and women in general (see July–August 1998 Newsletter, p. 11). In 2008, a Web Task Force redesigned the website, and two members (Hsu and Kessel) of the Committee were also members of the Task Force. Inevitably, when topics involving education came up, the Committee was consulted, but website content was not part of the work of the Committee. This changed in 2014 when AWM again updated its website. A subcommittee (Dewar, Hsu, Kessel, and Eileen Lee) worked on the webpages related to education. In September 2014, a folder of eight new or revised webpages was sent to Executive Director Magnhild Lien. Later, the Committee was informed that it would also be responsible to maintain those pages. In 2016, Elizabeth Bagley, a graduate student of Committee member Erica Walker, and Committee member Kristin Kappmeyer updated those pages. Dewar, Hsu, and Pollatsek did the same in 2018.

Engaging with the Wider Mathematics Community: 2009–2020 In the early days of AWM, a major concern had been to watch out for any misperception about women and mathematics that needed refutation using gender research. Some on the Committee began to argue for putting forth its perspectives rather than reacting to the views of others. In the mid-2000’s, the Committee debated whether to participate in the discussions of CBMS forums. By 2008–2009, the Committee had decided it should participate.17 This was its first involvement beyond AWM. The following six sections describe some of the ways that the Committee engaged with the wider mathematics community. CBMS Forums In October 2009, three members (Hsu, Kessel, Voolich) of the Committee attended a CBMS Forum on the Content and Assessment of School Mathematics. The same group, together with Wildstrom (a new Committee member then), attended the CBMS Forum on Content-based Professional Development of Teachers in October 2010. In October 2011, three members (Kessel, Wildstrom, Voolich) 17 The

mailing list for the Committee in 2008 included: Cohen, Dewar, Lani Horn, Hsu, Lenhart (co-chair), Voolich, Yackel (co-chair), Yanik, and Julia Zuev. For the 2009 list, see Footnote 16.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

613

attended another CBMS Forum on Teaching Teachers in the Era of the Common Core. These were reported in the January–February AWM Newsletters of 2010, 2011, and 2012. Attendance at the 2009 CBMS Forum marked the first time that the Committee engaged with the wider mathematics community. After that, the Committee turned to offering its perspectives on mathematics education issues in other ways. Professional organizations customarily invite comments on draft documents they have prepared and intend to disseminate nationally. Since 2009, the Committee has requested that it be informed of any such invitations to AWM. Occasionally, a Committee member had a concern about something that appeared on an organization’s website, and the Committee would work on a statement to be sent to the organization. These reviews and discussions among Committee members served both as a contribution of the Committee’s perspective to the larger mathematical community, and as an education for Committee members themselves. The fact that some of these documents involve K–12 mathematics education underscores the importance of having a member from that community on the Committee. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) The first Committee participation in reviewing national documents occurred in November 2009. President Georgia Benkart forwarded an invitation from Barbara Reyes, president of the AMTE, to Hsu, chair of the Committee. Reyes requested comments on their draft of the Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists; Benkart asked the Committee to consider the invitation. The Committee discussed the invitation and the document. Three members of the Committee (Hsu, Kessel, Nickerson) submitted feedback to the AMTE on these Standards (see September– October 2010 Newsletter, p. 30). Seven years later, in November 2016, a subcommittee (led by Lee and Walker, with Hsu and Kappmeyer participating) submitted a 17-page review of the Draft AMTE Standards for Mathematics Teacher Preparation.18 MAA At JMM 2014, the MAA Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM) invited comments on a draft of an Overview document for the 2015 Curriculum Guide to Majors in the Mathematical Sciences. A subcommittee of the Education Committee (Dewar, Hsu, Kessel, Pollatsek) sent a set of comments (after a discussion of over 30 email exchanges) to CUPM in March 2014. President Ruth Charney told co-chairs Dewar and Hsu that no formal Executive Committee vote was needed since the submission was not an official document. The Committee was subsequently appointed by the Executive Committee to be the official AWM Association Review Group (ARG) of the document. By mid-April, a draft of the CUPM 2015 Curriculum Guide was available online for review. A subcommittee

18 In 2016, the Committee list was: Beth Burroughs, Dewar (co-chair), Hsu (co-chair), Kappmeyer,

Karen King, Lee, Walker.

614

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

of four (Dewar, Hsu, Kessel, Lee) formed the AWM ARG. After two months of discussions in countless emails, a 24-page report was submitted to the MAA in June 2014. (A description of the resulting 2015 Curriculum Guide appeared in the March–April 2016 Newsletter, p. 28–29.) The AWM ARG felt that some of the concerns it had raised were addressed in the final version of the Guide. In February 2018, a subcommittee (Hsu, Jennifer Johnson-Leung, Pollatsek, Thomas Roby) commented on a draft of the MAA Instructional Practices (IP) Guide. This Guide aims to share effective, evidence-based practices that instructors can use to improve teaching and learning.19 In May 2019, because of the feedback the Committee had sent in the previous year, the Committee chair Priscilla Bremser was invited to attend the MAA Active Learning Community Working Group meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to make plans for creating and supporting an online community of practice focused on the themes of the IP Guide.20 The first example of a Committee member bringing a concern to the Committee about something on a national website occurred in July 2017. The member reported that there were very few books on women and mathematics on the MAA’s Basic Library List (BLL). The BLL is a list of books recommended by the MAA for purchase by college and university libraries. The BLL Committee gives ratings to selected books: recommended, strongly recommended, and essential. Dewar and Hsu gathered information and made 20 recommendations regarding books on women and mathematics for the MAA BLL: adding the “women in mathematics” tag to some existing biographies; changing the rating levels on some existing books; and adding new books. Bremser, Pollatsek, and Walker reviewed and supported the recommendations. A report was submitted in September 2017 to the chair of the MAA’s BLL Committee. A check of the BLL webpage in March 2020 revealed that books about women and mathematics had much greater representation on the list. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) In 2009, state leaders in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices whose members consist of 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia, launched the project to develop the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The college- and career-readiness standards were developed first and then incorporated into the K–12 standards which address expectations for elementary school through high school. In January 2010, four members of the Committee (Hsu, Kessel, Marrongelle, Voolich) reviewed a draft of the CCSS. Their written response was then discussed in emails with other Committee members (Google mail recorded 60 messages on that subject line) before being submitted. The Committee worked with President Benkart in responding to the CCSS documents. See the President’s

19 In

early 2018, Committee members were: Bremser, Dewar (co-chair), Hsu (co-chair), JohnsonLeung, Kappmeyer, Thomas Roby, Walker. 20 In late 2018 and in 2019, the Committee consisted of Megan Breit-Goodwin, Bremser (chair), Viveka Borum Brown, Katherine Heller, Johnson-Leung, Hala King, Roby. Johnson-Leung became chair after Bremser resigned in mid-2019.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

615

Report in the March–April 2010 Newsletter (p. 4), and the September–October 2010 Newsletter (p. 29) for reports on this work. Other National Documents At the request of President Kristin Lauter, the co-chairs of the Committee, Dewar and Hsu, joined with representatives of CBMS member societies to form a writing team to draft a statement on active learning. The team participated in an online discussion to develop the draft in the second half of February in 2016 (see July– August 2016 Newsletter, p. 4). The Committee was informed of the discussion and their input was solicited. CBMS approved and published the statement, “Active Learning in Post-Secondary Mathematics Education,” on July 15, 2016.21 Many on the Committee participated in giving feedback to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on a draft of Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century. A summary of the comments was entered on their community input website in September 2017.22 In November 2018, the US Department of Education posted A Leak in the STEM Pipeline: Taking Algebra Early on its “Data Story” webpage. A Committee member brought it to the attention of the Committee. After discussion, the Committee sent a comment to the US Department of Education in December expressing its concerns: pointing out a number of gaps in the data story and cautioning that relying solely on the limited perspectives presented could lead to ineffective solutions being proposed.23 The Committee’s activities described above attended to the education of students at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, and graduate. The following section discusses some of its efforts on behalf of collegiate faculty doing work in mathematics education. Education Committee Panels at JMM in 2016, 2017, 2018 Since 1998, AWM has held panels on a variety of topics related to women and mathematics education at JMM. Sometimes Committee members had been involved in organizing these or participated as panelists, and the Committee had helped, but it had not formally been involved in the organizing. In 2010, at the Committee meeting at JMM, the possibility of organizing a panel was discussed. Past president Jean Taylor, who happened to have joined the meeting, suggested that a proposal be sent to President Benkart. The Committee did so but was informed that the allotted time slots for AWM panels were all booked, and that these time slots were very limited. Four years would pass before the Committee would again propose a panel.

21 The

statement is available on the CBMS website. AWM’s support of it is reported in the May– June 2017 Newsletter, p. 14. 22 In 2017, on the Committee were Bremser, Dewar (co-chair), Hsu (co-chair), Jennifer JohnsonLeung, Kappmeyer, Thomas Roby, Walker. 23 For Committee membership in November 2018, see Footnote 20.

616

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

A discussion within the Committee in the spring of 2014 involved a belief that lurks among some members of our discipline that places different fields of mathematical research in a hierarchy of value. This belief can lead to inequity. Women are quite visible as researchers in mathematics education, and thus are quite vulnerable to bias in a hierarchy that places research in mathematics education at a lower level than other areas of mathematical research.24

The Committee responded to this concern by proposing a panel to showcase the value of work in mathematics education in departments of mathematical sciences.25 The Committee first contacted the AWM Meetings Committee about a possible slot at the 2015 MathFest or 2016 JMM, and again encountered the issue of limited slots. The Committee then followed a suggestion from President Charney: it contacted Tara Holm, chair of the AMS Committee on Education, to seek co-sponsorship for the panel at JMM. That led to the JMM 2016 panel, co-sponsored with the AMS Committee on Education. The abstract for the panel read: Many in the mathematics community in the US are now involved in mathematics education in various capacities. This panel is designed to illustrate the breadth and range of these activities. It will highlight examples of contributions to mathematics education by members in the mathematical sciences and include the perspectives of mathematicians and mathematics educators who contribute in areas such as: teacher education (pre- and in-service); instructional materials development in K–16 mathematics; Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; mathematics education research. Panelists will discuss their work and may reflect on how their work is received in their departments.

The panel, Work in Mathematics Education in Departments of Mathematical Sciences, took place in 2016 in Seattle, WA, with panelists Curtis Bennett, Brigitte Lahme, Yvonne Lai, Kristin Umland, and moderator Beth Burroughs. At the end of the panel a lively discussion ensued among the 60 people in attendance (see March– April 2016 Newsletter, pp. 20–21). Given the significant interest in the 2016 panel, another panel, Highlighting Contributions to Mathematics Education from Members of Departments of Mathematical Sciences, was proposed for the following year to continue the conversation. This panel, co-sponsored with the MAA Committee on the Mathematical Education of Teachers took place in 2017 in Atlanta, GA, with an abstract similar to that of the 2016 panel. The panelists were Viveka Borum, LouAnn Lovin, Megan Wawro, and Nina White; the organizers were Burroughs, Dewar, and Hsu; and the moderator was Robert Klein. This time many of the audience questions at the end of the panel related to departmental dynamics, including policies of tenure and promotion, in mathematics departments for those doing work in mathematics education (see report in the March–April 2017 Newsletter, p. 18).

24 This

appears in a report by a subcommittee (Burroughs, Hortensia Soto-Johnson, and Pollatsek) in March 2014. The following section elaborates on what prompted this discussion. 25 The Committee list in 2015 was: Burroughs, Dewar (co-chair), Hsu (co-chair), Kappmeyer, Kessel, King, Lee, Pollatsek, Wildstrom.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

617

The audience response in 2017 prompted the Committee to propose yet another panel, this one focusing on how such work is valued by the mathematics community. The panel, titled Supporting, Evaluating and Rewarding Work in Mathematics Education in Mathematical Sciences Departments, was held in 2018. The AWM Education Committee was the sole sponsor of the panel, as it was given a slot by the Joint Meetings Committee. The participants were: Jenna Carpenter, Minerva Cordero (moderator), Rebecca Garcia, Daniel Maki, Tom Roby, with Dewar, Hsu, and Pollatsek as organizers. After the panel, discussion with the audience included issues such as: • how (and when) to act on an interest in education and devote time to improving student learning; • research in mathematics education and its journals; • how one might attempt to influence institutional culture and policies to recognize and reward a broad range of work in mathematics education. As noted in the Newsletter, the Committee hoped “this panel and article have raised awareness and will encourage more conversations about the challenges of supporting, evaluating, and rewarding work in mathematics education in departments of mathematical sciences” (Dewar et al., 2018, p. 26).

On Valuing Work in Mathematics Education within AWM In 1991, AWM initiated the Louise Hay Award to recognize “outstanding achievements in any area of mathematics education, to be interpreted in the broadest possible sense.” It has celebrated the award every year since. A reviewer of this article commented that it is “one of the most publicly visible activities of AWM with regard to mathematics education.” Despite this high-profile award, there have been signs that women in mathematics education did not feel like “full participants of the community.”26 In 2010, a Committee member wrote in an email discussion: . . . for many years as a member of AWM I had the sense that its primary interest was the recognition and visibility for mathematical research being done by women. Certainly this has been a valuable and worthy activity. For the last ten years or so I do believe there has been a more inclusive atmosphere in AWM. Many of us at smaller institutions are very actively involved in mathematics education issues and it is appropriate that AWM become equally involved in this venue. The AWM Education Committee therefore serves an important function as an entity that can initially address or study topics in this area and make recommendations, proposals, etc, to the AWM Executive Board.

26 This

phrase appeared in the subcommittee report mentioned in Footnote 24.

618

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

In a 1990 conversation reported by Blum, former president Srinivasan also described such a tension surfacing within AWM in the 1980s: “Were we an organization of research mathematicians or did we represent the interest of all women in mathematics, particularly in education?” (Blum, 1991, p. 748). Former president Rothschild gave a similar historical perspective in her 2019 Newsletter article (reprinted in this volume). She recalled her efforts when she became president in 1983 as follows: “I tried to encourage young women in AWM to pursue research and to persuade women active in research to join AWM” (Rothschild, 2019, p. 16). She observed that much has changed since she was president and further noted: “In the later years some felt that AWM had focused too much on women in research and ignored the concerns of the many members at small colleges or working in government or industry. Future AWM presidents and officers have since worked to make AWM into the much more inclusive organization that it is today” (p. 16). The next three subsections describe efforts made by the Committee and some of its members, in addition to the JMM panels described above, to work towards fuller inclusion of mathematics educators, and to increase the recognition of work in mathematics education. They also attempt to show what the authors see as indications of the organization’s developing interest in the field of mathematics education in which women are majority participants.

AWM Travel Grant for Mathematics Education Researchers AWM has had an NSF-funded travel grant program for women since 1988, initially supporting travel by mathematicians to mathematical research conferences and expanded to include grants to support travel to visit a mentor. In 2009, it was extended to support mathematicians attending conferences in mathematics education and related fields and researchers in mathematics education and related fields attending mathematics conferences as well as mentoring of a mathematician by a researcher in education or related field (see Kessel, 2009). However, the program did not support travel by a mathematics education researcher to attend a mathematics education research conference. In 2014, a new member of the Committee voiced her concern about this type of travel not being supported. The Committee responded by asking for a subcommittee to be formed to find a mechanism to allow mathematics education researchers to apply for funds to attend mathematics education conferences. A report by the subcommittee proposed a statement of principle that included “AWM is committed to providing equal opportunity and equal access to its programs and resources for those whose research is in mathematics education.” The statement generated support as well as misgivings within the Committee. In particular, “research in mathematics education” has different meanings among different groups of practitioners. In addition, shouldn’t AWM also provide equal access for mathematics educators who do no research? (The ensuing discussion eventually led to the JMM 2016 panel described earlier.) While the Committee discussed these matters, the AWM Travel Grant was due for renewal and the proposal went in requesting continued support for the same

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

619

types of travel as before. NSF cut the portion of the program related to mathematics education—it had been the least applied-for part of the grant. Consequently, the AWM Travel Grant Program once again only supports mathematicians traveling to mathematics research conferences.

AWM’s Book Series Begins to Include Mathematics Education In 2013, the AWM Springer series was inaugurated. The first six volumes published in the series are on research in mathematics. President Lauter and Maura Mast met with Springer at the 2015 AWM Symposium about possible new volumes for the series. Mast suggested one on mathematics education. Lauter then approached Dewar and Hsu in their capacity as the Education Committee co-chairs to lead the effort. She suggested that it could be tied to the 2016 panel being organized at that time by asking panelists to contribute,27 and that other contributions could also be solicited. Dewar and Hsu agreed and invited another member of the Committee, Pollatsek, to join them in the project. Thus, Mathematics Education: A Spectrum of Work in Mathematical Sciences Departments became Volume 7 (Dewar et al., 2016a) in the AWM Springer series. For the first six volumes of the series, the series description appearing before the title page reads: “. . . presenting topics at the cutting edge of pure and applied mathematics.” The three co-editors of Volume 7 pointed out that their volume did not fit this description. Springer rewrote the description: “. . . presenting topics at the cutting edge of pure and applied mathematics, as well as in the areas of mathematical education and history.” The series now includes volumes on the added topics. The goal of Volume 7, as stated in its introductory chapter, is “to inform the readership of the breath of this work and to encourage discussion of its value to the mathematical community and beyond to society at large” (Dewar et al., 2016b, p. 5). Information received from Springer in June 2019—that the volume was among the top 25% most downloaded eBooks in its respective eBook Collection in 2018, with a total of 15,987 chapter downloads—indicated the level of interest in mathematics education.

The AWM Research Symposia Begin to Include Mathematics Education At AWM’s celebration of its 40th anniversary in 2011, one of the parallel sessions was on mathematics education. But, when AWM launched a new series of Biennial Research Symposia to showcase the research of women in the mathematical professions on a broad range of topics in pure and applied mathematics, research

27 A

photograph of the 2016 panelists, moderator, and organizers appears on the front plate of the Volume 7 in the AWM Springer series (Dewar et al., 2016a).

620

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

in mathematics education was not included as a topic in the 2013 nor in the 2015 Symposium. In late 2016, President Ami Radunskaya approached the Committee co-chairs (Dewar and Hsu) regarding the possibility of a session on mathematics education at the third AWM Research Symposium to be held in Los Angeles in 2017. The mathematics education session was organized by Shandy Hauk and Hsu.28 Six members of the MAA Special Interest Group in Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (SIGMAA-RUME), Nicole Infante, Chris Rasmussen, Elise Lockwood, Michelle Zandieh, Stacy Brown, and Yvonne Lai, gave presentations. A chapter on the session appeared in the proceedings of the symposium in the AWM Springer series (Hauk et al., 2018). The 2019 AWM Symposium held in Houston, TX, featured a strand on local examples of “outreach” work in mathematics education. In the call for nominations that went out in March 2020, mathematics education appeared along with pure or applied mathematics, mathematics history, and mathematics and society on the list of areas of expertise for potential plenary speakers for the 2021 Symposium. At this writing, the Symposium has been postponed to 2022 due to COVID-19.

Mathematics Education in AWM’s New Journal In September 2020, an AWM editorial board announced that it is planning to launch its first professional journal, La Matematica, to be published online by Springer. It will include a variety of article types in all fields of mathematics: pure, applied and computational, as well as mathematically-grounded work in data science, computer science, and statistics. Occasionally, it will publish special issues on broader topics, such as mathematics education, the history of mathematics, or the philosophy of mathematics. As AWM’s flagship journal, its processes will reflect current research on equitable (italics added) practices in STEM publishing and in promoting the flourishing of all mathematicians. Although there will be no gender requirement for publication, La Matematica will highlight work by women and other underrepresented mathematicians through the editorial process and support and promote collaborative work.

28 See

the July–August 2017 Newsletter (pp. 27–29) for a report by Hauk. In the article, titled “Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education Arrives at the AWM Symposium,” she described the work as “. . . based in various theoretical perspectives on the nature of human cognition and knowledge structure. Research methods ranged from individual interview and classroom observation to national survey and in-depth study of a particular instance or case” (p. 27).

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

621

Thoughts in 2020 Most of the material for this article was collected in early 2020, before COVID19 had a major effect on the lives of all. Writing this article has been another collaboration of the two authors, working at times spiritedly, but always ending with a negotiated resolution. The result is, the authors hope, more than the sum of its parts. We close with some comments gathered from current and former members and a reflection of our own.

Comments from Past and Current Committee Members In preparing to write this article, a survey was sent to all current and former members of the Committee for whom an email address could be located (though some addresses might not have been current), 43 in total. Thirteen replies were received. The following selection of comments show the breadth of reactions and concerns held by Committee members and echo some of the observations made in this article. • . . . it was impressive how much people cared, but that despite that fact, it was very hard to make things happen. • The diversity of the membership of the EC [Education Committee] and the thoughtfulness of its discussions taught me a lot about the breadth and richness of what mathematics education encompasses. • I learned how variously people reacted to the issues of education in mathematics from K–8, to HS, to 2-year colleges, to 4-year colleges and universities. • I got to know some people active in AWM and gained a sense of community with AWM and with mathematicians concerned with education. . . . Suggestions for what the Committee should be working on now or in the future, included: • I would like to see more interaction among EdCom [Education Committee], leaders in the AWM and the AMS, and the growing number of full-time teachingfocused doctoral faculty who teach an increasing number of undergrad students at all undergrad levels. Since 2011–2012, the number of undergraduate enrollments in math courses in doctoral departments has been greater than the corresponding number for bachelors [sic] departments. Thus there needs to be more support for these faculty. The percentage of women faculty in this category is in the range 35% to 40%. They probably teach more courses for prospective teachers than do what used to be called “regular faculty.” I hope the committee is keeping an eye on the AWM web site and adding any important new programs and other things. • It is interesting that the topic of “evaluation of teaching” was on the agenda of the first meeting and it reappears last year. • . . . establish 3–4 key priorities they would like to accomplish.

622

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

When asked for any insights or benefits they have gained from working with the Committee, one wrote: • I would like to see broader efforts to recruit members.

A Final Reflection from the Authors The story of the AWM Education Committee has stretched through 40 years coming on the heels of two major cultural movements in the US—civil rights and women’s—while AWM as an organization fought for a place for women and girls to participate in mathematics. Members of the Committee, past and present, share a stake in this goal. To encourage women and girls to study and to have active careers in the mathematical sciences, which is part of the AWM mission statement, involves more than getting girls interested in the mathematical sciences. Their interests need to be nurtured, sustained, and supported. The work of mathematics education spans prekindergarten through graduate school, and is carried out by mathematics teachers, mathematics educators, and not the least, mathematicians. Examining the work of the Committee recorded in this article, we found that the Committee, though it did not always articulate alignments, has persistently worked on tasks aligned with its 1996 Charge Statement. Here are some examples (with statements from the Charge appearing in italics): • One of the activities of the committee will be to propose projects in mathematics education. The Teacher Partnership Program which emerged in 2006 from the discussions of the Committee, was such a project. As an activity, it falls under two parts of the Committee’s charge statement: Identify areas in which the Association may develop activities to serve the needs of women in mathematics education; Encourage cross-profession communications and co-operations in working towards the improvement of education in mathematics at all levels. • By providing input to a wide range of documents drafted by professional organizations, the Committee helped to: Promote the mathematics education of girls and women. • Provide a forum for an informed discussion of topics on women in mathematics education. Prior to 2016, AWM panel topics at JMM concerned precollege education. Between 2016 and 2018, the JMM panels organized by the Committee focused on experiences of those (often women) doing work in mathematics education within mathematics departments. These panels also helped to Articulate concerns from the perspectives of women on issues related to mathematics education. • Inform the presidents and the organization. The Committee has worked on various occasions to support AWM programs (SK Day, Essay Contest, webpages). It has also responded to communications and requests for information from AWM presidents Lenhart, Gordon, Benkart, and Lauter.

The AWM (Mathematics) Education Committee

623

We see evolution in the Committee’s thinking and work over the years. Through reviews of standards and other documents and participation in the CBMS forums, it began to voice its perspectives to the wider mathematics community. Our discussion of the AWM travel grants and AWM Springer volume on mathematics education documents the efforts by the Committee or some of its members to promote greater interest in and support for work in mathematics education within AWM and in the mathematics community. As indicated in our discussion of the Research Symposia and the new AWM journal, we see hopeful signs. With the US poised to engage in another cultural movement, this one on racial equity, the Committee may face new challenges and opportunities. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the many members (current or former) who responded to their survey; Thomas Roby and Jennifer Johnson-Leung who generously provided information on Committee activities from 2019 to early 2020; and Sally Lipsey and Naomi Fisher, who reviewed, respectively, early drafts of the sections related to their work on the Committee. Our gratitude to them all.

References Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–774. (Reprinted in this volume.) Dewar, Jacqueline, Pao-sheng Hsu, and Harriet Pollatsek, eds. 2016a. Mathematics education: A spectrum of work in mathematical sciences departments. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Dewar, Jacqueline, Pao-sheng Hsu, and Harriet Pollatsek. 2016b. Opening lines. In Mathematics education: A spectrum of work in mathematical sciences departments, eds. Jacqueline Dewar, Pao-sheng Hsu, and Harriet Pollatsek, 3–10. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Dewar, Jacqueline, Pao-sheng Hsu, and Harriet Pollatsek. 2018. AWM panel: Valuing work in mathematics education. AWM Newsletter 48(2): 22, 24–26. Gray, Mary W. 1991. The Association for Women in Mathematics—A personal view. Mathematical Intelligencer 13(4): 6–11. Hauk, Shandy, Chris Rasmussen, Nicole Infante, Elise Lockwood, Michelle Zandieh, Stacy Brown, Yvonne Lai, and Pao-sheng Hsu. 2018. Research in collegiate mathematics education. In Advances in the mathematical sciences: AWM Research Symposium, Los Angeles, CA, April 2017, eds. Alyson Deines, Daniela Ferrero, Erica Graham, Mee Seong Im, Carrie Manore, and Candice Price, 245–268. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Hughes, Rhonda. 1987. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 17(5): 1–2. Jackson, Allyn. 1997a. The math wars. California battles it out over mathematics education reform (Part I). AMS Notices 44(6): 695–702. Jackson, Allyn. 1997b. The math wars. California battles it out over mathematics education reform (Part II). AMS Notices 44(7): 817–823. Kessel, Cathy. 2009. The AWM-NSF mathematics education research travel grants. AWM Newsletter 39(5): 6–7. Lipsey, Sally. 1988. Mathematics in art/Art in mathematics. AWM Newsletter 18(5): 9. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington. DC: US Government Printing Office. National Research Council. 2001. Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822.

624

P.-s. Hsu and J. M. Dewar

PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). 2012. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED541511.pdf. Rothschild, Linda. 2019. My thoughts about AWM: Its past, present, and future. AWM Newsletter 49(6): 14–16. (Reprinted in this volume.) Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981a. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(4): 1–2. Srinivasan, Bhama. 1981b. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 11(5): 1. Seshaiyer, Padmanabhan. 2008. Partnering to make a difference. AWM Newsletter 38(4): 14–15. Seshaiyer, Padmanabhan and Kristin Kappmeyer. 2016. Transforming practices in mathematics teaching and learning through effective partnerships. In Mathematics education: A spectrum of work in mathematical sciences departments, eds. Jacqueline Dewar, Pao-sheng Hsu, and Harriet Pollatsek, 105–120. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Taylor, Jean. 2000. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 30(1): 1–3. Taylor, Jean and Sylvia Wiegand. 1999. AWM in the 1990s: A recent history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: part 3. AWM Newsletter 29(3): 28–33. Terng, Chuu-Lian. 1996. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 26(4): 1–2. Wiegand, Sylvia. 1997. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 27(5): 1–4.

Part X

AWM in Her Teens: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director

Reflections of AWM’s Fifth President Bhama Srinivasan

The first two presidents of AWM were Mary Gray and Alice Schafer (see Fig. 1), and it was clear that theirs would be a tough act to follow. Thus, when the time came to choose a new president, there appeared to be no one willing to be a candidate. Everyone that was contacted during the 1970s, including me, declined due to time pressures. One evening in 1981, I got a call from Alice saying “That’s it, girl. You are it. Have a drink and go to bed.” It was clear to me what “it” was and that “No” would not be an answer that Alice would accept! My term began early in 1981, and I soon went through a “trial by fire” as Alice put it. The reason, a joyful one, was that AWM was planning an Emmy Noether Centennial conference. The trial was that there was a lot of discussion and dissent regarding who the speakers should be. There were two camps: one saying there should only be women speakers, the other saying the speakers should be the best mathematicians, independent of gender. I was relieved that a consensus was reached: women speakers would be a majority. The conference, organized by Rhonda Hughes, was very successful and the proceedings were published by Springer as Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Association for Women in Mathematics in Honor of Emmy Noether’s 100th Birthday. Recently there appears to have been introspection and questioning among some AWM members as to whether there is a role for the organization, since blatant sexism does not seem to exist. My answer would be “Yes,” by observing AWM meetings (see Figs. 2 and 3). Women, especially young women, seem to be more

B. Srinivasan () University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_53

627

628

B. Srinivasan

Fig. 1 Six AWM presidents, Mary Gray, Bhama Srinivasan, Carol Wood, Alice Schafer, Jean Taylor, Sylvia Wiegand, 1999 AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI, Berkeley, CA. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

Fig. 2 Standing: Bhama Srinivasan, Ljudmila Bordag, Minping Qian, Inna Yemelyanova, Christine Bessenrodt, Mary Glazman; sitting: Dusa McDuff, Claire Baribaud, Bettye Anne Case, panel on events and policies and their effects on women in mathematics, sponsored by AWM, European Women in Mathematics, and the European Mathematical Society Committee on Women and Mathematics, 1998 ICM, Berlin, Germany. Photo courtesy of Sylvia Wiegand

Reflections of AWM’s Fifth President

629

Fig. 3 Bhama Srinivasan talking to Svetlana Katok, 1999 AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, MSRI, Berkeley, CA. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

comfortable asking and answering questions at these meetings, and listening to established women speakers is very encouraging to them. Also of course the AWM receptions at the Joint Mathematics Meetings are very popular!

Reflections from the Sixth President: AWM’s Past, Present, and Future Linda Rothschild

Following the amazing leadership of former AWM presidents Mary Gray, Alice Schafer, Lenore Blum, Judy Roitman, and Bhama Srinivasan, I became president in the mid-1980s. Like Bhama, I was pressed into service by a phone call from Alice, who informed me that I had to do it because everyone else had turned it down. Very flattering! In this essay, I will try to give some context, interspersed with recollections of my personal experiences, to AWM’s growth from its inception to my term as president and beyond. The idea for AWM began with groups of women meeting on the coasts, including Lenore and Judy in Berkeley, and Alice, Bhama, and me in Cambridge. Mary, who had moved from Berkeley to the Washington, DC, area, was a tireless advocate for women in mathematics and united us all. It was the early 1970s, and the women’s movement was in full swing. Like many other women, I grew up slowly learning about the obstacles facing a woman who wanted a professional career. Jobs listed in newspapers were divided into “Help wanted: Male” and “Help wanted: Female.” The only professional jobs offered for women were for secretaries, nurses, or school teachers. The “best” and most well-funded academic high school (Central H.S.) in my home city, Philadelphia, was for boys only. Why spend so much on girls’ college preparation when so many top colleges, including ones in the Ivy League, were closed to women or strictly limited female enrollment? From the colleges’ viewpoint this restriction was reasonable, since women were unlikely to have prominent professional careers or become top donors. Female college students at Penn, where I was an undergraduate, were forced to enroll in the College for Women, where freshmen were rarely given serious academic guidance. Unlike male students, we were “protected” by strict curfew rules, forced to follow dress codes

L. Rothschild () Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_54

631

632

L. Rothschild

mandating skirts or dresses, and denied access to personal telephones. We were lucky to be able to attend a top university, but we were not treated as equal to male students. Fortunately for me, some math faculty members were impressed by my work and supported my ambition for a PhD in math. Also, fortunately, I didn’t know how hard it would be. In the 1960s, it was relatively easy for a new PhD from a good university to find a job in a math department, unless the applicant was a woman. One major difficulty for women was the existence of university nepotism rules, i.e., two related people, such as a husband and wife, could not be hired in the same department or sometimes not even in the same institution. This rule and the inherent difficulty of finding two positions in the same geographical location made it very hard for couples to find positions together. This is not to say that it was easy for single women to find appropriate employment. At that time positions were not usually advertised, and hiring was often done through the buddy system, where an advisor would find a job for a male student through phone calls to contacts. Many of the top PhDproducing math departments had no female faculty members at all, while others had only one. Prejudice against women in mathematics was often seen even at the graduate level. Princeton’s math department did not even accept female graduate students until 1968. As a first-year PhD student at MIT (the only woman in a cohort of 36), I was told by the department chairman that I should be proud to have been admitted, because stricter standards were applied to female applicants, who “tended to drop out.” Was that a self-fulfilling prophecy? The world changed in the 1970s with national anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action. (Later, these two types of laws would be viewed by some as contradictory.) Previously all-male colleges like Princeton and Yale would now enroll women, while others, such as Harvard and MIT, greatly increased their numbers of female undergraduates. (Even Central H.S. in Philadelphia became coed, though it required an order from the US Supreme Court.) Some mathematics departments even sought out female candidates for faculty positions. Unfortunately, the academic job market in mathematics dried up in the 1970s, and there were few positions available for new PhDs, no matter the gender. In fact, the AMS considered the employment problem one of its chief concerns at this time. Many men seeking jobs resented the push to hire women mathematicians who, they said, did not have families to support. I found my first academic position in 1970 when a faculty member at Tufts University died unexpectedly at the end of the academic year. After four other postdoctoral positions for a total of six years, I was offered an associate professorship at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. I had worked very hard, but I was also lucky to have made it that far. Others were lost in what is now called the “leaky pipeline.” AWM became an actual organization in the early 1970s and fought ceaselessly to increase opportunities for women, including the possibility of active participation in the leadership of the AMS. At that time officers and committee members of the AMS were all men, and not everyone was pleased with AWM’s efforts to elect women to leadership positions in the AMS. Many complained that pushy women were advocating for mediocre women mathematicians to serve on the AMS Council and the Board of Trustees. Good for the pushy women of AWM! With the help of

Reflections from the Sixth President: AWM’s Past, Present, and Future

633

pressure from AWM, Julia Robinson, a world-renowned logician who herself had been the victim of nepotism rules at Berkeley, was elected president of the AMS. Other women were selected for various AMS leadership positions and also invited to give major talks at national and regional AMS meetings. AWM was recognized as a real part of the mathematical community by the end of the 1970s. Yet as far as AWM had come, the organization was still small and far from being universally respected. By the early 1980s about 20% of mathematics PhDs were earned by women, up from about 6.5% in the 1960s. Although hiring in mathematics had recovered and even increased, some leading mathematics departments had still failed to hire any women at all, perhaps hoping that the “problem” would just go away. Women still had difficulty being taken seriously as mathematicians. Maternity leave (or parental leave) did not yet exist, and those of us who had young children sometimes had to pretend that our teaching or research lives were not affected by family responsibilities. Some women mathematicians even felt that joining AWM might endanger their future careers or make them appear to be less serious about research. A young woman holding a tenured professorship in a top-rated math department turned down an invitation to give a major AWM address, saying that she wanted to be recognized for her research, not just as a woman. Although I did not agree with her choice, I understood her reasons and felt that AWM still had to do more to reach its goals. I did not have a grand agenda when I became president of AWM in 1983, but I tried to encourage young women in AWM to pursue research and to persuade women active in research to join AWM. I sent personalized letters (we used mail in those days) to all the women mathematicians I knew who were not yet members of AWM, urging them to join. To help young women apply for grants, I arranged grantwriting workshops at some of the annual meetings and organized panel discussions in which women described positive experiences in graduate school and in their early careers. Also, with Alice’s help, AWM initiated graduate student memberships and chapters. Following my presidency of AWM, it seemed to be easier to find women willing to be candidates for the position. I’d like to think that my efforts to bring more women into the organization and to emphasize its role in encouraging mathematical research helped in this regard. However, a more likely reason is that AWM was now running rather smoothly, thanks to the efforts of many others. Given my lack of talent for running an organization, I’m sure that I inspired other women to think that it could not be too hard to be president! It is now more than 30 years since I was president of AWM and much has changed in the mathematical world, as well as in the world at large. In later years some felt that AWM had focused too much on women in research and ignored the concerns of the many members at small colleges or working in government and industry. Future AWM presidents and officers have since worked to make AWM into the much more inclusive organization it is today. In some of the other sciences and engineering, women have organized themselves only as a “Committee for Women in X” as part of an umbrella organization. However, I think that AWM, because of its independence, has been able to do more to help women in mathematics than could have been done by committees of AMS, MAA, or SIAM. At annual and sectional

634

L. Rothschild

Fig. 1 Standing: AWM President Chuu-Lian Terng; sitting immediately in front of Terng is AWM Noether Lecturer Linda Rothschild; behind Rothschild is AWM Workshop participant Meghan Burke. AWM Noether dinner, 1997 JMM, San Diego, CA

Fig. 2 Bettye Anne Case, Linda Rothschild, Mary Silber, Mary Gray, AWM panel on Launching a Career in Mathematics, 1997 JMM, San Diego, CA

meetings women always have a table to visit, a party and dinner to join (see Fig. 1), and invited talks and award ceremonies to attend. In recent years, mathematical conferences almost always include at least one female speaker; unfortunately this is not true in all scientific or technical fields. AWM also unembarrassedly sponsors conferences in which all speakers are women. As an organization, not just a committee, AWM gives opportunities for women to speak out and to take leadership roles (e.g., see Fig. 2).

Reflections from the Sixth President: AWM’s Past, Present, and Future

635

The proportion of women among new PhDs in math has increased from about 6.5% in the 1960s to about 30% in the present. However, this number has not increased in the past 15 years. We need to understand this lack of growth in the context of other opportunities that have opened to women in the last few decades. Engineering, for instance, was essentially closed to women even at the undergraduate level until late in the twentieth century. In the mid-1960s only 0.4% of undergraduate degrees in engineering were earned by women, a proportion that has increased (by a factor of more than 60) to about 25% in recent years. For the first time in its history, a majority of MIT engineering departments are now headed by women! Computer science (which did not even exist in the mid twentieth century) is also attracting mathematically minded women, although the proportion of female PhDs in that field is still below 30%. Female scientists now achieving prominence through exciting discoveries in other endeavors, such as biology, chemistry, and astrophysics, are attracting young women to their fields. Women mathematicians may not achieve equality in numbers with men in our lifetimes, but perhaps this is not the point. We mathematicians know that the joy and thrill of discovering or even understanding, a beautiful mathematical proof or puzzle is unlike any other. Women who have the talent and ambition to pursue mathematics as a career should also have the opportunity!

Reflections of AWM’s Seventh President on AWM in the Mid-1980s Linda Keen

In her excellent article in this volume, Linda Rothschild gives a comprehensive overview of how AWM grew from its infancy to its early teens. By the end of that period, AWM was an ongoing enterprise with a growing membership and regular presence at the Joint Mathematics Meetings as well as the sectional meetings of AMS and MAA. In my contribution, I would like to focus on where we were and what was happening during my term as president following Linda Rothschild. To refresh my memory, I went back through the AWM Newsletter archive on the AWM website. It makes very interesting reading and is a wonderful compendium of our activities as an organization. As I read through the newsletters of the mid-1980s, one obvious change was the transition in typeface—from typewriter to computer. Compared to our current format, it looks primitive; but the change did make it look more professional. Although the quality of the content was and remained high, the new format meant we would be taken more seriously. In these newsletters, there were lots of interesting issues addressed, many of which are still very relevant. For this article, I focus on two activities that took up the major part of my energies as president and two issues: one especially relevant to women and one relevant to the whole mathematical community. As I took up the reins, AWM was approaching its 15th anniversary. In conjunction with the Bunting Institute at Radcliffe, we obtained funding for a joint celebration of our 15th and their 25th anniversary. We held a two-part symposium at the Bunting that reflected both our commitment to educating and encouraging young women in mathematics as well as our commitment to creating a forum to expose mathematics done by women. Part I was an expanded version of what we had, and continue to sponsor as a “Kovalevsky Day.” It included films and workshops for

L. Keen () Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_55

637

638

L. Keen

over 50 students and teachers from the Boston area. Part II was more in the tradition begun by the Emmy Noether conference at Bryn Mawr in 1982. It consisted of a program of 10 lectures on mathematical research that had roots in and ties to the work of the first woman to receive a PhD in mathematics, Sonya Kovalevskaya (also known as Sonia Kovalevsky). Those lectures appeared in a volume entitled the Legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya, published by the AMS. The second major event during my term was the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Berkeley, CA, in the summer of 1986. We planned and held a symposium entitled Women in Mathematics, Eight Years Later, chaired by Lenore Blum. The title referred to the AWM symposium held at the Helsinki ICM in 1978. There were panelists from nine different countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, France, England, Germany, and Nigeria, as well as the United States. Unfortunately, the Far East and Eastern Europe were not represented. An important outcome of the panel was the formation of sister organizations in other parts of the world, specifically in Europe. European Women in Mathematics (EWM), in particular, has flourished and grown into a major force in Europe, holding regular meetings in various countries and complementing AWM’s activities at big international conferences such as the ICMs. An issue addressed at the panel in Berkeley was the fact that the 1978 panel had sent a message to the Executive Committee of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), which organizes the ICMs, about the lack of invited women speakers in Helsinki and pointing out that many qualified women were overlooked. This had some effect because four women were invited to speak at the 1982 ICM in Warsaw (which was postponed until 1983). The effect, however, was not lasting. The preliminary list of speakers for 1986 had only one woman, whose field was the history of mathematics. The Program Committee solicited suggestions for women speakers on mathematical research and three were asked to give invited addresses. I remember assuring one of these invitees, that had the committee not felt she was at least as good as many of the speakers, she would not have been asked. No women, however, were asked to give a (more prestigious) plenary address. An important reason women were often overlooked by such program committees is that there were no women on the committees. The 1986 panel passed a motion to send a message to the incoming Executive Committee of the ICM to remind program committees in the future that it was important not to overlook the women who were doing important research. It is clear that these efforts have had a real effect over the years. In recent years, at least a few women have regularly appeared on the programs. Another important issue faced by AWM during those years was funding. Funding for mathematics is still an ongoing problem but in the mid-1980s the Cold War was still in full force and although funding for scientific research was increased, the increase came through the military rather than the National Science Foundation (NSF). Much of this money came with the constraint that the funding agency could decide what would be acceptable for publication. Such constraints went against the tradition that publication decisions should be made by journal referees and were unacceptable to many mathematicians. Although this issue affected the whole

Reflections of AWM’s Seventh President on AWM in the Mid-1980s

639

mathematical community, because it was always harder for women to get grants, it had a particular impact on women, hence on AWM. The politics today are quite different and present us with different issues. Looking at recent newsletters, it is heartening to see how far we have come as an organization in terms of the strength and breadth of our activities. It is particularly pleasing to see how we now regularly include non-academic issues in our purview. While a number of the old problems are still there, we have come a long way. I’d like to end on a more personal note and say that AWM for me was not only about addressing the problems and issues facing women in mathematics, it was about the people I met and the community I felt a part of. As a young woman mathematician, I was never one of the “old boys.” With AWM, I belonged. The mathematical colleagues I met through my involvement in AWM over almost 50 years have become a very important part of my life and I’m very grateful to have been privileged to work with them (see Fig. 1). Many became close friends.

Fig. 1 Lenore Blum, Carol Wood, Judy Green, Linda Keen. AWM party, probably in the 1980s. Photo courtesy of Lenore Blum

My AWM Presidency: Reflections from AWM’s Eighth President Rhonda Hughes

My AWM presidency, which began in 1987, was my introduction to the national mathematics community. This view of the community allowed me to observe the values of the prevailing mathematics culture in ways that would otherwise have been unavailable to me. It changed my professional life and gave me countless opportunities. I found heroes who inspired and sustained me. When I emerged on the other side, I had a fairly good idea of how I might find my way as a professional in this complicated community. I was an early fan of AWM. I started graduate school at my undergraduate alma mater, the University of Illinois at Chicago (then Chicago Circle) in 1969. A couple of years later, when I first heard of this organization for women in mathematics, I was ecstatic. Inspired by the feminist rumblings coming from afar, we formed a group in the math department and began to have regular lunchtime meetings. Louise Hay was the faculty member who supported and encouraged us. Our early meetings drew large crowds, but some expressed concern that we would “make waves.” Louise asked, characteristically, “What’s wrong with that?” She was always a champion of women and the underdog. When she heard that a woman graduate student with children was given an inconvenient teaching schedule, she marched off to get it fixed. It made all the difference having a supportive, respected senior woman in the department. I hope I learned a bit from her about how to stand up for what is right. My first position after finishing my PhD was at Tufts University. I was thrilled to be in Boston, an AWM epicenter, and to meet Alice Schafer, Bhama Srinivasan, coding theorist Vera Pless, and other luminaries. Nevertheless, I found the East Coast jarring after the openness of the Midwest where I had been born, raised, and

R. Hughes () Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_56

641

642

R. Hughes

educated. In 1979, my daughter Sarah was born, and in 1980, I moved to Bryn Mawr College. Philadelphia was a happy medium between Chicago and Boston, and I finally found my professional and personal home. At that time, Anthony Hughes told me that 1982 was the centennial of Emmy Noether’s birth. I called Bhama, who was then president of AWM, and suggested an international conference at Bryn Mawr for the occasion (Bhama credits me with the idea, but it was really Anthony’s). Perhaps because I was at a new institution and realized I would have to do everything myself, I charged ahead. Soon I received a call from Alice, who was at the Joint Meetings. She reported that some people were “concerned.” Apparently, I had gone rogue. I grudgingly tried to learn to collaborate and get a variety of opinions, and ultimately the conference was a great success, even though my daughter Sarah, under two at the time, got the croup the night before the conference started, putting everything in perspective. I always credited Jill Mesirov for my presidency. We had met by chance in Princeton and I was asked to be the next AWM president shortly thereafter. Perhaps Linda Keen, the AWM president at that time, was there as well but I’m not really sure. Nevertheless, I was deeply honored and took the charge of standing for women in mathematics very seriously. My son Jeremy was born in the summer of 1986, when I had already agreed to be AWM president. I thought I could handle two big life events. Then, in the spring of 1987, my colleague and department chair, Mario Martelli, entered my office and told me, in his lovely Italian accent, that his work at Bryn Mawr was done and he was leaving for California. I would become department chair, effective almost immediately. This was not good news. I had not thought that I would be department chair until my presidency was over. I was convinced I couldn’t do three big things at once, and certainly not that I could do them well. The first national meeting where I would set the agenda as president was indeed memorable. It was Salt Lake City in the summer of 1987. The executive director Lori Kenschaft and I reserved a large conference room with mints, coffee, water, crisp pads of paper and pens, ready for our Executive Committee meeting. Other than us, no one came. Later, at the business meeting, someone asked me what my “long-term plans” were. Yikes. On the plane home, in full panic mode, I got to work. This was not going to be easy. One of the first positive things I did, once I got my bearings, was apply to NSF to start the Travel Grant Program. I felt the ability to travel was an important one, especially for early-career mathematicians without other forms of support. I’m pleased that this program has endured, transformed, and considerably expanded to give women much-needed support for their research. In 1989, I received the devastating news that Louise Hay had passed away. It was challenging to think of how to properly honor this remarkable woman who had had a profound influence on so many. Even though Louise was a respected logician, I felt that it would be appropriate to honor her with a teaching award. After all, she was “the consummate educator.” I proposed the Hay Award to the Executive Committee, which immediately approved the plan. Louise’s family felt it was a fitting tribute to

My AWM Presidency: Reflections from AWM’s Eighth President

643

Fig. 1 Rhonda Hughes presenting Shirley Frye with the first Hay Award, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

a great woman; the first Hay Award was given in 1991 to Shirley Frye, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics from 1988 to 1990 (see Fig. 1). On the occasion of Alice’s retirement from Wellesley, I proposed the Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman as a way to recognize her extraordinary contributions to women in mathematics. When my term ended, the next president, Jill Mesirov, raised funds to endow the prize. This gave Alice great pleasure. It was also a thrill for the talented young recipients to meet Alice and for her to meet them. I believe we should try to honor people when they are alive and well enough to appreciate it. Many former Schafer Prize winners are now highly respected mathematicians (see Joe Gallian’s article in this volume). The AMS Centennial took place during my presidency. I recall speaking on behalf of AWM in front of several thousand people, and hearing only my son talking in the audience. The AMS gave AWM a silver-plated bowl in honor of the centennial, and I established the “passing of the bowl” to the new AWM president, which has become a tradition (e.g., see Fig. 2). Another dressing down came at the 1989 JMM in Atlanta, my last meeting as president. It was also the scene of the great Atlanta snowstorm of 1989. There were three inches of snow, abandoned cars everywhere, and the city was shut down for a week. I had organized a panel of eminent women mathematicians and afterwards, Lee approached me and said it was a good panel, but I had made an error by not including women of color. Of course he was right. What I (eventually) loved about the AWM elders (I guess I am now one) was that they did not hesitate to tell you when you went astray. It was there that Lee Lorch introduced me to Sylvia Bozeman. Sylvia would serve on the AWM Executive Committee at two different times and regularly

644

R. Hughes

Fig. 2 Ami Radunskaya passes the bowl to Ruth Haas, 2019 JMM, Baltimore, MD

participated in AWM events. Back in 1989, she and I were both department chairs, and Lee thought we should meet one another. That meeting resulted in a fruitful twenty-year-plus collaboration that led to our founding the Spelman–Bryn Mawr Summer Mathematics Program and later the EDGE Program (Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education: A Transition Program for Women in the Mathematical Sciences). As president, I was extraordinarily busy. When my friend Ami Radunskaya was president, I watched in awe as she made it all look easy, running the EDGE Program and research conferences, teaching, and mentoring everyone in need, all at the same time. When I was president, I was shocked at how many committees I was asked to be on. I said yes to everything, and at one national meeting had so many committee meetings in one day I lost track of which I was attending. In those days, women and people of color were still fairly scarce on committees. Because of this, I met one of my dearest friends, Don Richards. He and I seemed to turn up on so many committees together, we got to know one another quite well. That way, I also met Lloyd Douglas, the legendary NSF program director who was an early champion of the EDGE Program. So something positive came of committee work. My presidency came at a time when AWM had gained some acceptance, so I did not have to display the bravery or perseverance of my predecessors. Everyone wanted AWM to be represented, perhaps only to check a box, but we got in the rooms where it mattered. Today, AWM has established many new initiatives that encourage and support women in their research and teaching careers. There is an impressive portfolio of programs, awards, and initiatives to show for almost 50 years of sustained effort.

My AWM Presidency: Reflections from AWM’s Eighth President

645

In closing, I hope that moving forward AWM can find a way to appeal to more mathematicians of color, expanding representation on its committees and among its officers. This has always been a challenge for AWM, but I do see that change is in the air, at long last. I should not close without thanking the people who provided the institutional memory of AWM and helped me enormously: of course, the late Alice Schafer, cofounder and second president; Anne Leggett McDonald, our intrepid newsletter editor; Bettye Anne Case, longtime meetings coordinator; and Mary Gray, cofounder, first president, and all-around inspiration. Thank you all.

AWM’s Executive Director 1987–1988: Growing Up with AWM Lori Kenschaft

I came by my interest in women in mathematics naturally. AWM was founded when I was five years old and my mother, Patricia Kenschaft, was one of its earliest members. The next year she received her PhD in mathematics and started teaching at Montclair State College (now University). She got tenure easily enough (though the process is always anxiety-inducing) but then watched as her male colleagues were promoted even though they had less experience and fewer credentials. After many conversations, she decided to file a sex discrimination suit despite its potential impact on her previously warm relations with her department head and colleagues. She won the suit, got the promotion, and survived the social impact. We talked about equity issues frequently in our home. My mother’s research focused on understanding how women and African Americans succeed in math, and she often published pieces in the AWM Newsletter as well as writing books and journal articles. At one point she had interviewed almost all of the African American women who had ever received a PhD in math and recorded their life stories. She was delighted when she realized that African American students were enrolling disproportionately in her courses because of what they’d heard about her on the student grapevine. My mother had a special interest in Charlotte Angas Scott, a British mathematician who was one of the eight founding faculty of Bryn Mawr College, an early leader in the American Mathematical Society, and an internationally known mathematical researcher. Scott also helped create the math section of the earliest college board exams. Many nineteenth-century colleges admitted only students from well-established secondary schools, many of which admitted few or no girls. Scott and some of her colleagues (such as Alice Freeman Palmer, the first president of Wellesley College, founding Dean of Women of the University of Chicago, and

L. Kenschaft () Arlington, MA, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_57

647

648

L. Kenschaft

subject of my doctoral dissertation) hoped that standardized tests would create a more level playing field by enabling talented students—both girls and boys—to demonstrate what they had learned, even if they were self-taught or attended a school that had not previously sent students to college. Standardized tests were later used to exclude disadvantaged students, but these early female advocates believed they would help high-achieving girls get recognition and access to college. We talked often in our home about the importance of learning about women’s history, the complexities of doing justice work, and the possibility of unintended consequences. My family also enjoyed talking about math and doing math. By the time I was twelve I was deathly bored with my school’s math curriculum, so I got permission to read through my mother’s newly published calculus textbook instead. To satisfy the state’s math requirement I attended the most advanced math class in the school, but—with the teacher’s permission—I sat in the corner and did calculus problem sets. (I had helped my mother proofread the book’s galleys, so I had some idea what I was getting into.) Mostly I ignored the classroom discussions, but I couldn’t help but notice how differently the teacher treated the girls and boys. If a girl was struggling with a problem on the blackboard he quickly sent her back to her seat, often with a seemingly sympathetic comment about girls not being good at math—even though this was the advanced class. If a boy was struggling, he was more likely to give time and hints until the boy finally figured it out. But he could also be nasty. One day he told a boy, “If you can’t do that problem, you should go sit on the girls’ side of the room!” The boy flushed beet-red and froze. I’d been complaining to my mother about the teacher’s sexism for several months, but this time I told her we had to do something. She anonymously purchased him an AWM membership, with its subscription to the AWM Newsletter. I’m not sure whether it was the Newsletter’s persuasive arguments, or just the awareness that someone was watching, but by April he had become more even-handed and the disparaging comments about girls’ math abilities were gone. A year later Camilla Benbow and Julian Stanley published a much-discussed study arguing—on the basis of tests administered to children aged 12 to 14—that males and females had innate differences in their mathematical abilities. I was indignant. I was the age of the children in the study, and it was clear to me that my peers and I had been exposed to many social and cultural influences. We were not just raw products of nature whose test results reflected only our innate abilities! We always structured our family’s summer vacations around the Joint Mathematics Meetings, and when I was in high school I started to attend some of the sessions and short courses. I enjoyed the challenge of trying to follow the lectures as long as I could. I was, however, more interested in history. Back then, early in the growing surge of feminist scholarship and before the internet, sources in women’s history could be hard to find. My mother was quite excited when she located a compendium, published in 1897, of short biographies of hundreds of women who had done math and science through the ages. The only problem was that Les Femmes dans la

AWM’s Executive Director 1987–1988: Growing Up with AWM

649

Science was in French, which she didn’t read but I did. I started by translating a few biographies at her request and then set about translating the whole book. We never managed to find a publisher for the book, but I was grateful that the AWM Newsletter published all of the biographies of mathematical women, spread out over four issues in 1983. Margaret Munroe, who had handled AWM’s clerical work part-time for nine years, announced her retirement in 1987, when I was a senior at Swarthmore College and completing my degree with a double major in biology and religion and a concentration in women’s studies. My mother told me that AWM had decided to hire its first full-time employee, with the title of Executive Director and the goal of expanding AWM’s capabilities. She encouraged me to apply, which was an easy decision. I was looking for justice-related work, and I was already familiar with AWM and cared personally about its mission. AWM’s president, Rhonda Hughes, interviewed me and then asked how much I would want to be paid. I did a quick calculation of how little I could live on and told her $17,000 a year. I didn’t want to burden AWM members by asking them to pay me any more than I needed to survive. (I’ve since outgrown this attitude.) The next day Rhonda offered me the job and I took it. AWM’s office was then on the Wellesley College campus, in a lovely old underutilized building. Wellesley did not charge AWM any rent, and I was officially a Wellesley employee so their personnel office handled my paycheck and managed my benefits—quite a good deal for AWM. The student medical facilities were on the first floor and AWM’s good-sized office was on the second floor near a few storerooms. I said hello to the nurses when I arrived in the morning and left in the evening, but I was AWM’s only employee and sometimes I did not speak with another human being all day long. I kept a log of how I spent my time, which I periodically sent to Rhonda, and we talked on the phone perhaps once a week, but other than that I was largely on my own. Much of the work was routine clerical tasks like depositing checks and doing mass mailings, but most days I also had some time for larger projects. My first project was to bring AWM into the computer age. Members’ information had previously been kept on file cards and mailings had been addressed by hand, but the AWM board had purchased a computer and simple database software shortly before I arrived. I thoroughly agreed that putting members’ data into the database should be one of my earliest priorities, so that I could print labels the next time the Newsletter went out. I actually valued this somewhat tedious task, as it gave me a big-picture overview of AWM’s membership. I was puzzled, however, by mysterious lines that appeared on a handful of members’ cards and always ended with “darpa.net.” Somehow I learned that they were called email addresses, but the office had no purpose for such things and the database didn’t include a field for them, so I didn’t bother to record them. They seemed useless to me. One of my ongoing projects was to create colorful flyers that answered common questions and provided information about AWM and its programs. Nearly every day AWM received letters from members, teachers, students, and others—at least once a journalist. I answered most of these letters and forwarded those I couldn’t to Rhonda

650

L. Kenschaft

or a board member. If I received the same question more than once I figured it was time for a flyer. AWM’s computer didn’t have any graphics capabilities, but I was allowed to use the Macs for students that were located in Wellesley’s science center. Those flyers made it far easier to mass-distribute information. I tucked them into many envelopes and newsletters (then still hand-stapled), and brought piles of them to the Joint Mathematics Meetings. AWM’s table was far more colorful once I was on board! I really enjoyed staffing AWM’s table at the Joint Meetings. I was vaguely familiar with many members’ names, and it was a delight to put names and faces together and chat briefly. I tried to make eye contact with every woman and girl passing by and make sure she received AWM’s general literature if she wasn’t already a member and flyers tailored to her interests if she was. I also engaged with any man who seemed curious, but there were too many men to talk with all of them. I also enjoyed watching some of the “micro-inequities” skits that my mother organized each year with a small group of like-minded men and women. The group acted out, anonymously, stories they had been told about incidents that had actually happened. Many (but not all) of the protagonists were well-meaning men and women who didn’t intend to be sexist but simply weren’t aware of their own preconceptions. One year my mother even included a skit about something she had done in her own classroom. (That one wasn’t anonymous.) The goal was to help people perceive gender bias more clearly and become less likely to act in sexist ways themselves. Nowadays we’d talk about implicit bias and microaggressions, but we didn’t have those words back then. Rhonda asked me to write up my reflections on the Joint Meetings for AWM’s Newsletter. In this essay I observed that a few themes had emerged repeatedly during AWM’s various programs. Several speakers and other participants commented that, in the late 1980s, most of women’s challenges in the mathematical community were not due to malicious sexism or overt discrimination. “Instead, men and women of good will find that their actions, whether from habit or ignorance or structural circumstance, exclude women from mathematics. Since our primary struggles are with institutional structures and deeply rooted but subtle preconceptions, it is sometimes difficult to find appropriate strategies.” Several people also explored the idea that structures and beliefs that disadvantage women also tend to disadvantage people from other underrepresented groups, whatever their gender. For example, both white women and people of color are less likely to be hired by prestigious institutions, so both groups are affected when journal reviewers prejudge articles based on the authors’ institutional affiliations. I already knew that very few women of color attended the Joint Meetings—a problem we had discussed in my childhood home. More surprisingly, to me, there were disproportionately few women from teaching-oriented institutions, though many AWM members worked at these institutions. Women at national meetings, I noted in the Newsletter, “are really a selected subset of women in mathematics: those who can find the financial resources to fly to a beautiful city in the southwestern desert.”

AWM’s Executive Director 1987–1988: Growing Up with AWM

651

I therefore concluded the essay by urging anyone who was interested in local organizing to contact me: “I would like to see AWM develop more local programs to give support, inspiration, and encouragement to women involved in all of the many aspects of mathematics: women in high schools, community colleges, and universities; women who are students, teachers, and employees in industry, business, and government.” As I wrote this piece, I was reflecting on a tension among AWM members that I had observed. For centuries men had claimed that women’s brains were inferior, especially when it came to mathematical thinking. Some AWM members therefore considered it very important to lift up and celebrate the most successful female mathematicians, past and present, and thus prove that women are capable of mathematical excellence. For example, AWM sponsored an annual “Emmy Noether Lecture,” given by an outstanding female mathematician, at the Joint Meetings each January. In 1988 the Noether Lecturer was Karen Uhlenbeck, who in 2019 became the first woman to win the Abel Prize. That spring I created a short booklet profiling the nine women who had given Emmy Noether lectures up to that point, which was presented to the American Mathematical Society in August to honor its hundredth anniversary. Many of AWM’s programs were named after Emmy Noether or Sonia Kovalevsky, and the organization worked hard to win the allegiance of contemporary women with impressive research records and elite institutional affiliations. Other AWM members, however, felt that this focus on women at the highest levels of mathematical achievement devalued “ordinary” women in mathematics. Most female mathematicians—like most male mathematicians—were never going to do exceptional cutting-edge research. Most AWM members taught in respectable but non-elite institutions, where they worked hard to support their students’ mathematical and personal development. These women often had few or no female colleagues in their departments, and just by being at the front of a college classroom they disrupted the notion—often held by their students—that women can’t do math. During the Joint Meetings, several women at teaching-oriented institutions quietly indicated to me that they often felt marginalized by AWM’s focus on elite mathematicians. A few of them told me, with pain in their voices, that AWM’s writers and speakers sometimes seemed to suggest that they weren’t really mathematicians, because they devoted their careers to teaching math rather than doing research. In addition, it wasn’t clear (even to me) whether AWM’s leadership intended to include women who did applied math, or whether their focus on realworld problems meant they were too far “below” women who did “pure” math to be included in AWM’s mission. It seemed to me that AWM should embrace and encourage all women in mathematics, using an inclusive understanding of what that meant. So I tried to do what I could to make AWM more affirming of women who had ordinary mathematical careers. It wasn’t my place to shape policy or make big decisions, but I could make lots of little decisions and try to be inclusive and welcoming to any woman who was interested in mathematics, whatever her professional situation.

652

L. Kenschaft

These concerns also resonated with my personal experiences of AWM. Most of my week-to-week interactions were with one member of AWM’s board, who often berated me and not infrequently screamed at me. I realized this wasn’t personal when I went to the Wellesley Post Office to put my name on AWM’s bulk mailing permit, and the postal clerks gathered around to ask me how this person was treating me. As I watched her over the course of a year, I realized that how she treated people was highly correlated with her evaluation of their place in a hierarchy. She could be very charming to people she considered her peers or above, many of whom thought she was wonderful. She could be casually dismissive of AWM members who, in her opinion, had failed to achieve. And she was frequently harsh and disparaging towards those of us in service roles. (To be clear: this was not AWM’s president, Rhonda Hughes, who was always lovely—and very busy teaching at Bryn Mawr College and raising two small children.) I had planned to stay at AWM for several years, but I decided that one year of this was more than enough. The next person AWM hired—also a brand-new college graduate—lasted just a few months. Then AWM hired Tricia Cross, who had worked for the American Mathematical Society and organized its centennial celebration, and had a lot more experience. She stayed for three years. For many years I thought about AWM as little as possible. I went on to get a masters in theological studies and a doctorate in American studies, taught at Boston University and Harvard University for a few years, and then devoted my time to lay leadership in a Unitarian Universalist congregation and racial justice work, including organizing to end mass incarceration in my state and teaching adult education courses about Islam. I remained very interested in gender issues, and my most recent book is a co-authored textbook on gender inequality that offers a global and historical comparative perspective (Gender Inequality in Our Changing World, Routledge, 2015). I looked back on my year at AWM as a bleak, hard time that I wished hadn’t happened. More than thirty years later, though, I can see that I learned a lot from that year. I was raised in a white professional-class family of teachers and professors, and I attended elite colleges and universities. My time at AWM raised my awareness of social class in a way that nothing else in my early experiences could. While it was painful to be so often treated as “lesser than,” it also made me more inclined to listen carefully when other people spoke or wrote about their own experiences of being treated poorly because of a category they belonged to. That year also made me deeply skeptical of the meritocratic argument that equity means allowing every individual an equal chance of rising to the top. I now believe in my bones that a decent society has to treat everyone well, whether or not they have the talents, circumstances, and luck required for exceptional achievement. Looking back now, I can also see that the discontent I observed among AWM members soon led to big changes in AWM’s priorities and public messaging. The year after I left AWM awarded its first NSF-AWM travel grants, which made the Joint Meetings and other conferences more accessible to a few of AWM’s lessprivileged members and also sent a larger message about AWM’s desire to be inclusive. The next year AWM sponsored its first event at a Society for Industrial and

AWM’s Executive Director 1987–1988: Growing Up with AWM

653

Applied Mathematics national meeting, and from then on applied mathematics was fully included in AWM’s programming. The following year AWM awarded its first Louise Hay Award for Excellence in Mathematics Education. It also hosted a panel on “Mathematics in the Public Policy Arena” at an AAAS meeting and published a booklet titled “Careers that Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences,” both of which painted a broad picture of mathematical careers. In just a few years, AWM’s scope expanded remarkably. Both AWM and I were growing up.

Part XI

AWM in Her Twenties: Perspectives from Presidents

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President Jill P. Mesirov

I heard about the AWM when I arrived at UC Berkeley in 1974 for my first job following my PhD. There I met Lenore Blum, who was on the faculty at Mills College, and it was she who told me about AWM, then only three years old, its goals and activities, etc. Everything she said rang true to me as on my arrival in the Berkeley math department I was met with comments about how I got the offer because I was a woman. Interestingly, I think today there are still those who feel women are getting an unfair push into positions in strong departments, they are just more discreet about expressing their views. But enough of that! In 1980, I became a member-at-large of the AWM Executive Committee, filling Bhama Srinivasan’s position when she became AWM president-elect. What I said in my election statement still holds today, “As a woman and a mathematician, I feel a responsibility to support other women mathematicians.” I emphasized the importance of role models. At the time, many women completed their undergraduate and graduate educations without having any contact with a woman mathematician. In that regard I was fortunate to have met with Lesley Sibner and Karen Uhlenbeck during my graduate student years; later we became good friends. It was Rhonda Hughes who encouraged me to run for president of the AWM, I would be the ninth, following in her footsteps (see Fig. 1). I assumed the presidency in 1989 soon after the birth of my second child. In my first president’s report in the newsletter, I stressed the importance of those of us who were professionally active, as mathematicians in whatever venue, to support our young women as trainees and at the beginning of their research or teaching careers. I firmly believed that “through our collective experience and efforts we [could] increase the number of active women in the mathematical sciences and bring their work to the attention of

J. P. Mesirov () UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_58

657

658

J. P. Mesirov

Fig. 1 Seated: Alice Schafer, Carol Wood, Jill Mesirov, Rhonda Hughes. Standing: Ruth Charney, Bettye Anne Case, Eleanor Jones, Sue Geller, Jenny Baglivo. 1990 Joint Summer Meeting in Columbus, OH. Photo courtesy of AMS

the rest of the community.” In addition, I felt we should broaden our membership to “include more of our colleagues in statistics, operations research, and computer science, so that we become an association for women in the mathematical sciences.” Over the next two years we made substantial progress toward meeting these goals. The efforts to support young women in mathematics took many forms of which two were notable and continue to this day. The first was the Alice T. Schafer Undergraduate Prize in Mathematics which was born at the January 1989 meeting of the executive committee in Phoenix with a motion by Rhonda Hughes. The prize was to honor Alice on her retirement for her training of generations of Wellesley College women in mathematics as well as for her many years of service to AWM and helping to provide it a home at Wellesley. Fundraising to support the prize began in the spring and by 1991 we raised about $20,000 to provide a substantial base. I was able to announce the first Schafer prize winners—Linda Green (U. of Chicago) and Elizabeth Wilmer (Harvard U.)—in spring of 1990. It gives me great pleasure to say that both women went on to get PhDs in mathematics and continue in the profession. As of this writing, Green teaches at the University of North Carolina, and Wilmer is a member and the former chair of the mathematics

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President

659

department at Oberlin College. The prize continues to this day due to donations by other societies during its first year and ongoing contributions from the AWM membership. The second achievement was the receipt of funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) that enabled us to start the AWM workshops for graduate students, postdocs, and new PhDs at the AMS-MAA Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) and the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Annual Meeting. I modeled these workshops on mentoring workshops held by the Computing Research Association’s committee on women of which I had been a member. They included both mentoring by senior women and poster sessions for attendees to share their work. Poster sessions were a new activity at a mathematics meeting in those days. The first workshop was held January of 1991 at the same time as AWM’s 20th anniversary celebration. More about our nascent relationship with SIAM and the anniversary celebration follow below. I was the first full-time applied mathematician to serve as AWM president, and in fact the first who worked in industry rather than taking the traditional academic path. Thus, it was important to me that we recognize our colleagues in these areas and to broaden our activities to be relevant to them. These relationships would also serve to involve other applied mathematicians in AWM and to encourage students, and even more senior mathematicians, to pursue applied mathematics. Fundamental to this effort, I felt it was important “to build and strengthen our relationships with professional societies in the mathematical sciences beyond the MAA and AMS.” I reached out to SIAM and the society for operations research (ORSA) and both responded quite positively. In March 1989, at a Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences workshop Ivar Stakgold agreed to the first AWM session at the 1990 SIAM National Meeting in Chicago. This was a joint AWM-SIAM panel on mathematics in industry which I ran and marked the beginning of a long productive relationship between the two organizations. At the summer AMS-MAA JMM in Boulder that year we ran a reciprocal AWM panel Women in Operations Research: Their Work and Experiences, and continued to increase representation of applied mathematics in our annual and summer meeting programs. We also reached out to other societies. In October of 1990, AWM co-sponsored a symposium with the American Association for University Women and the Society of Women Engineers, Women in Math and Science: Pipeline to the Twenty First Century. Beth Ruskai organized an AWM-sponsored program at the March 1991 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in honor of our 20th anniversary; and in April 1991 AWM co-sponsored a national meeting with the American Water Works Association, Expanding the Vision of Opportunity in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Finally, we can’t overestimate the influence our Exxon-funded booklet Careers That Count: Opportunities in the Mathematical Sciences had on numerous undergraduates. It described a range of possible mathematically-related opportunities through the eyes of women mathematicians and was AWM’s best known publication at the time. I should also note some of the other initiatives that began during my tenure. Knowing how much we needed more professional help in the Wellesley office,

660

J. P. Mesirov

Fig. 2 Tricia Cross and Jill Mesirov at the AWM table, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

I convinced Tricia Cross to consider leaving the AMS to apply for the job of executive director. She assumed that position at the end of Rhonda’s term and brought serious organizational experience with her. Tricia would prove to be my right hand during my term (see Fig. 2) and helped to push through many of our initiatives especially in fundraising. She raised money from Exxon for our operating expenses, a rare type of gift, and used part of that to start our informal lunches with undergrads, then went back to them successfully to raise more funds to permit the development of the AWM resource center at Wellesley. These funds also supported a number of infrastructure improvements (see the list of AWM activities from 1989 to 1991 in the Appendix). Thanks to another key motion of Rhonda Hughes to the executive committee, we established the Louise Hay Award in her memory to

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President

661

recognize achievement in mathematics education and announced it on the MAA’s 75th anniversary. Finally, no one can serve as president of an organization without the help and support of a large number of people. I am no different, and so I feel I must give credit where it is due to those without whom I couldn’t have accomplished all the things you see in the list of activities below. First and foremost, my family, Dick, Isaac, and Sam, who were always supportive and tried not to complain (too much) about the extra trips I had to take. Next, Tricia Cross, who did a spectacular job as AWM executive director and Rhonda Hughes, my predecessor, for easing my transition and originating the ideas for the Schafer Prize and the Hay Award. Carol Wood, my successor, a continuing source of well-reasoned advice and comments, as was Linda Keen. Alice Schafer, who was instrumental in the transition periods at the Wellesley office and was a great source of information on past history and practice. Anne Leggett (see Fig. 3) who never complained when my Newsletter reports were late and always corrected my errors (spelling and otherwise). Thinking Machines Corporation, long defunct, for its generous contributions of release time, expenses, and administrative support during my term of office. As I am writing this to mark the 50th anniversary of the AWM, I would be remiss in not saying that as soon as I took office in 1989 we began planning for the AWM’s 20th anniversary. What a wonderful occasion to mark the end of my presidency. We planned a celebratory program for the January 1991 JMM that included a

Fig. 3 Anne Leggett and Jill Mesirov as AWM honors Anne Leggett’s outstanding service, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

662

J. P. Mesirov

Fig. 4 Dancing with my mathematician husband Dick Gross, Tricia Cross is behind us, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

symposium The Future of Women in Mathematics, which featured junior women speakers within 10 years of degree. We also had a party with lots of good food, good music, and accomplished dancing by all (see Fig. 4)! In the next newsletter I wrote, “We have made some progress . . . there are also areas where much remains to be done . . . This has been a great and exciting time to be the President of the AWM. Happy Anniversary—we have a lot of things to celebrate!” Now at our 50th anniversary I have to say—has it really been that long? We have come so far and accomplished so much. I see young women today being recognized for both their talent and their accomplishments, and succeeding in many ways we didn’t think possible 50 years ago. Yes, there are issues and challenges but “they are strong, they are invincible” and I am proud to be a member of this wonderful community of women.

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President

663

Appendix: AWM Activities January 1989 to January 1991 Slightly edited version of my list in the January–February 1991 AWM Newsletter.

Panels • January 1989, JMM, Phoenix, AZ, Gender Differences in Mathematical Ability, Gila Hanna, Pat Rogers • August 1989, Joint Summer Meeting, Boulder, CO, Women in Operations Research: Their Work and Experiences, Margaret Brandeau, Janice Hammond, Margaret Wright • January 1990, JMM, Louisville, KY, Affirmative Action, Beverly Anderson, Lida Barrett, Mary Gray, Michael Reed • August 1990, Joint Summer Meeting, Columbus, OH Enrichment Programs in Urban Public Schools, Harvey Keynes, Jacqueline Rivers, Paul Sally • July 1990, SIAM Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, Applied Mathematics in Industry, Rosemary Chang, Linda Kaufman, Ann Stehney, Marjorie Stein, Cathy Willis

Sonia Kovalevsky High School Days • • • • • • •

1989 program supported in part by Exxon Seeking long-term support and creation of “how to” materials April 1989, Simmons College October 1989, Cleveland State University October 1989, Sweet Briar College March 1990, Rivier College April 1990, Simmons College

Graduate Student Outreach • University of Colorado at Boulder, August 1989 – In conjunction with Joint Summer Meeting; informal lunch with senior women mathematicians and local graduate students – Jointly funded with Exxon • Workshops for Graduate Students and Postdocs – To be run in conjunction with national meetings of AMS, MAA, SIAM – First workshop to be held at 20th Anniversary – Funded by NSF and ONR

664

J. P. Mesirov

Prizes and Awards • Alice T. Schafer Undergraduate Prize in Mathematics – – – – –

Funded by donations from AWM, MAA, AMS, and individuals Total received to date = $19,400 First prize awarded in April 1990 to Linda Green and Elizabeth Wilmer Seeking an additional endowment to make prize self-supporting Award ceremony to be held at Summer Business Meetings

• Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics Education – Awarded annually at the January Business Meeting – First awarded in January 1991 to Shirley Frye

Resource Center • At AWM office in Wellesley – Career information – Information on gender issues in mathematics – Resource information • Reorganizing and rewriting materials – – – – –

AWM Newsletter: new format Profiles of Women in Mathematics: The Emmy Noether Lecturers AWM Brochure Directory of Women in the Mathematical Sciences Careers for Women in Mathematics

• Exploring ways to create database of information • Supported in part by special grant from Exxon

20th Anniversary Celebration • The Future of Women in Mathematics – A symposium featuring 10 outstanding women mathematicians within 10 years of the PhD – To be held at the January 1991 Joint Meetings in San Francisco • Joint AWM-MAA-AMS invited address at January 1991 Joint Meetings • First NSF-ONR-sponsored workshop for women postdocs and graduate students • AAAS session on Mathematics and Public Policy, March 1991, Ingrid Daubechies, Mary Gray, Barbara Grosz, Fern Hunt, Mary Wheeler

Into the Nineties: Reflections from AWM’s Ninth President

665

Outreach to Other Societies • Creation of new category of member for other math societies – Affiliate member – Designated liaison • American Association of University Women, Co-sponsor for symposium, October 1990, Women in Science & Mathematics: Pipeline to the Year 2000 • Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics – Continuing presence at National Meeting – First joint panel: July 1990 – Membership mailing endorsed by SIAM President • American Water Works Association, Co-sponsor for conference Expanding the Vision of Opportunity in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics • Mathematical Association of America, Joint committee to coordinate the programs of MAA’s WAM project and AWM • Operations Research Society of America – Membership mailing – August 1989 panel (see above) • American Mathematical Society, joint exhibit at AAAS meeting

Noether Lectures at Joint Meetings • January 1989, Phoenix, AZ, Mary Wheeler • January 1990, Louisville, KY, Bhama Srinivasan • January 1991, San Francisco, CA, Alexandra Bellow

Speakers Bureau NSF Travel Grant Program • Three-year program to fund travel to research conferences for women mathematicians • Seeking renewal of grant

1991–1992 Plus and Minus : Reflections from AWM’s Tenth President Carol Wood

Combining mathematics and a young family filled my life in 1990. However, fate was cruel to the wonderful Louise Hay, who would have become AWM president in 1991 but for the recurrence of breast cancer. She died in October 1989. (Those of us of a certain age are led often to reflect on losses due to breast cancer, many of which current medical treatments would have prevented.) At the time I was on the AWM Executive Committee and Jill Mesirov was president. Previously I had worked with AWM president Rhonda Hughes to bring about her great idea of travel grants for women, one of the best things AWM has done. The NSF couldn’t make such small awards, but we were happy to do so, and to witness their positive impact. My PhD was granted in 1971, the year AWM was founded. When asked to step in for Louise, I felt I had no choice but to give back to an organization that had been important to me for two decades. I quickly saw the consequences, good and bad, of being the “official” woman in mathematics—not the one that the top schools wanted to hire but a spokesperson for women. There was an increase in awareness that women should be included at the table. While I had come to understand that AWM was largely a single-issue organization, one in which the AWM president was expected to be strongly engaged in the organizational work, it seemed to me that other larger organizations were seeing an increase in the level of engagement of their leaders. Certainly the two with whom I interacted often, Michael Artin as president of the AMS and Deborah Haimo of the MAA, were much more than figureheads. Mike told me that doing his job right required him to travel at least every other weekend. The two of them were very welcoming to me, as was Lida Barrett, past president of MAA, and they included me in policy matters, including some delicate

C. Wood () Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_59

667

668

C. Wood

Fig. 1 Three AWM presidents, Cora Sadosky, Carol Wood, Jill Mesirov, AWM Noether Lecturer dinner, 1997 JMM, San Diego, CA

ones. This meant more work for me, but I also had some fun at the table. Almost every woman has had the infuriating experience of making a suggestion at a meeting which is ignored until the same suggestion is made by a man. I read the claim that men do not tolerate being interrupted by women. In a particularly boring policy meeting involving someone I regarded as full of himself for little reason, I decided to test this claim. It took only a couple of tries before my clueless victim was red in the face and sputtering with rage! The AWM presidency is a four-year commitment, with first year as presidentelect and final year as past president. Thus I gained the friendship of Jill Mesirov and Cora Sadosky (see Fig. 1), my successor as president. My first task, in a deal with Jill Mesirov, was to organize a panel at the 1990 International Congress of Mathematicians in Kyoto (see Fig. 2). Some of the women mathematicians from Asia whom I approached to serve on the panel declined, citing vulnerability to prejudice, but ultimately the panel represented women from around the world, and was well attended. Getting AWM’s panel a venue at ICM was made possible by the Kyoto staff, my first lesson about the warm support AWM received from women working behind the scenes in mathematical organizations. A special shout-out goes to the memory of the AMS’s Hope Daly, the head of the AMS meetings departments, who never said no and helped AWM in many, many ways. As part of our deal, Jill organized an AWM workshop at the JMM in 1991, a lively celebration of our 20th anniversary which included lectures by prominent women, as well as recognition of the extraordinary service of Anne Leggett (newsletter editor) and Bettye Anne Case (meetings coordinator). The AWM

1991–1992 Plus and Minus : Reflections from AWM’s Tenth President

669

Fig. 2 AWM panel speakers luncheon, Carol Wood is sitting third from left, 1990 ICM, Kyoto, Japan. Photo courtesy of Carol Wood

workshops at the JMMs grew out of this 1991 celebration, and continue to showcase the work of early-career women mathematicians. I also inherited copies of Careers That Count from Jill. This booklet proved to be a widely popular and useful description of possible careers in mathematics (with all the examples just happening to be women). Requests flew in from mathematics programs, and—again with the help of women—packets of the booklets were mailed regularly from my Wesleyan office. Practical matters resulting from AWM’s expansion occupied much of my time. Wellesley College, longtime home of Alice Schafer, the second president of AWM, had provided AWM with free office space for years, mostly in the Wellesley infirmary, and ultimately in a temporary arrangement with the Wellesley mathematics department. Time ran out. I have an indelible memory of taking my daughter to college and standing on a campus corner at a public phone (remember those?) deciding where to send the moving truck. The AMS would have hosted us, but I was reluctant for AWM to be seen as too cozy with another organization. At the eleventh hour, Richard Herman, mathematician and dean of the College of Computer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the University of Maryland, offered us space, and the truck headed south (see Fig. 3). Also, we had four treasurers in rapid succession, including one overwhelmed by the expansion, and another deciding it was not the great career move she had anticipated, leaving me as de facto treasurer for some months. By 1992 the job landed in the steady hands of Judy Green, one of the founders of AWM and my sister-in-law. The executive director position also changed hands after the move to Maryland, and Dawn Wheeler brought her administrative energy to us, working alongside Judy to get AWM’s records into a professional state. AWM has always depended on volunteer efforts, and almost everyone said yes to AWM. However, AWM was being asked to do many things, and the notion that women should be self-sacrificing for the good of the organization struck me as outdated and counterproductive for careers. Thus arose

670

C. Wood

Fig. 3 From 1993 to 2005, AWM’s address was Room 4114 of the Computer & Space Sciences Building at the University of Maryland

the necessity of including staff support funds in our proposals to various agencies. Creating appropriate budgets and producing and copying proposals for my successor Cora Sadosky was work I could do, not glamorous but essential. Since Jill had provided essential support for me during a family crisis in summer 1991, I was happy to be able to pay help forward to Cora. Another singular moment for AWM came in early 1992 when the EC was being pressured to weigh in on a high-profile tenure case, one on which the community was badly divided and which threatened the health of our “one-issue” organization. A court action threatened, something many of us felt would work against future hiring of women. It was with profound admiration that I witnessed the drafting of AWM’s statement on dispute resolution. The statement was informed by the wisdom and experience of EC members, most especially Mary Gray and Eleanor Jones. It articulates the important considerations, while noting that it was not appropriate for AWM to take a stand on a case. While I do not know, and never asked to know, the details, the tenure case was resolved favorably for the candidate by her mathematics department after consultation with an external committee of mathematicians, an outcome consistent with AWM’s resolution. The forging of this resolution was by far the finest instance of a committee in action I have ever witnessed! The policy statement has survived and has been reaffirmed over the years (see the AWM website). AWM has always been concerned with how women mathematicians are portrayed, and especially with debunking the stereotypes presented to young girls. An example arose during my presidency when Talking Barbie dolls arrived on toy store shelves early in 1992. Each talking Barbie came with four phrases, selected randomly from a pool of 270. Some examples: “Let’s go to the mall” and “Put on music”: fine. “Math class is tough”: not fine. The president of Mattel was a woman, making it all the more frustrating to be stonewalled in my attempts to reach her. An outcry came from multiple quarters; according to news reports, the American

1991–1992 Plus and Minus : Reflections from AWM’s Tenth President

671

Association of University Women got through to Mattel and the math class phrase was removed. In preparing this article, I reread the AWM newsletters of 1990–1993. This was a trip down memory lane for me, as well as a bittersweet reminder of my dear friend Cora Sadosky who died in 2010. There are many things I recall about Cora and AWM, but here is the most indelible one. Cora was a fierce advocate for young women, and an elegant role model. Her response to a recurring life style question was firm and on point: fine if you want to marry, but take care whom you choose to marry! To me, she was emphasizing something which, like the dispute resolution statement, has stood the test of time.

Reflections of Chuu-Lian Terng, AWM’s Twelfth President Chuu-Lian Terng

When my good friend and former AWM president, Jill Mesirov, asked in late 1993 whether I would be willing to serve as AWM president from 1995 to 1997, I was very surprised that the nominating committee would ask me, since I had not been involved much in AWM and had a quite different cultural background. Although I have long been aware of the difficulties women mathematicians face, when I was younger I felt it better to ignore these difficulties and just work hard to be my best. But I was aware that many AWM members had contributed much time and effort to improve the climate for women mathematicians and I realized that I had benefited from their hard work, so I felt an obligation to take my turn working for AWM. Thus, even though my parents had taught me not to be outspoken and not to stand out, I accepted the position and tried to give it my best. It was also in 1994 that I started a research project with Karen Uhlenbeck on integrable systems, and she asked me to co-organize the Mentoring Program for Women Mathematicians at the Institute for Advanced Study. I was amazed to find that I, who had previously done so little for women in mathematics, was suddenly called to work on two such important programs. Karen and I jointly ran the Mentoring Program from 1994 to 2010, and we became quite close working on both the program and on joint research. This program, which has changed its name to Women in Mathematics, is currently (in 2020) run by Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Dusa McDuff, and Margaret Readdy, and has received the 2019 AMS Programs that Make a Difference Award. The year 1996 was AWM’s 25th anniversary (see Fig. 1), and one highlight of the celebration was the three-day Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) in Berkeley

C.-L. Terng () University of California, Irvine, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_60

673

674

C.-L. Terng

Fig. 1 At the AWM 25th anniversary luncheon, the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM) surprised us with a congratulatory presentation. NAM Executive Secretary Johnny Houston, AWM President Chuu-Lian Terng, NAM President John W. Alexander Jr., 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

Fig. 2 From left to right: Chuu-Lian Terng, Carol Wood, Lenore Blum, Alice Schafer, Gail Ratcliff, Constance Reid (Robinson’s sister), 1996 AWM Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference, MSRI, Berkeley, CA

(see Fig. 2). This conference was both successful and fully attended. My first job after my PhD degree was an instructorship at UC Berkeley from 1976 to 1978. I remembered getting a note in my mailbox stating that Julia Robinson would be

Reflections of Chuu-Lian Terng, AWM’s Twelfth President

675

appointed as tenured full professor at UC Berkeley around 1977. She had taught part time at Berkeley for years and had done outstanding research, yet she was only offered a tenured position after being elected to the National Academy of Sciences. But she was very modest and not at all bitter. During the time I was an instructor at UC Berkeley, the atmosphere for women was far from ideal. So it was very fortunate that I was part of the friendly and supportive differential geometry group led by S. S. Chern and I realized from this experience that it was highly important for women to have good mentors in the early stages of their careers in mathematics. As a result, in 1997 I submitted a grant proposal to NSF Program Director Lloyd Douglas, who was very supportive of women in mathematics, to establish the AWM Mentoring Travel Grants for Women program. I am highly pleased to see that this program is still running. My two years as AWM president went smoothly, due to the invaluable help of former AWM presidents, the many women mathematicians who volunteered their time, and the dedicated work of the AWM Coordinator Dawn Wheeler and Executive Director Joanna Wood Schot (see Fig. 3). Although AWM had several programs sponsored by grants from several different agencies, the grants provided no unrestricted operating funds for the office, so we also had a fundraising drive as part of AWM’s 25th anniversary celebration in 1996. At that time the AWM office was just a single room in the mathematics department of the University of Maryland although it had over 4500 members and

Fig. 3 Joanna Wood Schot, Cora Sadosky, Dawn Wheeler, Chuu-Lian Terng, 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

676

C.-L. Terng

many on-going programs. Dawn and Joanna handled the office work, Dawn and Betty Anne Case coordinated all the AWM meetings, and Anne Leggett edited the AWM newsletter (and has been a wonderful editor to this day). It was a miracle that although AWM did not (and still does not) have enough unrestricted funds, all its activities ran fairly smoothly. I remember Dawn was energetic, dedicated, and sometimes emotional, and Joanna was calm and helpful. I was sad to learn from the January 2020 newsletter that Joanna passed away a year ago and was moved to hear that she left AWM a very generous bequest in her will. I put up a primitive AWM website as part of my own site at Northeastern University in 1996. What a difference from the current website, which is so professionally done, informative, and easy to use! I have had a lot of enjoyment from it, looking up back issues of the newsletter and learning what is going on. I moved to UC Irvine in 2004 and, since UCI is on a quarter system, it has been difficult for me to attend the annual Joint Mathematics Meetings in January. Also, l feel it is important for younger women to become involved in AWM activities, so I have not done much volunteer work for AWM since that move. Yet UCI has benefited from the activities of AWM. For example, we had a successful Sonia Kovalevsky Math Day several years back with over 150 participants from local schools. And there is, since 2019, an AWM student chapter. I learned from the AWM website that membership is now about 3500, down from 4500 in the mid-1990s. Could this be because there is no longer as much open sexism, and so people feel that AWM is less necessary? I would argue that’s not the case given that many of us often hear in private conversations people saying that: there is too much pressure from the administration to hire more women, it is much easier for women to get jobs, we have tried so hard to hire women but with little success, we have three women faculty so we do not need to worry about hiring more, etc. Yet, as Lenore Blum mentions in this volume, the percentage of tenured women faculty in doctorate-granting institutions is still only 15%, perhaps only 9% more than 25 years ago. AWM has contributed greatly to the improvement of the status of women mathematicians in the past 49 years (e.g., see Fig. 4). As we celebrate its 50th anniversary, I hope that more women will go into mathematical sciences, become AWM members, make donations, and volunteer their time to work for AWM.

Reflections of Chuu-Lian Terng, AWM’s Twelfth President

677

Fig. 4 AWM panelists Kate Okikiolu, Susan Friedlander, Kathy Merrill, President Chuu-Lian Terng, panel on launching a career in mathematics, 1996 JMM, Orlando, FL

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President Sylvia Wiegand

My term as AWM president (1997–1999) was and remains a major highlight of my life. I have not done anything so earthshaking before or since. I appreciate this opportunity to reflect on times past, AWM, women in mathematics, and my presidency.

Family Background Many of my contemporaries had a lonely and sometimes even hostile time pursuing mathematics. Luckily for me, I have had the encouragement and examples of many mathematician family members to pull me through. Two primary examples were my paternal grandparents, Grace Chisholm Young and William “Will” Henry Young. Against all odds, Grace had persevered and received a PhD in mathematics in 1895 under the guidance of Felix Klein at the University of Göttingen—making her, in Klein’s words “the first woman to pass the normal examination in Prussia for the doctor’s degree” (1939, pp. 179–180).1

1 Grace attended lectures and took the doctoral exam at Göttingen as well as writing a thesis. In 1874, two decades earlier, Sonia Kovalevsky received a PhD from Göttingen in absentia by submitting a thesis without taking the doctoral exam or attending lectures there (although she had attended lectures at Heidelberg). Göttingen had the reputation for granting PhDs to foreigners in absentia and had previously granted a PhD to a woman (Koblitz, 1993, pp. 88–89, 121–123). A century earlier, in 1787, Dorothea Schlözer received a PhD in philosophy from Göttingen by taking an oral examination (Schiebinger, 1989, pp. 257–260).

S. Wiegand () University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_61

679

680

S. Wiegand

Will had been her tutor at Cambridge University. Although he had neither pursued a PhD nor mathematical research before, they began an intense mathematical research collaboration soon after their marriage. The collaboration continued while they raised six children. Together, Grace and Will wrote over 220 mathematical articles and several books on integration, set theory, measure theory, and geometry. In most of these articles, Will was listed as the sole author. This was the result of an agreement between them. They wanted to build up his reputation, so that he could get a university position. At that time there were no university positions for women. Will’s unconventional career path made it difficult for him to get such a position too, but easier than for her. Will became a professor at Liverpool, president of the London Mathematical Society (1922 to 1924) and president of the International Mathematical Union (1929 to 1936). He was awarded the London Mathematical Society’s De Morgan Medal (1917) and the Sylvester Medal of the Royal Society (1928). Grace was the sole author of several later publications, including her important work on the Denjoy-Saks-Young theorem on differentials (named for her). Many mathematicians have been encouraged to go into mathematics by their fathers. Few of us have had mathematician mothers, but that is changing. My father Laurence Chisholm Young and two sisters were inspired by their mathematician parents to study mathematics; all of the six children were encouraged intellectually.2 Laurence was a well-known mathematician based at the University of Wisconsin. He encouraged his six children intellectually and instituted a secondary school mathematics talent search throughout Wisconsin, still going strong after 50-odd years. Many famous mathematicians visited our home and often gave me fun math puzzles to try to solve. My father also encouraged me, even got me to go to his graduate set theory course when I was still in high school. (The other 25 students didn’t know that I was in high school, but the only other female student thought I dressed strangely.) In 1998, I accompanied Laurence, then almost 93 years old, to Minneapolis, where he gave an invited address at a conference in honor of John Ball’s 50th birthday. He began his talk by addressing “Ladies and Gentleman,” then looked up and asked “Are there any ladies?” There were two (out of about 200 people). Laurence mentioned that his own mother had been a mathematician and that he supported women in mathematics. Then Laurence delivered an entertaining and stirring lecture on his measures using variegated curves. He described how he had been led to generalized (e.g.,

2 Rosalind Cecilia Tanner earned a PhD in mathematics and became a well-known mathematics historian. She did not receive the degree because it was earned at Girton College, Cambridge, many years before Cambridge finally began to award degrees to women in 1948. Helen Marion Canu earned a masters degree in 1927 at Bryn Mawr College; she worked on a PhD until her first child became seriously ill. (Her death at age 44 prevented her from going back later.) Grace and Will’s daughter Janet became a family doctor and son Patrick was a PhD chemist; their first son Francis, seemingly the most brilliant child, tragically died at age 17 in World War I.

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

681

zigzag) curves by his youthful experiences bicycling uphill, where you make zigzags to avoid the steep inclines, by sailing against the wind, where you are continually tacking the boat along a zigzag pattern, and by cross-country skiing uphill—you can’t point the skis straight up or else they’d slide down, so you put them perpendicular to the slope and go back and forth. These zigzag curves were remembered and later led to his development of Young measure theory, which Jean Taylor mentioned in her Hedrick lectures as appropriate for studying crystals. At the end Laurence quoted Lebesgue: “We are all of us young, but some of us have been young longer than others!” My mother, Elizabeth Dunnett Young, not a mathematician, was a gentle, kind, Englishwoman, a little lacking in self-confidence, but sincere and demonstrative in her appreciation of others. She always looked for and found reasons to admire everyone she met. She loved her family and friends and had a deep respect for all living things. She captivated little children. Her empathy was not limited to humans: she “rescued” sickly plants she found in retail outlets and was a dedicated bird and waterfowl advocate. Her mother, Agnes Mecklenberg Dunnett, was a brilliant pioneering woman doctor. Agnes always insisted on being addressed as “Doctor Dunnett”; she had worked hard for that. Agnes’s practice even supported the large family when my grandfather’s business folded. Elizabeth, who was Agnes’s driver and a nursing assistant for a time, attended an elite English public school. She regretted that she had not had the opportunity to go to university; it was considered more important for her four brothers. She felt inferior about her lack of higher education in our highly educated family, yet she outclassed the rest of the family in people skills, and she constantly sought learning and involvement in literature, singing and languages, which she loved all her life. Although Elizabeth was a selfless modest homemaker, many of her friends were high achievers; she encouraged them, was impressed by them and appreciated them. I cannot begin to enumerate the many ways I benefited from her encouragement and support. Now, too late, I regret not giving her more encouragement herself. I owe her a great deal.

University of Nebraska–Lincoln Another mathematician in my family is Roger Wiegand, my husband. We are both retired after essentially forty years at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL). He has been a fantastic supporter of me and of many other women in mathematics. Our two children are a historian and a mortgage lender; we shared childcare and household duties. We often write joint papers or discuss together stumbling blocks in our separate research projects. For 17 of my years at UNL, I was the only female tenure-track or permanent faculty member out of about 40. I found friends in the Women in Science group at the university and helped to organize two conferences to encourage women undergrads in math and science in the 1970s.

682

S. Wiegand

Things changed when Jim Lewis, a great supporter of women in mathematics in Nebraska and nationally, became chair of the math department in the late 1980s. Under Jim’s leadership and with the goodwill and efforts of many others in the department, especially Judy Walker, Wendy Hines, and Roger, the UNL math department became a very friendly place for women in the 1990s. The department won a national award in 1998 for “mentoring women in the PhD program,” which Judy accepted on behalf of the department from President Bill Clinton. Judy and Jim used the award money to initiate the Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women—it is still going on and is extremely popular. Nebraska has had record percentages of women receiving PhDs ever since, e.g., 9 women out of 17 math PhDs granted in 2018. The men agree that making a friendly climate for women has made the math department better for everyone.

AWM Presidency, 1997–1999 Most of the experiences that come to mind about being AWM president were wonderful, and I am grateful to have had the experience. That said, initially the prospect of being AWM president was quite daunting. On the other hand, I wanted to help other women as I had been helped, and that prevailed. When Mary Gray, Alice Schafer, and Lenore Blum started AWM, I was impressed and inspired. These three “brazen hussies” were initially scowled at and jeered by some, but they persevered, thus inspiring quieter and more reserved women (like me) to be stronger, more confident, and more successful. And it was a relief that everything was not the task of one person alone! Thanks are due to everyone who helped me and AWM through the years of my presidency. I’m grateful for the wise women, particularly Sue Geller and Carol Wood, who listened and advised me about dealing with people. ChuuLian Terng guided me through everything when I was president-elect—she even warned me that email would take at least three hours a day—it’s probably more now. Jean Taylor, the next president-elect, was also extremely helpful. At the start of my AWM presidency, I was ambitious, wanting to open up opportunities for women in the mathematical sciences. I focused on what tangible things I could accomplish for women in the mathematical sciences in my term. But a large part of the job involved intangibles like engaging people, writing reports, encouraging women, and promoting awareness of women in mathematics and of AWM. Now I see that an important part of the job required my mother’s gentle touch: to enable a successor to lead, to allow others to contribute their talents and visions, to ensure the organization will thrive. It’s important to build a community and encourage others to participate in the organization. During my time as president, AWM had very little money, and not many volunteers—such a rude awakening for me! AWM had about 4500 members in 1998; some were complimentary memberships, most were not full dues-paying members. Several dedicated AWM “angels” wrote grants for the annual and semiannual workshops for graduate students and new postdocs. And there were devoted

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

683

Fig. 1 Bettye Anne Case, Andrea Bertozzi, Gail Ratcliff, Linda Rothschild, Alice Schafer, Tina Straley, Sylvia Wiegand, discussion on academic job diversity, AWM Julia Robinson Celebration of Women in Mathematics Conference, MSRI, 1996

volunteers in the trenches doing a spectacular job of putting together meetings and the newsletter—e.g., Bettye Anne Case (see Fig. 1) and Anne Leggett. For each new program, however, we needed new volunteers because the small group of faithful volunteers was already far too busy. The staff was minuscule and overtaxed; they certainly could not take on more chores. To do anything else at all, I needed to apply to various agencies to fund other activities. I called people to ask for donations to AWM, and to explain the need to build a legacy. Fortunately, my department chair Jim Lewis arranged a course release for me and use of the department staff. As president, rather than starting up new programs and making radical changes, I mostly settled for continuing programs and working for their success. Due to UNL’s generosity in covering most expenses arising from my presidency, I was able to travel often while I was president. I was eager to have reports and pictures to celebrate and remember what we had done, so I wrote articles about AWM events that occurred during my travels for the AWM Newsletter.

Going to Meetings as AWM President As mathematical scientists, we have many opportunities to travel to interesting places. Become a mathematician and see the world! That certainly was true for me. Both alone and with Roger and while AWM president and afterwards, I have been fortunate to travel extensively. We have enjoyed learning about other people’s perspectives, operating procedures, and traditions. Basically most people everywhere are kind, helpful, interesting and worthwhile. At least we have encountered so many who were! And we appreciate their friendships immensely.

684

S. Wiegand

As AWM president, I organized many discussions about women in math, often while traveling for research. Sometimes I was invited to speak to a group; sometimes I just put up a sign giving a place and time for a “Discussion on women and math” and, miraculously, people showed up. Revisiting these discussions gives a measure of the times and the climate for women in math, and a feeling of déjà vu—not that much has changed. Often the “program” for the discussions consisted simply of each participant briefly giving their name, position, and thoughts about women in mathematics. Invariably that led to a wonderful exchange of comments and ideas, whether we were in South Africa, Michigan, Morocco, or other locales. At a 2014 meeting in Kerala, India, when his turn came to speak, a young man commented that his parents had made sure he got a good education but his talented sister was expected to stay home, have a family, and care for the parents, as is traditional in India. Most of the young women present agreed this was a problem, but since then I have met many marvelous women mathematicians from India. Having an organization for women in mathematics in India has helped a great deal.

AWM Lunch in Pretoria With the assistance of AWM Past President Cora Sadosky and Marie Vitulli, AWM representative to the Joint Committee on Women,3 we organized an AWM lunch in Pretoria at the 1997 First Joint Meeting of the AMS and the South African Mathematical Society, attended by about 20 women and five men, which included twelve Americans. The South African women described how it felt to be a female mathematician there. It appeared that South Africa lagged behind the US in acceptance of women mathematicians. Many comments at the opening ceremony of the meeting had been about working toward racial harmony and cooperation, which may take precedence over gender equity. One South African woman commented at the lunch: “It’s a man’s world, but the women do the work,” and the others agreed. They mentioned the isolation, the difficulty of networking, the lack of role models for young women, the problems of child care at meetings, and their discomfort in approaching male senior lecturers at their institutions. In 1997, there were only about five women mathematicians at the rank of associate or full professor in all of South Africa. AWM hoped to establish more ties with these women and to provide them with free AWM Newsletter subscriptions. (Nowadays, anyone can access the Newsletter online.)

3 From the AMS website: “The Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences (JCW), founded in 1971 as a committee of the American Mathematical Society (AMS), is now a joint committee of nine mathematical and statistical societies. The Joint Committee on Women serves primarily as a forum for communication among member organizations about the ways in which each organization enhances opportunities for women in the mathematical and statistical sciences.”

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

685

Morocco The opening ceremonies of an International Workshop on Commutative Ring Theory held October 27 through November 1, 1997, in Fes, Morocco, included gracious speeches by dignitaries at the University in Fes, welcoming us to this land close to the origin of algebra. Participants from Austria, Brazil, France, Italy, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, the US—five of us, and of course Morocco were lodged in a government vacation complex in the little town of Imouzzer, near the mountains and an hour bus trip away from the busy metropolis of Fes. Organizer Salah Kabbaj made sure we were comfortable, happy and enlightened. We had several authentic Moroccan meals, including couscous prepared by Salah and his family; one meal was served in a beautiful house and another in an elegant museum which housed the world’s smallest copy of the Koran. The week’s program was pretty full: three days of invited participant talks, mostly in the less formal atmosphere at Imouzzer, where we sat on sofas, followed by three oral thesis presentations at the university for the remaining day and a half. These theses were more than we would expect of our students and may have been closer to the qualifications for tenure in the US. The thesis I reviewed contained six substantial research articles. In Morocco, most educated people speak French; they also learn English in school but don’t study it as long. It was fun trying out high school French learned 35 years before. The Moroccans were more open to me than two years before—they knew me better—and I had more good conversations with them. One participant was amazed about my habit of taking notes during the talks (the Moroccans seem to remember without notes). In addition to the interesting mathematics presented (prime ideals, polynomials, chain conditions, among many other topics), I especially remember the exotic atmosphere, the friendliness and the lively conversation. At the home of Amina Benbachir in Fes, we held a discussion over tea and cakes about being a woman mathematician in Morocco. The Moroccan women were enthusiastic about meeting other women mathematicians; in their culture, women do not initiate conversations with men. Professor Soumaya Afilal came all the way from the University of Tétouan just for the women’s discussion. The women estimated that fewer than ten percent of the mathematicians in Morocco were female at that time. There were 11 women altogether in the two math departments in Fes—seven at the main university campus and four at the other. Only one held the rank of professor in Fes, and there were three other female professors in Morocco. At Tétouan there were five women on the mathematics faculty, two of them professors. Generally the women professors were young. Most of the women had children. The culture and the tradition that women bear the responsibility of family duties made it difficult to maintain their research. Afilal, on the other hand, said that she and her husband, both mathematicians, share household duties and the care of their (then) six-month-old baby. In halting French I told them how the AWM started in 1971—how we had noticed that women were invisible and how we wished to change that. I explained

686

S. Wiegand

Fig. 2 Women mathematicians in Morocco. Back: Amina Benbachir, Soumaya Afilal, Souad Kharroubi, Majda Amrani, Zahra Elkhayyiri, Valentina Barucci, Zejli Hakima. Front: Florida Girolami, Anissa Idrissi, Amina Yacoubi, Souad Ameziane, Sophie Frisch

how AWM had grown since then and presented many programs at meetings, including featured speakers, and encouraged younger women. Valentina Barucci of Rome told how the European Women in Mathematics (EWM) began about 15 years later (1986) and discussed their programs, which are mostly scientific. The Moroccan women hoped to start an association for women in mathematics in Morocco. Just as we started to delve more deeply into our situations, identifying problems and possible solutions, we had to stop. Some of the women needed to be home for their children. We quickly took a group picture (see Fig. 2). In smaller groups, we learned more about the difficulties that Moroccan mathematicians have, particularly the women. Some wanted to study and attend conferences abroad, but they needed to be accepted and invited, and they needed funds before they could leave Morocco. Perhaps some would apply to our university graduate programs. They wanted to be able to get copies of journal articles. They did have easy access to photocopiers and planned to copy and share the AWM materials I had brought. We sent some copies of the AWM Newsletter to Morocco and sent the participants a list of all the addresses. The Moroccans did not have reliable email at that time.

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

687

Board of Mathematical Sciences At the Board of Mathematical Sciences meeting on November 6, 1997 in Bethesda, I reported on AWM activities and explained why there still was a need for an AWM. Of course many of the BMS members already knew about AWM, in fact many were good friends of AWM. We had a lively discussion, and there were several questions afterwards. Many of these were answered by Lynne Billard, past president of the American Statistical Association; she was keeping statistics on women in academia. Regarding whether women had an easier time getting jobs, it appeared that for entry-level positions women and men had roughly equal opportunity. At the level of promotion or tenure, however, the percentages had not changed over the years. There was essentially no improvement for women at that time. Perhaps that was because, as various studies show, women’s work is perceived to be of lower quality than the same work done by men. This may have led to the perception that women have not made major contributions and may similarly affect other criteria for evaluating a person for moving up in the ranks. Possibly women were not choosing to stay in mathematics or go into mathematics, because younger women had seen so few established women that they thought it was not a possible career for them. For more information, see Billard (1991).

AWM Mathematicians and Families Panel At the January 1998 Joint Meetings,4 AWM sponsored a panel entitled Mathematicians and Families (see Fig. 3). Many possible directions were suggested by this title: examples of mathematical families, how mathematicians fit their families into their lives, surviving as a mathematical couple, mathematical groups that are like families. As a result of questions from the audience and of the main concerns of several panelists, the discussion focused on the how-to-manage aspect, with an undercurrent of how to make our profession and world more family-friendly for present and future generations. I was the moderator. The panelists, all mathematicians, began by giving short introductions: • Leslie Gruis, National Security Agency, was a single mother with one small child. • Craig L. Huneke, then at Purdue, the son of a mathematician, married to a professor of Russian (also then at Purdue); they had two children, both in elementary school.

4 From the AMS website: “The Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) are a mathematics conference hosted annually in early January by the American Mathematical Society (AMS) and the Mathematical Association of America (MAA). Frequently, several other national mathematics organizations also participate. The meeting is the largest gathering of mathematicians in the United States, and the largest annual meeting of mathematicians in the world.”

688

S. Wiegand

Fig. 3 Stephen Kennedy, Catherine Roberts, Leslie Gruis, Sylvia Wiegand, Craig Huneke, Suzanne Lenhart, Rhonda Hughes, panel on mathematicians and families, 1998 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

• Rhonda J. Hughes, Bryn Mawr College, had two children from a previous marriage and was then handling a commuting marriage that added three stepchildren. • Stephen F. Kennedy, Carleton College, had two small children and at that time shared one position with his wife, also a mathematician. • Suzanne M. Lenhart, University of Tennessee, had one child, and her spouse was a house-husband at that time. • Catherine A. Roberts was then at Northern Arizona University, where she and her husband had tenure-track appointments in different departments; they had one small child and another on the way. In the introductions there were several references to the “two-body problem.” Kennedy’s solution, to share a position, was partly in order to have more time with the children, and partly because getting two jobs together seemed unlikely and living apart was “not an option.” In response to “How can you afford a house?” Kennedy and Lenhart agreed that it wasn’t easy with just one salary. Kennedy later made his position full-time; both couples have some other resources. Roberts and Huneke initially had difficulty getting satisfactory positions with their spouses but eventually succeeded. Huneke regretted that he and his wife delayed having children until settled with two jobs; he turned 60 when they finished school. On the positive side they could afford childcare and help. What is it like to be a mathematician with a family? “When our first son was born it was the most exciting thing in my life!” according to Huneke, who added that the baby euphoria even spurred his research, despite the new time demands. Family life with its forced downtime may help you keep your sanity, ensuring that you stay fresh and relax occasionally. Lenhart was grateful that her family arrangement

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

689

and flexibility at work permitted her to be a “soccer mom.” We mathematicians (perhaps because we are somewhat childlike) especially delight in children’s natural curiosity: Kennedy reported his son Sam, then age 4.5, “recently announced, with something close to awe in his voice, that three fours is the same as four threes.” What policies were there then for parents of infants? Fortunately the situation has improved since this panel, but panelists described how they saw the situation then: Women who are in temporary positions while pregnant may not be eligible for leaves. Full-time workers may find it easier. Formerly at academic institutions the best arrangement available was to take as long as desired but without pay. The situation in 1998 appeared to range from some pay for one week up to a full semester with pay. In academia, the tenure clock might be stopped temporarily for pregnancy. Some women don’t take time off and may have a hard time; one woman mentioned that, in hindsight, she had been under too much stress and should have taken more time off. Hughes “hates the message ‘You can have it all”’; she hoped that we might change the system to make it better. To manage everything one has to be incredibly efficient.

International Congresses of Mathematicians In an international group of women mathematicians, there is always something to say about “What is good and what is difficult about being a woman in mathematics in your country?” This is often the lead-off question at panels on women in mathematics at International Congresses of Mathematicians and International Congresses of Women Mathematicians,5 for example, at the 1998 Berlin ICM panel, organized by AWM and EWM.6 The most startling response to this question occurred much more recently, at a panel at the 2014 International Congress of Women Mathematicians in Korea: a woman from Africa said a major difficulty for women in mathematics there was “possible death!” Many of the problems are the same as in the US, however. For example, even if women can get PhDs, they often have a harder time getting jobs, status, and good salaries than men. The number of women speakers at the ICMs is an indication of how women have advanced in mathematics and how well their achievements are recognized. At the 1998 Berlin ICM, Dusa McDuff was the one woman among 21 plenary lecturers. But Cathleen Morawetz’s lecture, in a plenary slot, was given to an overflowing crowd who received it enthusiastically. There were 11 other invited addresses by women out of a total of 165. 5 From the IMU website: “International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) is the most significant meeting in pure and applied mathematics, and one of the oldest scientific congresses. The first ICM took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1897. ICMs are organized every 4 years by the International Mathematical Union in partnership with organizers from the host country.” In recent years, there have been International Congresses of Women Mathematicians in conjunction with the ICMs. 6 The text of the panelists’ remarks and photos appeared in the January–February 1999 AWM Newsletter.

690

S. Wiegand

For comparison, before the 1990s, Emmy Noether in 1932 had been the only female plenary lecturer at any ICM. Then in 1990 (Kyoto) Karen Uhlenbeck became the second woman plenary lecturer; in 1994 (Zurich) there were two, Ingrid Daubechies and Marina Ratner. In 1994, eight women delivered invited addresses at the ICM out of a total of 152, and AWM and EWM jointly sponsored an Emmy Noether Lecture given by Olga Ladyzhenskaya.

Other Travel as AWM President For my talks at various venues as AWM president and later, I developed a kind of “dog and pony show.” This largely consisted of my asking and answering questions, and relating answers other audiences had given. The issues we discussed at talks depended upon the audience, their backgrounds and interests. I reported on some of these discussions in my president’s columns in the AWM Newsletter and in the travel notes that were often appended to the columns. One question asked in discussions, “Would you consider going to a high school math camp for girls?” was a sensitive one, but more so was “Would you tell anyone you went?” Even the girls who attended Nebraska’s first All Girls All Math camp “just couldn’t” tell their classmates.7 Perhaps a very close friend could be told. Among all the high school groups I talked to as AWM President, only students in Fairbanks, Alaska, saw no stigma about attending a math camp—the Alaskans said “It’s just like with a soccer camp.” In later years, math camps became more acceptable—the Nebraska camp girls don’t keep it a secret anymore.

DC and University of Maryland AWM (and I) participated in two historic firsts in Washington, DC, in March 1997: (1) a mathematics talk for legislators in the House of Representatives and (2) a press conference at which presidents of 18 scientific societies representing over a million engineers, mathematicians, and other scientists gathered to highlight the achievements and needs of science, with hopes of convincing legislators to increase support for scientific research. AMS President Arthur Jaffe and Sam Rankin, AMS Associate Executive Director and Director of the AMS Washington Office, spearheaded these magnificent events. I became quite caught up in these giddying events promoting science. It was all new for me and exciting. Only rarely, however, could we meet a legislator in person; generally we met with legislative staff. They seemed to care about the opinions of their constituents, and we seemed to make a favorable impression.

7 Started in 1997, the camp was a great success. It has continued each summer, although it was “virtual” in the 2020 pandemic.

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

691

While in DC, I visited the University of Maryland Mathematics Department— another department that welcomed and supported women, which kindly provided office space for AWM. I was guided around by Tamara Kolda, now a distinguished researcher at Sandia labs, then a graduate student who was a liaison from UMD to AWM. Tammy continued her involvement with AWM; for many years she was the AWM web editor.8

Hope College At Hope College in Holland, Michigan, I gave a math talk and had a discussion with students at dinner. The women undergraduates described the atmosphere there as supportive and mentioned that they felt very comfortable in their math classes— even one who was the only woman in a class. In the audience of 60, 45 admitted to liking math, but only 10 had ever heard of a famous woman mathematician (and these 10 looked suspiciously like faculty). Approximately 50% of all math majors at Hope College were women at that time.

Michigan State University In fall 1997, while AWM president, I spent a semester sabbatical at Michigan State University (MSU), supported by Nebraska and MSU. It was a wonderful opportunity, not only to work on my research, but also to become acquainted with a unique and beautiful place—a lovely campus with a river running through it. I found friendly people—especially the mathematicians, a grand group of commutative algebraists and remarkable women. At that time most math departments had zero or one female full professor, but MSU’s department had seven women among 54 full professors.9 The total number of math faculty members at MSU, 84, included 16 women. While at MSU, I was invited to attend meetings of the Women’s Advisory Council of the College of Natural Sciences (which advises the dean), and I participated in various discussions on women in the sciences. With other senior faculty and MSU support, we organized several lively and frank women in mathematics discussions. For example, during a discussion on teaching, the younger faculty’s view of the attitudes of the undergraduate students came up: undergraduates tend to expect women will be “easier” and more available for help— yet they are suspicious of women’s qualifications initially; women have to prove 8 The AWM website was started in the 1990s, before my presidency. It moved with each new AWM president to her institution. The main credit for getting a permanent address for it should go to Jean Taylor, who pushed for it as president-elect—no more switching with every president! She also persuaded Tammy Kolda to be web editor. 9 One of the seven, Glenda Lappan, then president-elect of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, said that a significant number of male faculty had pushed for gender equality.

692

S. Wiegand

themselves more. Some undergraduates say women have an easier time, that woman teachers are likely to be less qualified, that they got their jobs just because they are women. The senior women reiterated the evidence that women do not have such an advantage. Another topic was students’ evaluations of them as teachers. The participants thought undergraduates don’t realize what effect their answers have, and that the answers may be overly critical of women. We agreed that, in important decisions such as promotion and tenure, other methods (e.g., peer evaluation) should also be used. Should a potential job-seeker work toward building stronger teaching credentials or put more energy into improving the quality of his or her research? The senior MSU women said, “Good teaching and research are expected of all faculty at MSU,” but strong research credentials are a primary factor in tenure-track hiring. Quality of research and research field tend to play an even greater role for postdoctoral positions. Some problems that may impact women more than men were discussed, such as getting a job with a spouse. Participants in the discussion told of difficulties for commuting couples they knew. Women mathematicians sometimes put off having children. Another perspective was provided by the comments of senior faculty: the whole atmosphere had been more formal when they started teaching; undergraduates were more serious then. Several married couples managed their childcare by passing kids to spouses during the breaks between classes. Balancing a mathematical life with having a family is difficult but possible. An academic lifestyle can be more convenient for having a family than most because of the flexibility. There have been advances since 1997: more daycare is available, and it is possible to extend the tenure clock. These discussions were satisfying and enlightening for me at the time and still seem relevant today. The group must have valued them, because they decided to continue to meet regularly.

Alaska The weather was cold and the days were growing darker for my visit to the University of Alaska Fairbanks in early October 1997. In contrast, a beautiful green swirly aurora lit up the evening sky and the people were warm and friendly. Chancellor Joan Wadlow (formerly at UNL) and her staff enthusiastically arranged for me to speak about mathematics, women in mathematics, AWM, and my research to the local TV station, to three groups of high school students, to a general university audience and to the mathematical sciences department. All this was over two days, starting 7 a.m. Thursday morning—after having arrived there the night before at 11 p.m. = 3 a.m. Michigan time and after traveling nine hours. (I kept going on adrenaline and on the excitement of being a celebrity.) They also gave parties at the women’s center and at the Chancellor’s house. Kara Nance, a faculty member in computer science and a native Alaskan, escorted me from place to place. She was organizing her second Alaska Sonia Kovalevsky High School Mathematics

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

693

Day. Named for the mathematician Sonia Kovalevsky and sponsored by AWM with funding from the National Security Agency, the SK Days are one-day programs for middle and high school girls with fun math activities to encourage them to study math and science. They were very successful with institutions and participants. In a typical year there were about 20 SK Days around the US. Some institutions continue to host them, even though AWM no longer has funds to support them. In Alaska, despite weather and transportation problems shrinking the attendance, Nance’s event sounded like an exciting and original life-changing event for the participants. My high school talks in Alaska were more like conversations. Besides adding to the career information Nance provided for computer science and some aspects of mathematics, I described my life as a mathematician, told about AWM, and asked a few questions. Nearly everyone in the audiences thought they “could do” math; a third to one-half at each place said they “liked” math. When we explained what it is, perhaps a third of the total audience thought they might have math anxiety. About half as many mothers were thought to like math as fathers. Other answers varied. At one school the students had just studied Hypatia, a mathematician-philosopher in ancient Greece, and they relished telling how she had been skinned alive and pulled apart limb from limb because society disapproved of her doing mathematics. At another school they had never heard of any famous women mathematicians, but not any men either—not even Euclid. Despite some differences in the attitudes at the different schools, they all seemed not to have the perception that women couldn’t or shouldn’t do math nor that women should be embarrassed about liking math. That’s far different from the situation when I was growing up. Good work, Alaska teachers!

Post-AWM Presidency Being AWM president typically makes a lasting impression. It has greatly impacted the rest of my life. Since then I’ve had many more discussions, some of which I’ve written about in the Newsletter. My recent focus within AWM has been the AWM Awards and Scientific Advisory Committees. I have been involved with recognizing deserving women, including several stints of organizing the judging of the AWM graduate student posters at various meetings. Currently women are less likely to be nominated than men for lectures, honors, and awards in the mathematical sciences, and more likely to be overlooked. In order to make women more visible, the AWM committees work to increase the number of nominations of women mathematicians. For example, of the 12 women selected for the 2020 class of 52 AMS Fellows, at least six were supported by the AWM committee’s organized efforts. Another group of AWM women worked to get Karen Uhlenbeck nominated for the Abel prize, which she was awarded in 2019, By the way, everyone can help with this. The procedures for making such nominations are usually described online. Otherwise, worthy women can be suggested

694

S. Wiegand

directly to a member of the appropriate selection committee, such as a program, prize, award, or Fellow selection committee in the mathematical sciences. Enlisting a collaborator or colleague of the intended nominee may help to produce a stronger nomination.

Nepal During the past six years, Roger and I have made 10 trips to Nepal. Why Nepal? To be honest, it started with the mountains. Then the mathematics and the women. Ajaya Singh, a math professor at Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, first introduced Roger and me to mathematicians and mountains in Nepal in 2014. He invited us to give algebra talks at Tribhuvan. Nobody knew much algebra, so we just tried to communicate the beauty of the subject, omitting elaborate technical details. The audience was receptive, and Ajaya convinced us to organize the First International Workshop and Conference in Commutative Algebra (FIWCCA) in Nepal, held at Tribhuvan University, in April 2015. FIWCCA attracted outstanding mathematicians from the Czech Republic, India, Italy, Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. On April 25, the last day of FIWCCA, at 11:56 am—four minutes before the scheduled end of the last morning talk, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck Nepal. Over 10,000 people died. Miraculously, all 60 participants of FIWCCA escaped safely. If we had been physicists, a canopy above the door of the nearby physics building that collapsed in a huge pile of rubble would have killed us. Fortunately the physicists were on holiday. The Nepali students were wonderful; they escorted us to an empty field near the math building, then to a lovely buffet lunch at 2 p.m. in a tent. After four scary days—64 aftershocks in the first 24 hours!—camping outside, dropping to the ground during major aftershocks, and avoiding buildings, we managed to catch a flight home. But the memories have stayed with us: how the Nepali students and all the people there were so kind and helpful, how they took care of us, and how they made sure we were safe. Since that occasion, Roger and I have adopted Nepal, and Nepal has adopted us. Hence the frequent visits. Every May, from 2016 to 2019, we have taught Galois theory to graduate students for two weeks, as part of the Nepal Algebra Project (NAP).10 Francesco Pappalardi (Roma III) and Michel Waldschmidt (Paris) organized and secured funding for NAP, a six-year program (2016–2021) of graduate courses on fields and Galois theory, divided into five two-week modules.) In October 2016, Roger and I organized the Second International Workshop and Conference in Commutative Algebra (SIWCCA) in Nepal at Tribhuvan, with

10 We

had intended to teach again in May 2020, but the pandemic prevented our travel.

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

695

another stellar cast, from Austria, Canada, France, Iran, Romania, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. There were 25 speakers; eight were women, including Sara Faridi and Janet Striuli. Meanwhile Dhana Thapa and other women in mathematics in Kathmandu had established WoNiMS, for “Women of Nepal in the Mathematical Sciences.” At SIWCCA, the WoNiMS group and the eight women speakers of SIWCCA had a very productive session getting to know each other and brainstorming plans for a symposium for women in mathematics in Kathmandu. We all thought the symposium was a great idea, but that it would take a lot of planning and funding and applying for grants, and so we should aim for sometime in October 2018 or so. We contacted the Committee on Women in Mathematics (CWM) of the International Mathematics Union (IMU). They were interested in supporting such conferences in developing countries. It was a shock to learn, however, that they wanted proposals to be in by early January 2017 and they wanted the symposium to be sometime in 2017. I had contracted a horrible case of pneumonia in early November that lasted a month and a half. My first reaction was: This is impossible! However, Dhana took it all on and made a wonderful proposal to the CWM with Sara and Janet’s help. We were amazed and grateful that Sara found funding from generous Canadian sources to support both local participants and women from western countries who would be presenting talks. We are also grateful to Francesco and Michel for suggesting other sources that contributed. The Symposium for Southeast Asian Women in Mathematics, held October 12– 15, 2017, was an emotional and life-changing event for all of us there. Women came from Bangladesh, Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, and the US. We outsiders felt we really connected with the women of Nepal, showed them what is possible and gave them confidence in themselves as women mathematicians. They are keen to study mathematics and to help each other achieve their dreams. As a byproduct of the Symposium we formed a committee to help Nepali women to get PhDs in mathematics. We welcome others to join the committee and to bring ideas for helping women in Nepal study mathematics. We hope to bring Nepali students to the US and other countries to discuss research with scholars here. Unfortunately the committee has been stymied by US restrictions. Getting the required visa has been a stumbling block for entry to the US. I hope that we can revive the committee and work out some logistics once the pandemic is over. Every trip Roger and I have made to Nepal has included some vigorous exercise in the mountain regions. We’ve climbed Gyoko Ri and Kala Patthar, and done extensive treks on the Everest Base Camp route and also on the Annapurna circuit. We’ve had gorgeous views of Everest, Annapurna, Fishtail, and Amadablam. The adventure continued with our trek of the “Three Passes,” math talks, and a meeting with WoNiMS in October 2018. Then another visit in May 2019 for Galois theory and trekking, and to see the WoNiMS (see Fig. 4). They worried that we would never come back. But Nepal and the people are incredible. We do hope to return soon.

696

S. Wiegand

Fig. 4 May 12 Initiatives: Celebrating Women in Mathematics at the Padmakanya Campus of Tribhuvan University, May 12, 2019

“Is AWM Still Needed?,” Old and New Directions for AWM The question “Is AWM still needed?” often came up during my term as AWM president—intended to mean “Do we still need to especially encourage and support women and girls to study math and be mathematical scientists?” People still ask this question today. Some are unaware of any problems for women and even believe that women are getting all the jobs. The answer to this question of course was and remains a resounding “Yes!” Discouraging messages are still conveyed to women at all levels. Some younger women lack self-confidence. They need a support system and role models to encourage them to pursue mathematics. Moreover women are not getting all the jobs; only recently has the portion of female mathematics professors at the top ten US institutions gone up to about one-eighth.11 This is a considerable improvement over previous years. However, there is plenty of room for growth. Women have been earning at least 20% of the PhDs in mathematics for three decades. In 2018, Marie Vitulli reported, “Among all US-earned PhDs in mathematics, women have slightly lower initial unemployment rates than men, but their first post-PhD jobs are less likely than men’s to be at top universities and in business or industry, despite the prestige of their PhDgranting department. Among non–US citizens, women had higher unemployment rates during 2001–2015. The percentage of women new PhDs who were employed at bachelor’s-only departments was much higher than for men, with the greatest difference occurring in 2012–2015.” The situation of jobs for women in mathematics

11 For

example, in 1999 women were about one-twentieth of all mathematics professors who were tenured or tenure-track at these institutions; see Taylor and Wiegand (1999).

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

697

remains complicated and needs measures that focus on systemic problems. AWM can help by advocating for change. Major problems still facing women in math include: the underrepresentation of women and minorities in research mathematics; the lack of equity in resources, awards, and access; and the barriers to career advancement for women and underrepresented minorities in the mathematical profession (Benkart et al., 2021). Question: What is being done and what we can do to improve the situation for women in mathematics? Some answers: • AWM raises awareness of issues facing women and obstructing diversity, and AWM advocates for change where needed. • AWM disseminates a vibrant newsletter and publications documenting and promoting women’s events, achievements and problems. • AWM plans events for women and girls at all levels, such as – Collaborative research conferences for women in various areas of mathematics and at various stages of their careers. For more on this and other activities of AWM, see Benkart et al. (2021). – Workshops for graduate students and postdocs at Joint Mathematics Meetings and SIAM Annual Meetings.12 • AWM promotes awards and recognition for women, as described at the beginning of the “Post-AWM Presidency” section. • All of us can speak up and mention women’s names for potential speakers at conferences, editors for journals, candidates for positions, and awards of mathematical organizations. AWM already does some of this. • Universities and other groups also can and do organize events, such as: – SK days at North Dakota State University, Tulsa, OK, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, and other places.13 – Math camps for girls, e.g., AGAM (All Girls All Math) at Nebraska. – Undergraduate women in mathematics research opportunities and conferences at Nebraska and other locales. – Summer programs for women to prepare them for graduate study, e.g., at George Washington University. – The National Association of Math Circles lists locations of Math Circles for K–12 students and teachers on its website and disseminates information on how to run them. • The mathematical community and national agencies provide funding for local and national projects, e.g., the AMS Epsilon Fund helps with the AGAM Camp.

12 From

its website: The “Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) is an international community of over 14,000 individual members.” 13 They no longer receive support from AWM, but individual sites have found other support.

698

S. Wiegand

Fig. 5 Deborah Haimo, Genevieve Knight, Sylvia Wiegand, Walter Mientka, AWM party, 1999 MathFest. For many years, Knight was a Co-Principal Investigator on grants that funded AWM’s SK Days. Photo courtesy of Sylvia Wiegand

Small gestures can make a big impact on young women. Encouraging smart young women to take more math, be math majors, or go to graduate school can make a real difference. Simply getting young women together to talk also helps. The AWM student chapters have been wonderful and are an excellent influence. We still need more concerted efforts towards including and retaining students of color and LGBTQI+ folks. The AWM has opened up many of its projects to both of these communities. Many AWM conferences have featured women of color and many women of color have participated in AWM activities and have done valuable service for AWM (e.g., see Fig. 5). Ditto for the LGBTQI+ community. Not too long ago, I attended and learned from two interesting AWM discussions: (1) of managing career and family (using an expansive, inclusive definition); and (2) on how LGBTQI+ folk might maneuver job searches. We should have more such discussions, both to help these communities and to show others how these communities enhance and contribute to our profession. I would like to see AWM continue and extend its international connections. Because we were the first “Association for women in mathematics,” women in other countries look to us for leadership and assistance. How can we expand the horizons of women in third-world countries? For example, in Nepal how can we help the women who would like to learn, teach and do mathematics? In its 50 years of existence, AWM has done an enormous amount for women in the mathematical sciences. We also have a mathematics community that is much more welcoming than it used to be, but we cannot be complacent. The advances made so far may be eroded if we don’t continue to encourage and help women in mathematics. Much more work remains to be done. We all need to join together and work on these things. As AWM has shown, together we can move mountains!

Musings on Being AWM’s Thirteenth President

699

Acknowledgments Many thanks for editorial suggestions for this article made by Beatrice Nearey and the reviewers. Also thanks to Anne Leggett, who made edits to the original versions of some of these items in the AWM Newsletter. The section on Nepal was written with Roger Wiegand.

References Benkart, Georgia, Kristin Lauter, and Sylvia Wiegand. 2021. AWM at 50 and beyond. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 68(3): 387–397. Billard, Lynne. 1991. The past, present, and future of academic women in the mathematical sciences. Notices of the AMS 38(7): 707–714. Klein, Felix. 1939. Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint: Arithmetic, algebra, analysis (3rd ed., E. R. Hedrick and C. A. Noble trans.). New York: Macmillan. Koblitz, Ann Hibner. 1993. A convergence of lives: Sofia Kovalevskaia, scientist, writer, revolutionary. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Schiebinger, Londa. 1989. The mind has no sex?: Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, Jean and Sylvia Wiegand. 1999. AWM in the 1990s. Notices of the AMS 46(1): 27–38. Vitulli, Marie A. 2018. Gender differences in first jobs for new US PhDs in the mathematical sciences. Notices of the AMS 65(3): 326–329.

Part XII

AWM in Her Thirties: Perspectives from Presidents and Executive Directors

A Blast from the Past and a Hope for the Future: Reflections from AWM’s Fourteenth President Jean E. Taylor

My first priority for the AWM [will be] to be sure its finances, office staff and governing procedures are in good order. We need to ensure continued grant support for the many things we do well. Then I’d like to see the AWM grow both in financial resources and adventurousness. In particular, I’d like to see the AWM become a more active source of information and projects concerning all women in mathematics, including women in industry and girls in school.

That is in a message I sent in July 1998 to the AWM president Sylvia Wiegand, as part of a correspondence about priorities and goals for AWM. We made progress on most of these goals, both under Sylvia’s leadership and then under mine. My most enduring innovation has been the great AWM website. Before, the AWM web presence had been as a subdirectory of the president’s own website, moving around every two years as the president changed. (I’m afraid I’m responsible for the name awm-math.org; when we tried to register AWM.org, we found that address already taken.) A former undergraduate student of mine, Barbara Ling, got it off the ground, and then it soared under Tamara Kolda’s direction. It rapidly became what I wished for: an active source of information. Another innovation was developing a proposal to expand our NSF-funded travel grants program to include mentoring travel grants. This idea had been proposed before my time, but it was up to me to develop it into an NSF proposal and see it through (of course, with lots of other people’s work!). It has been valuable to many women since. As an indication of the state of our governing procedures, the AWM clerk was not attending meetings of the Executive Committee (EC), but rather mainly serving as the AWM representative legally required by our charter in Massachusetts. Thus things like the taking of minutes were rather haphazard. I appointed Sue Geller as

J. E. Taylor () Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_62

703

704

J. E. Taylor

clerk, and that changed (see Fig. 1). At that time, nearly all of AWM’s basic work was done by the president plus three people: long-standing volunteers Anne Leggett (see Fig. 2) and Bettye Anne Case (see Fig. 4), running the newsletter and meetings respectively, and our paid office manager, Dawn Wheeler (see Fig. 3). AWM relied entirely on those three. But Dawn was sufficiently busy and set in her ways that it was difficult to make any changes in how the office functioned, even to the updating of software. Furthermore, the rest of the EC (beyond Anne and Bettye Anne) was underutilized. I got another staff person hired and made various attempts

Fig. 1 Clerk Sue Geller and President Jean Taylor, AWM business meeting, 2000 JMM, Washington, DC

Fig. 2 AWM Financial and Grants Administrator Douglas Farquhar, Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett, Treasurer Amy Cohen, and President Jean Taylor, 2000 JMM, Washington, DC

A Blast from the Past and a Hope for the Future

705

Fig. 3 Hope Daly and AWM Director of Membership, Meetings, and Marketing Dawn Wheeler, 2000 JMM, Washington, DC. For years, Hope Daly, Director of the AMS Meetings Department, was the indispensable key to insuring a visible presence for AWM at conferences, helping AWM set up sessions and panels, and allocating a space for AWM in the exhibit hall

to have the EC become more involved but it was only under later presidents, most notably Carolyn Gordon, that I saw the EC blossom and the management become more flexible. I learned valuable lessons in leadership by watching her. Financial resources did grow, but never as much as we could have used. One effort at outreach that I made was having AWM Scholars at AAAS annual meetings. Students applied; six were accepted and got free registration and press passes. I arranged for them to have shared hotel rooms and provided rudimentary breakfast and guidance to the meeting. Many of them got additional travel funds from their colleges or universities. They all wrote articles about their experience in the May–June 2000 newsletter. (Although both the students and I enjoyed this, and they enlivened some of the discussions, this program was not continued after my presidency.) Other innovations of my time as AWM president: getting job advertisements onto the website (yes, there was debate on the EC about this!), having a Corporate Task Force, and sponsoring a membership drive. I participated in an International Congress of Industrial and Applied Mathematicians (with its AWM workshop) in Edinburgh and the Pan-African Congress of Mathematicians in Cape Town, as well as multiple meetings in the US. As always, we relied on volunteers to organize and serve on all our committees, especially including the selection committees working behind the scenes to make travel grants, lectures, prizes, panels, conferences, Sonia Kovalevsky Days, etc. happen (e.g., see Fig. 4)—I counted nearly 100 people by the end of my presidency. For the past almost 50 years, people have asked “Is AWM (still) necessary?” I answer with a resounding yes! AWM was founded in 1971; to see what the situation

706

J. E. Taylor

Fig. 4 Some organizers of the AWM Olga Taussky Todd Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women: Jean Taylor, Bettye Anne Case, Sylvia Wiegand, Diane O’Leary, Gail Ratcliff (sitting), 1999, MSRI, Berkeley, CA. Photo by R. Dimitric, courtesy of AWM

for women was like then, see the film On the Basis of Sex. After describing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s law school student days at Harvard and Columbia and her inability to get a position in a law firm despite being at the top of her class, the film focused on the first case the Ginsburgs argued in court together, a gender-discrimination dispute brought before the US Court of Appeals in 1971. As for me, in 1971, I was in the midst of my PhD thesis work, unaware of what RBG was accomplishing for all of us and not present at the founding of AWM, though I was activist enough to be part of the Mathematicians Action Group at Princeton. (The next year I became part of the second AWM nucleus, organized by Alice Schafer in Boston.)

A Blast from the Past and a Hope for the Future

707

There is still a big difference between men and women in their experience of a career in the mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. I was recently the representative of the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) for the Gender Gap in Science project, a large international effort extending over three years, to document this gap. Marie-Françoise Roy was both the representative of the International Mathematics Union (IMU) and the primary organizer. As part of its work, the Gender Gap in Science project conducted a worldwide survey answered by 32,000 scientists, 50% women and 50% men. To quote the report: Its results confirm that the Gender Gap in Science is very real: it exists across all regions, disciplines, and development levels [of countries]. Women’s experiences in both educational and employment settings are consistently less positive than men’s. Over a quarter of women reported personally experiencing sexual harassment at school or work. Women were over 14 times more likely than men to report being personally harassed. There continues to be a salary gap between women and men. Becoming a parent had significantly different impact on the lives of women and men. (Roy and Santamaría, 2020)

Some of the results of this survey are presented in the book A Global Approach to the Gender Gap in Mathematical, Computing, and Natural Sciences: How to Measure It, How to Reduce It? (Guillopé and Roy, 2020). Some analysis is done by discipline and by geographical region. It is available online free, or people can order a print-on-demand version (Gender Gap in Science, 2020). There is also an eight-page illustrated booklet with some highlights from the book available online, which can easily be printed in either a color or a black-and-white version. There is still much more, not in the book, that could be distilled from the complete results of the survey. As of this writing in 2020, ICIAM has agreed to cooperate with IMU in sharing the expense of a six-month student internship for analysis of data from the survey to better understand the gender gap in mathematics and applied mathematics worldwide. One thing I found quite striking in the raw data broken out for mathematics, and also for applied mathematics within the category of mathematics, was how different the perceptions are for men and women regarding sexual harassment; basically, men hadn’t even heard about it happening in their departments, whereas most women had either had it happen to them, seen it happen, or heard about it happening in their departments. In question 49, respondents were asked if they had ever felt discriminated against for nine possible reasons. For reasons of gender, 44% of women said yes, as against 6% of men; for the reason of being a parent, 12% of women said yes and 1% of men. Of the male respondents, 70% never felt discriminated against for any reason, as opposed to 41% of the female respondents. And then there was question 64, “Have you ever felt discouraged about your field for any of these reasons?” giving seven reasons (research, funding, interaction with colleagues, workplace environment, personal life, family obligation, other). For every single reason, women more frequently reported feeling discouraged than men. There were two other parts of the Gender Gap in Science project: a survey of some of the most important journals in various disciplines to ascertain differences

708

J. E. Taylor

in publication rates by gender, and a database of best practices. I encourage people to look at both, and to contribute to the database of good practices.

References Gender Gap in Science. 2020. A Global Approach to the Gender Gap in Mathematical, Computing, and Natural Sciences: How to Measure It, How to Reduce It? https://gender-gap-in-science.org Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Guillopé, Colette and Marie-Françoise Roy 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. How to measure it, how to reduce it? Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.3882609 Roy, Marie-Françoise and Lucía Santamaría. 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences: How to measure it, how to reduce it? [booklet]. Gender Gap in Science.

Connections with My AWM Family: Reflections from AWM’s Fifteenth President Suzanne Lenhart

The Association for Women in Mathematics has always been important in my career. When I traveled in 1990 as a member of the first Women in Mathematics delegation to China invited to visit seven cities and many universities, I met Alice Schafer, Pao-sheng Hsu, Anne Leggett McDonald, Jackie Dewar, Fran Rosamond, Erica Voolich, and others. These new friends formed the nucleus of my AWM “family,” and over the years we collaborated on many projects. When I was invited to become AWM president in 2000, I had been involved with co-organizing the AWM workshops at the SIAM annual meetings, starting with the first one in 1993. Starting these workshops was an important step to connect AWM with SIAM. I enjoyed co-organizing these workshops (16 times!) and got to know many early-career applied mathematicians (see Fig. 1). At that time, I had a young son, Phillip Andreae, who is now an assistant professor in mathematics at Meredith College. The support of my husband, Peter Andreae, was essential during this time. I became president in 2001 in the year of AWM’s 30th anniversary. During my presidency, some key people for me were Anne Leggett, Bettye Anne Case, Dawn Wheeler, Mary Ann Horn, Renee Fister, Tamara (Tammy) Kolda, Ginger Warfield, Amy Cohen, and Muriel Daley. Anne and Bettye Anne contributed much of the foundation of AWM by respectively editing the AWM Newsletter and planning AWM activities at mathematics conferences. I loved Ginger’s education columns in the Newsletter for many years. Being able to count on the consistent work of our clerk, Renee, and our treasurers, Amy and Mary Ann, was invaluable. Tammy started our website and was our amazing web editor for several years. As Director of Membership, Meetings and Marketing, Dawn gave her excellent service and her bright sunshine to me and to many AWM members (see Fig. 2). Muriel did

S. Lenhart () Department of Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_63

709

710

S. Lenhart

Fig. 1 Catherine Lebiedzik and Suzanne Lenhart, 1998 SIAM Annual Meeting, University of Toronto

Fig. 2 Debra Polignone Warne, Suzanne Lenhart, Dawn Wheeler, Sylvia Wiegand, 1997 SIAM meeting, Stanford University

essential accounting work, efficiently and pleasantly. I enjoyed going to the AWM office at the University of Maryland and working there on various proposals and reports. During my presidency, I was delighted that the AWM student chapter program started in 2003 (a prime year). And now we have a chapter at the University of Tennessee, my home institution. These chapters continue to form and to build

Connections with My AWM Family: Reflections from AWM’s Fifteenth President

711

networks among students and mathematicians. The Sonia Kovalevsky High School Mathematics Days were happening regularly, funded by the National Security Agency and with the help of Genevieve Knight and Renee Fister. We also were a sponsor of the International Mathematical Olympiad, which was held in Washington, DC, in 2001. I would also like to acknowledge the energetic work of Rachel Kuske with our Mentor Network and Victoria Howle with our Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women in Mathematics. Continuing to find funding for the graduate student and postdoc participants at our workshops at the SIAM Annual Meeting and the Joint Mathematics Meetings was a bit of a struggle during my presidency, but we managed. These workshops have been adapted to include focused research sessions connected with AWM’s NSF ADVANCE grant. We appreciate the current and past funding for these activities from NSF, NSA, AFOSR, Office of Naval Research, Exxon Mobil, and DOE. The NSF-AWM Travel Grant Program for Women started in 1988 and continues to facilitate research collaborations. The NSF ADVANCE grant has funded amazing research collaboration conferences. Getting the AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Award and Lecture established as a regular event of the SIAM annual meeting was another important connection and I appreciated the help of Barbara Keyfitz and Marty Golubitsky for this. About this time, I was pleased that the Princeton University Press contract for the book, Complexities: Women in Mathematics was signed by Anne and Bettye Anne; this book was published in 2005. After my presidency, I interacted more with the Education Committee, which continues to be active, and co-chaired that committee in 2006–2009. Pao-sheng Hsu and Jackie Dewar have given so much in this area over the years. Pao, Erica Voolich, and I began the Teacher Partnership program in 2006 in which teachers and mathematicians with common interests were matched. We had several successful partnerships in which the partners became friends and collaborators. One spectacular partnership involved Padhu Seshaiyer of George Mason University (see his article in the July–August 2008 Newsletter), and I got to know him and to collaborate with him in other ways. Starting in 2010, I enjoyed sharing the writing of the AWM Newsletter education columns for 10 years with Betsy Yanik, which gave me a chance to reconnect with her after having been in graduate school together. AWM has embraced gender diversity more broadly in recent years. Some of the recent AWM panels at the Joint Mathematics Meetings have addressed issues of intersectionality, related to the overlap of many social and gender categorizations and the resulting effects on how persons are perceived and treated. My hope for the future is that AWM will continue to cooperate with mathematical organizations, such as the AMS and SIAM, and consider more cooperation with the National Association of Mathematicians and the Association for Women in Science.

Progress and Hope: Reflections from AWM’s Sixteenth President Carolyn Gordon

In 1971, I was in my last semester as an undergraduate mathematics major with no career plans. I had never met a woman mathematician and was certainly unaware that, at that very moment, a small group of courageous and inspired women were creating an organization that would have a tremendous impact in encouraging and opening pathways to pursue mathematics for so many women like myself. Six years later, happily pursuing graduate studies at Washington University (the same institution where at that time Phyllis Schlafly was pursuing her law degree while leading the national anti-feminist movement!), I met not only my first woman mathematician but in fact several hundred of them at the AWM events in the JMM. The sense of community and excitement were unlike anything I had ever experienced. Moving forward another 24 years, I found myself in a dilemma. Sylvia Wiegand had just called to ask if I would agree to be nominated to be president of the AWM. Having served on the Executive Committee during the terms of Cora Sadosky, Chuu-Lian Terng, and Sylvia Wiegand, I had witnessed firsthand their tremendous leadership. I felt completely inadequate for the task. However, could I say no to an organization that had affected me so deeply? Knowing that I could rely on the extreme dedication of many passionate AWM volunteers and having a wise schoolage daughter to advise me on the leadership skills that I lacked, I agreed with great trepidation to serve as president from 2003 to 2005.

C. Gordon () Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_64

713

714

C. Gordon

AWM 2003–2005 Restructuring In the 30 years since its founding, the AWM had grown into a powerful, highly respected professional organization with a top-notch newsletter and an inspiring number of programs: Sonia Kovalevsky Days, the newly established AWM student chapter program, workshops for graduate students and postdocs, the AWM Essay Contest, travel and mentoring grants, a listserv (AWM-Net), conferences, Noether and Falconer Lectures, Alice Schafer Prizes (see Fig. 1), Louise Hay Award, the list goes on. All this was possible only because of the relentless efforts of many volunteers. We had only a small staff generously housed by the University of Maryland. For many years the presidents had also been the de facto executive directors. We relied on the endlessly hard-working Meetings Coordinator Bettye Anne Case and Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett for institutional memory. In short, the AWM was bursting at the seams. To continue to grow, we needed to build our infrastructure. After much soul-searching, we hired a consultant who guided the Executive Committee in restructuring our governance and developing a long-range strategic plan. We enlarged the Executive Committee and created several new standing

Fig. 1 Kimberly Spears, winner of Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman, and Carolyn Gordon, 2004 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Phoenix, AZ

Progress and Hope: Reflections from AWM’s Sixteenth President

715

committees so that the work was better distributed. Following the departures of our two overworked full-time staff members, we also took a few months to consider different staffing models, eventually leading early in Barbara Keyfitz’s term to hiring an executive director and contracting with an association management company. These were a turbulent two years! I’m endlessly grateful for the support of past presidents, especially Jean Taylor and Carol Wood, to then president-elect Barbara Keyfitz who so calmly and effectively joined in leadership, to Catherine Roberts and Maura Mast for their wisdom and tremendous personal support during this process, to the Executive Committee, and to so many others. It has been extremely gratifying to see how subsequent presidents have not only met the challenge of implementing the extensive and demanding strategic plan but have brought the AWM to a level of professionalism and accomplishment that we could not even imagine back then.

A Focus on Diversity in Career and in Personal Life Ginger Warfield fascinated and inspired us with an ongoing column in the AWM Newsletter featuring biographies of women mathematicians in non-standard careers. Our panel, Supporting the Diverse Lives of Mathematicians, at the JMM in 2004 addressed issues such as sexual preference, ethnicity, and especially difficult parenting situations within the context of a mathematical career. Following a suggestion by panelist Liz Stanhope, we asked AWM members to encourage their departments and universities to provide all job interviewees with a list of confidential contacts who can answer questions on LGBTQ+ issues, ethnic and religious concerns, handicapped access, safety, parenting (including information about daycares and schools), health care (including mental health and fertility), and other concerns. After the panel, Christina Sormani created an AWM forum, still available, containing many moving stories and valuable advice (AWM, 2004). At the JMM the following year, we were delighted to collaborate with NAM in a twopart panel discussion on improving retention of women and minorities in graduate school. An especially joyous event during this period was the publication of the awardwinning anthology Complexities: Women in Mathematics (Case and Leggett, 2005), edited by Bettye Anne Case and Anne Leggett.

A Focus on Mid-Career Mathematicians Many of the support systems available to women in early career stages evaporate once they achieve tenure, precisely the time when they may especially need guidance to begin taking on leadership positions.

716

C. Gordon

Fig. 2 2004 AWM leadership workshop participants, University of Maryland. Gerhard Michler is standing in the center of the second row. Carolyn Gordon stands on the far right

In March 2004, the AWM held a three-day workshop, After Tenure: Women Mathematicians Taking on a Leadership Role, addressing leadership from many viewpoints: leadership within one’s department, leadership in the research and the professional societies, and the pros and cons of taking on leadership positions (see Fig. 2). Most inspiring was seeing so many mid-career women mathematicians already moving into leadership positions with remarkable skills and sensitivity. The leadership workshop also gave us the opportunity to remember and celebrate the life of Ruth Michler, who died in a tragic accident on November 1, 2000 at the young age of 33. (See the January–February 2001 issue of the AWM Newsletter for a memorial article about her short but very vibrant life.) Ruth brought great energy to everything she did: research, organizing conferences, encouraging women in mathematics, running marathons and even a 100K race. Michaela Vancliff shared her memories of Ruth energizing mathematicians from several universities to come together for seminars and Lenore Blum recalled Ruth as a graduate student eagerly climbing over chairs to get a front seat in the Berkeley colloquium! A year later, through the generosity of Ruth’s family, the AWM inaugurated the Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize, awarded annually to an outstanding woman in the mathematical sciences who has been recently promoted to the level of associate professor. The prize enables the recipient to spend a semester in the stimulating environment of Cornell University focusing on her research. Cornell is an especially fitting location as Ruth was born in Ithaca when her father Gerhard Michler (see Fig. 2), himself a mathematician, was visiting Cornell on leave from his position in Germany.

Progress and Hope: Reflections from AWM’s Sixteenth President

717

What Was Happening Around Us Women in Korea formed Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences with recognition from the Korean Mathematical Society. Shortly before, I had the great pleasure of visiting with the inspiring women who would become the founders of the society. I felt like I was looking back more than 30 years at the courageous founders of the AWM. So much had changed here since Mary Gray first sat in on the AMS Executive Council meeting in 1971. Especially emblematic of the strong support from the AMS and other professional societies, we celebrated in 2005 the introduction by the AMS of childcare services at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. I was delighted that the AWM joined the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) during my term. The stimulating meetings and opportunities to network were invaluable. Sadly the concern most in the forefront of the scientific societies at that time has only increased in recent years, namely the heightened challenges for foreign scientists to obtain US visitor visas. In 2003, Donna Nelson and Diana Rogers published the first national analysis of faculty diversity in the “top 50” departments in each scientific and engineering discipline. Their study, which was cited in Congressional testimony, made clear the severe underrepresentation of women and the almost non-existence of women from underrepresented minorities on the faculties (Nelson, 2005). Emphasizing the self-perpetuating nature of the disparity—how the lack of female and minority role models discourages students—they concluded: “If significant progress is to be made in the next two decades, new and totally different approaches will be needed.” Mathematics and computer science were among the areas for which the data showed especially pronounced drops from the percentage of women among new PhDs to the percentage among tenure-track assistant professors. How much progress have we made? According to AMS data, the percentage of women among all tenured or tenure-track faculty in doctorate-granting institutions rose from 11% in 2005 to 17% in 2018. As my term was coming to an end in January 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers ignited an uproar by suggesting that innate differences between men and women may be one reason that fewer women succeed in math and science careers. His remarks (for which he later apologized) unleashed a flurry of op-eds, letters to the editors, and statements, mostly expressing outrage but some suggesting that Summers was a victim of “political correctness.” Emails were flying among AWM members, eventually coalescing into a letter to the editor published in the New York Times (Gordon, 2005). Many individual AWM members published letters to the editor and op-eds in other newspapers. Much good came out of Summers’ remarks, as the anger it produced resulted in greater public focus on barriers facing women. Nonetheless, it also reinforced both the myth of gender differences in mathematical ability and the myth that mathematics is the province only of geniuses. Much healthier views exist in some countries, where hard work rather than innate ability are emphasized as the key to success in mathematics. A personal anecdote: Shortly before the time

718

C. Gordon

of Summers’ remarks, my family went on a tour of Guatemala that included a visit to an elementary school in an impoverished area. In response to the question “What is your favorite subject?,” nearly all the students enthusiastically responded “Matemáticas”! I find the joint effect of the two myths to be particularly insidious. All too often at my home institution, Dartmouth, our female mathematics majors—irrespective of their success in the introductory courses or of encouragement from faculty mentors—lack the self-confidence to take the honors level courses that provide preparation for graduate studies. One year recently, an unusually large number of students enrolled in the honors analysis course taught by a very popular professor. During the first class meeting, the professor recommended that students meet with him if they were unsure whether the course level was appropriate for them. Six students followed this suggestion, all of them female. After he reassured them and convinced them to remain in the class, not only did they all succeed but five of the six ended up at the top of the large class.

The Present In a 2003 survey of the concerns of AWM members, 40% of the respondents identified flexibility in the tenure-clock to allow for childcare responsibilities as the most pressing issue for the AWM to address. (The question was not multiple choice!) While flexibility policies have now become common, their effects have been mixed (e.g. Scheiber, 2020; Williams and Lee, 2016). The AAUP recommends both flexibility policies and institutional support for childcare (AAUP, 2014). The disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women in academia—as well as on women in all professions—has shown a spotlight on the pressing needs, a light that needs to be kept in focus even after the immediate crisis is past. Among the most exciting developments, we are seeing women both being elected to the top leadership positions in mathematics and breaking the glass ceiling with major research prizes. As of the date of writing, the current presidents and presidents-elect of both the AMS and SIAM are all women! Three years after Maryam Mirzakhani electrified the world by winning the Fields Medal, Claire Voisin became the first woman to win the Shaw Prize in the Mathematical Sciences. During the past two years, Karen Uhlenbeck, Marsha Berger, Mei-Chi Shaw, and Laure Saint-Raymond became the first women to receive the Abel Prize, the Norbert Wiener Prize, the Stefan Bergman Prize and the Bôcher Memorial Prize, respectively, while Karen Uhlenbeck also became only the second woman to receive the Leroy P. Steele Prize for Lifetime Achievement. During the same two years, nine women in the mathematical sciences have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. In 2019, AMS President Jill Pipher created the AMS Prize Oversight Committee, one of whose inaugural charges is to develop and implement an approach to recruit larger, more diverse pools of nominees. It is incumbent on

Progress and Hope: Reflections from AWM’s Sixteenth President

719

each of us in the research community to take part in identifying deserving candidates and seeing that they are nominated. I’d like to close my reflection with an excerpt from my January–February 2004 AWM President’s Report that illustrates the power of the AWM to effect change: Perhaps you’ve considered a gift AWM membership for a friend, but have you ever considered one for a detractor? Long-time AWM member Pat Kenschaft shared the following delightful story. Her daughter’s middle school mathematics teacher was convinced that girls were not capable of doing mathematics. What was Pat to do? Confronting the teacher could have repercussions for her daughter. Instead, she anonymously bought him a membership in the AWM. As the year progressed, the teacher began quoting positive anecdotes about women in mathematics. By the end of the year, he was preaching the importance of mathematical education for girls!

References American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 2014. Statement of Principles on Family Responsibilities and Academic Work. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-principlesfamily-responsibilities-and-academic-work. Accessed 29 Dec 2020. AWM. 2004. AWM JMM Panel 2004: Supporting the Diverse Personal Lives of Mathematicians. Mirror Site: http://comet.lehman.cuny.edu/sormani/AWM/forum2004.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2020. Case, Bettye Anne and Anne M. Leggett, eds. 2005. Complexities: Women in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gordon, Carolyn. 2005. Women in science: Voices in the debate [letter to the editor]. The New York Times Jan 28, Section A, p. 22. Nelson, Donna. 2005. A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Norman, OK: Diversity in Science Association and University of Oklahoma. http://drdonnajnelson.oucreate.com//diversity/briefings/Diversity%20Report %20Final.pdf Scheiber, Noam. 2020. Pandemic imperils promotions for women in academia. The New York Times, Oct 1, Section B, p. 1. Williams, Joan C. and Jessica Lee. 2016. Is it time to stop stopping the clock? No, but it may be time to redraft our poorly designed policies. The Chronicle of Higher Education Aug 9. https:// www.chronicle.com/article/is-it-time-to-stop-stopping-the-clock/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020.

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President Barbara Lee Keyfitz

Introduction The central message of this article I owe to Helen Moore. On a memorable occasion that I will describe below, she offered a response to a question I paraphrase as “What would be the role of AWM if there were no longer any discrimination against women in mathematics, nor obstacles to girls and women studying and pursuing careers in mathematics?” Helen’s answer was, “This is about creating a community.” It is good to feel that one has played a part in that. I was president from February 1, 2005 to January 31, 2007, and there were a few events during that term to which I was honored to contribute. But my perspective is very much shaped by the ways in which my career has intersected with my involvement with AWM, so I will start there.

The Past Although I am of the same generation as the women who, as graduate students and postdocs, were part of the movement that founded AWM, I was not “there at the creation.” There were a number of reasons for this. First, much of the momentum revolved around women who taught and studied around Boston and Cambridge, and I was a graduate student and then a junior faculty member in New York City, which in those days of no internet and of long-distance charges for telephone calls was far away. In addition, I was a student at the Courant Institute (the mathematics

B. L. Keyfitz () Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_65

721

722

B. L. Keyfitz

department of NYU), where the atmosphere was largely welcoming to women. We had Cathleen Morawetz and Anneli Lax as role models, and the example of Lipman Bers, who had left NYU by then but who during his long career was an advisor and mentor to about 16 women among his 53 students. (His students included several women well-known to the AWM community, including Tilla Savanuck Klotz Milnor Weinstein, Lesley Sibner, and Linda Keen.) In addition, as someone working in partial differential equations, I was considered to be an “applied mathematician” and the gulf between “pure” and “applied” mathematics was great in those days. (There are some lessons in this, and I will come back to them later.) There were those among the early leaders of AWM who considered it a sign of prejudice against women that Cathleen Morawetz was not at a place as prestigious as Harvard.1 This may be one reason that Morawetz herself did not have much involvement with AWM, although throughout her career she was tremendously supportive of women, and when AWM organized a conference for her 85th birthday she was tremendously pleased. Finally, the beginning of my career was not at all successful, and, when I think back on it, it would have been doubly humiliating to be not only a failure but a failure in the company of the many brilliantly successful women of my generation.

The Distant Past Unlike many women of my generation, I benefited from great encouragement when I decided to become a mathematician. My father, who had a rather late-blooming career as a researcher and academic in the field of mathematical demography, did not obtain his PhD until the age of 38, and did not become a university professor until his mid-forties—around the time that academic salaries became generous enough that one could raise a family on them. At some level (probably not very serious) he considered himself a “failed mathematician.” He had earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from McGill University in the middle of the Depression. His teachers had told him, “The Canadian economy can absorb one mathematician a year; do you think you are the best?” He did not, so he went to work in the Canadian Civil Service. Perhaps it was because of his career path, which would be considered unusual now, that I had no idea of what “becoming a mathematician” meant. I did not see newly minted PhDs becoming assistant professors, struggling to get tenure, building research dossiers and applying for grants—none of those career preparation steps that we now emphasize in workshops were part of my experience. I liked solving mathematics problems; I was good at that; I won a mathematics scholarship

1 In the 1960s New York University as a whole did not have a high academic reputation—the Courant Institute was somewhat of an exception. In addition, the Courant Institute concentrated on areas of analysis and partial differential equations that were then considered “applied mathematics” and were looked down on by many influential mathematicians. Times have changed.

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

723

to college; I did well in all my courses (except, amusingly, one called “Applied Mathematics”). The University of Toronto provided a very strong undergraduate education to honors mathematics students. It was far from the liberal arts education familiar to most of my US contemporaries, and much more like what one might have seen, in those days, at MIT or CalTech. On the other hand, neither the other students nor most of the faculty were ready to accept a bright woman student. I have warmer recollections of my teachers in high school. This anecdote is not typical of my experience even there, but I remember it gratefully. It was our first course in chemistry, and we were studying chemical reactions, at a rather elementary level: an AB + CD → AD + BC sort of thing. I don’t remember at this point what A, B, C, and D were, but the teacher, Mr. Ryff, wrote the left side of the relationship on the board, gave the names of the compounds on the right (without writing the symbols), and asked what was happening. Now, I had been looking forward to this all along, but in my imagination something much more dramatic should have taken place, something that later I learned was a nuclear reaction, where A actually turns into another element entirely. Nonetheless, I could see from the names that that was out of the question. I was bitterly disappointed, but when no one else spoke up I raised my hand and gave the answer. (I’m sure my voice did not reflect my deep sorrow.) Mr. Ryff asked me to stand up and give my name. He said, “When you win the Nobel Prize in chemistry, I want to be able to say I had you in my class.” Probably that did not endear me to my classmates. Even my best friend in high school told me I was “pedantic,” and she was undoubtedly right. College was a different story. There I did have true girlfriends; we struggled together through difficult classes and commiserated about family and boyfriend problems. (My two closest friends had had to deal with loss of parents; I was the one with the boyfriend problems.) I was not socially comfortable with my male classmates: although they were academically my peers none of us knew how to settle into a competitive but friendly relationship. (When I confided this to friends, I was told that it was my personal problem, but I sometimes wonder if other young women, scientifically talented but socially naive, have suffered in similar ways.) Some of my close women friends did go on to graduate school, though none in mathematics. Only much later have I noticed that the idea of a community of women in mathematics, so central to my picture of AWM, was not then even a dream. The University of Toronto department of mathematics had trouble figuring out where I belonged. At the end of my four years there, when I asked my department chair for a letter of recommendation to graduate school, after obtaining A’s (there called “First Class Honors”) in all mathematics courses (except that applied mathematics course) and scoring in the top 25 in the Putnam Exam, he simply said, “I don’t think that girls belong in graduate school.” I got my letters from other people. And I was very fortunate that three people gave me encouragement and support. They were all men. My department did have one woman professor,

724

B. L. Keyfitz

Maria Wonenberger, whose name will be known to algebraists. I did not have much contact with her, except for a course in Galois theory in my final year. She might also have been somewhat put off by the attitude of her colleagues, because she left in 1966, the same year I graduated, and moved to the US. My observation— which I can’t really document—is that in 1966 Canada was about five years behind the US in recognizing the potential of women to contribute to science, perhaps to academia generally, but once things began to change there (and I’m not sure when that was, since I didn’t connect again with Canadian mathematics until about 1993) they changed rather more quickly than they had done in the US. This is a good place to acknowledge the undergraduate teachers who did the most to encourage me, and who, collectively, are responsible for my becoming a mathematician. One was Professor T. E. Hull, who taught Numerical Analysis. He later moved to the computer science department, and, sadly, died rather young, and before I could thank him for his help. He must have written a memorable letter of recommendation for me to graduate school, because one of my professors there, when I met him, said, “Oh, you’re the girl Tom Hull wrote me about.” The faculty member who was closest to being a mentor to me (the term had not been defined in those days) was W. E. Kahan. He must then have been newly promoted; he had a demeanor quite unlike any of his colleagues, and a challenging way of teaching that was not appreciated by most of his students. He also taught numerical analysis (in fact, he became an eminent computer scientist and moved to Berkeley shortly after I graduated). We had a semester-long course from him during my first or second year of college, and I still remember the first class. He asked us to solve a simple quadratic equation. It might have been x 2 − 2000x + 1 = 0. It doesn’t factor, so using the quadratic formula (which we were all very good at), and getting out a slide rule (those were the days) one finds that one root is 2000 and the other is zero, which is clearly not correct. (Of course, we were supposed to get three significant figures.) It turns out to be one of the oldest tricks in the book: After using the quadratic formula to get that the larger root is roughly 2000, then use another property of quadratic equations to find that the smaller root is about 1/2000. Readers remembering why they hated numerical analysis are now where my fellow students were. They also hated having a teacher who clearly wanted to make them feel stupid. I, on the other hand, was thrilled. Since we were all stupid, I was no stupider than the boys! I did not become a numerical analyst, but I took every class that he taught, and took up hours of his time visiting him in his office to talk about everything from my disappointment with calculus (which did not live up to my high school expectations of being an infinite source of exciting problems) to difficulties with my love life and wondering if I should go on living. I have no idea what made him so patient. I do remember one evening, when I had talked through his office hour and through my dinner, he finally gave a sigh and said, “I have two young sons at home, and one of my rules is to see them every evening before they go to bed, so I will have to leave now.” Overall, he represented a fresh, enthusiastic attitude to mathematics and an excitement about research. Most of the professors in the Mathematics Department at the University of Toronto were not active in research in those days—again, this was

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

725

very much the style of Canadian universities in the 1960s. Graduate programs were small; talented students who wanted to earn a PhD went to the US or to England or France. The third of my teachers who encouraged me is well-known to the AWM community: Chandler Davis. He came to the U of T Math Department about the same time I did, having been blacklisted in the US because of his refusal to swear that he was not a Communist, or to name his acquaintances who were. (Canadians were even more cautious about communism in those days than were Americans, but as usual were a good deal less systematic. Perhaps the authorities simply didn’t get the memo.) Professor Davis did not try to make us feel stupid, but neither did he conceal his disappointment when he discovered, through our performance on exams, that the finer points of analysis, as expounded by Dieudonné, were way beyond us. Nonetheless, he was the person who persisted in encouraging me to go to graduate school. His opinion was that I should go to NYU and study with Peter Lax, insisting that if I liked his style then I would like Lax’s. As my application languished, Chandler figured out that I had not applied correctly, and stood over me until I completed the correct form. (I can only guess that he had a correspondent there who said they had not seen my application.) Much later I pointed out to him that, as he knew, I was an ardent ban-the-bomber. I chastised him mildly for sending me into a nest of bomb-makers. His response: “Oh, I figured you would be able to straighten them out.”

My Introduction to AWM For the first nine years of my professional career, I was a faculty member in engineering departments, first at Columbia and then at Princeton. At Columbia there was active hostility between the mathematics department, which was very distinguished, and my department, Mathematical Methods and Operations Research, which was not. As a result, my mathematical contacts remained with the Courant Institute, which was still pretty much unaware of AWM. My moving to Princeton was an anomaly. Women at Princeton were quite a new thing then, in every department, as women had just been admitted as undergraduate students a few years before I joined the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department (MAE) in 1977. Cathleen Morawetz was a trustee. (As I recall, one of her daughters had been a student there, and she said she had the “parent of student” position on the board.) In her position as trustee, she complained that there were no women on the engineering faculty. As was standard in those days, she was told that there were no qualified women. She responded, she told me, “There’s Barbara Keyfitz. She won’t gasify coal2 but she’s

2 The statement is significant. This conversation took place in the middle of 1976, when the country

has been plunged into a crisis caused by the rapid increase in the price of oil, and the prediction that the world supply of oil was beginning to decline. Finding a substitute for this essential resource

726

B. L. Keyfitz

a darn good applied mathematician.” The remainder of this story is quite amusing. I must emphasize that I am tremendously grateful to Princeton and its engineering school for giving me this career opportunity. For the first three years after I obtained my PhD, I had floundered at research. My PhD dissertation had impressed a few people, but it had not led (or at least, had not led me) to any further results. My new colleagues at Columbia had tried to help, but our backgrounds and interests were very different, and my little department had a number of challenges of its own. I was rescued by Herbert Kranzer, who had been a student of Courant and Friedrichs, was then teaching at Adelphi University on Long Island, and came to the mechanical engineering department at Columbia on sabbatical in 1974, looked me up, and proposed a problem that led to fifteen years of exciting research, but had not amounted to much by 1976. Then, in the summer of 1975, I signed up for a summer research opportunity at Grumman Aerospace; this led to a research publication and made the connection (albeit slim) with the aerospace department at Princeton. Like every department, MAE had its successes and its failures. It was strongest in experimental research. During my job interview, the department chair explained to me that the applied mathematicians in the department were the people who had become inactive in research and had lost their grants. “We don’t need any more applied mathematicians in this department,” he said. Nonetheless, I was hired, with some anomalous job title, a rather pathetic salary, and very few formal duties. I continue with these biographical details, to explain why it took a very long time for AWM and me to connect. After Princeton, I finally obtained a position in a mathematics department, at Arizona State, and then at the University of Houston. (Perhaps I should add here that I moved to Arizona State without tenure, or any promise of tenure, since I had never held a position in a mathematics department. I didn’t think about it much, as it seemed it would be many years away. But a couple of years later, my husband and I were both recruited to the University of Houston, which simply appointed me with tenure since at that point—13 years past PhD— anything else would have seemed ridiculous. So I have never prepared a tenure dossier or waited for the outcome.) In neither Arizona State nor Houston did AWM have much of a voice, and I, not having had much contact with the organization in my past, did not take any steps to make it more active there. I’m sure I was a member, and read the newsletter, but as I search my memory and my files I find no participation. I did not serve on the Executive Committee. I certainly benefited from the increased pressure on the mathematics community to encourage women to join the profession. While no opportunities were quite as dramatic as my being hired at Princeton, I did have editorial board assignments and speaking opportunities, and, rather late in the program, I had an NSF Visiting Professorship for Women grant in 1999.

was a priority of engineering research. In fact, during my time in MAE I became interested in combustion. When I published a paper on the explosion peninsula in the hydrogen-oxygen reaction, Cathleen said, “Maybe you will gasify coal.”

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

727

When I did get involved with AWM, it was through my involvement with the mathematics section of AAAS. During Jean Taylor’s term as AWM president, she initiated a program to send a half-dozen women mathematics students (undergraduate or graduate) to the AAAS Annual Meeting in 2000, and I helped out by talking to some of the students during the meeting. Later that year, she asked me to serve a term on the Travel Grant Selection Committee when there was a last-minute resignation. And early in 2001, she asked if I would serve on the Nominating Committee. Jean and I have known each other since she was a graduate student, so I wasn’t surprised at her thinking of me for some small services to AWM. But it was a major surprise when she asked, a couple of years later, if I would agree to be nominated for president-elect of AWM. (Being nominated, of course, meant serving, since the position was uncontested.) I pointed out that I’d had only minimal contact with AWM, to which Jean replied that the same had been the case for her. In fact, I had been casting about for something to do. My successful (and very ˇ c was coming to an end, as Sunny happy) research collaboration with Sunny Cani´ was becoming seriously involved in some very different research (in which she has been fantastically successful). On the other hand, any interest I might have had in administration was frustrated by my college dean’s refusal to consider me for department chair, on the grounds that my husband was a member of the same department. (As many people know, this problem has been solved at other universities, so possibly his stubbornness had a different source.) My husband and I were reasonably satisfied with our solution to the two-body problem; in fact, we had been approached about positions at other universities, but had not followed up as long as our children were still at home. By 2000, they were off to college and beyond, but we felt we had aged out of the job market. I had applied for the directorship of the Fields Institute in Toronto. It was a long shot, but I was beginning to forgive the University of Toronto for (I felt) slighting me when I’d been an undergraduate. Anyway, Fields was not part of the University of Toronto, merely located on the campus. And Fields had been very kind to me a decade before, during its first year of existence, when it invited Sunny and me to spend a semester at its temporary home in Waterloo. That semester had been the beginning of our collaboration, and was in many ways the birthplace of our research program. In addition, the founding director of Fields, Jerry Marsden, was someone I had known since college. He was a year ahead of me, so we had not had much contact while we were undergraduates, but he had always been friendly and had given me encouragement very early in my career. I felt enthusiastic about supporting one of his initiatives. (Jerry, like me, had been dissatisfied with Canada’s treatment of young people’s mathematical ambitions, though for different reasons. Like me, he left Canada for graduate school and never came back except for short visits.) Of course, it seemed unlikely that I’d be selected to become the director, and in addition my husband had some hesitation about a course of action that would require us to live in different cities for three years. Nonetheless, I was a candidate, and I had to think about whether that would be compatible with being president of AWM. I had also agreed to run to be the section chair for Section A (Mathematics) of AAAS,

728

B. L. Keyfitz

and this had a reasonable chance of success (and was, in fact, successful). But I said “yes” to Jean’s invitation. Even before the election, I was welcomed to a number of AWM mailing lists. While looking up some files for this article, I came across my candidate statement, and I reprint it here: Statement: Will we always need an Association for Women in Mathematics? Yes, we will. AWM was started at a time when this presidential candidate was just beginning her career. The term “two-body problem” had not yet been invented, there were few women faculty in science departments and even fewer in engineering (where I worked for nine years after getting my PhD degree). The professional outlook for women has changed greatly. This year’s headline announcing the new elections to membership in the National Academy of Sciences was “record number of women elected”—a comment which draws two responses. First, women are achieving recognition in greater numbers; second, it’s still news. Organizations like AWM have helped women to better their careers in tangible and intangible ways: by providing lecture opportunities and prizes, by professional development sessions, through mentoring and leadership roles. But, even when acclaim for the achievements of women mathematicians and scientists has become routine, the AWM will still be a place where women can enjoy meeting and working with other women. I feel honored to have been nominated to be president of AWM. I look forward to working with the officers and staff of the organization to expand the presence of AWM in AMS, MAA, and SIAM activities, to continue the excellent traditions of the Newsletter, and to develop new mentoring and leadership opportunities for women researchers, teachers, and scholars.

I have added emphasis to two sentences in the statement, because the idea they enunciate was expressed so memorably by Helen Moore. The occasion, I think, was a retreat that Carolyn Gordon had arranged. Some background might be needed to set the stage for this. Carolyn was, of course, my immediate predecessor as AWM president. My year as president-elect was the second year of her term, but as there was very little suspense about the job as soon as I agreed to be nominated, I was brought into many of the discussions, including as an observer on EC (Executive Committee) telephone meetings several months before my term officially started; I was a sort of president-elect-elect. Carolyn must have had a sense that a crisis was brewing (and for all I know she had evidence to back up her feeling, a result of her having been involved with the workings of AWM for some time). And she was right, though I did not see it coming. She had convinced the EC that it was time to get professional advice, and AWM hired a consultant, Nancy W. Moore. Since this has been my only experience with this sort of advice, I can say only that this was an excellent, constructive step. For AWM’s outlay of about $10,000, Nancy Moore’s company conducted interviews, organized a retreat (at the January 2004 JMM), and wrote a strategic plan, which was ready by about the middle of 2004. For me, there was a double benefit. By the autumn of 2003 it was becoming clear that I was likely to win the position of director of the Fields Institute, a position that I was eager to assume, but for which I had not the least bit of administrative experience, and only the vaguest sense of how organizations functioned. The perspective of an unbiased outsider, whose expertise

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

729

was in precisely the study of non-profit operations, provided an excellent tool with which to measure not only the challenges facing AWM but those of Fields as well. It was at the retreat that the question was raised: “What would be the point of AWM if the negative feelings about women mathematicians that prevailed in academic circles at the time of its founding were no longer present?” The memorable answer, as I recall, was given by Helen Moore: “AWM is about creating a community.” Was this something in the air? Was my campaign statement unconsciously plagiarized from some common source? I had not even been aware, up to that point, that a community of women was something that had been missing from my life. A few months later, when I moved to Toronto and became the day-today leader of a staff of about 15 people, most of them women, it became a thing.

On Becoming President So, first the very bright part of my term. My husband is Marty Golubitsky, and my term as president of AWM coincided (within a month at either end) with his term as president of SIAM. In addition, Jim Arthur, my college classmate, became president of the AMS at exactly the same time as my office at AWM began. Furthermore, I was director of the Fields Institute in Toronto at that point, and, though Marty was not based in Toronto, he spent one semester there and visited frequently, so the three of us often met together for a “presidents lunch” and compared notes. Jim worried a good deal about the finances of AMS, unnecessarily in my opinion, and comparing his situation with that of AWM was good for getting sympathy, at least. Better yet, Penny Arthur invited me to join her book group, and thus to a social life in my new city. Professionally and socially, the simultaneous presidencies were a peak experience. A minor consequence of Jim’s being president of the AMS was that he had a part at the 2005 Abel Prize ceremony, when Peter Lax won the prize. (Since Peter’s “society” was the AMS, the AMS president was invited to make a presentation at the formal banquet at the Royal Palace that is part of the ceremony.) And when Penny Arthur decided that she did not want to attend the three-day-long festivities, Jim managed to wangle an invitation to me from the authorities. Figure 1 shows us with Helge Holden (secretary of the International Mathematical Union as of this writing), a prominent Norwegian mathematician in the same field as Peter Lax, who was a co-host of the scientific part of the program. My term began with two, unrelated, crises. First, on January 15, 2005, Lawrence H. Summers, then the president of Harvard University, stated that the reason for women’s lack of participation comparable to men’s in scientific careers was partly owing to differences in innate ability between women and men. (In fairness, I believe that Summers intended his opinion on this to be confidential, but it did not remain so. And when his words became publicly known, he did not retract or alter them.) The scientific world, at least the part of it that I live in, blew up. No one could talk or write about anything else. Today it would be all over Twitter and I would be oblivious to it since I don’t do Twitter, but then email was the principal

730

B. L. Keyfitz

Fig. 1 Jim Arthur, Helge Holden, and Me at the 2005 Abel Ceremony

tool for quick, informal communication. As it happened I was at a conference in Chile when this all happened, and I don’t recall much excitement there, but the email traffic, which I have saved, was intense. Everyone on a rather large mailing list comprised of former presidents, executive committee members, and other supporters worked to make sure that all possible organizations—AMS, SIAM, ICIAM—posted statements in support of women. (I took care of writing ICIAM’s, at the behest of Ian Sloan, then the president of ICIAM.) A major triumph was that Carolyn Gordon’s rejoinder letter was published in the New York Times! The Summers fracas provided a frantic and unsettling conclusion to Carolyn’s already eventful presidency. (See Carolyn’s article in this volume.) The controversy did not die down. My favorite article, which I still look up and read occasionally, was an Op-Ed published in the Washington Post by Meg Urry, an astrophysicist at Yale (and an important supporter of women in mathematics), titled “Diminished by Discrimination We Hardly See.” Sometimes I imagine a comma between “Discrimination” and “We”; that is not the sense of the title, but it is also, at times, true. The second crisis, which did not make the newspapers but was a major preoccupation for the first six months of my term as president, was that the entire office staff of AWM’s operation at the University of Maryland resigned. There had been minor crises leading up to this: AWM is in the position of many small organizations of not being able to provide a route to promotion for talented and ambitious staff. AWM had benefited from goodwill and solidarity from employees who had helped the organization through many tough times, but by the end of 2004 time was running out. During the first three months of my term a number of us were preoccupied with how to move forward. Carolyn Gordon, just finishing her term as AWM president, was the person who was first hit with the crisis; a small committee of us worked on possible solutions. We selected a small association management firm, STAT Management. It was an arrangement that worked well for about a decade. Looking back through old

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

731

correspondence, it’s clear that during the period that AWM’s office was housed at the University of Maryland, AWM leadership had spent considerable time arbitrating office disputes, dealing with turf battles, pleading for charity from Maryland deans, and making decisions about different volunteers’ priorities, and had never gained the ability to make changes that were needed as AWM grew out of its childhood into a mature, stable organization. (Don’t ask me about the database. Ever.) The Strategic Plan that had been adopted toward the end of Carolyn’s term was eagerly taken up by the new management association. Our management officer, Jennifer Lewis (whose title was “Managing Director”), was professional and helpful. Although AWM eventually outgrew STAT and the relationship ended, the arrangement was excellent during my tenure as president, especially as I was almost simultaneously embarking on a new career as director of the Fields Institute—a role that was even more unfamiliar to me.

The Job of the President In one sense, after STAT took over the management, my task was easy: implement the STRATEGIC PLAN. This required a few tweaks, since the administrative structure, to which the plan had given much attention, had completely changed with the hiring of STAT. But the Strategic Plan stated that the immediate business was to re-organize the Executive Committee (EC) so that it operated like a traditional board of directors, supervising the association’s business through a set of committee portfolios. When I became president, this plan, which had been initiated while Carolyn Gordon was president, continued apace (see Fig. 2). Although I have not had anything to do with AWM governance for the past decade, it appears to have been successful, and the EC, which had formerly merely acted as a brake on initiatives of the president, now brings forward its own ideas. Beyond advancing up my learning curve of finding out how organizations work, I recall three things that happened during my tenure as president: hiring an executive director, the BIRS workshop and report, and setting up the Michler prize. These seem worth brief comments.

An Executive Director for AWM The three longer-established mathematical societies—AMS, MAA, and SIAM—all have a broad enough membership, sufficiently robust publishing enterprises, and high enough dues that they run their own shops. In particular, the organizations manage sizeable staffs, supervised by a top-level employee, the “executive director.” Although the executive director’s main task is to manage the staff that keeps the operation running—and this means interacting with a set of people with diverse skills, most of whom are not mathematicians—the executive directors have usually

732

B. L. Keyfitz

Fig. 2 AWM Executive Committee Meeting. Holly Gaff, Krystyna Kuperberg, Jennifer Lewis, Sylvia Wiegand, Carol Wood, Maura Mast, Me (at head of table), Fern Hunt, Ann Trenk, Abigail Thompson, 2007 JMM, New Orleans, LA. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

been mathematicians, often recruited from academic ranks. To many members of any of the three societies, the executive director’s name is the name they associate with the society; the presidency has at times been an honorary position, filled by a distinguished mathematician at the end of their professional career, with few real responsibilities. Of course, AWM is organized quite differently. Nonetheless, the idea of a “face” for the society, a helpmeet for the president, a mathematician who has some say in the day-to-day operations of the association, an employee (rather than a volunteer), someone with a personal, rather than merely professional, commitment to AWM’s mission has been appealing to AWM from its founding, and the title “executive director” seemed appropriate for the person who, among other duties, would meet as a peer with the executive directors of the three mathematical societies with which AWM has the most to negotiate. The nontrivial differences that the executive director at AWM would have to operate on a sort of parallel track to the managing director and the staff, as well as that AWM does not have a large enough budget to hire a full-time person, were considered by the EC, but we went ahead, advertised a half-time position, and hired an eminently qualified person. It was a brilliantly successful proof of concept, and since then AWM has always had an executive director. Whether it was a satisfactory position for the occupant is less clear (see McCarthy, Pershell, and Quinn’s article in this volume). It was certainly a service to AWM.

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

733

The BIRS Retreat While I was at Fields, I had quite a lot of interaction with the scientific director of BIRS (the Banff International Research Station) in Canada. I forget exactly how this got started, but somehow the BIRS director was persuaded to offer “women” the opportunity to hold a week-long (a BIRS week is five days) workshop, September 24–28, 2006. (The fact that this period happened to include Rosh Hashanah might have had something to do with this week’s being unclaimed, but I have no proof of this.) The workshop itself was delightful (see Fig. 3). Because BIRS is a partnership of Canada, the US and Mexico, we had participants from all three countries. This was an opportunity to make new friends, compare cultures, and of course compare the situation for women in three different countries. In the proposal for the workshop, we undertook to write a report; the working sessions dealt with topics like hiring, department climate, work-life balance and professional development. It took another nine months (funny, that gestation period) for our report to be completed; we phrased it as a “call to action.” (It can be found on the BIRS website, which publishes reports on all their workshops.) It contained the synthesis of our discussions on steps that individuals, societies, funding agencies, mathematics departments, and other employers could take to improve the educational opportunities and the careers of women. Thirteen years

Fig. 3 Some participants at the BIRS workshop

734

B. L. Keyfitz

later, much of it is outdated: many things we advocated have been implemented, and some others would now be considered ineffective. Nonetheless, at the time it attracted some attention. I am proud of the work that our conferees put into this.

The Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize The tragic origins of this award are well-known: Ruth Michler was a young associate professor at the University of North Texas, spending a sabbatical leave at Northeastern in Boston when she was struck and killed in a freak construction accident. When her parents received a large financial settlement, they approached Carolyn Gordon about using the money to benefit women mathematicians, and Ruth’s father, Professor Gerhard Michler, and Carolyn together came up with the idea of endowing a visiting position at Cornell University, to be awarded competitively to a women who had recently been promoted to associate professor. Cornell was chosen because it was a place that the Michler family, including Ruth, had visited often. The final negotiations between Cornell and AWM took place while I was president. In retrospect, it is interesting to recall the things we worried about. Would there be takers? Would Cornell honor the agreement and not absorb the endowment into their general funds? Would AWM be organized enough to administer the award? Would Cornell try to take it away from AWM? The answers have turned out to be yes, yes, yes, and no. As president, I represented AWM in the negotiations with Cornell, though all I remember is driving to Ithaca from Toronto (about the only practical way to get there—to my great disappointment the ferry service between Toronto and Rochester had been discontinued). The plan seemed to be pretty simple: get onto the New York Thruway, turn right at the lake, and drive to the end. It wasn’t until I got to the end that I realized I had driven along the wrong lake. Fortunately I had built some error time into the schedule and I still arrived, a bit breathless, in time for the meeting with math department faculty and Cornell administrators. After everything was set up, I returned for the opening ceremony, joining Cathy Kessel, who was AWM president by then, and Sylvia Wiegand, to welcome the first Michler awardee, Rebecca Goldin.

And One More Celebration: The Morawetz Conference It was Cathy Kessel who set this in motion. She was prompted by a letter from Constance Reid (who was Julia Robinson’s sister), suggesting that AWM honor Cathleen Morawetz on her 85th birthday. (I think Constance Reid was inspired by a number of “memorial” conferences AWM has held; she pointed out how great it would be to celebrate someone while they were alive.) By then I was no longer

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

735

president, but I was still at the Fields Institute, which seemed like an appropriate place to celebrate, since Cathleen had grown up in Toronto. As director, I did not have authority to select programs—we had a committee for that—but there was no question that this would be approved. When I had arrived at Fields, I found that Fields had not been very forwardlooking about encouraging women to participate in and to lead activities. Women in the Canadian mathematics community had noticed that, and complained about it. This was an excuse for me to approach the board of directors and ask for their agreement for an institutional policy to make sure women were represented on organizing committees and as speakers and participants. They gave it immediately. I was quite proud of them. Sometimes all you need to do is ask. The meeting itself was glorious. Figure 4 shows a happy scene during a break between talks. One memorable event took place during the banquet. At that time, Elaine Riehm was doing research for a biography of John Charles Fields, the creator of the Fields Medal, and while combing the stacks of the University of Toronto Library, where many of Fields’ records were stored, she came across the prototype for the medal itself, which was (and still is) struck by the Canadian Mint. The bronze prototype was in a small box, addressed to J. L. Synge. John Charles Fields, whose professional career was spent mainly at the University of

Fig. 4 At the Morawetz Birthday Conference, Cathleen Morawetz (sitting) talks to Gigliola Staffilani. Peter Lax sits on the far left with Louis Nirenberg beside him

736

B. L. Keyfitz

Toronto, had been the principal organizer of the 1924 ICM (International Congress of Mathematicians—though the 1924 version was actually called the “International Mathematical Congress”) in Toronto. He was a supremely gifted fundraiser (as we would now say), and at the end of the Congress had enough money left over to endow a prize. The details belong to a different article, but, sadly, Fields died before the project could take final shape, and Synge, the famous mechanician, then at the University of Toronto, undertook to see it completed. Hence this prototype was delivered to him, and somehow found its way into a drawer in the stacks of the library, where its existence was most likely unrecorded and unremembered. Synge was Cathleen Morawetz’s father, and Elaine impulsively (and without authorization) removed it from the library to show Cathleen at the banquet. Of course, it was a great hit; Cathleen was touched and amused, and when Elaine took it back so that she could return it, Cathleen said, absolutely not: keep it! So now it sits in a safe place, periodically displayed, at the Fields Institute.

Applied Mathematicians: At Times Another Out-Group When I became president of AWM, it presented an opportunity for women in applied mathematics to complain that AWM had ignored them/us. I do not know if this is true; I did quote the comment that Cathleen Morawetz’s position at what was viewed as a second-rate university was seen by at least some of AWM’s founders as evidence of prejudice against women. More likely, people with a broader view would have noted that (at that time) many very distinguished mathematics departments did not find the absence of applied mathematicians in their ranks to be a significant omission. I recall, as recently as the ICM in Madrid in 2006, that when Alfio Quarteroni (whose distinctions I will not even begin to enumerate here) came to the stage to deliver his invited plenary address, the room emptied. This lack of respect for applied mathematics was one of the motivations for the formation of ICIAM (the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) in the 1980s. In 2003, just before I became president-elect of AWM, I was invited to be the treasurer of ICIAM; I later served a term as president of ICIAM, and have remained involved with the organization. The experience of being president of AWM was an invaluable preparation for this role. The perspective of AWM encouraged me to work to create more visibility for women in what had been a very traditionally male organization. And the AWM model of the importance of communication, as exemplified by the AWM Newsletter, motivated me to create a newsletter for ICIAM. It is not, and will never be, on the scale of the AWM Newsletter, but I thank Anne Leggett’s example for its existence. Just as people have asked whether there will be a purpose for AWM when there is no longer prejudice against women, the leaders of ICIAM have asked whether ICIAM will continue to have a mission when applied mathematics is universally respected. (I might note, parenthetically, that while that time seems to have come in the United States, there are many countries in ICIAM’s international

Interesting Times: Reflections of AWM’s Seventeenth President

737

membership where this is not yet the case.) If one looks at the recent and current leadership of AWM, it is clear that applied mathematicians are now considered part of the community, and the challenges that women applied mathematicians face—for example, the pressures on women working in industry or in government labs—are considered with the same gravity as those of women in more traditional fields of mathematics, and in more academic areas of employment. It’s possible that applied mathematicians have the slight advantage of often doing work that appears to be useful to society. I remember hearing a complaint, when I served on an NSF panel, that NSF was very fond of quoting applied work they had funded when it came to getting larger appropriations from Congress, but then giving the increased funding to areas in core mathematics. So, turn it around: At their best, applied mathematicians make unique contributions to science and to society. The formation of ICIAM has created a world-wide community which has enabled people who work in diverse areas, some of whom identify principally as mathematicians and some of whom do not, to communicate better their results, to find more fruitful avenues of research, and to have more fulfilling careers. There is no reason that this needs to depend on being disrespected by their peers in core mathematics. At their best, the women who created AWM and who have enabled the association to thrive have also made the mathematical community a better and fairer place, not only for women but for everyone. The organizations might have started with a complaint, but they have resulted in a community.

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President Cathy Kessel

In 2005, when I was asked to be AWM president-elect, I was astonished. I doubted that I was respectable enough to be president. Unlike previous presidents, I didn’t have a regular job, just a lot of consulting gigs—and my past academic positions were not particularly distinguished. Moreover, I thought of my work as “odd jobs in math education” as I wrote in the 2004 AWM Newsletter, not mathematics, although mathematics played an important role. In this article, I write about being president, but also about experiences as a student, faculty member, and consultant. These experiences (pleasant and otherwise) have shaped my thinking about how to support women in mathematics, pushing me to learn about education, psychology, history, and sociology in order to better understand my situation and that of other women in mathematics. Along the way, I mention how AWM programs might have helped me to illustrate why such programs are needed, encourage readers to think about how they might benefit from AWM programs, or help others do so. I conclude with reflections on mathematics education from prekindergarten to graduate school.

University of Chicago Like several other AWM presidents, I come from an academic family. My parents met in graduate school, my father was a professor, I went to the lab school and college—all at the University of Chicago. Thus, I gained a child’s-eye view of academic life at one university. I saw the intellectual intensity of my professor father

C. Kessel () Berkeley, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_66

739

740

C. Kessel

and his colleagues, and gradually began to sense that women—secretaries, faculty wives, and a few professors—didn’t quite have the same status as men. Among other things, my father studied economic aspects of medicine and my initial ideas about discrimination probably came from his work. As a result of legislative changes urged by the American Medical Association, the number of medical schools decreased between the 1900s and 1940s, as did the number of Black and women doctors (Kessel, 1970). Discrimination was fairly overt, for example, Jews, Blacks, and women simply were not admitted to medical school or were subject to quotas. My father argued that medicine was both a social and an economic club, and “the returns of the economic club are related to the degree of social cohesion that exists within the social club” (Kessel, 1958, p. 46). Discrimination benefited those already in the club by facilitating social cohesion, which in turn facilitated monopolistic practices, but did not necessarily improve medical practice or benefit society. As in medicine, women were more prevalent in mathematics decades before I was born (see Fig. 1), but I did not know that until many years later. I even knew a few of their names! Dorothy Brady (PhD Berkeley 1933), had gone into economics and statistics, and had taught briefly at the University of Chicago (Green and LaDuke, 2016). I’d heard her name from my parents. Margaret Matchett (PhD Indiana 1946) taught mathematics in my high school (Dumbaugh and Schwermer, 2017). Had they been interviewed by a student in my school for the AWM Essay Contest for Biographies of Contemporary Women Mathematicians, I might have learned a little of their history. (For a description of the Essay Contest, see Howle and Lewis’s article in this volume.)

Fig. 1 Percentage of US mathematics PhDs awarded to women by decade. Sources: Murray (2000), pp. 4–5; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2019)

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

741

But it was not surprising that I did not know these women had PhDs in mathematics, I was only vaguely aware of any mathematicians. One of my fourthgrade friends told me that her uncle was John von Neumann. As I found out decades later, he was “a giant among pure mathematicians” (Nasar, 1998, p. 78). At the time, I probably heard from my mother that, when my father was at RAND (the Research and Development Corporation, formed to connect military planning with research and development in several disciplines), von Neumann was someone who came there occasionally. In 1972, a year after I started college, overt discrimination in education and academic employment was outlawed by Title IX. Much later, I became aware of other forms of discrimination such as “micro-inequities” (now more commonly known as “microaggressions”), “hostile environment,” or “unconscious bias” and how they might diminish “sense of belonging.” In college, I grew accustomed to being in mathematics classes with few or no other women. In one particularly challenging course (a graduate course on model theory), I studied with another woman, but in general I did not talk with anyone about mathematics, rarely went to office hours, and didn’t ask questions in class. One of my second-year courses (point–set topology) was taught by a woman, but I don’t remember her name. (This may say more about me or the topic of the course than its instructor.) At the University of Chicago, it was hard to avoid Plato and Aristotle—and I got hooked. Two big influences on me were the ideas of an examined life and considering the goal of an activity. I also became interested in logic and set theory. At the time, it seemed like a natural extension of my interest in abstract algebra and rather unrelated to economics (perhaps a form of adolescent rebellion), but later I began to see connections of logic with economic theory.1 At Chicago, I got a few written comments on my exams, but my main form of encouragement was the courses and exams themselves rather than grades or conversations with professors. Although I had the surprising experience of finishing in-class exams in half an hour and being the first to leave, I can’t ever remember wondering how I ranked in class. Instead, my interest was in the material itself. “Take-home” exams were particularly enjoyable. These had sequences of questions that allowed proofs of results to unfold before the test-taker.

Assessment and Me In college, as in high school, I didn’t seek to please my teachers or worry about getting high grades. The Lab School didn’t give grades before high school and my high school grades were like a sine wave. If I was interested, I tended to get

1 Lurking in my background might have been the effects of my father’s time at RAND among the game theory users described in A Beautiful Mind (Nasar, 1998, pp. 115–122).

742

C. Kessel

good grades, otherwise not. My parents didn’t pressure me much about grades— I wasn’t convinced that getting high grades was particularly important. (Getting a scholarship was not a concern for me. Because my father was a Chicago faculty member, undergraduate tuition equivalent to Chicago’s would have been paid for me at any school that I attended.) My impression of the SAT (the college admissions exam which was then called the Scholastic Aptitude Test) was that it was boring and somewhat insulting. (That was before the era of test prep and I didn’t know that the interesting problems came at the end of each section.) Fortunately for me, Chicago didn’t use the SAT as a placement exam, so my first college mathematics course was multivariate analysis. I found the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), which I took for graduate school admission, a bit silly. As I recall, its main focus was calculus, which I had taken in high school. To me, there seemed to be no connection between what was on the GRE and what it took to succeed in graduate courses. Presumably the GRE was meant to predict how I would fare in graduate school, but I couldn’t see how solving short calculus problems could predict theorem-proving abilities. So what was the goal of this activity? Thus far, my skepticism about tests and lack of concern for grades was not an obstacle. That changed in graduate school.

Graduate School in Mathematics Somewhere, probably the Chicago mathematics department, I heard that the University of California at Berkeley was a good place to study logic, but also that it was “sink or swim.”2 That didn’t frighten me. Many of my undergraduate friends had dropped out before graduating and I’d managed to survive. With my rather privileged background, I might have been expected to be one of the few women to graduate from Berkeley with a PhD (see Table 1). I didn’t, but I was hardly alone. Many of my graduate student friends (mostly male) weren’t getting along especially well either, some dropped out and some took a long time to graduate. It was discouraging that the person in my entering class and field of interest who seemed most successful during and after graduate school was also the most sexist, “jokingly” calling me stupid, repeatedly asking me who my boyfriend was, and groping me (and perhaps going on to harass other women). Like the women in the 2020 documentary Picture A Scientist, I did my best to ignore the problem. At the time, I didn’t think of my father’s work on discrimination in medicine and ask “What’s in it for him?” I got an answer, years later, when he told a mutual

2 Several years later, I heard this had changed to “We no longer advise students to go to Berkeley,” possibly due to the findings of a site visit from an external review committee in 1975 (Moore, 2007, pp. 277–278).

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

743

Table 1 PhDs in mathematics granted by UC Berkeley 1970–1979 1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2019 Women International 9 7 10 11 7 Asian 2 3 3 6 9 Black 0 0 1 1 1 Chicano/Mexican-American 0 0 1 0 2 Other Hispanic/Latino 0 1 0 2 1 Native American 0 0 0 0 0 White 11 13 17 17 11 Other 7 1 7 3 4 Total 29 25 39 40 35 % 9% 9% 13% 16% 15% Men International 67 90 74 64 70 Asian 8 11 14 20 16 Black 6 5 0 2 3 Chicano/Mexican-American 0 1 2 1 4 Other Hispanic/Latino 2 3 2 4 5 Native American 0 1 0 1 0 White 128 122 119 101 84 Other 74 19 49 10 20 Total 285 252 260 203 202 % 91% 91% 87% 84% 85% Total 309 268 274 243 237 Note: “Other” includes those with no ethnic information, “mixed race” (the term used in the 1970s), and those who decline to state. International students are from countries outside of the US on temporary study visas. Data source: University of California, Berkeley Graduate Division Files transferred July 23, 2020. Creator Natalia Ramirez for Anne MacLachlan, CSHE, UCB, History of Graduate Women at Berkeley 1870–2019, The 150 Years of Women at Berkeley Project

acquaintance that his behavior was intended “to reduce the competition.”3 This might have been obvious if I’d paid attention to Berkeley’s unusually high ratio of graduate students to ladder faculty, 6 to 1 versus 3 to 1 “at other important institutions,” as Calvin Moore notes in his book Mathematics at Berkeley. This allowed lots of interesting courses to run, but the downside was that far more students were admitted than could possibly graduate. In the 1970s, approximately 70 students entered each year (Moore, 2007, p. 278), but, as Table 1 shows, about 30 students graduated each year. The justification for admitting so many students was “a longstanding philosophy in the department that as a public university, there was 3 Of course, this may not have been the actual reason but a more socially acceptable answer. However, his behavior did help to reduce the competition by making my life more difficult.

744

C. Kessel

a responsibility to provide broad access to qualified applicants to the highest quality of mathematics education that could be offered.” Certainly, admission gave students access to courses, but it did not guarantee access to thesis advisors.4 A consequence of this situation may have been that Berkeley’s oral qualifying exams functioned as a weed-out device. Supposedly one examinee was asked, “I’m thinking of a structure in the language of the integers. What is it?” The answer was not “The integers.” (Maybe this was just a story meant to scare off the competition. In hindsight, this seems more of a conundrum than an exam question—but the phrasing “I’m thinking of” suggested mind-reading.) Like the SAT and GRE, the qualifying exams aroused my skepticism. What was the goal of this activity? What were the qualifying exams supposed to measure? Were they supposed to predict future performance in graduate school—or were they just an initiation rite as one of my friends said?5 Students often seemed antagonistic toward faculty. W. E. Kahan, whom Barbara Keyfitz describes in this volume as a challenging teacher and caring mentor at Toronto, was only known to me as someone students didn’t want on their qualifying exam committees. When I met Judy Roitman (who had recently graduated from Berkeley and later became AWM president in 1978), I remember that she commiserated with me on the awfulness of the math department (see her article “How It Was” in this volume) but not talking with her about AWM. Discussion with a mentor, such as that provided by AWM’s Mentor Network (see Ghazaryan et al.’s article in this volume), might have given me a different perspective or suggested survival strategies.6 Although I had taken or audited courses from Marina Ratner and Julia Robinson, the only two women professors in the department, I don’t remember even thinking to consult them. Instead, after not passing my qualifying exams (and acquiring text anxiety along with a masters degree), I followed the example of another graduate student and went to the University of Colorado which had a strong logic group—and written qualifying exams. My advisor there did have the discouraging habit of not scheduling regular

4 During the 1980s, the number of first-year graduate students went up to as many as 90. During the 1990s, in response to the declining job market and other factors, entering classes were between 30 and 40 (Moore, 2007, p. 279). However, as Table 1 shows, the number of graduating students was similar for the three decades, suggesting that changing the size of the entering class did not have much effect. The size of the tenured faculty may have been more important: 68 in 1972–1973; 69 in 1982–1983; 62 in 1992–1993 (Rossiter, 2012; Women in math update, 1992). 5 A study of mathematics departments found 20 different types of qualifying or preliminary exam formats (Case and Blackwelder, 1993, pp. 808–809). 6 For example, switching fields might have been a good idea. The logician Alfred Tarski, who was famous for having a lot of women students, had retired. It didn’t occur to me then that some mathematicians might avoid having women as thesis students (or that some women might avoid certain advisors), but a look at Math Genealogy indicates that women were not uniformly distributed among advisors. This non-uniformity has been noted by Green and LaDuke in their study of pre-1940s women and indirectly by celebrations of advisors with unusually large numbers of women students, e.g., Morawetz et al. (1995).

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

745

appointments with me and losing copies of my thesis chapters, but I managed to graduate with a PhD. Again, advice from a mentor might have made a difference in helping me deal with my situation, but I didn’t search for advice, although I got to know Rebekka Struik (who was on the Colorado faculty while I was a graduate student) and had joined AWM. (I did mention difficulties with my advisor to friends, but they didn’t offer advice. Solving problems of this sort wasn’t their forte—and certainly not mine.) Fortunately, I received unsolicited advice on applying for jobs (thanks, George McNulty!) and—just before my first job interview—help with my job talk. (This, by the way, was my first talk on my thesis results. In contrast, I think of the opportunities for presenting one’s work afforded by the AWM student chapters and the AWM workshops for graduate students (see Fig. 2) and postdocs.) Despite this rather slap-dash preparation, I got a job.

Graduate School in Education In 1989, after three years as an assistant professor at a small college, I was dissatisfied with my situation. My lack of academic connections seemed glaring. (In hindsight, my situation doesn’t seem so bad. I had a tenure-track job with a six- or nine hour teaching load per semester and an article under review. Then, even more than now, women tended to be employed at bachelors-granting institutions with heavy teaching loads.) Had AWM mentoring grants or research networks existed, they might have helped. Although my primary interest was research, I wanted my students to understand and enjoy mathematics, but was not successful. The student attitudes that Neal Koblitz described a year later in his AWM Newsletter article “Are Student Ratings Unfair to Women?” were all too familiar to me. If an instructor feels compelled to put students under pressure (assigning a lot of homework, giving challenging exams), then only the most serious and mature students are at all likely to respond with high ratings at the end of the course. Most students are inclined to “punish” the instructor. There is considerable evidence that the “punishment” is more severe if the instructor is female. (Koblitz, 1990)

As a last-ditch effort to establish connections with people in my specialty, I took a leave of absence and went to California. I had written to inquire about attending the year in logic at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI), but did not receive a reply. I had thought of going to talks anyway, but never went to MSRI during that year, although it was only a short bus-ride away from where I was staying in Berkeley. (Joining an AWM Research Collaboration Network wasn’t an option in those days.)

746

C. Kessel

Fig. 2 Terry Jo Leiterman presenting her poster to AWM President-elect Cathy Kessel, 2006 JMM, San Antonio, TX. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

On the other hand, my application to attend a Mathematicians and Education Reform7 meeting had been accepted and I began my stay in Berkeley by attending the meeting. There I heard about innovations such as Uri Treisman’s workshops for undergraduates (see, e.g., his article “Studying Students Studying Calculus”). I wanted to understand more, and said, in essence, “This stuff is interesting, but does

7 MER began in 1988, Naomi Fisher became its co-director in 1990. As Bonnie Saunders put it in 1996, “Her strengths were exactly what MER needed: an ability to bridge the gap between the mathematics and the mathematics education communities.”

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

747

anyone do research about it?” The reply was, “You should talk to Alan Schoenfeld,” a mathematician turned mathematics education researcher at the Graduate School of Education (GSE) at the University of California. I did talk to Schoenfeld and I started to spend time at the GSE where I was able to sit in on courses. After a few months, I decided that I didn’t intend to return to my tenure-track job and I quit it. My predilection to examine my life plus an invitation from Ed Dubinsky led me to describe some of my reasons for quitting in MAA’s newly established newsletter on undergraduate mathematics education (Kessel, 1990). I began to understand some of the phenomena that had troubled me with respect to teaching and to gender. The phrase “began to understand” obscures the complexity illustrated by this anecdote: An acquaintance who moved several years ago from a physics department to a graduate school of education in the United States described the resulting ‘culture shock’ to me quite seriously as greater than what she had experienced in emigrating to America from Russia. (Goldin, 2003)

It took some time before I began to understand how communication differed in mathematics and education research (Kessel, 2013). Part of this entailed learning to read articles from other disciplines. As Schoenfeld points out in his book Mathematical Problem Solving, Contributions to our understanding [of mathematical problem solving] come from disciplines as diverse as mathematics education, artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive anthropology, and developmental psychology. While this situation is natural and healthy, there are ways in which it makes for difficulties. Papers within any disciplinary tradition are usually written under the assumption that readers will share the author’s paradigms, assumptions, and language. Readers from outside that discipline can find it hard to penetrate the barrier of assumptions and language, to uncover relevant results, and to see connections that might otherwise be seen. (1985, pp. 5–6)

In the early 1990s, the GSE was a wonderful place for me to be. Among other things, I learned about Schoenfeld’s research on problem solving, and had the opportunity to observe the course in which he teaches undergraduates to use the heuristics described by George Pólya. Together with two graduate students and a postdoc, I had the fun of analyzing videotapes of the class, resulting in a long article on the first two days of the course (Arcavi et al., 1998). An interesting feature of Schoenfeld’s research on problem solving is that there is evidence that the behaviors he describes are not used by all mathematicians. A study of two groups of mathematicians, one composed of “ordinary” mathematicians, the other nationally or internationally recognized (e.g., president of a mathematical society or prize-winner), found that only the latter had these behaviors (DeFranco, 1996). This finding seems to have had little connection with PhD programs in mathematics (for example, should nurturing these behaviors be a goal of graduate education?) but is perhaps indirectly connected with increased emphasis on activities that involve problem solving, such as research experiences for undergraduates, the Ross program for high school students, and math circles.

748

C. Kessel

As with problem solving, research that contributes to understanding of gender comes from several disciplines and understanding the relevance of different findings isn’t always straightforward. Fortunately, I acquired the guidance of Marcia Linn, another member of the GSE faculty. For example, to understand implications of gender differences in test scores, it’s helpful to know that test developers distinguish between “predictive validity” and “construct validity.” In the case of tests used in admissions, such as the SAT, ACT, and GRE, developers focus on predictive validity, e.g., how well test scores are correlated with future success in school, usually as measured by grades. In the past (and perhaps still today), women tended to get higher grades than did men with the same SAT score. However, people other than test developers often consider test scores as measures of a construct, e.g., mathematical ability or knowledge, and use tests for purposes for which they weren’t designed, e.g., SAT scores are sometimes used for course placement, a practice that tends to disadvantage women (Linn and Kessel, 1996). Being at the GSE was also an opportunity to watch dissertations in mathematics education develop. One especially memorable one was Miriam Gamoran Sherin’s study of teacher knowledge. Along with the graduate students, I learned about the concepts of “subject matter knowledge” (SMK) and “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK). Loosely speaking, SMK is what a mathematician might think of as mathematical knowledge. In contrast, PCK includes knowing such things as: “(x + y)2 is equal to x 2 + y 2 ” is a common student error.8 Learning about these concepts turned out to be very helpful later when I edited Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. Another especially memorable dissertation was Danny Martin’s study of middle school students, later published as Mathematics Success and Failure among African American Youth. Again, I learned along with the graduate students, this time about how anthropologist John Ogbu’s work could help in understanding the effects of sociohistorical forces on different cultural groups. And, when I copy edited Danny’s book, I had another chance to think about the structure of the study. I began to acquire mentors. Often, the term “mentor” is associated with teaching and guidance, but as the pairing “mentor and protégé” suggests, an important aspect of mentoring is knowing the protégé’s talents and making appropriate recommendations of the protégé for talks, scholarships, and, in my case, odd jobs in math education such as editing. This was a huge contrast with my graduate school experiences in mathematics, as were practices at the GSE: a “first year project” which requires starting to do research early; help and encouragement to give talks at professional meetings and to publish while in graduate school. (These practices were a revelation to me then, but, I hope, nothing special now.) The moral of these graduate school stories, is not, I think, that one field was horrible and the other was not, but rather that the departmental structures and

8 At Chicago, I heard this called “schoolboy Pythagoras” when learning about fields of characteristic 2.

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President Table 2 Tenured mathematics faculty, July 1992

Department UC Berkeley Caltech Chicago Columbia Harvard MIT Michigan Princeton Stanford Yale Total

749 Total 60 13 25 14 17 40 49 31 23 16 288

Women 2a 0 0 1b 1c 0 1 0 0 0 5

%Women 3% 0% 0% 7% 6% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2%

a One

joint appointment with UCLA at Barnard c Professor of the practice in the teaching of mathematics Source: Science, 17 July 1992, p. 32 b Tenured

practices involved were very different. Another moral: At a wide variety of critical transitions, support is now available from AWM.

Organizations In 1989, when I went to the San Francisco Bay Area, it was a hotbed of math and science education organizations, many started in the 1970s. One was the Math/Science Network which sponsored Expanding Your Horizons (EYH) conferences, career days for middle- and high-school girls held across the US and beyond.9 I became a board member, and got involved in editing and proofreading the materials that were sent to the EYH sites every year by the sole staff person, a part-time executive director. Another organization that I joined was the Support Committee for Jenny Harrison (which, despite its name, was a 501(c)(3) organization like AWM), composed of academics, activists, and activist academics, with no paid staff. Harrison, a mathematician, sued Berkeley for sex discrimination. Coverage of her case included the count of tenured women at the “top ten” mathematics departments shown in Table 2. Although many people were undoubtedly aware that few women had such positions, such statistics had not previously received wide attention.

9 Like the Sonia Kovalevsky Days initiated by AWM, EYHs have become widespread although they no longer have a sponsoring organization. For more discussion of both types of events, see Elizabeth Yanik’s article in this volume.

750

C. Kessel

Harrison was far from alone in suing for tenure denial at Berkeley. At the law school, Marjorie Shultz and Eleanor Swift were denied tenure in 1985 and 1987, respectively, and sued. As the result of a settlement, they were granted tenure reviews (and awarded tenure) by independent panels in 1989 (Blakemore, 2020). Harrison, who filed suit in 1986, asked for the same independent panel process to be used—and it was—in 1993. There were other sex discrimination suits at Berkeley, throughout the University of California system, and around the US. I became part of WAGE (We Advocate Gender Equity) whose mission was “To end gender bias and achieve gender equity in the education, hiring, retention, promotion, and compensation of women in the academic community within the University of California and other academic institutions.” Like the Support Committee, it had no paid staff. As a result, I became a lot better at going to meetings and reading agendas, began to appreciate the type of skill involved in running a meeting, and learned something about how small organizations keep going. (A tiny staff may not be able to fulfill every request and should not be stretched thin by trying. Volunteers are very important! So is institutional memory.)

AWM Service Although I had dropped off the standard academic track in 1989, I had not entirely lost contact with mathematicians. In the same year, I wrote my first book review for the AWM Newsletter, then became the book review editor. That, along with work on AWM’s Education Committee (see Fig. 3) and other service allowed me to get a sense of what AWM did and a chance to discuss ideas encountered at the GSE with mathematicians and others (see Fig. 4). I also got to know a variety of people interested in education, among them Amy Cohen, Pao-sheng Hsu, Suzanne Lenhart, Erica Voolich, and Ginger Warfield. At the same time, I tried to think of ways to build bridges between mathematicians and researchers in education and social sciences: Facilitating exchange of relevant information, by passing it along myself, suggesting people for AWM’s Education Committee, inviting social scientists to give talks in sessions at the Joint Meetings, and expanding the travel grants program.10 As president-elect, my interests in mathematics education and gender converged when I worked on the background for a petition to remove Camilla Benbow from the National Math Panel in 2006. In 1980 and 1983, Benbow and her co-author Julian Stanley had published articles in Science that reported dramatic gender differences in “mathematical reasoning ability,” as measured by SAT scores given to non-random samples of middle-school students. The 1980s findings were often

10 I

wrote about the rationale for expanding the travel grants program in the September–October 2009 AWM Newsletter.

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

751

Fig. 3 Cathy Kessel, Suzanne Lenhart, Betsy Yanik, Carolyn Yackel, Jackie Dewar, AWM Education Committee meeting, 2007 JMM, New Orleans, LA

interpreted as evidence of innate ability in males in media accounts and were widely circulated. In 2005, they were invoked by Lawrence Summers, among others in connection with the paucity of women in top STEM departments.11 After 1983, use of the same methods (e.g., “voluntary samples” as Marcia Linn put it) had produced less dramatic findings that Benbow, a prolific author, had neglected to mention. In 2007, a year after the petition, an article co-authored by Benbow cited the less dramatic findings, and they began to trickle into the writings of other authors.12 As president, I focused on helping AWM run (e.g., Fig. 5). In contrast with most of my previous board experiences, AWM had many programs and a staff, which at that time consisted of a half-time executive director and half-time managing director with some office help. (From my viewpoint that was a large staff, but it was (and is) quite small as compared with those of AMS, MAA, or SIAM. For example, in 2020 AWM had 1.75 full-time staff members. In contrast, AMS had over eight times as many members and an executive staff of seven, plus many other staff members for government relations, education, finance, publishing, sales, meetings, etc.) I was lucky to start my term as president after Jennifer Quinn had gained experience as executive director, and again lucky that Maeve McCarthy was her

11 Summers (an economist) was president of Harvard and used Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate (which cited the Benbow–Stanley findings) as a basis for speculations about women’s lack of “innate ability” in mathematics that received much publicity. For a more thorough discussion, see Hyde and Mertz (2009). 12 I wrote about these and other questionable statistics in the Journal of Humanistic Mathematics (Kessel, 2011).

752

C. Kessel

Fig. 4 William M. Wagner and Cathy Kessel, AWM 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

successor. Both had creative ways of dealing with problems and constraints. I got a lot of practical advice regarding organizations from Jennifer Lewis, the managing director. For example, consider the costs of adding a new award. Aside from any cash awarded, staff time is needed: someone must ask people to serve on the selection committee, answer questions from nominators (and sometimes the selection committee), handle nominations, notify the winner, get a press release or citation checked, get a plaque or certificate made, update the website, etc. Before becoming president, I had served on the Long-range Planning Committee, which, with the aid of a consultant, had developed a strategic plan to restructure AWM’s governance and operations. Among other things, this involved the initiation of four “portfolios” (Policy and Advocacy, Meetings and Programs, Membership, and Fundraising) chaired by Executive Committee members-at-large in the second half of their four-year terms. To allow that, the number of members-at-large expanded from five to eight in 2006, while Barbara Keyfitz was president. The Executive Committee (EC) and the four portfolio committees met in alternate months. In my opinion, the strategic plan was designed to accommodate the change from being an organization in which the president was still quite hands-on, for example, populating selection committees without the aid of a Committee on Committees. (As I write this, I have a vivid memory of Maeve McCarthy initiating a Committee on Committees meeting at a JMM.) The role of the EC also changed (see Fig. 6). Instead of going immediately to the EC, proposals for new activities first went to

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

753

Fig. 5 Perla Myers, AWM Noether Lecturer Audrey Terras, AWM President Cathy Kessel, 2008 JMM, San Diego, CA. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

Fig. 6 Michelle Snider, Pamela Harris, Sylvia Wiegand, Cathy Kessel, Sarah Greenwald, AWM EC Meeting, 2020 JMM, Denver, CO

the appropriate portfolio committee for vetting and discussion, then were presented to the EC.13 In my last months as president, I had the opportunity to work on a proposal to be submitted by the Association for Women in Science called Advancing Ways of

13 The

Policy and Advocacy Committee—one of these portfolios—years later gave rise to the Government Advocacy Committee, sponsor of the Capitol Hill visits. See Gail Letzter and Marie Vitulli’s article on the P&A Committee and Michelle Snider’s article on the GAC in this volume.

754

C. Kessel

Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (AWARDS, see Leboy and Popejoy (2012)). This was an outgrowth of an earlier project that had collected statistics on awards given to women in STEM,14 intended to inform disciplinary societies about ways to reduce bias. Because the proposal was funded by NSF’s ADVANCE program, “bias” was confined to gender bias. (As I remember it, ADVANCE did not then focus on intersectionality.) At that time, most AWM awards were for women, so we didn’t have the opportunity to examine them as part of the AWARDS project. Instead, AWM partnered with AWIS and helped to obtain agreements to participate from MAA, SIAM, AMS, and ASA. (For more discussion of the AWARDS project, see Betty Mayfield’s article in this volume.) One aspect of the AWARDS project that I especially enjoyed was the opportunity to see how research findings about bias and methods for avoiding it were communicated in the workshops conducted by the University of Wisconsin’s Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI).15 My hope was (and is) that methods for increasing diversity in nominations and reducing bias in selection will infiltrate other arenas, for example, departmental hiring. For example, specifying selection criteria before looking at applications can be done by hiring committees as well as awards committees.

Thoughts About the Future In the US, mathematics education fails many students (see, e.g., Howe 2020). We have an unfortunate mixture of stereotypes and traditions in education. Some teachers believe that young children are not ready for mathematics education (Lee and Ginsburg, 2009) or their beliefs about readiness may vary according to a child’s race and ethnicity. (For details about the early education workforce, see National Research Council, 2009, pp. 290–292; National Research Council, 2015, pp. 382– 383, 462–463.) Because of the belief that women and math don’t mix, the tradition that most teachers of young children are women, and the importance of early mathematics education, I think that AWM might play a significant symbolic role in early and elementary mathematics education if it created some ties with early childhood educators, a very large percentage of whom are women, many of them women of color. In contrast, women are a much smaller percentage at the other end of the education (and economic) spectrum. Although women are better represented at the “top ten” mathematics departments than they used to be (see Tables 2 and 3), there

14 This

was the Recognizing the Achievements of Scholars in Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, Mathematics, and Medicine (RAISE) project. 15 See, e.g., the AWARDS webcasts (AWIS, 2011) and WISELI’s booklet Reviewing Applicants.

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President Table 3 Tenured mathematics faculty, spring 2020

755

Department Total Women %Women UC Berkeley 57 10.5a 18% Caltech 22 3 14% Chicago 36 3 8% Columbia 28 4 14% Harvard 18 2b 11% MIT 45 5 11% Michigan 59 12 20% Princeton 32 3 9% Stanford 24 2 8% Yale 14 1 7% Total 335 44.5 13% a One appointment is half time in physics.

One is a teaching professor b One is on leave from UC Berkeley (thus

is counted in the total for Berkeley). One is a professor of the practice in the teaching of mathematics Berkeley statistics include information from Moore (2007, pp. 308–309)

is definitely room for growth (note the contrast with percentages of PhDs granted to women shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1). Part of the problem may be that the “top ten” departments tend to hire each other’s graduates. Compared with their overall share of PhDs in mathematics, women earn smaller percentages from top departments (see Table 1, also Golbeck et al., 2020a, Fig. D.3). Even smaller are the percentages of those women graduates who are hired by top departments (Vitulli, 2018, p. 328).16 Yet another worry: Statistics suggest that a disproportionate number of women in PhD programs don’t finish PhDs (Golbeck et al., 2020b, p. 1620). Activities such as those run by AWM student chapters may improve this situation (see the section on student chapters in this volume). Moreover, statistics suggest that less than half of graduate students in US doctoral programs will graduate with a PhD in mathematics.17 The upheaval caused by the pandemic, however, may create an opportunity to rethink graduate education (Zahneis, 2021), including admissions, testing, and advising practices, improving experiences for all students. My other thoughts about AWM’s future extend what I’ve already mentioned: improving education (prekindergarten to postdoc), mentoring, research, and careers; 16 I

am using “Group I” and “Large Public” and “Large Private” as a proxy for “top departments.” 2018, about 1,500 PhDs were granted (Golbeck et al., 2020a, Figure A.2) and about 3,700 students entered as first-year doctoral students (Golbeck et al., 2020b, Table GS.1). Assuming that each student goes to only one school and that the number of PhDs granted each year is more or less constant, less than half of the people entering will exit with a PhD, on average. This attrition is not special to mathematics (Sowell et al., 2008). 17 In

756

C. Kessel

extending consciousness of gender and other types of bias and knowledge of ways to address it. In my view, these involve building connections with people outside as well as inside mathematics, both for exchanging information and organizing projects and activities. Support of such efforts, in my opinion, relies on AWM’s infrastructure and institutional memory. AWM has been extremely fortunate in having energetic and longstanding volunteers. But we are a small organization with a small membership. As the vibrant AWM ecosystem of conferences, awards, research support, visits to Capitol Hill, and student chapters has grown,18 so have demands on staff and volunteer time. Although AWM’s budget and staff time have grown along with the organization, it often seems that there’s never quite enough for all of the programs and improvements. And because women are disproportionately likely to have family responsibilities or jobs with heavy teaching loads, volunteer time is far from unlimited. So, one of my wishes for AWM’s future is more income for more staff time, whether from donations, sponsors, or new memberships. From that, I hope we can better retain staff, building institutional memory in staff as well as volunteers, along with institutional practices that address and avoid bias, helping AWM become an even more welcoming and supportive organization. Acknowledgments Thanks to Janet Beery, Sarah Greenwald, Anne MacLachlan, Judy Roitman, Marie Vitulli, and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References Arcavi, Abraham, Cathy Kessel, Luciano Meira, and John Smith. 1998. Teaching mathematical problem solving: A microanalysis of an emergent classroom community. In Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III ed. Alan Schoenfeld, Ed Dubinsky, and James Kaput (1–70). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. AWIS. 2011. AWARDS webcasts. https://awis.site-ym.com/page/Awards_webcasts Accessed 2 Apr 2021. Blakemore, Erin. 2020. Swift justice. California Magazine 131(3): 44–48. Case, Bettye Anne and M. Annette Blackwelder. 1993. Doctoral department retention, expectations, and teaching preparation. AMS Notices 40(7): 803–811. DeFranco, Thomas. 1996. A perspective on mathematical problem-solving expertise based on the performances of male PhD mathematicians. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II ed. James Kaput, Alan Schoenfeld, and Ed Dubinsky (195–213). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Dumbaugh, Della and Joachim Schwermer. 2017. Käte Hey and Margaret Matchett—Two women PhD students of Emil Artin. In Women in mathematics ed. Janet Beery et al. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Association for Women in Mathematics Series. Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2020a. Report on the 2017–2018 new doctorate recipients. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(8): 1200–1206.

18 I

have adopted and adapted Judy Roitman’s lovely description.

Reminiscences and Reflections of AWM’s Eighteenth President

757

Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2020b. Fall 2018 departmental profile report. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(10): 1615–1621. Goldin, Gerald. 2003. Developing complex understandings: On the relation of mathematics education research to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 54: 171–202. Green, Judy and Jeanne LaDuke. 2009. Pioneering women in American mathematics: The pre-1940 PhD’s. Providence and London: American Mathematical Society and London Mathematical Society. Green, Judy and Jeanne LaDuke. 2016. Supplementary material for Pioneering Women in American Mathematics: The Pre-1940 PhD’s. http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/books/ postpub/hmath-34-PioneeringWomen.pdf Howe, Roger. 2020. Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics—how are we doing? Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(6): 842–845. Hyde, Janet and Janet Mertz. 2009. Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(22): 8801–8809. Kessel, Cathy. 1990. Why I quit my job. UME Trends 2(5): 7–8. Kessel, Cathy. 2011. Rumors of our rarity are greatly exaggerated: Bad statistics about women in science. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics 1(2): 2–26. Kessel, Cathy. 2013. A mathematical perspective on educational research. In Mathematical proficiency and beliefs in learning and teaching mathematics: Learning from Alan Schoenfeld and Günter Törner ed. Yeping Li and Judit Moschkovich (237–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Kessel, Reuben. 1958. Price discrimination in medicine. Journal of Law and Economics 1: 20–53. Kessel, Reuben. 1970. The AMA and the supply of physicians. Law and Contemporary Problems 35: 267–283. Koblitz, Neal. 1990. Are student ratings unfair to women? AWM Newsletter 20(5): 17–19. Leboy, Phoebe and Alice Popejoy. 2012. Is STEM still just a man’s world? awards and prizes for research in disciplinary societies go mainly to men, despite growth in women’s participation [Abstract]. http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/amsmtgs/2138_abstracts/1077-00-1439.pdf Lee, Joon Sun and Herbert Ginsberg. 2009. Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 34(4): 37–45. Linn, Marcia and Cathy Kessel. 1996. Success in mathematics: Increasing talent and gender diversity. In Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II ed. James Kaput, Alan Schoenfeld, and Ed Dubinsky (101–144). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Morawetz, Cathleen et al. 1995. Remembering Lipman Bers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 42(1): 8–25. Moore, Calvin. 2007. Mathematics at Berkeley: A history. Wellesley, MA: A K Peters. Murray, Margaret. 2000. Women becoming mathematicians: Creating a professional identity in post–World War II America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nasar, Sylvia. 1998. A beautiful mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2019. Survey of Earned Doctorates. National Research Council. 2009. Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Committee on Early Mathematics, Christopher T. Cross, Taniesha A. Woods, and Heidi Schweingruber, Editors. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Rossiter, Margaret. 2012. Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Saunders, Bonnie. 1996. What is MER? AWM Newsletter 26(1): 18–21. Schoenfeld, Alan H. 1985. Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Sowell, Robert, Tina Zhang, and Kenneth Redd. 2008. PhD completion and attrition: analysis of baseline program data from the PhD Completion Project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

758

C. Kessel

Treisman, Uri. 1992. Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. College Mathematics Journal 23(5): 362–372. Vitulli, Marie. 2018. Gender differences in first jobs for new US PhDs in the mathematical sciences. AMS Notices 65(3): 326–329. Women in math update. 1992. Science 257: 323. Zahneis, Megan. 2021. The shrinking of the scholarly ranks. Chronicle of Higher Education 67(12).

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020 Maeve Lewis McCarthy, Karoline Pershell, and Jennifer J. Quinn

Introduction In the President’s Report of the January 2005 AWM Newsletter, Carolyn Gordon (2005) announced the departure of longtime AWM Director of Development, Meetings, and Marketing, Dawn Wheeler, and AWM accountant, Muriel Day. AWM closed its University of Maryland offices, transitioned to an association management company, and began to implement a strategic plan. The plan included reorganizing its board, and, for the first time, hiring an executive director (ED) with a PhD in mathematics. The idea of an AWM executive director was not new. There had been eight women with this title between 1987 and 1997: Lori Kenschaft, Tracy O’Brien, Patricia Cross, Jodi Beldotti, Ginny Reinhart, Joanna Wood Schot, Carol A. Tascione, and Lesley Lee Francis. The vision for re-instituting the position was a work in progress as indicated by the language in the advertisement that appeared on page 27 of the January 2005 AWM Newsletter: This position requires a PhD in any field of the mathematical sciences. The successful candidate will be responsible for administrative activities supportive of the mission and programs of our organization; experience handling federal grants would be helpful. The

M. L. McCarthy Murray State University, Murray, KY, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Pershell Service Robotics and Technologies, Sandy, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. J. Quinn () University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_67

759

760

M. L. McCarthy et al.

Executive Director will work closely with the AWM President and Executive Committee. The Executive Director will be the spokesperson or “public face” of AWM and will serve as liaison between volunteers, staff, and funding agencies. Experience with fundraising and development would be a valuable plus. We are open to more than one model for structuring this position, and ask that candidates clearly state how they feel they could best contribute to the AWM. This could be a part-time position, possibly combined with an existing academic appointment. While the AWM currently maintains offices in the Baltimore/D.C. area, the geographic location of the Executive Director is flexible. Ultimately, we seek an outstanding individual who is passionate about supporting women in mathematics.

AWM continued with temporary staffing, grateful to both Wheeler and Day for working evenings and weekends in part-time capacities. As Barbara Keyfitz took on the AWM presidency, so too did she take on the question of the association’s structure and staffing. On April 1, 2005, AWM engaged the part-time services of an association management company, STAT Association Management, Inc., appointing Jennifer Lewis as the managing director. On October 1, 2005, they appointed Jennifer Quinn as part-time executive director. The role of ED has developed over time depending on the priorities, skills, and boundaries of those involved. While the position has remained part-time, its scope has expanded to fill all the time and attention its directors have been willing to give. This article explores the contributions of three recent executive directors: Jennifer Quinn (2005–2007), Maeve McCarthy (2008–2011), and Karoline Pershell (2018– 2020). Each woman tells her own story including her motivation for becoming executive director, achievements during her term, and reflections afterwards. These women had similar experiences serving two to three years in the position. Magnhild Lien (2011–2018) became executive director at a later point in her career and has written a separate account of her ED experiences in this volume. The authors conclude by making recommendations for how the association should move forward with the role of AWM executive director—both logistically and culturally—so that this role can be a fulfilling position that retains talent while best serving the association and its mission.

Jennifer Quinn: October 1, 2005–June 30, 2007 Setting the Stage The position of AWM executive director was exactly the right opportunity for me at a critical time. Because the location was flexible, it provided an improbable solution to my “four-body” problem. The previous twelve years I worked at Occidental College, starting as an Assistant Professor fresh from graduate school and earning promotion through the ranks to Full Professor. I met the man who became my husband and we started a family. After my first promotion and return from the birth of my first son, I served a three-year stint as department chair. When it became clear

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

761

that my husband would not be supported to remain in his academic position, we started looking for the holy grail of married professionals, two positions in close proximity. With three years on the job market and the addition of a second son, we decided our best solution was to pick the right institution for his career; I would play trailing spouse. While some questioned the soundness of this decision, I believed everything would work out. We moved to Tacoma, WA in July of 2005 with our then two- and five-year-old sons. I was co-editing the Mathematical Association of America’s Math Horizons magazine; I had a courtesy title and office at my husband’s new institution; and I was hopeful about the possible ED position for the AWM. I thought I would be a good fit because of my administrative experience, passion for promoting mathematics, and strong work ethic. I am grateful that the hiring committee, chaired by Catherine Roberts, agreed. I was hired as an independent contractor with the explicit expectation that the position was equivalent to a one-third to one-half time position.

In Service to the Association AWM was in the midst of several transitions as I began my term as executive director. Operations had moved from the University of Maryland to STAT and a modernization of methods ensued including a new membership database, migration of the website, increased reliance on electronic communications, and the beginning of online membership renewals (Keyfitz, 2005). The structure of the Executive Committee (EC), increasing the number of elected members from four to eight, was making its way through bylaw revision process, necessitating a revision to duties of EC members. A system of four portfolios was created: Policy and Advocacy; Fundraising and Development; Programs, Meetings, and Awards; and Membership and Community. The first two portfolios were the domain of the president and the last two were where I made my greatest contributions. Each portfolio was held by two members-at-large of the EC, one continuing member and one new member. As with any new position, there was an adjustment period. But unlike taking on an established position, the first few months were about learning the organization, understanding its needs, and creating a role that used my strengths to best fill those needs. The contract with AWM included the caveat that The task list provided here is substantial, whereas the position of ED is only part-time. Consequently, the level of attention given to any one of these tasks will change over time.

Suffice it to say, the list of duties and goals was long and AWM’s leadership understood it was not reasonable to expect a part-time Executive Director to complete it all. But that did not preclude me from trying. Jennifer Lewis had six months more experience working with AWM than me and generously shared her knowledge. We worked together to learn about and support the association (see Fig. 1). Institutional history came from long-serving volunteers

762

M. L. McCarthy et al.

Fig. 1 standing: Vera Pless, Svetlana Katok, Kristin Bennett, Jennifer Quinn; sitting: Sarah Williams, Jennifer Lewis, Noether lunch, AWM 25th anniversary celebration, 2006 JMM, Orlando, FL. Courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

and the infamous “Dawn Wheeler flashdrive” which contained years of Dawn’s invaluable working files and operational history. Each time a new-to-me task needed to be completed, I would consult the experts or the relevant files on the flashdrive and determine how to proceed. Non-profit associations like AWM are heavily reliant on volunteer labor to accomplish its goals. The volunteers are highly-capable professionals with full-time positions elsewhere. Consequently, other priorities in their lives take precedence over AWM’s projects and they need gentle reminders of upcoming due dates and deliverables. As ED, my primary focus was to manage volunteer-run projects and keep them on track, even if it meant that I had to complete some of the work myself. When asked to help complete a grant application or an interim report to a funding agency, I did not hesitate. Over time, I increasingly took on more responsibility for the writing applications and renewals. Writing was central to my position and having previous editorial experience served me well. I prepared calls for nominations, award citations, program announcements, press releases, grant applications, and reports from meetings. I consider myself fortunate to have served as executive director for AWM as it afforded me the rare opportunity to work with many creative, dedicated, and talented women in mathematics like Presidents Barbara Keyfitz and Cathy Kessel. Perhaps my greatest contribution was successfully transitioning AWM to its new structure. It was a true privilege to represent AWM at national meetings—connecting with members while promoting our mission and programs to everyone I met.

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

763

Aftermath I was not dissatisfied with my work or actively looked to leave the AWM. To the contrary, I felt that I was growing into the position and saw places to play a greater role in leadership, something that President Kessel seemed amenable to. However, it was difficult to build a future on a part-time position with no benefits. When a nearby university advertised an open-rank faculty position in mathematics, I applied. The offer of a tenured full-professor position was a miraculous long-term solution to the “four-body” problem. So I stepped away from AWM; refocused on teaching, scholarship, and curriculum development; I quickly moved into academic administration. I continued my involvement as a professional volunteer for MAA through publications and eventually its governance, remaining committed to making mathematics inclusive and humane. Earning a PhD in mathematics does not prepare anyone to chair a department, administer a program, or direct a non-profit organization. It is only after another dozen years of experience that I can reflect back on this time and see the position for what it was. The title “Executive Director” is perhaps too grand for the work I was contracted to do. Typically an executive director has management responsibilities for staff, operations, and compliance; develops and manages policies and programs; and supports the Executive Committee in achieving the mission and vision of the association (Cullinane, 2018). Instead, I was one vertex of a leadership triangle whose apex was the president. The AWM executive director and AWM managing director supported the president (and her Executive Committee) with the former being responsible for community relations, communications, and project management related to volunteers and the latter responsible for operations, staff management, and everything else needed to manage a small, non-profit association. Together our two part-time positions could combine to create a true executive director. This was a time in my life when I measured my worth as a human being by my accomplishments. I felt I owed AWM for providing me the opportunity to maintain a professional career while keeping my family together. I was a very good project manager and accomplished the tasks set before me, sometimes at the cost of my own “volunteer” labor. I undervalued myself, setting a precedent that would allow AWM to undervalue the women that followed me.

Maeve McCarthy: January 1, 2008–December 31, 2011 Setting the Stage In fall 2007, the advertisement in the AWM Newsletter for a new executive director caught my eye. I had just applied for full professor and my chair had been lackluster in his support because he didn’t want me to apply at the same time as a male

764

M. L. McCarthy et al.

colleague. I felt betrayed by my department and was looking for other opportunities. On the other hand, with a husband working in the same department, I was reluctant to move institutions. The AWM position, designed as a half-time buy-out from an academic position, seemed to offer a management opportunity without the downside of trying to negotiate two positions. My daughter was about nine months when I applied and I thought I could do it all!

In Service to the Association I started off as a consultant for a few months while Barbara Keyfitz negotiated a contract with Murray State University on behalf of AWM (see Fig. 2). When I officially started as executive director in May 2008, I had a half-time teaching load, a full service and research load, and a half-time position with AWM. The reality was more than full-time but I was so grateful for the opportunity that I accepted that as the price. Murray State was reimbursed for half of my salary including benefits, making me the most expensive of the executive directors of this era. Cathy Kessel, Georgia Benkart, and Jill Pipher were all president at various points during my time working for AWM. I worked closely with Jennifer Lewis, the managing director. I lacked executive authority which meant that getting things done was sometimes difficult. I learned a great deal about association management from Jennifer. Her mantra that “you can’t fire a volunteer” was incredibly helpful

Fig. 2 Maeve McCarthy is on the far right, AWM Student Chapters table, Noether lunch, 2008 JMM, San Diego, CA. Courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

765

during some frustrating times. My role as volunteer coordinator was crucial in the success of AWM’s programs and awards. It was imperative at that time that we keep the workshops for postdocs and graduate students functioning, which led to lots of grant proposals and some phone calls with program officers while on my cell at the grocery store. To help coordinate, we hired Cammey Cole Manning as a workshop director for a few years because we had exhausted many of our workshop volunteers. As executive director, I felt that it was important that I serve as PI on some of the grants, especially since I was managing them in practice. This was a departure from previous practice, which had volunteers serve as PIs but I believe it put the executive director in a stronger position with the Executive Committee. During my time with AWM, the portfolios of the Executive Committee functioned well as a structure for managing the expanding role of AWM. We rebranded the organization with a new logo and new website. The website was not in my contract but I ended up volunteering to get it done because there wasn’t a volunteer available. Membership numbers were dropping because of the 2008 financial crisis and money was very tight at AWM. We did a lot with very little in the way of resources, relying heavily on volunteers. In 2008, on a management call with Cathy Kessel, Georgia Benkart, and Jennifer Lewis, I announced that I was pregnant. Jennifer rescued me with a congratulatory remark after a lengthy silence. I took six weeks of maternity leave in April 2009 and was back at work pretty soon after my second daughter was born. I was sometimes micro-managed by the AWM presidents, making it somewhat more difficult to get my work done. The volume of email was enormous and I spent many entire days online. I traveled quite a bit, attending the JMM, SIAM Annual Meeting, and MathFest. Overall, I felt valued by the volunteers, the Executive Committee, and the executive directors of other organizations. In 2011, my contract was up for renewal and AWM decided not to renew for financial reasons. Being unable to pay my benefits, the Executive Committee made a decision that I believe undervalued the role of executive director. In summer 2011, they hired Magnhild Lien part-time to train as executive director while I finished out my service to the organization. I worked for AWM until the end of the year, although my involvement was limited in the fall.

Aftermath When I left AWM, I returned to my full-time position as a full professor at Murray State University. I continued my work for women in STEM by forming a team of faculty here to write an ADVANCE proposal for NSF to fund studies on the recruitment and retention of women faculty in STEM. In 2009, I represented AWM at the ADVANCE annual PI meeting run by the Association for Women in Science. I was struck by how much Murray State would benefit from an ADVANCE grant. In 2016, on our second attempt, some colleagues and I were awarded an ADVANCE Catalyst grant. In 2019, we were awarded an ADVANCE Adaptation grant. As of

766

M. L. McCarthy et al.

2020, I am the assistant dean in the Jones College of Science, Engineering and Technology at Murray State. Overall, the AWM work benefited my career. I learned a great deal about managing people, particularly in the absence of authority. The experience with federal grants was of great benefit to my ADVANCE proposals later on. I have few regrets about my time with AWM. I probably should have stood up for myself more when I was overextended. But you live and learn.

Karoline Pershell: January 15, 2018–April 30, 2020 Setting the Stage My own unconventional career path from academia, to government, into the tech startup sector, and then the nonprofit world, highlights that such career paths exist and that trajectories can be guided by knowledge, skills, and abilities, rather than previous job titles. In my article “Taking a Leap Off the Ivory Tower: Normalizing Unconventional Careers,” I wrote about my decision to apply for the AWM executive director position: As I learned about the Association for Women in Mathematics’ search for a new Executive Director, I realized what I was still looking for in a career: a clear path for giving back. My work as Executive Director brings together research mathematics, teaching, project management, monitoring and evaluation, program design, organizational development, implementation of institutional change, network building, grant writing, and fundraising in such a way, that . . . well . . . my career almost looks connected. Or even planned! In my current role, I use skills I learned from leading negotiations at [the Department of] State, from fundraising and grant writing for the robotics startup, serving as a technical liaison between customers and programmers at the Silicon Valley startup, and from understanding the math world so I can communicate with members, and tap into my earliest loves and fears of math so that I am driven to listen to other’s journey. Working as executive director [was] the culmination of my past experiences. . . . (Pershell, 2019c)

I framed the lure of the AWM executive director position for me as the opportunity to give back. However once I was in the role, I realized I also wanted to rejoin the academic community (with which I deeply identified) by finding a place that allowed me to use my skills and interests by moving into strategic planning and leadership. I wrote about this in a Times of Higher Education editorial on the difficulty of leaving academia (Pershell, 2019a). I would be remiss if I omitted that the beginning of my term as AWM executive director coincided nearly perfectly with the birth of my son. In an essay I penned for AMS’s Math Mamas Blog, “A Smart Girl’s Guide to Getting Noticed in Your New Job,” I capture my enthusiasm and pure joy I felt in my earliest days of the ED

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

767

role, my focus on making a difference, and my plans to mitigate and move on from imposter syndrome: I gave myself the face slaps (“Let’s do this!”), and did the Rocky-style victory run up the stairs out of the Dupont [Circle] Metro Station in downtown DC on Dec 7, 2017, on my way to represent AWM at the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences meeting, where presidents and executive directors of 17 major math societies meet to share needs and find paths for collaboration. (Even though I wasn’t slated to start my job until January 15, since I lived in DC I would represent the AWM to quickly get up to speed meeting my colleagues-to-be.) Oh, and I only ran up the metro Rocky-style, metaphorically speaking: I was 8 months pregnant and doing a solid 28-minute mile at a duck’s pace. . . . I waddled into the MAA Carriage House that morning with specific self-appointed tasks: be poised, positive, professional; introduce myself to heads of other major societies and listen to them; establish the foundations for future collaboration; make sure people know me. (I should have been more specific.) (Pershell, 2019b)

Mayhem ensued as my inability to remain poised, positive, and professional was brought to the forefront and I ended the day with an emergency C-section. My traveling show of husband and infant were a constant in my two years as ED, a necessity in the first year, and a “prop” I was reluctant to put down in my second year, as I explained in a farewell AWM E-Communication I sent in April 2020, “Navigating motherhood somewhat publicly would not have been my norm (I prefer for my inadequacies to be behind closed doors with the volume turned up to cover crying), but I realized I was in a position to continue to normalize that personal lives/families are allowed in mathematics.”

In Service to the Association I am thankful to my predecessor, Magnhild Lien, who enabled me to enter a structured role. However, coming into AWM, I was still overwhelmed by the number of programs we had. I drafted the organizational chart given in Fig. 3, which became a foundational tool for me as I introduced new volunteers to the organization and their specific role. Like myself, many volunteers were astounded to learn of the size and breadth of AWM’s work. Through this chart, however, I was able to ensure members were certain in how they navigated AWM’s structure when we facilitated our mission. In 2018, AWM transitioned its association management from STAT to AMS, migrating AWM’s email system and structuring a new form of document management. This required building a new IT infrastructure (e.g., membership database, member portal, communications platforms). The resulting major enterprise-level tech upgrade required migration of all digital content, orientation of appropriate committees, and changes in email communication and listservs—all with the associated troubleshooting that follows. Though a massive task, I was bolstered by comments of some longer-term volunteers who recognized the need for knowledge management planning. Upgrades enabled them to quickly find what they needed,

768

M. L. McCarthy et al.

Fig. 3 AWM organizational chart from January 2020. Note that “Liaison Committees” and “Other Committees” are category labels, and not committees, for a total of 51 committees and liaison positions

making their committee time less about administrative work and more about giving back to the profession. I’m extremely thankful for the strong early support by Michelle Snider and Khedija Khiyar in making this transition as successful as it was. One major goal in transitioning AWM’s management to the AMS was to get a better handle on its finances by having a dedicated, professional financial team. Understanding old systems, correcting oversights, and transitioning to improved reporting for grants and programs took the better part of my two-year term. An NSF desk audit of AWM’s accounting practices resulted in me writing a voluminous 90page accounting manual, not the kind of work I enjoy, that is probably one of the most lasting and impactful infrastructure improvements from my time as ED. Getting a grip on AWM’s committee structure did not mean that I yet understood all that AWM did, much less could I answer whether the association was working on the right things for its organization or community. In fact, when I looked at each small effort AWM pursued, I often wondered if these were the right use of its time and resources. To better understand AWM’s programming and how it aligns

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

769

Fig. 4 AWM programs in 2020 showing career stages: Precollege, Undergraduate, Graduate, Postdoc, Early-career, Mid-career, Senior, Department or Institutional Leader. Boxes in green indicate that the program is open to all genders. Boxes in gray indicate that the program targets women

with the mission statement, I constructed the diagram in Fig. 4, displaying how AWM programs are placed according to the career stage of the individuals they are intended to impact. Exceptions are not included, for the sake of ease here. Programs in green allow everyone to participate, items in gray were only for women as of 2020. Mapping the AWM programming against the career pipeline was a meaningful visual for me. My quick interpretation was—like the organizational chart—that this small organization does a LOT. But how many of its efforts are helping people navigate a flawed system versus how many were aimed at changing the system? Are the programs impactful? AWM has struggled with demonstrating long-term impact of programs for a variety of reasons (e.g., limited funds for evaluation, narrow programs that enable impacts to be attributed to other factors, etc.). In (NASEM, 2018), the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published its report Harassment of Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM), giving the STEMM community research on impacting change that no professional society, advocacy group, or university would have been able to do on its own. The study demonstrated that the climate in academia was particularly unwelcoming to specific populations, relegating folks to the periphery unless they’re willing to tolerate the dissonance. For AWM, this pointed to the need to support individuals in whatever stage they find themselves and to partner with experts in organizational development to enact systemic changes in STEM fields. The convergence of having worked for the Department of State, having my career as ED, living in Washington, DC, and seeing the #MeToo

770

M. L. McCarthy et al.

movement’s sudden explosion onto the national stage was timely: I was in the right place at the right time to support change-making. While organizations typically must depend on slowly developing national consensus, the result of the aforementioned enabled AWM to move quickly on multiple fronts: • I represented AWM in the founding of the National Societies Consortium to address Sexual Harassment in STEMM. • I lobbied to get AWM on the Leadership Council for the Consortium. AWM was the first all-women’s STEMM organization within the group, representing the needs of small professional societies. AWM member Catherine Paolucci served in this capacity for 2021. • Following the 2018 NASEM report and fallout from the #MeToo movement, mathematicians needed a space to digest and understand these issues. AWM followed up by providing an online presentation to its members with NASEM co-author Vicki Magley. • Led by Maeve McCarthy and including Elizabeth Donovan, Vrushali Bokli, Ami Radunskaya, and myself, we pursued a grant for creating welcoming environments in STEM fields and subsequently held a workshop in conjunction with JMM 2020 that brought together experts in social change and leaders within mathematics to take action. I am grateful that my time as ED aligned with national movements for change. An awakening of public consciousness, an awareness of how culture impacts professions, and a crescendo of voices that say, “People like me belong in math,” gave me the opportunity to drive personally meaningful projects that strengthened the community and drove AWM’s continued relevance.

Aftermath The ED position was my dream job and I very firmly believe in AWM’s mission, but the totality of the workload and the structural limitations therein meant the position could never be sustainable for me as a career. Since the ED position shapes perceptions of what AWM “is” to many people, and with the role of the ED in creating a welcoming environment through each interaction, the pressures of maintaining oneself with these difficulties meant the result was exceptionally low personal time. Nonetheless, I could not leave without saying explicitly, I loved my time with AWM: working on policy reform, developing outward-facing programming, the community and camaraderie, and building the health of the organization for longevity. Having an opportunity to learn about the spectrum of experiences that make up the members of the mathematics community was deeply affecting, and I’m forever thankful in this experience. In the spirit of that thankfulness, I would be neglectful if I failed to mention Managing Director Steven Ferrucci and Presidents Ami Radunskaya and Ruth Haas (see Fig. 5). Thank you for your support of AWM,

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

771

Fig. 5 Alina Bucur, Ruth Haas, Ami Radunskaya, Karoline Pershell, AWM Executive Committee Meeting, 2020 JMM, Denver, CO

for your support of women and girls in the mathematical sciences, and for your support of me personally. I strove to create a welcoming environment—reminding members that the work they do for AWM needs to be personally and professionally rewarding— and supported members in their choices to leave or rejoin based on their life circumstances. I look forward to the ways I can rejoin and support the organization as a volunteer.

Looking Towards the Future It was the occasion of AWM’s 50th anniversary that brought the three of us into conversation about the executive director position. We had not realized the similarities of our experiences—mid-career women, looking to make meaningful contributions to the mathematical community, and grateful for the unconventional opportunity. While in our positions, AWM was challenged with transitions to new websites, new association management partners, new data management systems, new communications channels, and new board structures. Individually, we viewed the transitions as temporary obstacles and “our real work” as the management of volunteers and projects. Consequently, the additional work of managing change was considered an anomaly rather than the norm and we devoted our own volunteer labor to get past some magical transformation point, as if the innovations and improvements would stop. In reality and in the words of Greek

772

M. L. McCarthy et al.

philosopher Heraclitus, “Change is the only constant in life.” We offer the variation “Change is the only constant in association management.” Few people besides past and present presidents, Executive Committee members, and EDs know of the wide and varied commitments of this “tiny” organization (see again Fig. 3). Based on AWM’s size, funds, and limited staff, the association does far more than can be expected. This is only possible because strategic decisions are made by the Executive Committee ensuring that new and ongoing commitments support the mission and vision of the association while professional staff work in partnership to continually improve processes and keep leadership informed. This leads to the essential question: what should AWM want of its executive director? As of 2020, the role of ED is to do whatever is needed to keep the organization thrumming along with a professional image. Since the ED reboot in 2005, the responsibilities of the position have grown from managing projects and volunteers to include leading new initiatives. Additionally, the ED has been instrumental in implementing and communicating change. Extrapolating from the patterns here, serving as ED provides training and opportunities to take leadership roles elsewhere. Unlike other professional societies, the AWM executive director position cannot be viewed as a long-term career choice. We, Quinn, McCarthy, and Pershell, believe AWM would benefit by changing this reality. The AWM executive director should be an appreciated leader of the association, given the tools and respect necessary to ensure organizational continuity over time. An explicit understanding of expectations, authority, and responsibilities for everyone—the ED, the president, Executive Committee members, and AWM members—is essential to maintain decision-making and operational boundaries. We hope the AWM membership supports the Executive Committee to transform the executive director position into a career position rather than a stopgap, entrusting the ED with the autonomy to lead the organization in partnership with the president and Executive Committee.

References Cullinane, Molly. 2018. Who’s in Charge Here? Role of the Board of Directors vs. Role of the Executive Director. https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-board-vs-executive-director/. Accessed 19 Feb 2020. Gordon, Carolyn. 2005. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 35(1): 1–4. Keyfitz, Barbara. 2005. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 35(3): 1–5. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994. Pershell, Karoline. 2019a. Life beyond the ivory curtain. Times in Higher Education. https://www. timeshighereducation.com/features/life-beyond-ivory-curtain#survey-answer.Published 25 July 2019. Accessed 26 July 2020.

The Evolution of the AWM Executive Director Position: 2005–2020

773

Pershell, Karoline. 2019b. The smart girl’s guide to getting noticed in your new job. AMS Math Mamas Blog. https://blogs.ams.org/mathmamas/2019/08/13/the-smart-girls-guide-to-gettingnoticed-in-your-new-job/. Accessed 26 July 2020. Pershell, Karoline. 2019c. Taking a leap off the ivory tower: Normalizing unconventional careers. In A celebration of the EDGE program’s impact on the mathematics community and beyond, eds. Susan D’Agostino, Susan Bryant, Amy Buchmann, Michelle Craddock Guinn, and Leona Harris, 369–376. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

Part XIII

AWM in Her Forties: Perspectives from Presidents and an Executive Director

Reflections of AWM’s Nineteenth President Georgia Benkart

On the occasion of the centennial of the American Mathematical Society in 1988, AMS presented AWM with a silver bowl that has since been passed from the president of AWM to the president-elect at the January Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM). In January 2009, then-president Cathy Kessel handed the silver bowl and the presidency of AWM to me. The upcoming 50th anniversary of AWM in 2021 caught me by surprise. Was it really that long ago that ideas for the 40th anniversary began to emerge from our conversations with Cathy, her predecessor Barbara Keyfitz, and former presidents Mary Gray, Rhonda Hughes, and Carol Wood? The 40th was a time for reflection and celebration (see Fig. 1), for honoring those who have played a significant role in AWM, for carrying forward their visions and creating new ones, and for welcoming those who will be its future. On this 50th anniversary, it is my hope that the next 50 years will continue these time-honored traditions. Already underway when I began my term in 2009 were a much-needed overhaul of the AWM website, piloted by Web Editor Holly Gaff (see Fig. 2), assisted by volunteers from Google, and an update of the online application process for AWM workshops and activities, organized by AWM Executive Director Maeve McCarthy. AWM’s 20th anniversary had ushered in a redesign of its newsletter and a new block-letter logo. The current golden-ratio inspired design debuted in the May–June 2009 newsletter. The December 2010 issue marked the first time the newsletter appeared online. Generous funding by Jean Taylor (AWM president 1999–2001) to digitize all of AWM’s newsletters saved early issues from deterioration and made past newsletters accessible to everyone online via the AWM website. What an essential role the newsletter has played in the organization and in keeping women

G. Benkart () University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_68

777

778

G. Benkart

Fig. 1 Twelve AWM presidents: Barbara Keyfitz, Suzanne Lenhart, Bhama Srinivasan, Linda Keen, Carol Wood, Sylvia Wiegand, Carolyn Gordon, Jean Taylor, Georgia Benkart, Cathy Kessel, Jill Pipher, Mary Gray, 2011 AWM 40th Anniversary Conference, Brown University, Providence, RI. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Quinn

Fig. 2 AWM President Georgia Benkart and Web Editor Holly Gaff, 2010 SIAM Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA

in mathematics connected and informed! Anne Leggett became editor of the AWM Newsletter in 1977 and continues in that role to this day. Words cannot adequately express our deep gratitude for her efforts. Who else could successfully cajole a president’s report for each issue with such mild reminders?

Reflections of AWM’s Nineteenth President

779

Kristin Lauter (AWM president 2015–2017) and I were invited to speak at the International Conference for Women in Mathematics hosted by the Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences (KWMS) in Seoul in June 2009. The first international joint meeting of the American Mathematical Society and the Korean Mathematical Society was to be held in December of that year at Ewha Womans University, the world’s largest women’s university. In the dual roles of AWM president and of AMS associate secretary for that meeting, I collaborated with KWMS president Wansoon Kim and Kyewon Koh Park to organize the first-ever joint AWM–KWMS event in conjunction with the December meeting. Activities included a panel, Empowering Women Mathematicians for Excellence, featuring Ruth Charney, Jane Hawkins, Heisook Lee, and Hee Oh as panelists. They recounted their own career stories with a healthy dose of advice shared by each, followed by discussion and a banquet. It was not surprising to learn that women in mathematics in Korea face many of the same challenges as women in the US. Here, one challenge we confront is the stagnation of the percentage of US doctoral degrees in mathematics awarded to women, which has hovered between 25% and 30% for the past 10 years (Golbeck et al., 2019). Yet another is a recent trend of lawsuits targeting programs designed to address the underrepresentation of particular demographic groups among US mathematicians. In 2009, the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) received a three-year grant from the National Science Foundation for a new project, Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (or AWARDS for short). Almost all the major US mathematics and statistics societies participated by having their award processes reviewed and evaluated with respect to gender bias. Cathy Kessel and Maura Mast represented AWM (as an AWIS partner), and Charles Epstein, Frank Morgan, and I represented AMS at the AWARDS workshop, where organizations were asked to evaluate their prize procedures. This resulted in revisions of nominating processes, greater clarity in prize criteria, and more awareness of best practices (see Betty Mayfield’s article in this volume). Although there subsequently has been growth in the number of prizes awarded to women, the number is still not representative of the percentages of women who qualify for the prizes. However, AWM’s increase in the number of prizes designated for early-career mathematicians has helped to bring more awareness to their achievements and boost their chances of finding professional opportunities worthy of their talents. Former students of M. Gweneth Humphreys at Randolph-Macon College proposed and funded a new AWM prize to recognize a teacher of undergraduate mathematics (independent of gender) who has had a significant impact on one or more female students through mentoring. The Executive Committee of AWM approved this award in 2009, and in spring 2010 I submitted a formal request on behalf of AWM to the committee managing the Joint Mathematics Meetings that it be added to the other AWM prizes conferred at the Joint Prize Session at the January JMM. The response I received was totally unexpected, especially in light of the AWARDS efforts. The decision was to remove all AWM prizes from the session. After much back and forth, the AWM prizes were reinstated to the session, and the Humphreys award was to be included in future prize sessions. The first M. Gweneth Humphreys Award was presented to

780

G. Benkart

Fig. 3 Peng Zhong, Erin Bodine, Cammey Cole Manning, Priya Shilpa Boindala, Georgia Benkart, AWM workshop, 2009 SIAM Annual Meeting, Denver, CO

Rhonda Hughes (EDGE Program1 co-founder and AWM president 1987–1989) at JMM 2011, one of the many inspiring events that celebrated the 40th anniversary of the founding of AWM. The AWM Long-range Planning Committee, which had been dormant for almost five years, was resurrected in 2009 and began planning in earnest for AWM’s 40th anniversary. It was decided that there should be enhanced AWM activities at JMM 2011; that the AWM-SIAM workshop and Sonia Kovalevsky lecture should be moved from their usual home at the annual SIAM summer meeting (see Fig. 3) to ICIAM (International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics), as the SIAM meeting was not held that year because of the congress; and that there also should be a stand-alone meeting of AWM apart from JMM and ICIAM. Increasing visibility and building a wider community were at the forefront of these efforts. Events at JMM 2011 included three minisymposia featuring winners of AWM’s Hay, Michler, and Schafer prizes as speakers and a banquet with some fine New Orleans jazz, where Bettye Anne Case, AWM’s longtime meetings coordinator, and Anne Leggett were honored for their exceptional service to AWM. With deep sadness, AWM had learned that one of its founders and its second president, Alice Schafer, died on September 27, 2009. AWM could not have gotten

1 Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education: A Transition Program for Women in the Mathematical Sciences.

Reflections of AWM’s Nineteenth President

781

off the ground without the fearless determination, the unwavering commitment to promoting the equal treatment of all mathematicians, and the boundless energy of its founding mothers, especially Mary Gray, the first president, and Alice Schafer, the second. Alice, who had contributed in countless ways to the organization and to women in mathematics, continued to do so through an extraordinary bequest of $50,000 that AWM received from her estate. One of the enhanced activities at JMM 2011 was the Schafer Minisymposium, where Mary Gray inaugurated the 40th anniversary celebration with a talk, Life in the Trenches with Alice: The Early Years, a retrospective on the founding of AWM. Alice would have taken great pride in the Schafer Prize winners who spoke in the minisymposium. The mathematical world suffered another immense loss when Cora Sadosky (AWM president 1993–1995) died on December 3, 2010. The AWM business meeting at JMM 2011 was largely devoted to a quickly arranged, heartfelt remembrance of Cora that her colleagues and I organized. Cora was both a strong advocate for women in mathematics, and, as a faculty member at Howard University, an active proponent of the greater participation of African Americans in mathematics. I can only marvel at the tenacity and wisdom of Mary, Alice, Cora, and all who preceded and followed me in this role of president. The 40th anniversary activities at ICIAM 2011, which included an embedded AWM meeting, coincided with the start of Barbara Keyfitz’s term as president of the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Barbara (AWM president 2005–2007) became the first woman to assume that role. A reciprocal membership agreement between AWM and SIAM further served to strengthen AWM’s ties with the industrial and applied mathematics communities. In the summer of 2010, SIAM president Douglas Arnold contacted me about the possibility of such an agreement. At the time, only about 15% of SIAM’s members were women, and AWM had few members who worked in industry. The membership agreement he and I hammered out is still in force. With the reduction of academic job opportunities, it will become increasingly important for AWM to reach out to those working in government and industry in order to be fully representative of women in mathematics. A big step in this direction occurred in 2015 when Kristin Lauter, Principal Researcher and Research Manager of the Cryptography Group at Microsoft Research, became AWM’s first president from industry since Jill Mesirov (1989–1991). AWM’s stand-alone meeting was the grand finale of the 40th anniversary. By some amazing alignment of the planets, the new Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM) at Brown University had just recently received the good news that it had been chosen to become an NSF-funded institute. It would be open for business starting in 2011, and AWM president-elect Jill Pipher was to be its founding director. Jill, Kristin Lauter, and I organized 40 Years and Counting: AWM’s Celebration of Women in Mathematics, which was held there in September 2011 with enormous help from the ICERM staff, funding from an NSF grant, and additional support from AMS, Brown University, ICERM, MAA, Microsoft Research, Pearson Education, SIAM, and the US Department of Energy. Modeled on AMS sectional meetings, the two-day conference had an attendance of over 300 women and men and featured 4 invited talks, 18 sessions on

782

G. Benkart

a wide range of topics in pure and applied mathematics and mathematics education, with a total of 135 speakers. Subsequent stand-alone AWM research symposia have been an excellent way to perpetuate the spirit of this meeting. A day-long retreat at ICERM just prior to the 40th anniversary meeting enabled the AWM Executive Committee to reflect on AWM’s accomplishments, review its programs, and strategically plan for the future. With the graying of societies, renewal of the AWM membership has become a critical issue. Is AWM still relevant? We would like to think the answer is an emphatic “yes,” but what can be done to make AWM more attractive to early-career mathematicians and encourage them to become involved? Sylvia Bozeman (EDGE Program co-founder and twice an AWM Executive Committee member) provided an insightful answer that resonates yet today in her AWM newsletter article (Bozeman, 1995): It would be difficult to measure the impact of AWM since it was established in 1971 if we tried. During that period the percentage of women among the US citizens who earned doctorates in mathematics has doubled; there is greater visibility of women on national programs and in professional leadership positions; and more visible attempts have been made to interest young women in mathematics. AWM has addressed each of these areas through its programs. But as long as women are underrepresented in any aspect of the mathematics community, and as long as the reasons for that underrepresentation are not adequately addressed by the larger mathematics community, we will continue to need AWM. As a young and developing organization, it has an opportunity to establish a pattern of involving women from all groups in articulating and addressing issues of common concern. If AWM does not, who will?

Drawing on the enthusiastic response to 40 Years and Counting, AWM developed a series of biennial research symposia. I co-organized the first in the series with Hélène Barcelo, Estelle Basor, Ruth Charney, Frank Farris, and Jill Pipher at Santa Clara University in 2013. The symposium featured plenary talks by three distinguished mathematicians: Inez Fung, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UC Berkeley and an expert on the mathematics of climate; the late Maryam Mirzakhani, 2014 Fields Medalist; and Lauren Williams, the Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University and the Sally Starling Seaver Professor at the Radcliffe Institute (as of 2020). There were also invited and contributed sessions on a wide range of subjects in pure and applied mathematics, a poster session for graduate students, and a discussion of the imposter syndrome moderated by Hélène Barcelo with panelists Ruth Charney, Brian Conrey, Jill Pipher, and Carol Wood. A persistent problem that discourages women from pursuing careers in mathematics, lack of confidence is common for both men and women during the development of their careers. Yet women are more likely to feel their self-doubts are unique and to give up as a result. The panel consequently was designed to show younger women that even some of the most successful, well-established women and men in the field have had, and may often still have, similar feelings of being “an imposter” and not deserving of the status they have attained. One attendee wrote, “This event was a magnificent experience for me. I am so glad that AWM is doing this, and I’ll make sure to tell the other women in my

Reflections of AWM’s Nineteenth President

783

department about what a fantastic opportunity these are.” AWM was grateful for the financial support from Santa Clara University, NSF, NSA, and the institutes AIM, ICERM, and MSRI that enabled this meeting to launch the highly successful series of AWM research symposia. During my term, AWM made a concerted effort to widen its outreach with such activities as participation in the inaugural USA Science and Engineering Festival in October 2010. This was spearheaded by Executive Committee member Irina Mitrea, co-organizers Tai Melcher and Katharine Ott, and a phenomenal group of undergraduate student volunteers from universities in the Washington, DC, area. With few resources, the group created activities involving cryptography and ciphers, such as Thomas Jefferson’s wheel cipher used during his presidency for encoding diplomatic secrets, to test the skills of participants young and old and to inspire girls to get excited about mathematics. Participation in this festival event in evennumbered years and in the National Mathematics Festival in odd-numbered ones has since become an important AWM proactive tradition. In 1993, AWM president Cora Sadosky noted the many gains already achieved by the association as it was about halfway to the milestone we now celebrate. But then she added: Still, women continue to face formidable problems in their development as mathematicians— from elementary school to graduate school to the National Academy and beyond. To successfully confront these problems, we need the ideas and the work, the enthusiasm and the commitment of all—students and teachers and researchers and industrial mathematicians—of every woman and every man who stands for women’s right to mathematics. (Taylor and Wiegand, 1999)

Over the years, men such as Chandler Davis and Lee Lorch have been dedicated and loyal allies who have given moral and financial support to AWM. Indeed, a nontrivial percentage of AWM’s members are men. At his retirement conference in 1992, Chandler was presented an AWM mug, and Cora Sadosky, president-elect of AWM, sent a message from Barcelona: While our founding mothers were creating AWM, 21 years ago, Chandler was at their side. . . . It has given all of us who have the joyous privilege of his counsel and criticism, the opportunity to learn how one can be at the same time level-headed and uncompromising, patient and ardent, tolerant and unyielding. (Struik, 1992)

At the JMM in 1992, AWM made a surprise presentation of a citation to Lee for his efforts as a champion of human rights (see Fig. 4): To Lee Lorch, a founding member of AWM, with thanks for his activism on behalf of women and minority mathematicians. Lee has often been a thorn in the side of the mathematics establishment. But then, to its credit, so has AWM. . . . When AWM helped to open up the AMS Council to petition candidates, Lee was elected and pushed tirelessly on issues of special concern to women and minority mathematicians. (AWM, 1992)

It was wonderful to recognize Lee Lorch again in 2010, on the occasion of his 95th birthday, with a special newsletter remembrance (Benkart, 2010; Granville et al., 2010). Throughout his career, he was an unflagging advocate for educational opportunities for women and underrepresented minorities. Vivienne Malone Mayes, an undergraduate student of Lorch at Fisk University whom he encouraged to

784

G. Benkart

Fig. 4 AWM Executive Director Jodi Beldotti, Lee Lorch, AWM President Carol Wood, 1992 JMM, Baltimore, MD

pursue doctoral studies in mathematics, was the first Black person elected to AWM’s Executive Committee. AWM has been a force for positive change and an effective voice on behalf of the advancement of women in the mathematical professions. With only a few paid staff members, AWM exists and thrives because of the extraordinary dedication of its thousands of volunteers who have committed time and energy to AWM over its 50 years of existence. I am honored to be counted as one of those thousands.

References AWM. 1992. Citation for Lee Lorch. AWM Newsletter 22(2): 5–6. Benkart, Georgia. 2010. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 40(5): 1–6. Bozeman, Sylvia. 1995. AWM: Why do we need it now? AWM Newsletter 25(3): 9. Golbeck, Amanda, Thomas Barr, and Colleen Rose. 2019. Report on the 2016–2017 new doctorate recipients. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 66(7): 1151–1165. Granville, Evelyn Boyd, Sylvia Bozeman, Mary Gray, and Rhonda Hughes. 2010. Tributes to Lee Lorch on his 95th birthday. AWM Newsletter 40(5): 7–9. Struik, Ruth Rebekka. 1992. Conference in honor of Chandler Davis. AWM Newsletter 22(6): 6–7. Taylor, Jean and Sylvia Wiegand. 1999. AWM in the 1990s: A recent history of the Association for Women in Mathematics. Notices of the AMS 46(1):27–38.

A Personal Reflection by AWM’s 21st President Ruth Charney

AWM was founded in 1971, two years before I entered graduate school. Approximately 40 years later I became president of the organization. My journey through the world of mathematics during those years illustrates the progress we have made in creating a more welcoming environment for women. In this article, I will reflect upon that journey, as well as upon my experience as president of AWM. One often hears that women fail to pursue careers in STEM fields because it never occurs to them to consider this a possibility. Indeed, I have heard numerous women remark that if some particular teacher had not pulled them aside and told them they were talented and should consider going into mathematics, they would never have thought to do so. I had the good fortune that my father was a research scientist who simply loved to talk about science. He could not have been more pleased that one of his three daughters was actually interested in listening! While I had many interests as a child and as a young woman, a career in science was always on my radar. When I arrived at Brandeis as an undergraduate, I found a similarly encouraging environment. Faculty seemed pleased to have students of any gender who loved mathematics. The top student in several of my classes was another woman who also loved mathematics (and ended up pursuing a career in computer science). I also met an inspiring graduate student at Brandeis, Jill Mesirov, who was later to become the ninth president of AWM. So it was not until I arrived at Princeton for graduate school (after a gap year spent studying modern dance) that I realized that there was something unusual about being a female mathematician! It came as a complete shock to discover that there were no other women in my entering class of 16 students at Princeton, and in fact, there was only one other woman in the entire mathematics graduate program. In addition, at that

R. Charney () Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_69

785

786

R. Charney

time, there were no introductory courses and little mentoring available for entering students. While graduate students were generally well respected and often viewed as colleagues, the assumption was that you could learn what you needed on your own and make your own way forward, at least until you found a thesis advisor, and often beyond that. Which brings me to my second bit of good fortune. I have realized, in retrospect, that many of the women who started out in the 1960s or 1970s and made it through to a successful career in mathematics, not only came from white, middle-class families, but also had certain personality traits. We were largely blind to overt sexism, determined to follow our own paths, and simply too stubborn to turn back. I was certainly the first of these: as I used to say in graduate school, I believed that as long as I dressed like the guys and acted like the guys, they would treat me like one of the guys. And as time would prove, I was also stubbornly committed to a career in mathematics. I had my share of setbacks and frustrations, but they only made me more determined to push on. My first test of this was when I discovered that my thesis had a serious hole in it. I briefly thought about throwing in the towel and going back to modern dance, but quickly realized that there was no way I would quit before I fixed that hole! It was not until many years later, as I began to meet other female mathematicians with very different experiences and started to read about implicit and explicit bias, that I came to understand that the problems I had successfully ignored for years were more prevalent and more complex than I had realized. And I began to think about how I might help to address these problems. In the 1990s, I got involved with AWM, serving for several years on the AWM Executive Committee and subsequently helping to organize a series of workshops for graduate students and postdocs at the annual Joint Meetings (see Fig. 1). Then, in 2005, I was invited to help organize one of the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) Women and Mathematics programs. These two-week programs, held each summer, focus on a particular research area and include courses, problem sessions and mentoring events aimed at undergraduates, graduate students, and recent graduates. The topic that summer was “The Geometry of Groups.” My experience in that program was eye-opening. The level of engagement of the participants was impressive and their excitement was palpable. Numerous individual friendships and networks, both large and small, began to emerge. I felt that something special had taken place over those two weeks. And indeed, a significant number of the women I met that summer have since become leaders in our field and they are now proactively mentoring the next generation of women. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think so. In 2011, I was asked to run for president of AWM. Aside from my few years on the Executive Committee, my involvement with the organization had been fairly minimal up until that time, but by then, my commitment to helping promote women in mathematics had grown strong and this seemed like a unique opportunity. I served as president from 2013 to 2015. At the beginning, I had much to learn about the organization. I was amazed at the wide range of activities AWM supported and the large number of committees created to handle these activities. There were programs

A Personal Reflection by AWM’s 21st President

787

Fig. 1 Ruth Charney and Kathleen Madden, AWM workshop, 1994 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Cincinnati, OH

aimed at girls at the K–12 level, undergraduate and graduate students, and faculty at various career stages. There were groups focused on mathematics education, on research mathematics, and on outreach to the community. And there was a medley of prizes and grants awarded each year. With the exception of a half-time executive director, Magnhild Lien (whose contributions cannot be overstated! See Fig. 2), and some contractual help from a management agency, nearly all of the work was done by volunteers. The effort and commitment of all of these volunteers was truly inspiring. But at the same time, running such a complex organization with very little money and almost no paid staff was difficult and at times frustrating. I put much of my time and effort into writing grant proposals to fund AWM-sponsored events and developing new strategies for fundraising. I often felt that I was just holding down the fort. The last grant proposal I submitted was for an NSF ADVANCE grant. This program was specifically designed by the NSF to help advance women in academia. Inspired by the experience and enthusiasm of then president-elect Kristin Lauter, AWM proposed a program to create and support networks of female mathematicians through Research Collaboration Conferences for Women (RCCWs). These weeklong conferences are designed to initiate collaborative research projects and to create ongoing networks centered on a specific area of research. Kristin had already been involved in an RCCW in number theory and her description of the program and its positive effects reminded me of my experience with the IAS program. I signed on with enthusiasm. NSF approved the award in 2015 for a five-year period and the program has been a tremendous success! I will leave it to Kristin to tell you more about this in her own president’s reflection in this volume.

788

R. Charney

Fig. 2 Magnhild Lien and Ruth Charney, AWM reception, 2014 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Baltimore, MD

There are still many challenges that remain to reach full participation of women in mathematics, especially with regard to women from racial and ethnic minorities. But looking back at my own experience and the development of AWM since the 1970s, it is clear that we have come a long way. I am proud to have been a part of that progress. As I wrote in my final president’s report for the AWM Newsletter: Forty years ago it was possible for women to succeed and thrive in mathematics . . . [providing they were] fearless (I’m not going to worry about what’s ahead), clueless (the fact that I’m a woman makes no difference), and stubborn (I will do this no matter what). We should all thank AWM for putting out a welcome sign to the rest of the female population!

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President Kristin Lauter

Genius is “where extraordinary talent meets celebrity,” writes Janice Kaplan in her 2020 book, The Genius of Women. Unfortunately, the “genius” notion creates a vicious cycle for women in any field where “genius” is a prerequisite for success: women are not perceived as geniuses because their work is not celebrated, and their work is not celebrated because they are not perceived as geniuses. Nowhere is this more true than in mathematics, the quintessential “genius” field, a field where the expectation of brilliance is inversely proportional to the participation of women (e.g. Leslie et al., 2015). The 2015 blog post by mathematician and best-selling author Cathy O’Neil (2015) (aka mathbabe) summarizes the situation in mathematics as follows: women are discouraged to go into a field because that field is somehow reserved for “geniuses,” and women are rarely if ever bestowed with that label. Mathematics is definitely one of those fields; if you are exceptionally successful in mathematics, people call you a genius, and it’s pretty hard to be successful if people don’t think you’re a genius.

In mathematics research, women have long been underrepresented and their contributions under-celebrated. But “celebrity” inherently involves community, a collection of people where news is spread. According to Brian Hayes (2002): Mathematics and other kinds of science are so intensely social that only the most extraordinary talent could overcome the handicap of isolation. It takes more than a village to raise a scientist, it takes a village full of scientists.

My own experience in the research mathematics community after graduate school led me to believe that indeed the “genius of women” in mathematics is severely

K. Lauter () Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_70

789

790

K. Lauter

under-celebrated, but that to fix that problem, we needed to build community for women in research, and to work together on advocacy and recognition. This belief led me into the leadership of the almost-50-year-old Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) to start the AWM ADVANCE program of Research Networks for Women. Over the last 10 years, the AWM ADVANCE networks have, in effect, created an army of women in many areas of mathematics who are empowered to work on behalf of themselves and other women to change the system through proactively promoting each other’s work in a way which benefits everyone’s careers. In this article, I detail that journey, along with related AWM initiatives focused on advocacy and recognition. To me, the trifecta of community, advocacy, and recognition that AWM provides for women and girls in mathematics is what I call the “Genius of AWM.”

Personal History I was president of AWM from 2015 to 2017. I served a four-year term 2014–2018, including one year as president-elect and one year as past president. Before that I served for two years on the AWM Executive Committee and before that a term on the AWM Long-range Planning Committee. I am grateful that this volume gives me a chance to reflect on the impact my service to AWM had on my own life and career, the programs I started during my leadership of the organization, and the benefit and the continued role and importance of AWM. I put the lion’s share of my energy into launching Research Networks for Women, which led into the AWM ADVANCE program, so I focus a large part of this article on explaining that work. In tandem, to promote advocacy and recognition, I am extremely proud of having started the AWM Hill visits program to advocate for women in mathematics on Capitol Hill, and my efforts to help launch numerous AWM awards, such as the Fellows program, the presidential award, the dissertation prizes, and the student chapter awards. I benefited tremendously from AWM support early in my career. When I was on the job market, I was funded to attend the Joint Mathematics Meetings as a participant in the AWM workshop. As a Hildebrandt Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan, I received an AWM Mentoring Grant to work with JeanPierre Serre at the Collège de France in Paris for a month (see Fig. 1). I published two research articles, each with an appendix by Serre, in the Journal of Algebraic Geometry and Compositio Mathematica. This collaboration helped advance my research and my confidence. Serre has written letters of recommendation for me throughout my career, which helped me obtain job offers, including my position at Microsoft Research. While I was AWM president, I worked approximately 20 hours per week of volunteer time for AWM, on top of my full-time job in industry as a Principal Researcher and Research Manager of the Cryptography Group at Microsoft Research. I was one of the few AWM presidents from the high-tech industry, and there was no release-time or staff support granted to me by my employer. In addition,

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

791

Fig. 1 Working with J.-P. Serre in a Parisian café thanks to an AWM Mentoring Grant in 1999. Drawing by E. Bombieri

my twin daughters were teenagers at that time. My husband took on a greater share of family responsibilities to enable my extra work and travel. Despite all these challenges, it was the most invigorating and inspiring four years of my career. I had so many ideas for creating community and recognition for women in mathematics, and I could not bear the thought of missing my chance to launch them. My mother, Estella Lauter, helped to design a women’s studies minor at a University of Wisconsin campus in 1977, and I am obviously cut from the same cloth. My father spent his career as dean of students at a liberal arts college, and he was a role model for me for starting programs to create community for students. Reinvigorating and building up the AWM student chapters program was a perfect outlet for my passion in that direction. My twin daughters traveled with me to AWM conferences and to the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Korea in 2014, where the Fields Medal was awarded to a woman for the first time, and it changed their attitude towards math. They volunteered at AWM events such as the AWM Research Symposia in 2015 and 2017 (see Fig. 2). Three years later, they were studying mathematics and computer science as undergraduates at the University of Chicago, my alma mater. I have spent a large part of my career in the high-tech industry as “the only woman in the room” in most leadership team meetings. The technical workforce in the high-tech industry is about 10–15% women, even in the year 2020. For those in a small minority, normal interactions may be distorted by hidden biases. I often felt early on in such meetings in industry that I was irrelevant to the conversation, I had

792

K. Lauter

Fig. 2 Joyce and Josephine Lauter Passananti taking conference photos and selling AWM t-shirts, pendants, earrings, and pins during the 2017 AWM Research Symposium, UCLA

no opportunity to speak, I had nothing to say that anyone would listen to, or if I did finally speak, that my voice was not heard. In contrast, my four years as a volunteer in the leadership of AWM was a breath of fresh air, offering the chance to launch many new programs and prizes to support, recognize, and advance women and girls in mathematics and to work together with women around the world. I was floored by an outpouring of energy and excitement from young women mathematicians who felt empowered by the support and opportunities AWM provided and immediately offered their time and commitment to help build the programs. This was particularly true in the Research Networks for Women initiative. I earned my PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1996. After a decade of going to number theory conferences around the world with almost no women speakers and few women participants, in 2006 I decided to try to change that. Renate Scheidler, Rachel Pries, and I organized the first Women In Numbers (WIN) conference, a Research Collaboration Conference for Women (RCCW), leading to

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

793

the creation of a Research Network for women in number theory. It was the best and most impactful initiative of my career; it led me into the leadership of AWM to spread the Research Networks for Women to all areas of math.

The Genius of Community: Research Networks for Women Imagine a conference center in the Canadian Rockies where 42 women mathematicians spend five days working together on research problems in mathematics in groups of five or six. The groups include graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who apply to work in groups led by more senior women researchers. The research problems are posed and the groups formed several months in advance, and the group members continue to work together after the conference to write a paper for publication. That is the model we designed and launched for WIN, the first Women In Numbers conference at Banff International Research Station (BIRS) in 2008 (see Fig. 3). After the 2008 WIN conference, the organizers and many of the participants worked together to form the WIN network: a research community for Women In

Fig. 3 First WIN conference, November 2008, Banff International Research Station (BIRS), one of several mathematics institutes in North America

794

K. Lauter

Number Theory. Michelle Manes created an email distribution list and organized follow-up special sessions at AMS meetings; Katherine Stange created a website highlighting women in number theory; we created a Steering Committee to plan future meetings, and we published a proceedings volume of the research papers from the WIN groups. Since then the WIN Network has run seven more conferences on this model: WIN2, WIN3, WIN4, WIN5 at BIRS in 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and WIN-Europe (WINE), WINE2, WINE3 in 2013, 2016, 2019 in France and Holland. These conferences involved more than 200 women in number theory from around the world, were organized by more than 20 distinct women, many of them participants in the first WIN conference, and produced more than 50 published research papers in six proceedings volumes. When we started planning the first WIN conference in 2006, there were three women professors in number theory at top research universities in the US; now there are several dozen women faculty in number theory at such institutions. The success of the WIN model was palpable from the very first conference: the BIRS staff said they had never experienced such energy and excitement from workshop participants, although they had been running week-long workshops 50 weeks per year for many years. I personally enjoyed my professional life and going to conferences so much more as part of the growing WIN community. I started organizing WIN reunions at other conferences in number theory and they are now a regular occurrence. Early adopters helped to push the WIN model into other areas of mathematics. Maria Basterra is one of my best friends from graduate school, and after we discussed the WIN model at the 2011 AWM Research Symposium, she launched Women in Topology (WIT) with Kristine Bauer by submitting a modified version of the WIN proposal through the usual scientific channels at BIRS (WIT workshops were held in 2013, 2016, 2019). Kathryn Leonard and Luminita Vese organized Women in Shape Modeling (WiSh) at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM) in 2013, securing funding from private sources and companies to launch it, and I was able to provide some funding through Microsoft Research. When I gave a public lecture at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) in 2012, I talked with the IMA Director Fadil Santosa, and he agreed to run one conference on the WIN model per year, for three years, again with some small cofunding I provided from Microsoft Research. The first three RCCWs hosted by the IMA were: • WhAM! Women in Applied Math, Dynamical Systems in Biology (2013). • WINASC: Women in Numerical Analysis and Scientific Computing (2014). • WinCompTop: Women in Computational Topology (2016). Georgia Benkart, Stephanie van Willigenburg, and Monica Vazirani had earlier organized the first conference for Women in Algebraic Combinatorics at BIRS in 2011 on a slightly different collaborative model. Georgia later launched another Research Network, Women in Noncommutative Algebra and Representation Theory (WINART), with Ellen Kirkman, Susan Montgomery, and Chelsea Walton. My personal involvement in the support and creation of these first few spin-off networks

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

795

was intense, fast-paced, and heartfelt. I kept all the organizers, conference dates, and publication volumes in my head and communicated frequently by email with all the new networks. Based on the preliminary success of the WIN model in number theory and these other areas, I was motivated to join the leadership of AWM to spread the model to all areas of mathematics. In 2014 when I was president-elect, President Ruth Charney, Executive Director Magnhild Lien, and I wrote and submitted a $750,000 five-year grant proposal to the National Science Foundation in the ADVANCE program to support Research Networks for women. The grant was awarded in September 2015 when I was president, and I served as the Principal Investigator (PI) for this grant from 2015 to 2020, with Magnhild Lien as quarter-time project director. Current AWM President-elect Kathryn Leonard served on the Oversight Committee. The goal of the AWM proposal, Career Advancement for Women through Researchfocused Networks, is to build and sustain Research Networks (RNs) for women in many areas of mathematics. The program has supported more than 1000 women researchers in 20 Research Networks so far.

AWM Research Symposia In 2009, I met Georgia Benkart when she was AWM president and we both spoke at a biannual conference of the Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences (KWMS). We shared an apartment at the Korean Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS). I got the idea that we should have such a research conference to highlight the work of women mathematicians in North America. I thought that AWM could host it and I started discussing the idea with Georgia. A few months later, Georgia contacted me and invited me to co-organize the first AWM Research Symposium with her and Jill Pipher at Brown University and the Institute of Computational and Experimental Mathematics (ICERM). It took place in 2011 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of AWM, when Jill Pipher was president of AWM and founding director of ICERM. The AWM Symposia are typically two-day weekend meetings, run on the model of the AMS sectional conferences, with high-profile plenary speakers and special sessions organized on focused research topics. The Symposia aim to bring women mathematicians together to recognize and celebrate their research contributions and achievements, and to network and build community in order to advance their careers and improve working conditions. Professional development activities include a nonacademic jobs panel, an exhibit hall, and networking opportunities. Since 2011, a Symposium has been held every two years.

Symposium 2015 The third AWM Research Symposium took place at the University of Maryland in April 2015. The Symposium was organized by Ruth Charney, Shelly Harvey,

796

K. Lauter

Gail Letzter, Magnhild Lien, Konstantina Trivisa, Talitha Washington, and myself, with many outstanding mathematicians volunteering to organize the 14 special sessions representing a wide swath of mathematics. The scientific program featured plenary lectures by Ingrid Daubechies, Maria Chudnovsky, Jill Pipher, and Katrin Wehrheim. The format was similar to the 40th Anniversary Symposium at Brown and the 2013 Research Symposium at Santa Clara, but there were several new aspects. We inaugurated the AWM Presidential Award. Past president Ruth Charney and I gave the first award at the banquet to the founders of the EDGE program: Sylvia Bozeman and Rhonda Hughes. EDGE (Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education) is a program with a strong record of supporting graduate students and building community among women from diverse backgrounds. To help celebrate the EDGE program, Shirley Malcom (AAAS) delivered an inspiring keynote address, followed by moving acceptance speeches from Sylvia and Rhonda (see Fig. 4). The networking reception featured a jobs panel moderated by Gail Letzter, with representatives from industry and government: Gagan Aggarwal (Google), Lily Chen (National Institute of Standards and Technology), Michelle Dunn (National Institutes of Health), Deborah Lockhart (National Science Foundation), Adele

Fig. 4 Banquet at 2015 AWM Research Symposium. Standing: AWM Presidential Award winner Sylvia Bozeman, former AWM presidents Kristin Lauter and Jill Pipher. Sitting: Former AWM Executive Committee member Talitha Washington, 2015 Keynote Speaker Shirley Malcom, and former AWM president Ruth Charney

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

797

Merritt (National Security Agency), and Philip Whitman (INTECH). At the end of the jobs panel, the Wolfram Best Poster Prizes were awarded to Jessica Fintzen, Ariana Minot, and Beth Romano. For more details and pictures, see the blog (Haensch and Salerno, 2015). The Symposia, while requiring many hands and significant funding to realize, have proved to be invaluable for building community among women mathematicians, showcasing women’s work in mathematics, and attracting attention, support, and sponsorship for the AWM mission. A proceedings volume highlighting the research presented at the 2015 Symposium appeared in the AWM Springer series.

Symposium 2017 Supported by the NSF ADVANCE grant, the fourth AWM Research Symposium was held in April 2017 at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM). The Symposium was coorganized by Raegan Higgins, Magnhild Lien, Ami Radunskaya, Tatiana Toro, Luminita Vese, Carol Woodward, and myself. The four plenary speakers were AWM past president Ruth Charney, AWM Sadosky Prize Winner Svitlana Mayboroda, Blackwell-Tapia Prize Winner Mariel Vazquez, and the first AWM-SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Lecturer Linda Petzold. The second AWM Presidential Award was presented to Deanna Haunsperger, then president-elect of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA). This award honors her enduring contribution to advancing the mission of the AWM through her work to establish and run the Summer Math Program (SMP) at Carleton College. In addition to the 12 special sessions by the ADVANCE Research Networks, there were special sessions associated to plenary talks, and innovative sessions such as SMPosium: A celebration of the Summer Mathematics Program for Women, an EDGE session, Women in Government Labs, Women in SAGE (System for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation), along with sessions on mathematics education, history of mathematics, statistics, and areas of pure math. Also, Marie Vitulli and Ursula Whitcher organized an exciting event: a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to expand Wikipedia’s coverage of women in mathematics. On the first evening, IPAM hosted a welcoming event focusing on students and AWM student chapters. The banquet on the following evening featured a networking event and a jobs panel.

Symposium 2019 The fifth AWM Research Symposium was held at Rice University in April 2019 (see Fig. 5). It attracted more than 350 women and hosted more than 20 special sessions in different research areas. I enjoyed tremendously being a plenary speaker at the symposium and reuniting with many women friends and collaborators.

798

K. Lauter

Fig. 5 2019 AWM Research Symposium, Rice University. Photo courtesy of Shelly Harvey

NSF AWM ADVANCE Program Components The AWM ADVANCE program supports the launch and development of Research Networks for Women by running numerous activities, coordinated by the PIs and Oversight Committee, and almost entirely staffed by volunteers. First, we set up two committees: • RCCW Committee. Chaired for the first three years by Michelle Manes, and now by Erin Chambers, this committee helped research networks form in new areas by accepting proposals twice a year. The chair assigned each proposal to a committee member to help edit and match with one of the math institutes to submit a conference proposal through their competitive processes. • RN Committee. Chaired initially by Sigal Gottlieb, then Kathryn Leonard, and later by me, this committee helped the formation of strong research networks after an initial RCCW. The Research Networks were encouraged to: – – – – – –

form a Steering Committee; appoint a webmaster to create and maintain a webpage; use a listserv to facilitate communication; organize follow-up events such as special sessions and AWM workshops; publish a proceedings volume in the AWM Springer series; publish accounts of their networks in the AWM Newsletter.

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

799

The AWM ADVANCE grant provided overhead support for AWM and funded the following: • Project director, a quarter-time position. • Web developer, to create the AWM ADVANCE webpage, which hosts webpages for each Research Network and provides a framework and global information about the grant and programs. • Travel funding to allow participants to attend RCCWs and follow-up workshops at JMM and SIAM meetings. The grant provided more than $70,000 in participant support for each of the 2017 and 2019 Symposia. • External evaluator. AWM coordinates the RNs, sponsors the RCCWs, and runs the Symposia and the follow-up workshops at JMM and SIAM meetings. So it makes sense that the ADVANCE grant provided overhead support to AWM. What doesn’t make sense is that none of the other conference grants that AWM receives to pay for participant costs to attend AWM workshops include any overhead to cover the costs to run the workshops. This perpetuates the problem that women devote more of their time and professional energy to helping other women and minorities in mathematics, detracting from their own research and career advancement. Almost all of the work of AWM is still done by volunteers: more than 200 people, almost all women. The women in the AWM leadership who write and win the grants to support more junior women and the volunteers who organize and run the workshops are rarely acknowledged for the hard work they put in. For this reason, I always try to assure that the organizers for the AWM workshops and Research Symposia are prominently featured in the conference materials and recognized at the conference.

AWM Springer Series After the first WIN conference, I was asked by a male colleague in number theory, “But what do you do at these WIN conferences, talk about women in number theory?” I was shocked that he did not realize that we were solving important number theory research problems. But we had the perfect answer for him and anyone else who doubted the mathematical quality of the initiative: we published proceedings volumes of research articles produced by the working groups at the first two WIN conferences! The importance of publishing these volumes of research articles cannot be overstated. In addition to providing a record of the research done by the groups showing the serious nature of the conferences, the publication volumes play a fundamental role in the formation of the networks in several other ways: • In order to finish their papers for publication, groups formed at the workshop need to keep working together remotely after the conference. This helps to cement the collaboration and mentoring relationships.

800

K. Lauter

• Setting a deadline for the submissions to the volume roughly 6–9 months after the conference provides a schedule and incentive for groups to finish up their results. • Often graduate students and postdocs ask the group leader(s) for recommendation letters based on their contributions to the paper. This is time-sensitive at the career stage where they are applying for jobs, so the relatively quick publication of the papers is crucial. • Follow-up AWM workshops highlight the research papers in the volumes by inviting the authors to present the work in special session format. • At an early career stage, more experience in the publication process and adding another paper to the resume can be helpful for professional development and a successful job search. As this is one of those “critical transition points” in the leaky pipeline, this can help to enable more women to continue in the research mathematics profession. • Once a group of 4–7 mathematicians has started working together on a research problem, it is important to publish at least the preliminary results, so that everyone in the group can get credit for their contributions. Those group members who have time and interest can form spin-off collaborations to continue to develop further results after the initial publication. • For further development and organization of the Research Networks, it is helpful to have artifacts such as volumes of published research papers, to show the work done by women in the area and to argue for the importance of funding subsequent conferences for women in the area. • The editors have often invited some contributions from women researchers who were not at the conference, so the volumes serve to highlight work by women in the area more broadly. • Many women organizers, editors, and reviewers get valuable experience in the publication process through their work to produce these volumes. • Some argue that it is better for women’s careers to publish in journals. Groups can still choose to publish results in a journal in addition to their contribution to the proceedings. In that case the article in the proceedings may be expository. But I argue that it is still beneficial to the broader network of women in the area to publish a proceedings volume, for the other reasons listed here. The WIN 2008 volume was published by the Fields Institute in their series, and the 2011 WIN2 volume was published in the Centre de recherches mathématiques (CRM) series. This made sense because both conferences were hosted at BIRS in Canada, with Canadian co-organizers Renate Scheidler and Chantal David. The proceedings of the first two conferences at IMA were published in the IMA Springer series, and co-branded with the AWM logo. But I wanted to have a venue for all of these proceedings to appear in the same series. In 2014 when I was president-elect, President Ruth Charney invited me to work with Springer editors to develop a proposal for an AWM book series. This was the perfect opportunity to create a home for the proceedings volumes of

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

801

Fig. 6 PIs for the AWM ADVANCE Grant Kristin Lauter, Magnhild Lien, and Ruth Charney with AWM Springer series volumes, 2019 Research Symposium, Rice University

research articles produced by the collaboration groups at the Research Collaboration Conferences for Women. Later that same year, we launched the AWM Springer series to publish the proceedings of RCCWs, AWM workshops, the AWM Research Symposia, and other AWM events and panels (see Fig. 6). A list of the more than 20 published volumes to date is available on the series webpage. The subsequent four volumes from the WIN conferences have already appeared in the series, and several volumes each from WiSh and WIMB (Women In Math Biology), along with the three volumes from the 2015, 2017, and 2019 AWM Research Symposia, a volume on mathematics education based on an AWM-AMS panel at JMM, a volume on the history of women in mathematics based on an AWM contributed papers session at the MathFest 100th anniversary of MAA, and two volumes on harmonic analysis in honor of the late past president of AWM, Cora Sadosky. Other volumes include a collection of papers by former EDGE participants and the proceedings from the first World Meeting for Women in Mathematics (WM)2 , which was held in 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. AWM received a $1000 commission per volume for the first five years of the contract, and I negotiated an increase to $1500 per volume for the second fiveyear contract. I continue to serve as the founding editor for the series, and we are constantly soliciting new volumes—please let me know about ideas!

802

K. Lauter

Results to Date We have far exceeded expectations for the success of the first AWM ADVANCE grant, having launched and sustained 20 Research Networks in the first four years. At the 2017 and 2019 Research Symposia, Magnhild Lien and I hosted brainstorming and networking lunch discussions for Research Networks, explaining the model, and inviting women to form networks in new areas. At least three or four new networks were germinated at each of those sessions. The RCCW committee has refined its processes over the last five years and has learned to help target proposals strategically to numerous institutes so that BIRS is not overrun with proposals each year. The RN committee has created materials to help new networks organize themselves: “RN-in-a-box.” In addition to BIRS, RCCWs have been hosted annually by North American institutes AIM, ICERM, IMA, and IPAM. Networks have also run their conferences at various mathematics institutes in Europe, for example, Hausdorff, Henri Lebesgue, Lorentz, Luminy, and Nesin Village. The external evaluator for the program is sociologist Erin Leahey. She and her students and collaborators have studied the program and its outcomes. Together we designed surveys for each RCCW, AWM workshop, and Symposium. We have surveyed 1000 distinct researchers, with many more additional participants also part of the study. Leahey and her collaborators have coded CVs to gather information about workshop participants’ job search outcomes, grant activity, invited talks, and leadership roles. They have also scraped data from Google Scholar to gather information about workshop participants’ productivity. Although we do not have the results of the first stage of the study as of this writing, we can see already anecdotally the impact that the collaboration model and the Research Networks are having on careers for women in research mathematics. In specific research areas such as number theory, the number of tenure-track and tenured women faculty at PhD-granting institutions has increased dramatically. The number of special sessions at AMS meetings co-organized by women and the number of women speakers has also increased dramatically. The number of invited speakers at annual international number theory conferences has similarly increased. WIN is the oldest network, started more than 10 years ago. It remains to be seen what the effect on women’s careers from some of the more recently formed Research Networks will be. Gathering input from the surveys, we hear stories of the transformative effect that these research collaborations have had on women’s careers, allowing them to achieve some visibility in their field, to get a job, to get an article published in a top journal, to get tenure, or to feel empowered to continue in their research careers. We plan to assess the results of the study from the first five years and use the learnings to tweak our format and activities for the next cycle. We have also seen some systemic change happening already in the research mathematics community in response to our Research Networks for Women approach. First, the AMS Council voted on, and approved, a revision to its recommendations on procedures for tenure and promotion evaluation wherein they noted that, due to

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

803

the increased collaboration in the field stemming from conferences run on the WIN model, letters from collaborators should be allowed. Second, the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) has created a Summer Research in Mathematics program, SRiM, to host follow-up collaboration meeting opportunities for groups of 4–6 researchers to come to MSRI in the summer to continue research on a project such as one started at an RCCW. Another mark of success is the demand for participant slots at RCCWs. For many of the networks, including WIN, WIT, WIMB, . . . , the acceptance rate is about 20%. For example, BIRS workshops support 42 participants, and with two group leaders for each of eight groups, plus organizers, that usually leaves around 20 open slots for participants to apply to. WIN workshops have received around 100 applications. This means that the quality of accepted participants is extremely high, but it also means that many do not get to participate. Some WIN organizers have taken the approach of accepting mostly women who have not yet attended a WIN conference, in order to spread opportunity around and continue to grow the community.

Broader Impact According to a survey (AMS, 2015), women received 30% of the PhDs awarded in math but still comprised only 17% of the tenured or tenure-eligible faculty at PhD-granting institutions. The situation is much worse at elite institutions. For example, in 2015, the percentage of women mathematics faculty at Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Chicago and Brown ranged from 4% to 8%. (These have improved slightly over the last five years.) A study of 435 math research journals found that only 8.9% of editors were women (Topaz and Sen, 2016). For many years, leaders of AWM have tried various approaches to draw attention to the problem of underrepresentation of women and minorities in research mathematics, the lack of equity in resources and access, and the barriers for women and underrepresented minorities to advance their careers in the mathematical profession. For example, AWM created a policy of writing letters to conference organizers who had zero women speakers at their conference. The letter came from the AWM president and was very professional and polite. We have tried writing letters to chief editors of top journals with no women on the editorial board and arguing on AMS Council for more diversity on editorial boards of leading AMS journals. We have tried writing to the presidents of major institutions to urge them to hire more women into their math faculty. Frustrated by slow progress stemming from such complaints, I was motivated to take an independent approach by creating the WIN model, which led to the AWM ADVANCE program. The philosophy of the AWM ADVANCE grant is to change the ecosystem. Our model for making change was based on the observation that the mathematics research community itself is a network with its own hierarchical structure. So to integrate with that, we created Research Networks for women in a scalable way

804

K. Lauter

which can help advance women’s careers in the existing hierarchical structure where women are underrepresented and have less power. There are now armies of women in many areas of mathematics who are empowered to work on behalf of themselves and other women to change the system through proactively promoting each other’s work in a way which benefits everyone’s careers. We needed a way to circumvent the problem that women spend so much of their professional energy trying to help advance women and minorities, thus falling behind men who have more time for their research. In the ADVANCE model, project leaders are essentially rewarded for effective mentoring by having excellent junior research collaborators in their research group advancing and giving increased visibility to the group leader’s research agenda.

Next Steps How do we leverage the success of the AWM ADVANCE networks to continue to accelerate change in the broader math community? An important ongoing objective is to strengthen the interactions between the research networks for women and men in the dominant hierarchy. Men are incentivized to help and to participate in the networks for women for many reasons. Many senior men want to help their PhD students succeed, so they recommend the women for acceptance to RCCWs, where competition for spots may be stiff. Also, many junior men benefit from the energy and network of the women organizing special sessions and become co-organizers and collaborators. There are men co-authors on papers in the WIN volumes and in volumes by other networks (WiSH, WiSDM, WinCompTop, . . . ). As men see the success of research groups consisting entirely of women, they are at first surprised, but then often engaged by the research and energy and sometimes become enthusiastic allies. Men are often reviewers for the papers in the AWM volumes. The collaboration model for conferences is pretty new in mathematics, simultaneously started independently at WIN and the AMS Mathematics Research Conferences (MRC). But it has been so successful for institutes and funding agencies who like the publication model, that it is being copied as a model for mixed-gender conferences (for example at IPAM, the Simons Institute, and the University of Oregon). As we continue to build and spread the influence of Research Networks for women, communication to the broader math community is crucial. To spread the word, I and others have written accounts of the AWM ADVANCE networks in numerous places. In my accounts, I took care to highlight the names and contributions and hard work of so many women organizers for the Research Networks and AWM Committees. Please see my many bimonthly President’s Reports, the Research Symposia reports, and the AWM ADVANCE reports in the AWM Newsletter and the AWM ADVANCE website for more information.

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

805

The Genius of Advocacy: Selected AWM Initiatives and Programs (2014–2018) AWM Hill Visits I served on the AMS Council from 2014–2017, substantially overlapping with my term as president of AWM. This was unfortunate from the point of view of demands on my time, but fortunate from the point of view of cross-fertilization of ideas. An excellent example of the benefit is the AWM Hill visits program. As a member of the AMS Committee on Science Policy, I was invited to Washington, DC, in spring 2014 to take part in a day of visits to Capitol Hill organized by the AMS, to argue on behalf of funding for scientific research. In preparation, on the day before going to the Hill, we received training from Karen Saxe, professor of mathematics at Macalester College who was spending a year as an AMS Congressional Fellow in Senator Al Franken’s office. It was a transformative experience for me to realize that as citizens, voters (constituents), and members of society, we can directly make appointments to visit our elected officials and argue on behalf of our priorities. It was clear to me that it would be empowering to invite a diverse set of representatives to these Hill visits—in 2014 I was the only woman on the AMS Committee at the meeting, and there were no underrepresented minorities. Over drinks at the reception, Karen and I talked about starting a program of Hill visits for the AWM. I didn’t know how I was going to do it, but in April 2015, the opportunity presented itself. The 2015 AWM Research Symposium was hosted at the University of Maryland, and I invited all AWM Executive Committee members to join me in a day of visits to Capitol Hill in DC on the day after the Symposium. The only EC member who joined me was Talitha Washington, professor at Howard University. We made appointments at numerous offices, including meetings with Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (see Fig. 7), and congressional staff in the offices of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Patty Murray, and Representative Paul Tonko. We introduced ourselves and AWM, and we argued on behalf of STEM outreach funding and initiatives. Representative Johnson asked for a list of women in mathematics who would be willing to speak at local events in her district in Dallas. We discussed Tonko’s bill, Educating Tomorrow’s Engineers Act of 2015 (H.R.823), and Obama’s initiative to increase the STEM workforce. I followed up with a phone meeting with the White House Council on Women and Girls, and I tried to get the AWM Essay Contest winner invited to the annual White House Science Fair. This was the beginning of shaping a broader advocacy agenda than just arguing for increased funding for research in science. The next golden opportunity awaited us in August 2015, since much of the AWM leadership was planning to return to Washington, DC, for the 100th Anniversary of the MAA MathFest. This time, we were able to involve leaders from AWM student chapters (Clarkson, Clemson, Colorado School of Mines, Georgia College, James Madison, UT Arlington) who were presenting at a special poster session at MathFest organized by Kathleen

806

K. Lauter

Fig. 7 AWM President Kristin Lauter meeting with Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, April 2015

Fowler. Karen Saxe provided background materials and an hour-long, in-person training session for the students and AWM leadership in the morning, at the conference hotel before heading to the Hill. We organized into three groups led by Executive Director Magnhild Lien, Past President Ruth Charney, and myself. Group leaders had made the appointments on behalf of the groups, focusing on offices in districts where the students were constituents. We argued on behalf of the STEM Gateways Act (S.1183 and H.R.840) introduced by Senator Gillibrand and Representative Kennedy, which aimed to increase the participation of women, girls, and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields by authorizing the Department of Education to create a competitive grant program. We also showed our support for the STEM Opportunities Act of 2015 (H.R.467) introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, to require federal agencies to collect more comprehensive demographic data on the recipients of federal research awards and on STEM faculty at US universities, and to

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

807

Fig. 8 Heading to Capitol Hill, Julie Skinner Sutton, Kirsten Morris, Leah Granger, Rebecca Swanson, Ruth Charney, Adriana Salerno, Karen Saxe, Magnhild Lien, Sarah Greenwald, Ami Radunskaya, Kristin Lauter, MathFest, August 2015

promote data-driven research on the participation and trajectories of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM (see Fig. 8). I wrote about these visits in my President’s Reports in the Newsletter, inviting broader participation. We involved students in writing an article for the Newsletter detailing the visit and posted photos on the AWM Facebook page. In a subsequent meeting of the AWM Advisory Board, Mary Gray advised setting up a regular program of Hill visits through the AWM Policy and Advocacy (P&A) committee. That year, Gail Letzter was elected to the AWM Executive Committee. When her term started in February 2016, I convinced her to serve as chair of the P&A committee and to help set up the program, with the help of Karen Saxe, who graciously accepted an appointment (more like a plea!) to join the committee. Together they led P&A to develop a more comprehensive policy agenda and legislative priorities. To set up a regular cadence for visits, the committee agreed to my proposal to schedule two visits per year to coincide with the CBMS meetings in Washington, DC, in May and December. Since AWM is a member association of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), AWM always sends at least one representative from the leadership team to the meeting. In particular, beginning in May 2015, I served on the Executive Committee of CBMS, so I attended every

808

K. Lauter

meeting. I announced the Hill visits program in my May–June 2016 President’s Report, and the legislative priorities for AWM formulated by the committee were published in the July–August AWM Newsletter. The priorities were: • • • •

Expand STEM educational opportunities. Support research funding. Improve work–life balance: expand childcare and family leave options. Modernize self-perpetuating mechanisms that limit public recognition of women’s achievements. • Create a welcoming environment in science and education, including policies to address sexual harassment and violence on university campuses. On our next visit in May 2016, I was accompanied by Executive Committee members Talitha Washington and Talithia Williams. We discussed our AWM legislative agenda with staff in the offices of Representatives Barbara Lee and Jackie Speier, among others. Later, we supported the bill Computer Science for All (H.R.6095), which was introduced by Representative Lee and several cosponsors. In fall 2016, Representative Speier introduced the Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act (H.R.6161), and we were invited to her office during the December 2016 visit to meet with her. Our December 2016 visit was the most exciting and successful visit to date. Beth Malmskog and Katherine Haymaker, faculty mentors for the AWM student chapter at Villanova, drove nine students down from Pennsylvania for the day to join the AWM Hill Day. Our top legislative priority was the Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act of 2016. We also spoke in support of the Computer Science for All Initiative, the INSPIRE Women Act, and the bill introduced by Representative Speier. Her bill required that sexual harassment by Principal Investigators be reported to funding agencies, and that harassment reports be considered when awarding federal funding. We attended a breakfast hosted by Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, visited more than 20 congressional offices in groups, and met several other members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The visit was captured enthusiastically by Beth Malmskog in her post for an AMS blog Malmskog (2016). Students in my group that day and during the August 2015 trip told me that taking part in the day-long Hill visit had “changed their lives.” There is evidence that our Hill visits have had an impact. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson spoke about AWM support for one of her bills on the floor of the House. However, possibly the greater impact the program has had is on us, the women and men of AWM and AWM student chapters who have participated in these visits, empowering and inspiring us to continue to make a difference by supporting each other and fighting for change. In total, I organized and led four AWM Hill visits to Capitol Hill, two per year in 2015 and 2016, in addition to the two Hill visits I did as part of the AMS contingent. In 2017, my term as AWM president ended, I stepped down from the Executive Committee of CBMS, and left the AWM Hill visits program in the capable hands of Gail Letzter and Karen Saxe (Karen is now Director of the Office of Government Relations of the American Mathematical Society, based in Washington, DC). They

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

809

created a P&A subcommittee, the Government Advocacy Committee, to run the program. Please see Letzter and Vitulli’s article in this volume describing that process. Michelle Snider served as chair and continues to run it successfully. See her article in this volume.

AWM Student Chapters Student chapters at colleges and universities are one of AWM’s greatest assets. They provide a way to advance our mission by building community, supporting education and developing careers of students, and advocating for women in math on college campuses. During my term I focused on ramping up efforts to support our student chapters. My first goal was to double the number of AWM chapters, which we roughly achieved. In 2020, we currently have more than 100 active AWM student chapters. I had met with several chapters and heard that they did not feel at all connected to AWM as an organization. It is hard to keep up with them since their leadership and membership changes every year. So I worked with Kathleen Fowler, chair of our Student Chapter Committee, to create new processes to support the chapters. I introduced an annual webinar for student chapter presidents to meet with the AWM president and discuss ideas with each other. I hosted the webinar in November 2015 and 2016. More than 30 chapters were represented at the webinar and many new ideas were proposed and discussed. To increase visibility, I worked with Newsletter Editor Anne Leggett to resurrect a “Student Chapter Corner” in the Newsletter to publish articles from the chapters on their activities. AWM revitalized the student chapter Facebook page, and created online folders for chapters to share ideas and information with each other. I worked with the Awards Committee to develop new student chapter awards to be given annually in four categories. The awards were approved by the EC and I announced the new program in my President’s Report in the November–December 2016 issue of the AWM Newsletter. Nominations are due in the spring of each year and chapters can self-nominate. The categories and winners for 2017 were: • • • •

Community Outreach: University of North Carolina. Fundraising and Sustainability: University of Texas at Arlington. Professional Development: Youngstown State University. Scientific Excellence: Brown University.

The awards are typically presented each summer at a reception at MathFest. As described above, I invited student chapters to join the AWM Hill visits, and published pictures and articles about the 2015 and 2016 visits to spread the word. We also involved the chapters in a t-shirt design contest for the 2017 Symposium and hosted a special event for student chapters there. I invited student chapter members to attend the AWM Reception at JMM to meet with Executive Committee members and network.

810

K. Lauter

Fig. 9 Visiting the AWM student chapter at Texas A&M University, spring 2017

We also wanted to find ways to create a regional focus to bring together geographically co-located chapters. This effort is hard to scale up, but it fit nicely with our partnership with MAA sections to host AWM events at MAA section meetings. In several cases, we were able to organize poster sessions for AWM chapters and host AWM lunch tables at the section meetings. I also supported regional meetings for women where student chapters could connect. To this day, whenever I visit a mathematics department, I ask or offer to meet with the AWM student chapter (e.g., see Fig. 9). Whenever I am asked for suggestions on how to improve the culture of a department, or I am on a panel, or I host an AWM lunch at an MAA section meeting, I urge members of our community to start an AWM student chapter or be a faculty advisor to a chapter. I know several examples where the AWM student chapter has significantly improved the overall environment for students and even faculty in a department.

Social Media AWM launched a Facebook page while Jill Pipher was president. With the world of social media rushing by us, there was some awareness at the January 2015 EC

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

811

meeting that with our new Web Editor, Adriana Salerno, AWM could do more to coordinate its web and media presence. I proposed the formation of an ad hoc Media Committee and it was approved by the EC. The short-term goals of the committee were to improve communication with our members, to reach and attract new members, to raise the profile and awareness of AWM in the mathematics community and in the public, to attract media attention for our events, and to attract more corporate sponsors for the organization and for our initiatives. The Media Committee was chaired by Web Editor Adriana Salerno, with members Anna Haensch, Marie Vitulli, Talitha Washington, Newsletter Editor and Associate Editor Anne Leggett and Sarah Greenwald, Executive Director Magnhild Lien, and myself. One of the first actions of the new committee was to launch the AWM Twitter feed, @AWMmath, thanks to Anna. The committee also helped to refine the AWM Symposium poster and the new AWM “Catch the Wave” t-shirt, both designed on a volunteer basis by my daughters. The t-shirts were sold at the Symposium and MathFest. We reached out to media outlets to generate positive press for the Symposium. I even invited First Lady Michelle Obama to be the Keynote Speaker at our Symposium Banquet! She declined, oh well! In a series of almost daily posts on the AWM Facebook page, EC and Media Committee member Marie Vitulli provided stimulating topics for discussion, interspersed with biographies of women in mathematics and updates on the activities of AWM and women in the profession. This high-quality content attracted many followers, more than 5000 during my term. We were able to sell some paid advertisements to help support AWM. As of 2020, the AWM Facebook page has more than 10,000 followers. Marie later became the AWM Media Coordinator and chaired the committee. The AWM Twitter feed now has more than 4000 followers, and I still retweet relevant content for the AWM Twitter feed on a daily basis.

Sponsorship and Fundraising I often shock my math colleagues by saying “it’s all about the money,” in the sense that access to opportunity to excel in scientific research is gated by access to resources to support that work. Unfortunately, most of the money from private and public sources which supports the mathematics research community does not go to women. As president, I worked hard to recruit new corporate sponsors for AWM to help support our mission. Fortunately we have had support from Microsoft for the last 10 years, both to donate my time to AWM leadership, and to direct funds from my external funding budget at Microsoft Research to support AWM. Microsoft Research has been a corporate sponsor for all five AWM Research Symposia, and for the WIN conferences and numerous other RCCWs at IMA, IPAM, and ICERM, and for the follow-up Summer Research in Mathematics Program at MSRI. I was also able to use my budget at Microsoft to fund the AWM Research Prize in Number Theory and Algebra in 2012. It turned out to be harder to get corporate support from other high-tech companies.

812

K. Lauter

In 2014, AWM launched a new Corporate Membership and Sponsorship category, to encourage support for our mission from industry and government, and to form stronger connections with these organizations to improve and expand jobs opportunities for women in the mathematical sciences. While organizing the 2015 AWM Research Symposium, Magnhild Lien and I were able to recruit new Corporate Sponsorships from INTECH and Elsevier, and new Symposium sponsors, including Springer, Google, and Wolfram, in addition to Microsoft Research and the University of Maryland. The AWM Research Symposium is a good opportunity to attract sponsorship due to the high-quality program of special sessions, the high-profile plenary speakers, and the large number of attendees. Sponsors at the silver level and above were offered booth space. Government agencies supporting the Symposium through grants or purchasing booth space were given the opportunity to have a representative on the jobs panel at the Networking Event along with corporate sponsors, to talk about rewarding career paths in mathematics in industry and government. Wolfram provided financial support and in-kind product donations, offering free copies of Mathematica to the winners of the Wolfram Poster Contest. A corporate sponsor, Expii, became an Executive Sponsor for AWM Student Chapters in October 2015. Sponsors and exhibitors for the 2017 Research Symposium included Microsoft Research, Springer, Oxford University Press, Basic Books, AMS, and MSRI. In addition to Corporate Sponsorships, we launched a new Fundraising Committee and a Financial Oversight Committee to invest AWM’s reserves, each with four members including the president and the executive director. In 2014, Ruth Charney and Magnhild Lien launched an extremely successful annual fundraising campaign, thanks in large part to the $5000 matching gift provided by an anonymous donor and to the generous contributions from the membership. In 2015, we launched a new AWM Advisory Board and Past Presidents Matching Fund. The Fund raised $5800, and those funds were matched!

The Genius of Recognition: Awards The Importance of Pictures and Awards Even before I heard a version of the definition of “genius” which involves celebrity, I knew that one of the biggest barriers to the advancement of women in mathematics and science is a lack of recognition of the vast talent, contributions, presence, and hard work of women in the field. So I was determined to shine the light on those women and their contributions, using several approaches: by increasing the number of pictures of women in mathematics in publications and on social media (e.g., see Fig. 10), by creating and giving awards at AWM events, and by calling out by name all the many women mathematicians and AWM volunteers for their specific achievements and contributions in all of my President’s Reports.

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

813

Fig. 10 Seven AWM presidents in a row at the AWM Reception, JMM, January 2016: Ami Radunskaya, Kristin Lauter, Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Georgia Benkart, Cathy Kessel, Sylvia Wiegand

I met young girls at the Canada/USA Mathcamp 2015 who told me that they decided to attend the camp because they saw pictures of other girls like them at the camp which helped them envision themselves there. So we make sure to include a color picture on the first page of the AWM Springer series volumes for every conference for women, and flood our social media channels and the Newsletter with pictures of women and girls doing math. I heard from faculty members that the Alice T. Schafer Award has been a very useful tool for helping women get admitted to graduate school. I reasoned that a similar award for PhD dissertations should help women get postdoctoral positions, and so we created the AWM Dissertation Awards: conceived by Rhonda Hughes in the Awards Committee, and approved by the EC in January, 2016. I also started many of my President’s Reports with reflections on the past AWM presidents who inspired me: Jill Pipher, who kept me from dropping out of math as my first-year honors calculus teacher at the University of Chicago; Ruth Charney, with whom I worked closely as president-elect; Cora Sadosky, who inspired me as a young professional; Barbara Keyfitz, who helped us launch WIN when she was director of the Fields Institute; Georgia Benkart, who invited me to organize the AWM 40th Anniversary Conference with her and Jill Pipher in 2011; and Rhonda Hughes and Sylvia Bozeman, when we awarded them the inaugural AWM Presidential Award for founding EDGE. It is important to celebrate our heroes, who inspire us and enable our success, so that their celebrity can raise the profile of women in the field to help break the vicious cycle of “the genius myth.” It is for that reason that I worked so hard to launch the AWM Fellows program, which was formally approved by the Executive Committee at the end of my term, in January 2017.

814

K. Lauter

AWM Scientific Advisory Committee In order to help to ensure that outstanding work by women in mathematics is also recognized through prizes, Fellow nominations, and named lectures of other societies, the AWM Executive Committee voted in January 2015 to approve a proposal from the Awards Committee to establish the AWM Scientific Advisory Committee. One of my first tasks when I took over as president was to launch this committee and recruit members. The committee was to consist of six members serving staggered three-year terms charged with generating names of potential nominees and procuring nominations for women to be recipients of distinguished prizes, awards, and honors of organizations related to the mathematical sciences, including SIAM, AMS, MAA, and AWM. In the previous two years, Ruth Charney, in her role as AWM president, helped to generate nominations for many women to become AMS and SIAM Fellows. Awards Committee Chair Sylvia Wiegand was active in generating names and in proposing the establishment of the new Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). So I was delighted when Ruth and Sylvia agreed to serve on the new committee to help launch it and ensure its success, with Ruth as chair for the first year. The ˇ c, Barbara Keyfitz, other inaugural members were Georgia Benkart, Sunˇcica Cani´ and Susan Montgomery. I worked closely with the SAC while I was president, and together we were able to generate numerous nominations for highly deserving women, for AMS and SIAM Fellow recognition especially. We also enjoyed working together and I learned a tremendous amount from Ruth as I worked with her as president-elect.

AWM Fellows Program Ruth Charney had launched the AWM Scientific Advisory Committee to nominate many deserving women for awards, and yet it was clear to me that there was still a gap and a role for AWM to play. To return to the theme of Kaplan’s book, The Genius of Women, there are so many talented women mathematicians and educators whose work is not sufficiently celebrated, recognized, and supported. The Fellows programs of other professional societies aim to help their members achieve recognition from their universities and communities for their outstanding work. So I felt strongly that AWM needed to have a Fellows program to recognize the “Genius” of a large class of women in mathematics, and that the Fellows program would help advance the AWM mission. Although the Fellows program was originally proposed by past presidents Rhonda Hughes and Sylvia Wiegand when Sylvia was chair of the Awards Committee, the proposal did not win approval from the Executive Committee the first time. It took several years, a few iterations, and a lot of hard work from the Awards Committee to refine, define, and launch the AWM Fellows program. I

AWM and the Genius of Women: Reflections by AWM’s 22nd President

815

appointed Joan Ferrini-Mundy to chair the Awards Committee in 2016 and she was able to steer the approval process to a successful conclusion. At the end of my term, in January 2017, the AWM Fellows program was approved. Carol Woodward then took over as chair of the Awards Committee and brought her experience on defining the Fellows program for SIAM. It took another year for the committee to define the specifics and launch AWM’s program, and the inaugural class was announced and celebrated at the AWM reception at JMM in January 2018. In the first few years of the program, I have led an effort to coordinate the other AWM past presidents to nominate many deserving people for AWM Fellow. I am thrilled that our AWM Fellows Program gives a way to recognize all the hard work and leadership to support women in math. Many of our other prizes and awards are aimed at the early-career stage: the dissertation prizes, the research prizes, student chapter awards, and poster prizes at workshops. The AWM Fellows Program recognizes sustained commitment to advancing women in mathematics. Part of the “Genius of Women” is helping each other: the Fellows designation gives us a way to recognize and assign value to that work!

Conclusion In February 2017, when I started my new life as past president of AWM, it was bittersweet. Some might say it is crazy to take on an extra, roughly half-time, unpaid job for two years in addition to a full-time research career, management, and family (yes, it is!), but serving as president of AWM was also absolutely the best (and most rewarding) thing I have done in my professional career (OK, maybe besides starting WIN with Rachel and Renate). My primary goal going into my term as president was to build community and support for women in research mathematics, in all three sectors, industry, government, and academia, primarily through the Research Networks initiative modelled on WIN and to obtain support for it through the AWM NSF ADVANCE Grant. But along the way, I found myself inspired by other initiatives to help students and girls to advance, and became a devotee of the AWM mission “to advance women and girls in the mathematical sciences.” It was an amazing journey, but now I am proud to look back at the many things we learned and accomplished together with Executive Director Magnhild Lien, the AWM Executive Committee, Ruth Charney and Ami Radunskaya, my predecessor and successor as president, and the roughly 200 AWM volunteers serving on all of our committees. My service to AWM and the mathematics community had a profound impact on me and my leadership style. The experience helped me to find my voice, and I started to speak up clearly and forcefully in leadership team meetings, even when I was the only woman in the room or in the 10% minority. I now feel empowered to speak on behalf of the cause of promoting and supporting women and other diverse and underrepresented groups. In fact, I feel a responsibility to speak on our behalf.

816

K. Lauter

And I find that when I do so politely, respectfully, and succinctly I often get a very positive response. It is still my mission to transform our society by training and advancing women leaders, in science, industry, and government, to achieve 50% representation. Imagine a world where women are represented 50–50 in the Senate and House, the White House, the leadership of Microsoft, and all other companies and levels of government. Imagine how women could lead society through change by improving science communication and engaging the public in discussing and implementing policy change to solve important societal problems. Imagine that every leadership meeting includes 50% women, with women empowered to offer and discuss ideas in equal measure to men. So in conclusion, I believe that “the Genius of AWM” is one part building community for women and other marginalized minorities in the profession, one part changing the structures that hold women back through advocacy, and one part recognizing and celebrating “the Genius of Women” in mathematics! Clearly, we need to continue our work in all these directions! I urge everyone to get involved in AWM and to become a member. Helping other women is inspiring and energizing (a rising tide lifts all boats). Anyone can help start, join, or support an AWM chapter or a Research Network for women. Anyone can attend an AWM workshop or symposium. Other ways to get involved include being a mentor, getting a mentor, and publishing in AWM publications! Happy 50th Anniversary to the AWM! Acknowledgments Thanks to all the referees for their comments and improvements to the article. Part of the content of this article appeared in the 2021 article “AWM at 50 and Beyond,” written in collaboration with Georgia Benkart and Sylvia Wiegand.

References AMS. 2015. Statistics on women mathematicians, compiled by the AMS. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 62(9): 1055. Georgia Benkart, Kristin Lauter, and Sylvia Wiegand. 2021. AWM at 50 and beyond. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 68(3): 387–397. Anna Haensch and Adriana Salerno. A live blog about the 2015 AWM Research Symposium. https://awmsymposium2015.wordpress.com/. Accessed 15 Dec 2020. Brian Hayes. 2002. Science on the farther shore. American Scientist 90(6): 499–502. Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347(6219): 262– 265. Beth Malmskog, 2016 DC or Bust: AWM and Villanova Visit Capitol Hill (ams.org). https://blogs. ams.org/phdplus/2016/12/13/dc-or-bust-awm-and-villanova-visit-capitol-hill/. Cathy O’Neil. 2015. Representation of women and the genius myth. mathbabe (blog). https:// mathbabe.org/2015/01/16/representation-of-women-and-the-genius-myth/. Chad Topaz and Shilad Sen. 2016. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0161357.

AWM in Her Forties: Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization by AWM’s Executive Director, 2011–2018 Magnhild Lien

Prologue The purpose of the Association for Women in Mathematics is to encourage women and girls to study and to have active careers in the mathematical sciences, and to promote equal opportunity and the equal treatment of women and girls in the mathematical sciences. AWM mission statement, 2020

The Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) was barely 10 years old when I first became aware of its existence. The mathematics department at the University of Iowa where I was a graduate student in the early 1980s was an institutional member of the AWM and as such was afforded several free student memberships. I was fortunate to be the recipient of one of those and have remained a member of the AWM ever since. At the beginning, while I was inspired by and truly believed in the mission of the AWM, I admit to not paying any more attention to the AWM than I did to the other professional organizations (American Mathematical Society (AMS) and Mathematical Association of America (MAA)) for which I was also given a free student membership. I did however enjoy receiving and reading the AWM Newsletter, which has changed in both content and looks over the years (see Fig. 1). As a new faculty member at California State University Northridge in the late 1980s, I learned about the newly established (1988) AWM travel grant from reading the AWM Newsletter. I promptly applied for a grant. The amount of the travel grant at the time was $500, and that was more than enough to cover all my expenses for a trip to the east coast where I presented a paper at a topology

M. Lien () Emeritus Faculty of Mathematics, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_71

817

818

M. Lien

Fig. 1 January–February Newsletter 1980, 1994, and 2010

conference. I do not remember much from that specific conference except there were few women speakers and participants, and that made me realize the value of the travel grant besides providing funding. By enabling women mathematicians to attend conferences in their fields, the grant provides an opportunity to advance their research activities and their visibility in the research community. In those early years, the Newsletter was the only source of information available about the AWM and its programs. This was well before the existence of email, websites, and social media platforms, which are now used to inform (and inundate) us. I discovered that the AWM sponsored several activities at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) every January; the AWM workshop for recent PhDs and graduate students, the Noether Lecture, and the always well-attended social event, the AWM Reception (originally called the AWM Party) held on the first day of the meeting immediately after the Gibbs Lecture. It was at those events that I connected with the AWM leadership and members and friends of the Association. I felt welcomed and at home with the AWM and was honored when in 1997 I was invited to be a mentor for a participant in the AWM workshop at the JMM. I continued volunteering as a mentor for workshop participants for another 10 years. During that period, I was conscripted to volunteer for the AWM as a member of several committees: the Committee on Committees; the Workshop Organizing Committee and the Travel Grant Selection Committee. In 2004, while I was chair of the mathematics department at California State University Northridge, I was invited to organize and chair a panel on challenges of chairing a department at the After Tenure: Women Mathematicians Taking a Leadership Role Workshop at the University of Maryland, College Park. This was an inspiring and well-organized workshop dedicated to the memory of Ruth Michler (Mast and Melles, 2001). The workshop was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through Ruth’s POWRE grant (AWM, 2003). The connections made at the workshop have been long lasting and turned into a great resource for bringing in volunteers to AWM when years later I became its executive director.

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

819

AWM in Her Forties It was 2011, celebrations of AWM’s 40th anniversary culminated in September with the AWM anniversary conference, 40 Years and Counting, at Brown University, and I accepted the AWM executive director (ED) position. I served as the ED from January 2012 through February 2018 and continued working with the AWM as the project director for the National Science Foundation grant: AWM ADVANCE Career Advancement for Women through Research-Focused Networks (AWM ADVANCE, 2020a) (see also Kristin Lauter’s article in this volume) for an additional two and a half years. The fifth decade of the AWM was an exciting time and I feel fortunate to have been part of it. The membership of the organization grew from just under 3000 individual and institutional members in 2011 to over 5000 at the end of the decade. I had the pleasure of working with four amazing women during my tenure as the executive director, AWM presidents Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Kristin Lauter, and Ami Radunskaya. The fifth president during this decade, Ruth Haas, took office when I left. I felt the energy and enthusiasm that came from the AWM anniversary conference when I started as executive director in January 2012. The speed at which new programs and initiatives were implemented during the next few years was remarkable when one considers that AWM is mostly an all-volunteer organization. I will address how it all happened later in the article, but it was a testament to the dedication and commitment of time and energy to the AWM and its mission by the presidents down to the volunteers serving on a myriad of committees. The new initiatives included increasing the number of student chapters, applying (successfully) for a multiyear grant to support research networks. New programs were prizes and awards, a liaison program with the MAA, the AWM Fellows program, the AWM Research Symposia, and the AWM Springer series. AWM also established a new website, the bi-monthly E-Communication, a presence on Facebook and Twitter and at two new biennial national events in DC: the National Math Festival and USA Science and Engineering Festival. These activities were all in addition to maintaining and continuing the tried and true staples of the AWM: the AWM Newsletter; the annual AWM workshops at the JMM and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Annual Meeting; the travel and mentor grants; the Essay Contest; the named lectures at national meetings: the Noether Lecture (JMM), the Sonia Kovalevsky Lecture (SIAM Annual) and the Falconer Lecture (MAA MathFest); the Ruth I. Michler Memorial Prize; Alice T. Schafer Mathematics Prize; the Gweneth Humphreys Award; Louise Hay Award, and the ever-popular AWM Reception at the JMM. With the influx of new prizes, awards, and honors bestowed on people and the restriction to only present three AWM awards during the Joint Prize Session at the JMM, the AWM Reception was refocused and renamed. The AWM Reception and Awards Presentation is now where the recipients of the AWM Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman, the AWM Service Award, the Dissertation Prize and the AWM Fellows are announced and honored.

820

M. Lien

The fifth decade of the AWM was a period of expansion for the Association, not just in terms of increased membership numbers, but more for the people it reached through its new programs and initiatives. AWM’s focus on supporting women mathematicians never faulted, but it expanded on the ways in which it lent its support. While the mission of the AWM is to advocate for equal treatment and equal opportunities for women and girls in the mathematical sciences, concrete actions that will directly enhance a woman’s career, give a woman mathematician a duly reserved recognition or get a young girl excited about mathematics are also needed. Looking back at the many initiatives and programs established during my time as the ED, I see several themes emerging, broadening the reach, recognizing excellence, creating research communities, and expanding the Association’s presence in the broader mathematical community. This decade seems to have been the right time for these expansions. The AWM leadership as well as the volunteers had concrete and clear ideas of what they wanted the Association to stand for. What follows are narratives of initiatives that loosely fit into the themes listed above starting with recognition of excellence.

Recognition of Excellence AWM Research Prizes I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Association for Women in Mathematics and to the many people, men and women, tirelessly fighting for the equal opportunities in our profession. It is a particular honor to receive the award commemorating Cora Sadosky. I am very privileged to have had a chance to meet her and to be one of the many young people with whom she so generously shared her mathematics, her vision of the profession, and her support, to be touched and inspired by her remarkable personality. Svitlana Mayboroda, recipient of the inaugural AWM Sadosky Prize in Analysis

In early 2012, just over a year after the death of Cora Sadosky, the eleventh president of the AWM, Judy Green, a friend of Cora’s, contacted Jill Pipher with an offer to help fund a research prize in Cora’s honor. While an easy response to this offer would have been, yes give us the funds and we will set up the prize, Jill was more cautious, recognizing AWM did not have a policy in place to receive such donations. This led to, under Jill’s leadership, a new prize initiative to highlight outstanding research by women in the early stages of their careers in mathematics. Four new research prizes that would be funded through gifts from individuals or organizations were established. The prizes would be organized by field under four generally defined areas: algebra/number theory, analysis, geometry/topology, and applied mathematics. Thanks to Judy Green’s prompt, by September of that year, two research prizes were funded: AWM-Sadosky Research Prize in Analysis, made possible by generous contributions from Cora’s husband Daniel J. Goldstein, daughter Cora Sol Goldstein, friends Judy and Paul S. Green and Concepción Ballester; AWM-Microsoft Research Prizes in Algebra and Number Theory made

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

821

possible by a generous contribution from the budget of Kristin Lauter at Microsoft Research. One year later a third research prize was funded: AWM Joan and Joseph Birman Research Prizes in Topology and Geometry made possible by a generous contribution from Joan Birman, whose work is in low-dimensional topology, and her husband, Joseph, who was a theoretical physicist who specialized in applications of group theory to solid state physics. The AWM continues to seek funds for a research prize in applied mathematics.

AWM Awards, Prizes, and Honors The AWM Awards Committee that oversees existing awards, lectures, and prizes, recommends new ones, and promotes the nomination of women for mathematics prizes and awards was quite active during my time as ED. The chairs of the committee were Georgia Benkart, Sylvia Wiegand (both AWM past presidents), Joan Ferrini-Mundy, and Carol Woodward. From 2012 through 2017, the committee dedicated much of its time to new initiatives. Some were prompted by requests from the AWM leadership. However, most of the ideas were brought forth by members of the committee. There was a realization among the members of the Awards Committee that the AWM did not have specific prizes and honors for all career stages. The AWM offered the Schafer Prize for undergraduates, the newly established research prizes for early-career women, and the Michler Prize for mid-career women. Graduate students and women later in their careers were not regularly honored or recognized for their achievements. Two new initiatives to highlight achievements by graduate students were proposed. The AWM has for nearly 30 years organized a poster session for graduate students as part of its workshops at the JMM and the SIAM Annual Meeting. Upon recommendation from the Awards Committee, the AWM instituted a poster judging component to the workshop. In coordination with Leslie Hogben, member of the Mathematics Institutes Diversity Committee, AWM was able to offer “an invitation to participate in a week-long workshop at one of the institutes” as a prize for best poster. The second initiative geared towards recognizing graduate students was the establishment of the AWM Dissertation Prize, an annual award for up to three recent outstanding PhD dissertations presented by female mathematical scientists, hoping the prestige of the award would help women get postdoctoral positions. While each of the initiatives mentioned above went from an idea to approval by the Executive Committee, to implementation at rapid speed, the establishment of the AWM Fellows program was, not surprisingly, a more challenging process. The idea of a fellows program was first proposed to the Awards Committee in 2013 by two members of the committee, Rhonda Hughes, also a former AWM president, and Sylvia Wiegand. However, it was not until January 2017 that the Executive Committee approved the program. AWM had found a way, through some passionate debates, to recognize and honor individuals, including past presidents, who have

822

M. Lien

demonstrated a sustained commitment to the support and advancement of women in the mathematical sciences, consistent with the mission statement that begins this article. The original AWM Fellows program proposal submitted to the EC was met with skepticism by some EC members. One sticking point was the use of the word “fellow.” A debate ensued, it was benchmarked to other organizations and the history of the term was scrutinized. Eventually there was an agreement among most of the EC members that it would be appropriate to have AWM Fellows. However, there were still questions about the merit of the proposal. It was not clear on what basis someone would be selected as an AWM Fellow, so it was sent back to the Awards Committee. The basic idea of the program remained, but the eligibility criteria were fleshed out in more detail. Furthermore, there were many deliberations on how to fairly select the initial class. Subsequent classes would be selected by nominations from the public. After several iterations and vetting of the proposal it was finally approved by the EC. The inaugural class of AWM Fellows was announced at the AWM Reception and Awards Presentation at the JMM in January 2018. As new programs and initiatives are implemented and old programs maintained, one often forgets the people behind the scenes, that is, the many volunteers who devote extensive time and effort to AWM activities. To honor those volunteers, the AWM Service Award was established in 2012. First given in 2013, the Service Award recognizes individuals for helping to promote and support women in mathematics through exceptional volunteer service to the AWM.

AWM Scientific Advisory Committee Sylvia Wiegand, while chair of the Awards Committee, raised concern about the small number of female recipients of prestigious prizes and awards from other organizations such as AMS, SIAM, and MAA. In particular, she was dismayed there were so few women in the initial classes of AMS and SIAM Fellows (2013 and 2010, respectively) and called for action. She worked with Ruth Charney, the AWM president at the time, on a campaign to nominate women for the AMS and SIAM Fellows programs. Sylvia felt, as did everyone on the Awards Committee, that women are not recognized for their achievements at the same rate as their male counterparts. The work of many brilliant female mathematicians often goes unnoticed in the broader mathematical community. To expand the efforts started by Sylvia and Ruth to nominate women as AMS and SIAM Fellows, the Awards Committee wrote a proposal to the AWM Executive Committee (EC) to form an AWM Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), charged with obtaining names of potential nominees and help procure nominations for women to be recipients of distinguished prizes, awards, and honors of organizations related to the mathematical sciences. It was an impressively short turn-around from the time the proposal was written, October and November of 2014 to its approval by the EC

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

823

in January 2015. Kristin Lauter, who started her presidency in February 2015, was thrilled to launch the committee and appointed Ruth and Sylvia as two of the six members on the committee. Ruth served as chair the first year and Sylvia the next.

Creating and Supporting Research Communities Of all the initiatives during my time as the AWM executive director, I am most proud of the creation of more than 20 research networks for women. Hundreds of women are part of these networks which certainly will have a positive impact on their careers. In this section, I describe the ADVANCE grant, which supported the networks, and the AWM Research Symposia, in which most of the special sessions were organized by the networks.

The AWM ADVANCE Grant The AWM workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs has been a staple at the JMM and the SIAM Annual Meeting since 1991. These workshops were mostly supported by multi-year grants from the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the National Security Agency (NSA). In 2012, as these multi-year grants were drying up, Jill Pipher, the president at the time, suggested that we change the workshop format. Moving from research talks covering a wide range of fields to talks centered around a single research area, which would change from year to year, would allow the AWM to apply for funds from the National Science Foundation (NSF) through their conference grants in the Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) program corresponding to the topical area of the workshop. The only drawback was that we would constantly be applying for grants to support two workshops per year. Ruth Charney felt the burden of this as she took on the responsibilities, together with the workshop organizers, of writing several grant proposals. Thus, AWM was once again looking for multi-year grants that would support the workshops and the biennial research symposia. Georgia Benkart, a former AWM president, took the lead in writing a proposal to the NSF Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) program. Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, and I were the co-PIs. Unfortunately, our proposal was not funded, but we learned from the experience and so it seems did NSF. The next solicitation added two pertinent points (here in italics) to the following: the projects can focus on all STEM disciplines, several disciplines, or only one discipline and must be submitted by a lead institution or organization on behalf of a discipline. Armed with this information Kristin Lauter, Ruth Charney, and I set out to write a revised proposal which we submitted to the ADVANCE program in October 2014.

824

M. Lien

In 2015, the AWM was awarded a five-year NSF ADVANCE grant, Career Advancement for Women through Research-Focused Networks. The AWM ADVANCE project focused on establishing research networks for women by fostering research collaborations at stand-alone conferences and AWM workshops. These networks are spawned at Research Collaboration Conferences for Women (RCCWs), which are week-long conferences held at mathematics institutes, where junior and senior women come together to work on pre-defined research projects. The idea for the design of the AWM ADVANCE project came from the WIN model. Women In Numbers (WIN), a research network for women in number theory started in 2006 by Kristin Lauter, Rachel Pries, and Renate Scheidler. WIN held its first RCCW at Banff International Research Station (BIRS) in 2008, which blossomed into a network based on the enthusiasm and hard work of the participants, who worked together to: • Publish the first volume of research articles based on the group work at the conference • Create an email distribution list • Create a webpage for women researchers in number theory • Organize a flood of special sessions in number theory and AMS meetings with many women speakers. The AWM ADVANCE project supported the development of the research networks and spread the WIN model to other areas, by launching and running: • The AWM ADVANCE webpage, to host a webpage for each network and provide a framework and global information about the grant and programs. • Listservs for each network, to provide an email alias for network members to communicate with each other. • Follow-up sessions at the AWM workshops at the Joint Mathematics Meetings and the SIAM Annual Meetings, and at the biennial AWM Research Symposium where RCCW participants meet to present research, continue collaborations, and develop informal mentoring relationships, including peer mentoring. Each research network supported by the grant was encouraged to publish the proceedings of its RCCW in the AWM Springer series launched in 2014. The idea of an AWM Springer book series came about when Ruth Charney was president and Kristin Lauter was president-elect. Kristin was tasked with developing the proposal and negotiating with the Springer editors. Volume 1 of the series, Research in Shape Modeling, was published in 2015. It featured results from participants in the Women in Shape Modeling (WiSh) Conference held in 2013. Seven years later, the 21st volume, Advances in Mathematical Sciences: AWM Research Symposium, Houston, TX, April 2019, was published. For more details about the WIN Network, the AWM ADVANCE grant, and the Springer series see Kristin Lauter’s article in this volume. As we near the end of the grant period in 2020, we are pleased to report there are now a total of 22 research networks supported by the AWM ADVANCE project (AWM ADVANCE, 2020b). Due to COVID-19, we received a one-year no-cost

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

825

extension for the grant. Even though the extension is until August 31, 2021 we are moving forward to make the research networks a permanent component of the AWM.

AWM Biennial Research Symposia This was my first AWM Symposium and I have to say, it was even more thrilling than expected to see a sea of women at the large events. 2017 Symposium Participant I absolutely love the AWM symposium. It was so helpful both in connecting with other researchers and getting useful information about grants and research groups. 2019 Symposium Participant

The success of the AWM Anniversary Conference in 2011 prompted the AWM leadership to explore the possibilities of having stand-alone research conferences on a regular basis. Before that time, most AWM workshops and activities were held in conjunction with other professional meetings such as the JMM, the SIAM Annual Meeting and MAA’s MathFest. In September 2012, the AWM launched a new series of biennial research symposia. The biggest challenge of organizing a conference is securing funding, not just for running the workshop but also for participant support. The AWM did not want to put the financial burden on the participants by charging a high registration fee. Instead AWM turned to funding by grants and corporate sponsors. For the first symposium in the series, the AWM Research Symposium 2013, held at Santa Clara University, both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Security Agency (NSA) came through with funding. As soon as the Santa Clara conference was over, planning for the next symposium began. After deciding on the location of the 2015 symposium, the pursuit for funds started all over again. In addition to submitting grant proposals to NSF and NSA, a search for corporate sponsors began. This job fell to the president, president-elect or past president, and the executive director. The AWM Research Symposia have become popular events, recognized in the broader mathematical community and funding agencies as high-caliber research conferences. The next three were AWM Research Symposium 2015 at the University of Maryland, College Park, AWM Research Symposium 2017 at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM), University of California, Los Angeles, and AWM Research Symposium 2019 at Rice University (AWM, 2020). The programs for the symposia included invited and contributed paper sessions, poster sessions, plenary speakers, panel discussions, networking, and a banquet (see Fig. 2). The invited paper sessions were organized by the research networks supported by the ADVANCE grant. Since the first symposium, we have seen a continual increase in the number of registered participants. Thus, the expectations are high for the AWM Research Symposium, celebrating AWM’s 50th anniversary, at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) at the University of Minnesota.

826

M. Lien

Fig. 2 Banquet. Remember Maryam Mirzakhani Exhibition is on back wall, 2019 AWM Research Symposium, Rice University. Photo courtesy of Shelly Harvey

Broadening the Reach In this section, I describe initiatives and programs that welcomed more people to AWM and showcased diversity in mathematics to the public. These illustrate how AWM became more savvy about using social media to reach its members and the broader mathematical community.

AWM Student Chapters A challenge for the AWM as for most professional associations is to attract new members as well as keep current members engaged. Believing in and supporting the mission of the association is a strong incentive for joining. However, to stay engaged and excited about belonging, people need to feel welcomed and part of the organization. Even though we had student chapters, the Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman, and the Essay Contest, it was felt that students, both undergraduate and graduate, did not have strong connections to the AWM. Kristin Lauter saw this firsthand from her interactions with the AWM student chapters at the University of Washington and the University of California, San Diego, so when she became president, she began several initiatives to bring students into the fold. In 2015, a decade after the formation of the first student chapters, there were 50 chapters which had impacted thousands of undergraduate and graduate women across the country. The AWM student chapters sponsor and host a range of activities including invited talks, Pi Day Celebrations, field trips, outreach programs to local schools, Sonia Kovalevsky Days, and career panels. Kristin established a series of annual webinars where the leaders of the student chapters met with the AWM president. Also, at the same time, we made explicit efforts to increase the number of student chapters. By 2020, there were more than

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

827

100 chapters, double the number in 2015. This success was due to making the student chapters a prominent part of the Association, inviting them to write articles about their chapters for the Newsletter, creating incentives to start a chapter such as free AWM memberships for all its members, and encouraging AWM members with academic positions to sponsor a student chapter. We often see early-career faculty who have been members of a student chapter while in graduate school become faculty sponsors at their new institutions. In 2015, the AWM organized a poster session, Highlights from AWM Student Chapters, at the MAA MathFest in Washington, DC. The poster session highlighted achievements by AWM student chapters celebrating the 10th anniversary of the formation of the early chapters. The AWM student chapters were invited to share their stories, ideas, and successes with other chapters and with the mathematical community. To further recognize the student chapters, Kristin worked with the Awards Committee and the Student Chapters Committee to establish the Student Chapter Awards. Typically, the awards are given annually at a student reception at the MAA MathFest. The chapters can self-nominate for one or more of the four categories: Scientific Excellence, Outreach, Professional Development, and Funding and Sustainability. The first awards were given in 2017 and came with a certificate and a small monetary reward as well as national recognition. In my capacity as the executive director, I became acutely aware of the financial challenges for the AWM when establishing new programs. Consequently, when I stepped down, I increased my annual contribution to the AWM and designated the gift for a Student Chapter Awards Fund. Since 2018, the money for the awards and other costs associated with that program has come from this fund.

AWM at the USA Science and Engineering Festival and the National Math Festival Come get information about how we can support your budding mathematician and learn some cool math! AWM works to change the narrative around mathematics, making sure there is a place for everyone at the table. Program for the 2019 National Math Festival

AWM’s efforts to promote mathematics to girls and young women have not gone unnoticed by the greater mathematics and science communities. Consequently, AWM was invited to be part of two national festivals showcasing science and mathematics to the public. Both festivals draw thousands of people, giving the AWM the opportunity to actively engage the festival attendees, including many young girls and their families, with some fun mathematics. The USA Science and Engineering Festival (USASEF), which started in 2010, usually happens in April of even years in Washington, DC. The 2012 AWM exhibit on Fractals in Nature and Mathematics (see Fig. 3) was designed and organized by a

828

M. Lien

Fig. 3 Jill Pipher with attendee, 2012 USA Science and Engineering Festival, Washington, DC

team of AWM volunteers, Irina Mitrea, Tai Melcher, and Katharine Ott, whose NSF grant through the AWM covered all the expenses associated with the exhibit. Tai Melcher continued as the organizer for the event. Unfortunately, there is no longer an NSF grant supporting the event, so it is solely supported by the AWM. The National Math Festival, which started in 2015, is typically held in May of odd years in Washington, DC. As with the USASEF, the AWM has an interactive tabletop display at the event and Tai Melcher has continued as the AWM contact person and organizer. For the 2017 festival, the exhibit was advertised as: “AWM plays the Game of Life at the National Math Festival!” The Game of Life, created by John H. Conway in 1970, is a cellular automaton—a type of mathematical object that replicates itself. The game has four simple and natural rules, yet these rules can produce highly complex objects. In a kind of analogy with our own universe, this simple simulation game makes it possible to imagine that, with a few basic laws of physics, our universe can create vast and intricate features, perhaps even intelligent life. For both festivals, event organizers developed activities, any manipulatives or other materials, and designed the booth set-up. Organizers and their teams worked

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

829

to put together an educationally sound progression of examples to engage and challenge event participants including many young girls, and trained volunteers on how to engage learners with this activity. The volunteers, both students and faculty, came from local universities.

Media and Communication The AWM has made great strides in using its website and social media platforms to keep the public informed about its programs and activities. When I started as the executive director in 2012, I found a website that was difficult to navigate with many out-of-date subpages. The AWM did not have a dedicated media person, so the upkeep of the website was handed to me. Jill Pipher hired Emily McDaniel, a student at Brown University as a web assistant. I owe a debt of gratitude to Emily for being there at that crucial time. Although not in a position to decide on the content of the pages, she provided the technical assistance that we needed and was creative in addressing the constraints it had due to it being a Google website. However, there was a strong desire to make further improvements. It took a few years, but eventually the AWM website was moved to a new platform. Thanks to the dedicated and timeconsuming work led by AWM Executive Director Karoline Pershell, a new AWM website was launched in February 2019. Working with Karoline on the project were her assistant Khedija Khiyar and volunteers Michelle Snider and Marie Vitulli. The AWM Newsletter, which has typically published six issues per year since 1972, is still available in print for members who request it. Most people however receive it electronically and it is also available on the AWM website. Because items published in the newsletter must be submitted to the editor about a month and a half in advance of the publication date, this is not a very efficient way of relaying current news. To partially compensate for that, in 2014, I launched and prepared bi-monthly E-Communications which were sent via email to the membership in the months that the newsletter was not published. The AWM also launched its Facebook page that year. In 2015, urged by Kristin Lauter, AWM added another social media platform, Twitter. With these came the creation of the Social Media Committee which has coordinated announcements through all AWM’s media channels: website, newsletter, E-Communications, press releases, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Expanding the Association’s Presence in the Broader Mathematical Community The AWM Research Symposia and the AWM ADVANCE grant have been an important part of AWM’s presence in the broader mathematical community. AWM’s

830

M. Lien

relationship with AMS, SIAM, and MAA has had a big impact on how AWM has grown as a professional association.

AWM’s Relationship with AMS, SIAM, and MAA Throughout the years AWM has fostered relationships with other professional organizations, specifically the AMS, SIAM, and MAA. In the latter part of the 2010s, AWM has also established stronger connections with the International Mathematical Union’s Committee on Women (CWM), Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS), National Association of Mathematicians (NAM), Spectra (the association for LGBTQ+ mathematicians), and Caucus for Women in Statistics. AMS has been a strong supporter of AWM’s standing program at the annual Joint Mathematics Meetings and has allotted slots in the general program for AWM’s Noether Lecture, workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs, the reception, business meeting, and panel. Panel topics this past decade range from the “standard” such as the retention of women in mathematics and building a research career to topics related to current debates on activism, inclusion, equity, and welcoming environments. For example, the titles of the AWM panels in 2018, 2019, and 2020 were: Using Mathematics in Activism, Promoting Inclusion in STEM, and Queer Families and Mathematical Careers. The AWM is grateful to the AMS and the MAA, then co-organizers of the JMM, for including the AWM in the Joint Prize Session. When we introduced the new AWM research prizes in 2014, we successfully negotiated with AMS and MAA to also include the presentation of those prizes in that very tightly scheduled session. Since 1980, the AWM has sponsored the Emmy Noether Lecture held at the JMM. In 2013, Ruth Charney effectively worked with AMS to establish a partnership jointly sponsoring the one-hour, expository Noether Lecture. One added benefit to this agreement was that AMS would share the cost of travel, lodging and a $500 honorarium for the Noether Lecturer. For the AWM, an organization with a relatively small operating budget, this was a welcomed assistance. AMS also waived the JMM registration for the Noether Lecturer. In 2015, the first AWM-AMS Noether Lecture was delivered by Wen-Ching (Winnie) Li, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Penn State University. Since 1991, the AWM has held a workshop for graduate students and recent PhDs in conjunction with the SIAM Annual Meeting. Conference rooms and audiovisual equipment were provided by SIAM free of charge. The workshop consisted of two minisymposia for research presentations and one to two minisymposia for panel discussions and networking. Graduate student poster sessions were incorporated into the SIAM poster session. In 2003, we added the AWM–SIAM Sonia Kovalevsky Lecture to the AWM program at the SIAM meeting. Every fourth year there is no SIAM Annual Meeting due to the International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the SK Lecture is delivered

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

831

there. While preparing for ICIAM 2015, it occurred to me that AWM did not have a formal agreement with SIAM about covering the cost of the SK Lecture, including the cost of travel, lodging, and honorarium. This became an issue since the cost of travel to Beijing, China (the site of ICIAM 2015) for the SK lecturer would be a burden for AWM with its limited operating budget. I worked with James Crowley, the SIAM executive director, on a memorandum of understanding that outlined a cost-sharing agreement between the two societies. The Mathematical Association of America has also been a long-time supporter of the AWM. It has cosponsored the AWM-MAA invited lecture to honor women who have made distinguished contributions to the mathematical sciences or mathematics education at the MAA MathFest each summer since 1996. This was renamed the AWM-MAA Etta Zuber Falconer Lecture in 2004 in memory of Falconer’s profound vision and accomplishments in enhancing the movement of minorities and women into scientific careers. In addition to the Falconer Lecture, AWM has organized panel discussions, invited paper sessions, and occasional poster sessions at MathFest. With the exception of the Falconer Lecture, none of these activities were routinely part of the MathFest program. Each year, AWM needed to submit proposals for these events. As executive director, I worked with Michael Pearson, the MAA executive director, to make an AWM invited paper session part of the regular MathFest program. A memorandum of understanding between AWM and MAA from April 2015 states, among other things: “MAA will provide meeting space and requisite audio-visual equipment for an AWM-curated invited-paper session.” The MOU also reiterated earlier agreements about the shared support for the Falconer Lecture. It offered complimentary MathFest registration for the lecturer and one representative from the AWM. Unexpectedly, in 2017, the MAA increased the number of complimentary registrations offered AWM to four. This came at a time when the AWM was looking for ways to involve student chapters in its activities at the professional meetings. We were able to use two of those registrations to support Vanessa Rivera Quinones and Hannah Burson, leaders of the AWM student chapter at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who had been invited to attend MathFest in Chicago and help out at the AWM booth in the exhibit hall (see Fig. 4). Kristin Lauter, in an effort to reach out to more AWM members, in particular the student chapters, looked for ways of organizing activities at a regional level. Short of creating AWM regional sections, we explored the possibility of sponsoring events at the MAA’s regional section meetings, realizing such an arrangement would be beneficial to both associations. By organizing activities more aligned to the varied careers of mathematicians, the AWM would be able to reach out to a larger group of its members than did our research-oriented national programs and MAA might see an increase in attendance at the section meetings (and possibly also gain new MAA members). Kristin, myself, and others acted on this idea and organized AWM lunch tables at some of the section meetings. This led to the creation of an AWM-MAA Liaison Committee, which was charged with reaching out to the MAA sections to plan for AWM activities at their meetings. Members of the committee were active in both the MAA and the AWM and we coordinated the efforts with the MAA

832

M. Lien

Fig. 4 Vanessa Rivera Quiñones, Hannah Burson, Magnhild Lien, AWM booth, 2017 MathFest, Chicago, IL

Committee on Sections. Activities proposed were: an AWM student chapters poster session; a joint AWM-MAA invited speaker; an AWM lunch table; and an AWM exhibit with handouts and information about the Association. AWM’s prominence in the mathematical community has been greatly enhanced by its presence at the three meetings JMM, SIAM Annual, and MathFest. We are grateful for the complimentary exhibit space afforded us at these meetings. At the exhibit booths, we meet people who have never heard of the AWM and are eager to learn about what it does, long-time members who just want to chat, thank the AWM for being there, or ask about volunteering, and conference attendees who stop by to see what free swag we have. Since whatever they pick up will have AWM stamped on it somewhere, they might just remember us when they get home.

The Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization Volunteering is free, but other forms of currencies are in play: developing deeper friendships, networking, increased happiness quotient, and most importantly, evolving to become the best possible version of oneself. (Ferose, 2020)

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

833

The Association for Women in Mathematics is a non-profit organization relying heavily on volunteers to run its many programs and activities. While I was the executive director, it did not have any employees, in the sense of having people on its payroll, nor did it have a permanent physical space. Between 2005 and 2018, it contracted with the management firm STAT Marketing Inc. for its administrative functions. Jennifer Lewis, an employee at STAT was the AWM managing director. STAT was located in Fairfax, Virginia which became the location of the “AWM Office.” In 2018, AWM signed a management contract with the AMS. Steven Ferrucci, an AMS employee was designated as the AWM Managing Director and stayed in that position for two years. When he left the position, the title “Managing Director” was changed to “Administrative Specialist.” Robin Nelson was hired by the AMS to serve in that role and oversee the day-to-day operations of the AWM. As of 2020, the “office” is now located at the AMS headquarters in Providence, Rhode Island. The AWM executive director, the only person paid directly by the AWM, works as an independent contractor and works from home. None of the positions is full-time. My position as the executive director was officially half-time, but that was almost impossible to adhere to, considering the long list of responsibilities associated with the position, as well as the expectation that someone would be available during normal business hours. I have come to believe that it would be prudent for the AWM, which is now a well-established professional organization, to invest in making the executive director a full-time employee and consider hiring more staff—finances permitting (see “Where Does the Money Come From?”). Considering its sparse staffing, it has been remarkable to see how the AWM successfully runs its numerous programs and activities. Volunteers (elected and appointed), all dedicated to the mission of the AWM, bring enthusiasm and energy to the Association. Having been the overseer of the volunteer corps I can attest to the time commitment made by everyone on behalf of the AWM.

Organizational Structure of the AWM As of 2020, the AWM is governed by an Executive Committee (EC) consisting of the president, president-elect or past president, treasurer, clerk, newsletter editor, meetings coordinator, media coordinator and eight members-at-large. The president is elected for four years, the first year as president-elect and the last year as past president. The clerk, treasurer, and at-large members are elected for four-year terms. The remaining members of the EC are appointed by the elected members. In a typical year, the EC meets in person at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in January, holds video conferences every two months, and handles routine matters via email. When I started as the executive director, the bimonthly EC meetings and all committee meetings for that matter were conference calls—not very conducive to an effective meeting. For one, it was easy for people to just stay silent. Secondly, even though we had a protocol on how to participate in a conference call, including

834

M. Lien

always saying your name before speaking, most people did not follow that. After some time, I was able to recognize people’s voices, but it was a challenge. The biggest hindrance in facilitating an effective meeting was not being able to see people’s faces. Without that it was difficult to gauge someone’s reaction to topics discussed. Finally, being able to see people makes it easier to bring everyone into the discussion. This led me, early in my tenure as the executive director, to explore different platforms for video conferences. We settled on WebEx and within a short period had transitioned all remote meetings to the new platform. There were, however, a few people who insisted on still using the phone and they were able to call in to WebEx. There were also glitches in getting everyone set up with the WebEx platform, so for some time, the first 10–15 minutes of a meeting would be spent getting everyone onboard. In 2020, it is all on Zoom and it goes much more smoothly. Some of the AWM volunteers have been in it for the long haul. The September– October 1977 AWM Newsletter, Volume 7, Number 5, was the first issue edited by Anne Leggett, who, in 2020, is still going strong as the newsletter editor (see Fig. 5). Another dedicated AWM volunteer whose service spans several decades is Anne’s contemporary Bettye Anne Case (see Fig. 6) who was the meetings coordinator from 1983 through March 2015. Her service with AWM began in January 1978 when she was elected as an at-large member. While I was the executive director, each member of the Executive Committee held a portfolio of responsibilities. For some officers, the responsibilities were inherent in the title of their position. The eight at-large members were each assigned

Fig. 5 Suzanne Lenhart and Anne Leggett, 40th anniversary celebration, 2011 JMM, New Orleans, LA

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

835

Fig. 6 Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Bettye Anne Case, Chandler Davis, 20th anniversary celebration, 1991 JMM, San Francisco, CA

to one of the five portfolios: Programs; Meetings; Awards; Policy and Advocacy; and Membership and Community. It was expected that an at-large member would chair one of the portfolios during the latter part of her term on the EC. Each portfolio had a corresponding committee whose members were the EC members of the portfolio and one or two other non-EC members appointed by the president. The portfolios were the pillars of the organization. • Awards Portfolio. Oversee existing awards, lectures, and prizes, recommend new ones, and promote the nomination of women for mathematics prizes and awards • Meetings Portfolio. Oversee and assist in organizing and promoting AWM activities at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, MathFest, and the SIAM Annual Meeting; suggest and develop new meeting activities and events; help to plan and organize standalone AWM meetings, including the biennial AWM Research Symposium and assist with grant applications for such meetings. • Programs Portfolio. Oversee AWM programs, advise on new programs, and provide support for fundraising efforts for existing programs. • Policy and Advocacy Portfolio. Oversight of AWM’s activities and policy development in the area of public affairs, including statements on behalf of the AWM. All policy statements or white papers must be approved by the Executive Committee.

836

M. Lien

• Membership and Community Portfolio. Recruitment and retention of members; oversight of dues structure; promote relationships with AWM members and between AWM and other societies. The committees associated with the portfolios met every two months via video conferences. Those committees in turn had subcommittees that reported to them and carried out specific tasks. The executive director and managing director (now administrative specialist) worked behind the scenes to make sure the committees convened on a regular basis and met all deadlines, if any. This was particularly important for the AWM prizes, awards, and honors selection committees that must adhere to fixed deadlines. Other committees were given more autonomy and it was often the responsibility of the committee chair to see that the committee was functioning. Sometimes, however they needed a nudge. I had to remind myself that these volunteers had other jobs. While I believe they were truly committed to serving AWM, the reality was that their busy academic schedules at times prevented their fully engaging in volunteer work. While appointing people to committees we were cognizant of the workload and were careful to not ask people in the initial stages of their careers to serve on a committee with a heavy workload. On the other hand, we wanted to involve early-career women and tried to find less time-intensive assignments for them. Ideas and initiatives often started in the committees and moved up the chain in the organization, a grassroots-like operation. Thus, the task of selecting committee members and chairs was important. AWM needed people who took the initiative, were creative and were not afraid of speaking up, but were also able to listen to others and compromise when necessary. People got invited to join an AWM committee based on recommendations from the AWM Committee on Committees or if they had personally expressed an interest in volunteering in one capacity or another. I found that people who personally benefited from one or more of AWM’s programs were eager to give something back to the Association and were flattered to be asked to join the family of AWM volunteers. In addition to the members on the Executive Committee, at any given time there were close to two hundred volunteers staffing the AWM committees. The management team consisted of the president, president-elect or past president, executive director, and managing director (or the administrative specialist). This group, which met monthly, oversaw the management of the Association. Long before the COVID-19 pandemic forced people to work from home, most of AWM’s business was done via teleconferencing and email, because the officers (EC members), the management, and the volunteers were scattered around the country. We have had people from as far east as Puerto Rico and as far west as Hawaii, so scheduling meetings was at times a challenge. That being said, many of the people involved were from academia and as such did not necessarily follow the standard nine to five workday. It was helpful that some were willing to have calls as early as 6 a.m. and others were OK with evening calls. For example, when Ruth Charney, during her presidency, spent a semester in Switzerland, she exemplified the flexibility seen in many AWM volunteers. Due to the nine-hour time difference,

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

837

our weekly calls became a challenge. However, she was always willing to cut into her evening hours for the calls with the EC, the management team, and me. In my last report to the Executive Committee, I described how I handled the home office: In 2017, the management team had monthly one and a half to 2 hour video conferences. I had separate weekly phone calls and/or skype calls with Jennifer Lewis, the managing director, and the president, Ami Radunskaya. In between phone calls we stayed in touch via email. Working in a virtual office with people from different time zones has it challenges and at times may not be as efficient as if we were all in the same place. I usually did a quick run through my emails with my morning coffee to check if there were any urgent matters coming from people on the east coast [I lived on the west coast] that had to be dealt with right away. The last three years however, the president and I were both from the same time zone and that helped.

The AWM Bylaws and the AWM Handbook The running of the AWM is guided by the AWM Bylaws (created when the AWM was established) and the AWM Executive Committee Handbook. The Bylaws is the main official document of the organization. Not surprisingly there have been amendments to the Association’s Bylaws. In 2016, I proposed revisions to the Bylaws after it was discovered that there were some inconsistencies and lack of specificity in the language regarding who had voting privileges on the Executive Committee and, more specifically, who was eligible to attend and vote in executive sessions. Other minor revisions were also done to be more in line with current practices. The AWM Handbook, a fleshed-out version of the Bylaws, is meant as a how-to and who-does-it document. When I started as the executive director in January 2012, I was handed a printed copy of the handbook. I was surprised to learn that a new copy of the handbook was printed and handed out to every member of the Executive Committee each year at the January EC meeting. My first thought was “what a waste of resources.” The rationale for doing this, I was told, was the handbook included time-sensitive information, such as the current year’s budget and listing of EC and portfolio committee members, all of which changed from year to year. I was determined to change this by the January 2013 EC meeting and set out to revise the AWM Handbook. First step was to remove all time-sensitive material from the handbook. I created an electronic folder, named the EC Manual, with separate folders for the budget, committee rosters, the bylaws and awards procedures—items that had previously been jammed into the AWM Handbook. Next, I concentrated on the pared-down version of the handbook. It needed considerable rewriting. As did the bylaws, the handbook described the structure of the organization but filled in more details on the duties of the officers. However, these duties were described by former officers talking about what they did as president, treasurer, clerk, etc. For example, there were several portrayals of the president’s role. This in my view was not a good format for a formal description of the role of the president, or any of the

838

M. Lien

other officers. Working with past and current presidents, other EC members, and the management team I streamlined the AWM Handbook, which no longer need to be edited each year. The section on awards and prizes removed from the handbook was the bases for the creation of a separate Awards Procedures Handbook. A printed copy of the AWM Handbook is no longer handed out at the EC meeting, unless it is requested by new members. Everyone on the EC has access to the handbook in the electronic EC Manual.

Where Does the Money Come From? The AWM must, as is the case for many small non-profit organizations, constantly assess if it has sufficient funds to run all its programs. Whenever new ideas come up, of which there were many during AWM’s fifth decade, the money question looms in the background. The AWM unfailingly wants to move forward with new initiatives supporting its mission and is determined to find ways of sustaining them. For example, when the Awards Committee proposed the Student Chapter Awards, there were no special funds to support this initiative, so it was understood it would not be a large monetary award, if any. However, believing that the recognition itself would be quite meaningful to a student chapter even without any money, the AWM moved forward with the awards. It was later decided that a small amount of money from the AWM yearly operating budget could be attached to the award. Since then funds, specifically earmarked for the Student Chapter Awards, have been donated to the AWM. For larger monetary awards, AWM needs a pledge for funds up front, as was the case with the AWM Research Prizes. The sources of income for AWM are membership dues, corporate sponsorships, donations, and federal grants that fund specific programs. In addition, since 2015 AWM has been receiving honorarium and royalties for the AWM Springer series books. During my time as ED, we received $1000 honorarium per volume published and 13% of the net cash receipts on each copy sold. Lastly, revenue from advertisement in the Newsletter and the website has been and continues to be a steady source of income for the AWM.

Individual and Institutional Memberships While it has seen prior increases, in 2020, the regular individual membership dues, $70, is still relatively low. Part-timers and retirees pay an annual membership fee of $30. For students and unemployed, the membership rate is $20. AWM also offers a reduced membership rate at $35 to current individual members of SIAM for the first two years of membership in AWM. Higher-income members are encouraged to become contributing members at $160 per year. This enhanced membership includes the designation of a free student membership. People are attracted to

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

839

conveniences when it comes to paying dues for their professional memberships. One of those conveniences would be paying the dues for more than one year at the time. There have been numerous requests for that by AWM members over the years. With an enhanced database, put in place in 2018, the AWM was finally able to offer multiyear membership in the regular and contributing categories. The institutional memberships are another source of income for the AWM. In 2020, there are three institutional membership categories, two different levels ($325 and $200) for universities and colleges and one category ($325) for non-academic institutions. The categories are distinguished by the benefits offered. For example, a non-academic institution receives an advertisement credit, whereas the university categories offer up to 15 or 20 (depending on the level) free student memberships. The free student membership benefit is an excellent way of introducing young women (and men) to the AWM. In fact, this is how my relationship with the AWM started. During one of its membership drives, the Membership Committee argued that focus on increasing the number of institutional memberships would be more beneficial financially than a singular focus on the individual membership numbers. Consequently, a concerted effort by the Committee to reach out to institutions through AWM individual members showed an uptick in the number of institutional memberships.

Grants AWM’s ability to run large-scale programs, such as the workshops, the travel and mentor grants, the ADVANCE project and the research symposia, is entirely dependent on receiving federal grants. A persistent problem for AWM is lack of adequate funding for staff support. Fortunately, from the 1990s until the early part of the 2010s many of the grants, the workshop grants in particular, came with an overhead, including funds for staff support. When the AWM moved to short-term NSF Conferences and Workshops in the Mathematical Science grants to support the workshops and symposia those funds were no longer available. These grants were primarily for participant support. This was a loss for the AWM. The staff support and indirect costs from earlier grants was a source of income that the AWM had come to rely on. This situation was an impetus for searching for grants that would pay an overhead. Luckily, the NSF ADVANCE program fit that bill. In 2015, on the second try, the AWM was awarded a $750,000 five-year ADVANCE grant. The grant provided funds for staff support, including support for the project director as well as participant support for the AWM workshops at the JMM and SIAM meetings and two research symposia. The overhead from the grant was a boost to the AWM budget and helped defray the cost of running the workshops and the symposia as well as the administration of the grant.

840

M. Lien

Corporate Sponsorships and Donations One of my priorities when, in 2012, I took over as the AWM executive director was fundraising. The Association had by that time grown into a major professional organization, one of the longstanding members of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), but I felt it lacked the recognition needed for a serious development campaign. Unlike several of the larger organizations in CBMS, the AWM did not have a marketing and/or development officer. Thus, if the AWM wanted anything done in that area, it would have to utilize its existing staff and rely on volunteers to step up. Not knowing much about the topic of fundraising, I sought advice from development people at academic institutions as well as fundraising consultants. One direct outcome of these inquiries was the establishment of the Annual Giving Campaign with a letter to the members, first sent out in December 2012. I also learned that if we were to approach major donors, we would need to tell the story of the AWM in a succinct way, perhaps with a flashy booklet. I brought this idea to the Executive Committee which after some debate agreed it would be worth investing money and hiring a marketing firm to produce such a booklet. With the booklet in hand we set out to start the AWM marketing/fundraising campaign. On my urging, the EC established a Fund Development Committee tasked with developing corporate and executive sponsors, the AWM Annual Giving Campaign, and planned giving. Unfortunately, at the time, the AWM did not have the ability to set up a database for fundraising purposes. It was difficult to keep track of which corporations had been contacted, names of the contacts and when to do followups etc. In terms of landing corporate sponsors, it was a pretty ad-hoc process. This however did not prevent us from getting sponsors. Kristin Lauter and I, both members of the committee, made many personal contacts with exhibitors at the JMM, SIAM, and MathFest that eventually led to corporate sponsorships for the Association and executive sponsorships specifically for the 2015 and 2017 research symposia. Some sponsorships were maintained and several new ones were added for the 2019 symposium. As of this writing, AWM has a few regular corporate sponsors. Going forward, it would be worthwhile for AWM to invest time and effort into generating more corporate sponsorships. This will most likely not be very successful unless there is a staff person dedicated to fundraising. The AWM Annual Giving Campaign started in 2012 and picked up steam in 2013 due to a matching gift of $5000 which AWM received from an anonymous donor. The donor made the same matching gift again in 2014. In both years, we more than met the match due to the generosity of the AWM members who responded to the call for donations. When the donor of the matching gift indicated this would not continue in future years, I looked elsewhere to find donors for a matching fund. In 2015 AWM established the AWM Advisory Board and AWM Past Presidents Matching Fund, and asked the members of the two groups to pledge to the fund with the goal of reaching at least $5000 in pledges. This was a success that has continued to this date and has increased the annual donations considerably.

Reflections on the Inner Workings of a Mostly All-volunteer Organization

841

Financial Oversight and Investments The fiduciary responsibilities of the AWM lie with the Executive Committee. The treasurer is the chief financial officer of the Association. All financial transactions of the AWM are carried out and recorded by the staff of the management company engaged by the AWM to oversee the day-to-day operations. In early 2014, Ruth Charney, president at the time, called a meeting of a newly formed Financial Task Force to discuss the financial management of the Association, including investments of the reserve funds that were currently sitting in CDs that were nearing their maturity dates. The task force proposed the establishment of a permanent Financial Oversight and Investment Committee to: • Provide oversight of AWM’s financial affairs and suggest potential strategies for generating additional revenue. • Establish an investment strategy for approval by the Executive Committee. • Manage investments of AWM funds in accordance with the investment strategy. The proposal was approved by the Executive Committee on July 23, 2014. The members of the Financial Task Force were also the founding members of the new committee, President Ruth Charney, President-elect Kristin Lauter, Treasurer Ellen Kirkman, Executive Director Magnhild Lien, and EC member Marie Vitulli. The first task of the committee was to establish an investment strategy and act on it. By November of that year, the AWM had a Vanguard Brokerage Account and we were able to make investments other than CDs, a big step for the Association. Going forward it, would be desirable to establish one or more endowments for the AWM. To generate money for an endowment, the best strategy would be to target specific programs and encourage donations through the Annual Giving Campaign, IRA Charitable Rollover Contributions, and/or planned giving.

Epilogue As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Association for Women in Mathematics, it is worth noting that in 2021 all three major mathematical sciences societies, the American Mathematical Society, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the Mathematical Association of America are led by women: Ruth Charney, AMS (second former AWM president to be elected AMS president—Jill Pipher served before her), Susanne Brenner, SIAM, and Jennifer Quinn, MAA. I cannot help thinking that AWM might have played a role in this. We have come a long way since the January 1971 JMM in Atlantic City where the idea for the Association for Women in Mathematics was formed (Blum, 1991) and later that year at an AMS Conference at Penn State, Mary Gray (the first AWM president) challenged the “old boys network” by attempting to sit in on the AMS Council Meeting. She was told she had to leave the meeting. “Oh, sorry, but this is for

842

M. Lien

council members only.” She responded, “No, I read the bylaws and the bylaws say the council meetings are open to all members, and I’m a member,” and was told “Well it’s by gentleman’s agreement.” She responded by saying, “I’m no gentleman” and sat down (Greenwald, 2016).

References AWM. 2003. After tenure: Women mathematicians taking a leadership role. AWM Newsletter 33(6): 16. AWM. 2020. AWM Research Symposium. https://awm-math.org/meetings/awm-researchsymposium/. Accessed 12/18/2020. AWM ADVANCE. 2020a. AWM ADVANCE | Career Advancement for Women Through Research-Focused Networks. https://awmadvance.org/. Accessed 12/18/2020. AWM ADVANCE. 2020b. AWM ADVANCE | Research Networks. https://awmadvance.org/ research-networks/. Accessed 12/18/2020. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–54. Ferose, V. R. 2020. What Makes A Volunteer-Based Organization Successful? https://www. forbes.com/sites/sap/2020/04/30/what-makes-a-volunteer-based-organization-successful/# 60112a562505. Accessed 12/18/2020. Greenwald, Sarah. 2016. Interview with Mary Gray. AWM Newsletter 46(5): 8–16. Mast, Maura and Caroline Grant Melles. 2001. In Memoriam. AWM Newsletter 31(1): 4–6. National Math Festival program. 2019. https://www.msri.org/system/cms/files/903/files/original/ 2019_NMF_Program-Online.pdf

Part XIV

Advocacy, Policy, and Recognition: In Government and in the Mathematical Community

A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy Karen Saxe

I’ve been a member of mathematics professional societies since I attended graduate school in the 1980s. Never did I imagine I would end up working in Washington, DC, for the American Mathematical Society (AMS), or interacting with the federal government as part of my job. How did I get here? For most of the past three decades, I’ve done volunteer work with these societies. The societies have been there for me throughout my career, supporting me through the various trickier stages, and allowing me to engage in (very) meaningful ways. The amount of volunteer work I’ve done has waxed and waned—waning when I was up for academic reviews, during the years when my three children were born and later when they required more attention, and during years when I was more heavily involved with leadership on my own campus. For a long time, I did quite a bit of editorial work for both book series and journals of the Mathematics Association of America (MAA). I served a term as MAA vice president. My AWM volunteer work began with the NSF-AWM Travel and Mentoring Grant Selection Committees. I have also served on the Nominating Committee, which identifies strong candidates to run for positions on the Executive Committee (EC), and for key positions such as the president and treasurer. The work of the Nominating Committee is very important because the leaders elected truly do set the direction for the AWM, and are instrumental in drumming up enthusiasm for the society and bringing cohesion within our community. More recently, I did a stint on the Policy and Advocacy Committee. I have been known to say in public that this committee experience was hands-down the best society committee experience I have had. It was fantastic; more on this committee work later (see also Gail Letzter and Marie Vitulli’s article in this volume). One of the reasons it was so good was because

K. Saxe () American Mathematical Society, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_72

845

846

K. Saxe

Fig. 1 Golden Johnson. Source: Johnson family, private communication

it had, when I served, a very good chair in Gail Letzter. First, a short personal history of my introduction to advocacy, which is perhaps an attempt at self-reflection to understand why I do what I do, and to trace an arc through my career path. I was fortunate to get a tenure-track position at Macalester College soon after graduating from the University of Oregon. I had an extremely rich career lasting almost three decades at Macalester, with many opportunities for professional growth. I taught my last classes in the fall of 2016. Since then, I have been living and working in Washington, DC, where I head the Office of Government Relations for the AMS. I’ve always been interested in politics. A very early memory is sitting under a table at a church that was serving as our polling location, and where my father was a poll challenger. My father was elected twice to serve on our Essex County Democratic Committee, and was heavily involved in the New Jersey Volunteers for Humphrey during the 1968 presidential campaign. He was also an active supporter of Golden Johnson, the first African American woman to serve as a Newark, New Jersey Municipal Court judge (see Fig. 1). Before writing this piece, I asked my dad if my memory was correct. He confirmed that my memories were in fact accurate, and told me that he was honored to give remarks at Johnson’s swearing-in ceremony. He recalls being moved to see that hundreds of people showed up to witness this historic event; it was (of course) considered remarkable that “a black girl from the Newark projects” could be so accomplished. This was Newark, New Jersey, in the early 1970s. See, I somehow

A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy

847

had the impression, when I was very young, that women—including women of color—could succeed in these worlds. I have since been disabused of this notion. As an adult, I’ve always paid close attention to elections, helped host fundraisers, and served on the board of my local League of Women Voters. But, these activities were very separate from my job as a mathematics professor. My AMS job really feels like a “putting it all together” life event. In retrospect, my teaching was headed this way. In the 2000s, I began teaching a course on game theory; I let the curriculum veer toward many-player games, which led naturally to a theoretical treatment of elections and voting. I had the privilege to take this further, and I subsequently co-taught a course with a political scientist. We taught our course on elections and voting several times, typically in even-numbered fall semesters so that we could have our students follow “competitive” elections, requiring them to get very familiar with candidates’ platforms and campaign efforts to bring in undecided voters. In 2010, I was selected to serve on the Minnesota Citizens Redistricting Commission, formed to draw congressional maps following the 2010 Census. This was the first time I worked in politics in some sense, meeting with voters around the state, and working with elected officials. Around this time, I started giving public talks on redistricting—at city halls, in public libraries, and in churches. I was also starting to give talks and organize sessions at mathematics meetings on elections, voting, redistricting, and political inequality. This was all going on at a point in my life and career when I started thinking hard about what was next; would there be a next step for me in my career? I had a fantastic academic position, with the best colleagues you can imagine. But, in May 2013, my youngest kids (twins) would be graduating from high school and my chairship was due to end and would be followed by a sabbatical. So, clearly there was the opportunity for soul-searching. Would I stay at Macalester for the rest of my career? Why would I give up such a great job? I feel privileged that I was in a position to make a choice; I appreciate that many people do not have such freedom. I had had my eye on the AMS Congressional Fellowship for some time. I was very fortunate to be selected as the 2013–2014 fellow. After interviewing with about a dozen different offices, I accepted an offer to work with my own Senator Al Franken. I had a fantastic experience, a year of tremendous growth. I’d encourage you to consider this career opportunity. I learned a lot, a whole lot, and also felt I was genuinely contributing to the work of the senator and giving back as a citizen, while helping lift the math community. I served as his “expert” on higher education, though I worked on all education pieces of his portfolio, running from prekindergarten to elementary and secondary to post-secondary. I also helped with his work for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, when their work focused on education. The daily pace in a congressional office is fast, turnaround for projects often short, and I had to learn to live by the mantra “good is good enough.” In mathematics, we work on papers until they are perfected; this cannot be the case when working for a member of Congress—imagine trying to get a majority of senators to agree to pass a bill quickly, often by convincing one senator at a time.

848

K. Saxe

I wrote speeches for the senator. This was very fun but also the most intimidating part of the position for me—imagine trying to write something that Al Franken was going to say to the public, potentially in front of media cameras! I met with constituents—from the leaders of Minnesota’s tribal colleges, to groups of graduate students, to teachers and administrators from Minnesota school districts. I helped write legislation. One of my favorite duties was preparing the senator for hearings. This involves preparing a three-ring binder with background on the topic (including how any of his past legislation fit with the topic at hand), biographical information about the witnesses, and lists of questions for him to ask the witnesses. Senator Franken was very serious and smart about his work in Congress, and also was naturally inclined to bring collegiality to the Senate. For example, each year he hosted the annual hotdish competition for the Minnesota delegation. I was ready for change, ready for a new challenge. I learned a lot working in Congress! I learned new writing skills (writing for congressional members is a very different type of writing than writing math papers), and enjoyed figuring out how to interact with a wide variety of people, in addition, of course, to learning much more about how laws come to be (meaning, the political negotiations that go into lawmaking). I came to understand the 3 P’s of public service: Policy, Process, and Politics. It was during my fellowship year that then AWM President Kristin Lauter came to visit congressional members, as part of her service on the AMS Committee on Science Policy. We spoke privately about the importance of doing these visits to congressional offices, and cooked up the idea that the AWM should make regular visits to Capitol Hill, which quickly became known as “Hill visits.” My experience in Senator Franken’s office made it clear to me that these visits are indeed important, and helped me develop my own opinion about what makes a “good” visit. I also learned that congressional staff often meet with scientific societies and, indeed, look to them for advice. The AWM needed to be a part of this system. The AMS focuses its advocacy on making sure that federal agencies like the National Science Foundation have enough money to support the scientific enterprise as well as to train the next generation of scientists. At the AMS, we also pursue legislation and federal policies that support mathematicians working in academia, and graduate students. For the AWM, I think the key observations, around which we could consider focusing our advocacy efforts, are that too few women pursue careers in STEM fields and we continue to lose women throughout their careers in academia and industry. According to the 2018 Science and Engineering Indicators published by the National Science Foundation, women make up about 34% of all scientists (engineers excluded), with great variety across fields. Women account for roughly 48% of life scientists, and 30% of mathematical scientists; engineering is typically lower, with a range of about 7% of mechanical engineers up to about 25% of chemical engineers. In terms of losing women, while over 41% of bachelors degrees in mathematics and statistics go to women, only about 27% of doctoral degrees do. And, this trend persists as one travels up the faculty ranks; I’ll return to this in a few paragraphs. There are many bills introduced each year in Congress that aim to address these problems. As Kristin describes in her article in this volume,

A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy

849

the AWM actively endorses such bills. In launching the Hill visits program for the AWM, the first things to get done included writing a one-page piece describing the AWM and its mission, and our legislative priorities. It is standard good practice to have such a “leave behind” when visiting congressional offices. I also drafted a piece that gives tips on what to expect during a Hill visit, and how to prepare best for one. The Hill visits have proven successful. From my current position, I know there are offices that look to the AWM for legislative support and, in this way, the AWM helps legislative staff. Congressional members are going to vote on legislation whether anyone else tells them what to do or not; on matters about promoting women in STEM fields, the AWM must weigh in. The Hill visits are equally important and educational for the students and faculty who make them. I have seen students really feel empowered doing these, and my view is that it can help encourage and enthuse female students to connect their academic work to the surrounding world, and inspire them to stay in math (see Fig. 2). I hope this program opens their eyes to the fact that working as part of a congressional staff is a job option. Early-career mathematicians should consider working for the federal government; our country needs you! While there are ways to work for the federal government actually doing mathematics—say at the National Security Agency (NSA) or at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—there are also employment opportunities that pull on your mathematical training, but do not involve doing mathematics research. I can tell you that Congress needs scientific expertise. Very few lawmakers have any background at all in science or technology policy. How do they get information on privacy issues like facial recognition? To make good decisions to deal with disasters like the coronavirus pandemic? Well, they might start with a staff member doing an internet search. Really. To be fair, they do have access to scientific knowledge through, for example, various fellows who might be in their office (through programs like the AMS Congressional Fellows program), from witnesses at hearings, or from the Congressional Research Service. But, still, the internet is a go-to for information. See Kristin’s article in this volume, and also one by Michelle Snider, for more on how the AWM Hill visit program has developed. In addition to launching the Hill visit program for the AWM, the Policy and Advocacy Committee does other important work, such as give feedback on and endorse legislation as it is introduced in Congress. One important piece of work that committee did when I was on it was providing feedback in early 2019 on some changes to Title IX that were being proposed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The excellent feedback was written, in large part, by Gail and President Ami Radunskaya. After the fellowship year, I returned to teaching at Macalester. Shortly thereafter, the person who had been in my AMS position retired and I knew that I had to apply to succeed him. I began my new job in 2017. My very first day on the job was running the AMS Chairs Workshop, which takes place each year the day before the official start of the Joint Mathematics Meetings, and is part of the AMS leadership development portfolio. It has been really invigorating to be in this position, and I could carry on for pages about it.

850

K. Saxe

Fig. 2 AWM Hill visit team outside the office of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Source: Michelle Snider, private communication

In my current job, I love bringing mathematicians to the Hill. A most memorable visit was one I made on March 22, 2018, bringing Shafi Goldwasser to speak to Senator Charles Schumer about cryptography, and how to enable privacy in a datadriven world. It was very exciting—usually one meets with congressional staff, not the actual member, and to meet such a high-ranking member is really unusual. We met with the senator himself, and also Senators Richard Blumenthal, Bill Nelson, and Jeanne Shaheen, whom he had invited to join the meeting. When we sat down, after a few niceties, Senator Schumer noted that he was sitting with two senior female mathematicians (me and Shafi), and that this was remarkable. It is! In the fall of 2016, the percentage of full professors in math departments (doctoral, masters, and bachelors degree-granting institutions) who are women was 17.6%. If one only considers doctorate granting institutions, it was 11.4%. He was noting that he did not expect two senior women to walk through his door to talk to him about mathematics. It really touched me that he was aware of and acknowledged this disparity in our

A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy

851

community. Another moving experience took place on January 29, 2020, when Representatives Chrissy Houlahan, Haley Stevens, and Jackie Walorski launched the first ever Congressional Women in STEM Caucus. From Representative Stevens’ press release: The Congressional Women in STEM Caucus is designed to help support and increase the number of women in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which builds a foundation for a diverse talent pipeline and advances innovative, groundbreaking research. The Caucus gives a permanent voice to women in the fields of STEM on Capitol Hill and encourages policy solutions that promote women and other underrepresented minorities in STEM education and careers.

We’ve come a long way. I received my PhD in 1988. Of the six PhDs granted in my class, I was the only woman. This was at the University of Oregon, and Marie Vitulli and Marion Walter were the only women on the doctoral faculty (Vitulli with a PhD in mathematics and Walter with an EdD in mathematics education). Oregon did not compare well to other institutions in 1988. At that time, 6.2% of faculty in doctorate-granting math departments were women (Connors, 1989, Table 3B) and 24% of PhDs in math awarded at US institutions to US citizens went to women (Connors, 1990).1 I remember the first conferences I attended on operator theory and Banach algebras, as well as Joint Mathematics Meetings. The women at the topical meetings, and in the special sessions at the JMMs were few—I can still name them, have developed close relationships with some of them and, sadly, they are still some of the only women at these meetings. In my PhD year, of the 20 women newly minted as analysts (all fields of real and complex analysis across the entire country), 14 were employed in US math departments granting at least a four-year degree (one other took a position at a two-year college, one at a research institute in the US, and three others at academic institutions in other countries).2 Side note: I am eternally grateful to Marie for four decades of support and friendship! Over the past 30 years, we have not greatly improved the gender parity of our profession. However, things have changed—the AMS has its first female executive director, and the current president and immediate past president are both women. Ruth Charney is the 66th AMS president; Jill Pipher was the 65th, and the 47th and 53rd were also women (Julia Robinson and Cathleen Morawetz, respectively). Jill and Ruth have both served as AWM presidents. There have been many changes in hiring practices and leave policies that make academia more family friendly, and there have been changes in federal laws addressing gender equity in different contexts. I know things are not perfect, far from it, but we should be proud of the successes we have had.

1 The 24% women PhDs in 1988 makes the 17.6% women full professors in 2016 of the preceding paragraph look reasonable, but not the 11.4% women full professors in doctorategranting institutions. 2 The 14 includes six at doctorate-granting institutions (Connors, 1990, Table 2B).

852

K. Saxe

Fig. 3 Karen Saxe, Marie Vitulli, Joan Hutchinson, Doris Schattschneider, AWM panel on celebrating women’s achievements in algebra, analysis, combinatorics and geometry: past, present, and future, 1994 MathFest, Minneapolis, MN

My personal approach to making change is to work from the inside, once at the table. I am not sure I did this intentionally, but it is in fact the way my career has progressed. For example, at Macalester I got elected to serve on the campuswide tenure and promotion committee and, once a member, helped redesign our promotion procedures to make them more family friendly. Over many years I have served on panels at the Joint Mathematics Meetings and MAA’s MathFest (see Fig. 3), talking about motherhood and work–life balance; often the room is filled with “the choir” but these panels serve to give confidence to and inspire earlier-career women and I always hope that the mathematicians who are more resistant to change will at least notice these in the program. In my current job, I go to congressional offices and the White House to make the case for policies that help elevate women in STEM fields working in all three sectors of academia, government, and industry. Just so you know, I also do a bit of disrupting—I march in marches, I write to my own congressional delegation about inequalities in education and healthcare—on my own time. But, I have found it effective to get in the room and then gently start pressuring for change. The moment with Senator Schumer was one in which I felt my whole career trajectory was making sense, that the strands were meeting. I am glad I chose to go into mathematics; it has not always been easy being the “first woman to do X,” but it has been immensely satisfying. The AWM has lifted me up when I needed lifting, and professional society volunteer work has given me opportunities to advance my career in ways I would not have considered possible. Society work has always made my career richer, more interesting, and filled my life with so many great

A Mathematician’s Adventures in Advocacy and Policy

853

colleagues. Through this work, I have gained a good understanding of the ecology of the mathematics community, and am grateful to have the opportunity to support others, and give back what others have given to me. The connections I have made through the AWM are, as they say, priceless.

References Connors, Edward. 1989. 1988 AMS-MAA annual survey (second report). Notices of the American Mathematical Society 36(5): 532–539. http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/ 1988Survey-Second-Report.pdf Connors, Edward. 1990. 1989 AMS-MAA annual survey (second report). Notices of the AMS 37(6): 658–665. http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/1989SurveySecond-Report.pdf National Science Board. 2018. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts Michelle B. Snider

Hill Days Mission From the proposal to create a Government Advocacy Committee in the AWM: In 2015, the AWM initiated a new program of biannual visits to Congress in order to advocate for causes important to the AWM and to make Congress aware of our society as a resource for issues concerning women in STEM. The program has been very successful. Many of the Hill visits include AWM student chapters and we view this as a wonderful opportunity to make students aware of the power of advocacy and the importance of AWM’s mission.

My First Hill Day One day, reading the July–August 2016 AWM Newsletter, I saw an article called “AWM Visits to Capitol Hill” (Saxe, 2016) on the AWM’s twice-yearly event that takes groups of mathematicians and friends to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, to meet with members of the US Congress and/or, more often, their staff members to advocate for initiatives in line with the AWM’s Legislative Priorities. As someone who avoided politics, this was not the kind of thing I ever thought about doing before, but I was intrigued by the idea of mathematicians (stereotyped as quiet, awkward people hiding in our offices) intentionally talking to politicians (stereotyped as extroverted charming people who never stay in their offices). And that the politicians would actually agree to meet with us? And listen to our concerns?

M. B. Snider () IDA/Center for Computing Sciences, Bowie, MD, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_73

855

856

M. B. Snider

Gail Letzter, the chair of the Policy and Advocacy (P&A) Committee, took my information, including what state and district I lived in, as well as those with which I had strong affiliations. As the planning progressed, I got an email with an assignment to a team of four, along with a list of offices to go along with our constituencies and instructions to work amongst ourselves to make appointments with the offices on our provided list. Make appointments? By phone? Talking to strangers, and asking them for something? Very little gives me a knot in my stomach like cold-calls do. After a few days of stalling, hoping someone else in my group would do it (no such luck), I got myself a chocolate bar and sat down at my computer. We were provided with a script, so I knew exactly what to say, exactly what to ask for. I took a deep breath, and dialed the first number. “Hi, my name is Michelle and I’m with the Association for Women in Mathematics. I was hoping to speak with one of your staffers who oversees the portfolio for Higher Education, Workforce Development, or Women’s Issues . . .” Then I ate a square of chocolate to reward myself for my extroversion. One down. I took a few deep breaths, then dialed the next number. It turns out I was not the only one who was calling-averse: a few days later, I got an email from one of the organizers, asking if I could help make appointments for some of the other teams. So I got another chocolate bar, and off I went. In the meantime, the Policy and Advocacy Committee was hard at work putting together resources for us (see Letzter and Vitulli’s article in this volume). Karen Saxe, who had served as the 2013–2014 AMS Congressional Fellow and is currently the Associate Executive Director and Director of Government Relations for the AMS, gave us pointers about advocacy work in general and how to talk to legislators (see her article in this volume). Hill Day participants Karoline Pershell (2013–2015 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow) and Evelyn Sander were researching current legislation in line with the AWM’s priorities, and preparing talking points and handouts. We also got information about the logistics, including a map of the Capitol area, with the buildings where we would be having our meetings. All the senators have their offices in an interconnected set of nondescript buildings on the northern side of the picturesque Capitol Building, and all the representatives have offices in another set of buildings on the southern side, so we should be prepared for quite a bit of walking between buildings. On December 1, 2016, a cold but sunny day, I put on my nicest pants and a button-down shirt and a pair of heels. Our full group of around 20 assembled in the Russell Senate Office Building Rotunda with daunting marble floors and columns. Among the participants were President Kristin Lauter, who had started the Hill Visit initiative in 2015 (see her article in this volume) (Kelley, 2015) and President-elect Ami Radunskaya. A newly formed AWM student chapter from Villanova University led by Beth Malmskog, was also joining us. We split up into our assigned teams of four or so, and after some time to plan out our first meeting, we gathered for our group photo in front of the statue of Senator Russell (Fig. 1). Much to the amusement of the other participants, I asked for an individual shot of me that included my feet, to prove later that I actually wore heels.

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts

857

Fig. 1 Fall 2016 Hill Day participants with the statue of Senator Russell, who served from 1933 to 1971, in the Rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building

When my team walked into the first office, I saw that the people who sit at the front desks and answer the phones are interns, just high school or college students. I laughed at how intimidated I had felt when calling the offices. They were so friendly and chatty while we waited for our meeting. The staffer we met with likewise was easy to talk to, almost as if it was her job to make visitors feel welcome and heard! When our requisite 15 minutes were up, she wrapped up the meeting effortlessly, and suddenly we were walking towards the door, thanking her for her time. As someone who has a lot of trouble extracting myself from meetings without a clear end time, that was such a relief. Each group included at least one returning participant, so that we first-timers were not just thrown into the deep end on our own. We had been given a script for meetings too. After introducing ourselves to the staffer, we opened with a pointed description of the fundamental problem, the so-called “leaky pipeline,” aided by some striking pie charts showing the decreasing percentages of women at undergraduate, graduate, and professorial levels of mathematics. This led into a presentation of the AWM’s mission, how we know that these drops are not because women are not suited to math, but rather that there are institutional barriers, and how we have programs to address the problem at all levels. We added a few personal stories, about how we benefited from a federal grant while we were in

858

M. B. Snider

school, or the impact that attending a program funded by the NSF had on our mathematical journey. Then it was an effortless flow into how we cannot do this alone, that systemic change will require support at the federal level, and some current legislation intended to aide that change. After that first meeting, the day flew by. Within our group, we took turns leading the meetings. Once you have seen someone run through the script, it feels a lot easier to do it yourself. A few things changed depending on whether or not the office was already familiar with the bills we listed already or if supporting STEM was something the Congressperson already had as a priority, but we still got to tell the same stories and jokes over and over. We grabbed lunch in the Senate Cafeteria, keeping an eye out for any celebrities who might wander through. By the end of the day, we were expert at navigating the hallways and parsing the room numbers (which were designed differently in every building and clearly not by mathematicians). Our full group reconvened for dinner at a local Mexican restaurant, swapping stories about our day over chips and salsa and burritos. A few groups got to briefly meet a Congressperson, and one group got to ride the underground train between the Senate and House sides of the Capitol, which otherwise requires a brisk 15minute walk outside. My group had a few extra minutes to stop by the Senate Gift Shop, where I resisted impulse-purchasing earrings whose design was inspired by the historic railings of the building. In the actual meetings, some offices were more receptive than others, and it was fascinating to hear how our groups handled the different situations. We didn’t start talking right away about planning the next visit, which would be the following May, but I already knew that I wanted to be involved.

We Become Official: Creation of the Government Advocacy Committee As the Hill Visits grew, it became clear that the extensive planning required for successful Hill Days was too much to add to the work of the existing Policy and Advocacy (P&A) Committee, and a new subcommittee was proposed: the Government Advocacy Committee (GAC). This would free the P&A Committee to focus on general policy issues, and have dedicated people to plan the visits. Both committees would collaborate on endorsements and on requests for feedback on Congressional efforts. Since I had become more involved in the May and November 2017 visits, I agreed to chair this new committee, starting in December 2017, with members Beth Malmskog and Carla Cotwright-Williams (2012–2013 AMS Congressional Fellow), who were later joined by Lindsey-Kay Lauderdale and Kassie Archer. The Government Advocacy Committee is responsible for all the steps of planning and executing Hill Days, to include setting dates for visits (ideally when the current AWM president is in Washington, DC, already), recruiting both professionals and

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts

859

student groups, organizing and scheduling, training participants, preparing talking points and scripts, and following up by thanking the offices and reporting via articles in the AWM Newsletter. Year-round, we keep track of current legislation and issues of concern appropriate for the visit. This job has been made tremendously easier by all the work done by Karoline Pershell, whose documentation on everything from organizing meetings to scripting talking points laid the groundwork for everything the GAC has done since. Even after she transitioned to her role as AWM Executive Director, she continued to put a disproportionate amount of time into this committee because she valued how a small group could present AWM’s mission to Congress on behalf of all of the members who could not come to DC. With most of our visits, participants are within several driving hours of DC. (We have visited Maryland senators and representatives many times.) Among the local (or local-ish) schools which have brought faculty and students to Hill Days, the first was Beth Malmskog’s group from Villanova University in Pennsylvania in the fall of 2016 (Malmskog, 2017). The next spring, a contingent from Hood College in Maryland joined, with Professors Betty Mayfield and Jill Tysse (Pershell, 2017). In the fall of 2017, we were joined by a group from nearby Trinity Washington University that included Professor Kerry Luse and Dean Sita Ramamurti (Snider, 2018), and a group from George Mason University with Evelyn Sander. Of course, AWM presidents have also been a big part of this: Kristin Lauter, Ami Radunskaya, and Ruth Haas have all participated in multiple Hill Days. As an added benefit to Hill Day participants, the day is a unique networking opportunity for students to spend time with professional mathematicians from the area. We recruit a mix of academic, industry, and government scientists. In meetings, this also helps to showcase the range of what “mathematicians” can do and how supporting STEM can have impacts across many sectors. One limitation of setting up the office meetings is that despite the fact that AWM is an international organization, these offices have limited time and as such it is much easier for us to get appointments in offices where one of our Hill Day participants is a constituent. We took advantage of the 2019 Joint Mathematics Meetings being in Baltimore, MD, to bring in participants from all over the country (Snider, 2019). We did a meet-and-greet the night before, and then a jam-packed day with a morning training in Baltimore, then took a bus down to the Capitol (Fig. 2). After our requisite group photo (Fig. 3), we started our packed schedule to visit offices from 18 different states. Over the course of the afternoon, in 10 groups, we met with a total of 47 different offices: 22 in the House of Representatives, 24 in the Senate, and 1 House Committee. These meetings were on both sides of the aisle (33 Democratic, 13 Republican, and 1 Independent). We wrapped up with a dinner, so people could share their stories of the day, and then hopped back on the bus to Baltimore, satisfied that we had done some democracy. Our groups contain not just women and not just mathematicians, but all people who support women and other underrepresented groups in STEM fields. Some of our participants have been first-year college students who had not yet decided on their majors. Some were “Dreamers,” in the US under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA). At our fall 2019 Visit, we had a group from a

860

M. B. Snider

Fig. 2 Khedija Khiyar, Courtney Gibbons, and Moshe Cohen excitedly arrive at the Capitol for the JMM Hill Day in January 2019

Fig. 3 Attendees of the JMM Hill Day in January 2019 gather near the Mountains and Clouds sculpture by Alexander Calder, the focal point of the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts

861

Fig. 4 At the fall 2019 Hill Visit, high school students Divya Sharma and Riya Krishna meet with Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, chair of the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee and sponsor of many bills that align with the AWM’s mission, with staffer Sara Barber, PhD

Virginia high school (Fig. 4), who had just started their own Women in STEM Club (Archer, 2020). We have also had men who were faculty, students, and industry professionals participate. Our only requirement is support for the AWM’s mission of promoting equal opportunities and treatment for women and girls in STEM. As we highlight at our meetings, diverse perspectives create environments where scientific advances and technological innovations can flourish.

Advocacy Versus Lobbying: Walking a Fine Line Advocacy is about conveying support for big-picture issues: helping policymakers understand systemic and persistent concerns and how they can help solve them. Lobbying is targeted towards specific pieces of introduced legislation and convincing lawmakers to take action for or against a particular bill. The IRS has strict rules about what portion of the budget of a nonprofit like AWM can go towards lobbying, and no federal funds can be used (IRS, 2018; NCOA, n. d.). For the AWM, the only actual part of the budget that goes towards these Hill

862

M. B. Snider

Days is the cost of printing documents for the participants and the meetings. We do however have to track the number of hours that participants spend, and this has to be a small percentage of the AWM’s overall volunteer time. Because of the IRS rules, we are very careful to frame our meetings as being about supporting girls and women in math and science. While we do point to specific legislation in the works at any given time, these are intended as examples of ways to address the leaks in the pipeline. Our main focus is the institutionalized issues, as well as the value of increasing the talent in STEM to our nation as a whole. Politicians hear from people asking for money and bills all day. Our purpose is to give personal stories and justification to the offices to give them both the motivation and the tools to push forwards on legislation that can make a difference. Over the years of doing this, I have accumulated an ever-growing list of topics that politicians care about, along with how math can help. Mathematicians know that math shows up everywhere, but very few others do. Your constituency has a lot of farmers? The equipment they use is becoming more and more technologically advanced, including 100% autonomous planting and harvesting tractors and combines, so we need STEM-educated workforces to be able to program these amazing machines. Technology? Innovations in computing, machine learning, big data, and cybersecurity provide clear benefits to businesses of all sizes and types, and all of these need the support of a strong mathematical community. Healthcare? In addition to all the actuarial math in insurance, modeling plays a crucial role in everything from cancer growth to disease spread. We also like to mention ways that these offices can use their influence, or “soft power,” to affect the organizations with which they interact, both governmental like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health as well as private companies. Simply asking the leaders of these organizations what they are doing to increase diversity and inclusion with their management structure, or to address harassment, sends a clear message that these should be a priority.

The Hill Days Mission Our job is two-fold. If the office we are talking to is not already supportive, we want to give them reasons that they should be. If they are, we want to give them the stories they need to convince their supporters; we want to make it easy for them to justify continued support. We also want to thank them, to let them know that we appreciate what they do because we want them to keep doing it! With limited time and resources, Congressional offices must make decisions about where they put their energy, and it matters that they hear constituents say, “I saw that. Please keep doing that.” The vast majority of our meetings are with Legislative Assistants, who are the staffers responsible for particular portfolios. Their jobs are to be the experts on a subset of issues that the elected officials need to make decisions on. They act as a filter for what gets through to the officials. Additionally, they are often the ones who are actually writing the proposed legislation.

AWM Hill Days: Advocacy for Introverts

863

Our goals include making contacts and letting them know that we can act as a trusted voice on policy issues and as a helpful resource with Congressional casework. Providing technical advice on legislation upon request of Congressional offices does not fall under the dangerous label “lobbying.” We are now regularly contacted for endorsements and advice on congressional efforts that affect the STEM pipeline, from K–12 education through college, graduate school, and careers. One thing I have learned from these visits is that there are many people who are working for us, who are making bipartisan efforts on bills that we care about, but do not make the headlines. Since the fall of 2016, we have visited 59 different Senate offices (126 meetings) and 83 different Representative offices (103 meetings), in addition to a few extra meetings with the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as well as the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Offices have reached out to the AWM for feedback on legislation they are writing, including California Representative Jackie Speier’s Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act (H.R.5328) (116th Congress, 2019b), which “requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) that receive federal funding to report certain instances of discrimination on the basis of sex.” Most recently, we were asked for feedback on the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee’s NSF Reauthorization Bill, which includes points directing the NSF’s spending priorities. Endorsements of bills can have unexpected bonuses: in December 2019, the AWM was invited to send representatives to the Congressional Gold Medal Reception (see Fig. 5) celebrating the awarding of this highest civilian honor to four of the women highlighted in the book Hidden Figures, by Margot Lee Shetterly, as well as a fifth medal to honor “all the women who served as computers, mathematicians, and engineers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) between the 1930s and the 1970s” (116th Congress, 2019a).

Moving Forwards As I am writing, there is a lot of discussion happening as a result of the nationwide (worldwide) protests in support of Black Lives Matter and social justice. While there is obviously value in the individuals’ personal growth that comes from being more educated on these issues, long-term systemic change depends on academia, industry, professional societies, and federal agencies all working together to support success for all. We need funds to run programs to get more people into STEM and to provide the support they need to stay there. We need legislation for addressing harassment and injustice at a Federal level. Legislation affects us whether or not we choose to participate in it. Decisions are being made, whether or not we are at the table. We need to have our voices heard. And it doesn’t matter how many calls I have made, I always keep the script in front of me during every call. But at least I am able to do without quite as much chocolate.

864

M. B. Snider

Fig. 5 AWM members Rachel Levy, Jesse Metcalf-Burton, and Michelle Snider with Congressional Gold Medal Recipient Dr. Christine Darden, whose contributions were highlighted by the book Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly, December 2019

References 116th Congress. 2019. H.R.1396. Hidden Figures Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2019a. https:// www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1396. 116th Congress. 2019b. H.R.5328. Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5328. Archer, Kassie, Lindsey-Kay Lauderdale, and Michelle Snider. 2020. AWM’s Capitol Hill Days: Poking those in power since 2015. AWM Newsletter 50(3): 21–23. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service. 2018. Compliance guide for 501(c)(3) charities. Publication 4221-PC (Rev. 3- 2018) Catalog Number 49829R. https://www.irs.gov/ pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2020. Kelley, Victoria, Kristen Morris, and Katie Sipes. 2015. AWM goes to MathFest . . . and Capitol Hill. AWM Newsletter 45(6): 19. Malmskog, Beth and Madison Taylor. 2017. AWM Hill visit. AWM Newsletter 47(2): 23–24. National Council on Aging’s Nonprofit Advocacy Rules & Regulations. n. d. https://www. ncoa.org/public-policy-action/advocacy-toolkit/advocacy-basics/nonprofit-advocacy-rulesregulations/ Accessed 3 Aug 2020. Pershell, Karoline. 2017. Get involved in AWM’s Hill visits! AWM Newsletter, 47(6): 26–27. Saxe, Karen and Talitha Washington. 2016. AWM visits to Capitol Hill. AWM Newsletter 46(4): 8–9. Snider, Michelle. 2018. Advocating for STEM: A Capitol idea! AWM Newsletter 48(1): 16–19. Snider, Michelle. 2019. AWM’s JMM Capitol Hill visit. AWM Newsletter 49(3): 24–27.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee Gail Letzter and Marie A. Vitulli

Introduction The Association for Women in Mathematics (henceforth denoted by AWM) is the preeminent professional society supporting women and girls in mathematics in the United States and abroad. The Policy and Advocacy Committee (abbreviated by P&A below) is the AWM committee responsible for creating official AWM statements and policies, as well as responding to events that affect the lives of women and others pursuing mathematics. In many ways, P&A serves as the moral conscience of the organization, figuring out the best way to address thorny concerns and difficult situations. However, the work of P&A isn’t always glamorous—in fact, it rarely is. Instead, there are details that must be completed, conflicting perspectives that need to be navigated, complicated processes that have to be evaluated to see if they are suitable for the AWM, and questions that might require legal advice. On top of this, some events require a timely response in order to be at all effective. This article is a behind-the-scenes look at the work of P&A as seen through the eyes of two recent chairs, the authors of this article, whose time on the committee spans the decade between 2010 and 2020. The main body of this article consists of two sections labeled “My Years on the P&A Committee,” one by each of the authors. Marie’s section spans 2010–2016 and Gail’s 2016–2020. These sections discuss the major undertakings of P&A during each of our terms on the committee, with an emphasis on the years when we chaired the committee. One of the most important accomplishments of P&A during our

G. Letzter Mathematics Research Group, National Security Agency, Baltimore, MD, USA M. A. Vitulli () Professor Emerita of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_74

865

866

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

tenures was the creation and refinement of statements on welcoming environment and harassment, which were in response to the systemic, recurring problem of sexual harassment and a sometimes hostile environment for women in STEM. In 2013, AWM became the first mathematics society to adopt a statement on harassment. Other major initiatives during our terms included responding to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Engage to Excel, initiating Capitol Hill visits, and crafting the Statement on Diversity and Inclusion. In the “Future Challenges” section at the end of this article, we describe three major issues that the committee might face. The Policy and Advocacy Committee, which came into existence in 2006 following a two-year strategic planning process, reports to the Executive Committee (EC) of AWM and the president of AWM. (The EC is the Board of Directors of AWM, according to AWM’s corporate bylaws.) The strategic plan laid out the vision that P&A would “identify issues in policy and/or advocacy” affecting women in mathematics and “develop and implement strategies and actions” to address these issues. In this article, we repeatedly illustrate the realization of the strategic plan’s vision. Indeed, many of P&A’s accomplishments can be viewed as pursuing policy via the creation and dissemination of statements that address a variety of concerns. Some of these concerns arose in the context of specific instances of gender discrimination and stereotyping (see for example Marie’s section on “Controversies Surrounding the Putnam Exam and Rites of Love and Math” and Gail’s section on “Support for our LGBTQ+ colleagues”). Other policy statements addressed systemic, continual problems such as increasing the representation and recognition of marginalized populations within mathematics (see Gail’s section on “Diversity and Inclusion”). Advocacy has also been a constant theme for P&A. During its early years, the committee channeled advocacy efforts via the publication of educational statements in the AWM Newsletter on legislation worth supporting. In 2015, AWM started a major new advocacy initiative consisting of Capitol Hill visits in which AWM volunteers meet with Representatives and Senators to discuss issues of importance to the organization. Details of P&A’s role in turning AWM Capitol Hill visits into a regular program is discussed in depth in this article (see “The Early Days of Capitol Hill Visits” in Marie’s section and “Capitol Hill Visits” in Gail’s section). From the very beginning, P&A was frequently asked to endorse statements, resolutions, and policies of other organizations. Since the EC meets every other month and AWM presidents are sometimes unavailable, for example, while traveling, if an issue is time-sensitive, P&A might not be able to act on the issue as a committee or on behalf of AWM. However, some members of the committee might act as individuals or as a committee but not as the AWM. We will see instances of this throughout this article. In 2017, under Gail Letzter’s tenure as chair of P&A, a formal “Process for Endorsements and Public Policy Statements” was approved. The AWM president must approve all endorsements recommended by P&A with the exception of routine endorsements of Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF) requests; the full EC must still approve policy statements.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

867

One of the seemingly mundane responsibilities of P&A (and this usually falls on the chair) is to monitor and keep up-to-date the Policy and Advocacy portion of the AWM website. As the online world has evolved, P&A has adapted and learned to take advantage of other social media platforms such as the AWM Facebook and Twitter pages. Marie’s section “From P&A to Publicity: Wikipedia, the AWM Website, and Social Media” describes her efforts to make AWM’s use of the broader social media environment more effective. In addition to being active in the AWM Task Force on Media and Web Presence, Marie was instrumental in the 2018 revamping of the AWM website. The Policy and Advocacy pages of the AWM website (and we certainly expect this to remain true for future iterations) prominently feature both archived and more recent endorsements and response statements as well as policy statements. The organization of the remainder of this article is straightforward. As mentioned above, the main part of the article consists of two sections, each written by one of the authors. In the first section, Marie Vitulli describes the major accomplishments of her time on P&A. This is followed by a similar section authored by Gail Letzter. In these sections, we write in the first person to convey our own remembrances and impressions of our service on the committee. At the end of the article, the two of us present our combined thoughts on future challenges. As you turn the page and delve more deeply into the article, you will see just how many disparate views and details need to be addressed by the AWM P&A in developing policies, statements, and programs for AWM. Nevertheless, we hope the takeaway will be the importance and value of the work done by P&A. Looking forward, we hope this article will inspire readers to consider following us in refining and updating our efforts and taking on new challenges as future members of the AWM P&A and as leaders of AWM.

My Years on the P&A Committee: Marie Vitulli I joined P&A in 2010 when I was elected to the EC; Sarah Greenwald was then chair of the committee. I became chair in February of 2012 and remained as chair until February 2016 when Gail took over. Between 2010 and 2012, P&A discussed and took action on several noteworthy issues. In 2011, we also reviewed various resolutions from the 1990s and updated a few; they all appear on the Policy and Advocacy webpages of the AWM website. The committee worked on extensive updates to the P&A webpage. We wanted a unified home for AWM endorsements, responses, and policy statements. I spearheaded this initiative with the assistance of the full committee. The original (AWM Website, 1998) went live on March 19, 1998. Later a team from Google helped Web Editor Holly Gaff and her crew create an improved and expanded site (AWM Website, 2010), which launched in late 2010. With the kickoff of the Google site, the AWM Newsletter also made its first appearance online with the November–December 2010 issue. The Policy and Advocacy Committee created

868

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

its own webpage, which appeared early in 2011; at that time the P&A page was a subpage of the Resources page. In 2012, we started a substantial revision of the P&A page and by late 2014 the page had moved out of Resources into a prominent position on the AWM home page just under the link to the AWM Newsletter.

Controversies Surrounding the Putnam Exam and Rites of Love and Math In 2010, P&A talked about the pros and cons of indicating gender on Putnam Exam envelopes. The William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, familiarly called the Putnam Exam, is the preeminent mathematics competition for undergraduate students in both the United States and Canada and is a program of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA). The Putnam Exam involves individual and team competitions. Winning individuals receive up to $2500 in cash prizes and winning teams up to $25,000. Beginning in 2010, women were asked to self-identify by putting a red dot on the exam envelope to indicate their gender. We objected to that procedure, especially on the Putnam Exam, because studies by psychologists consistently found that asking test-takers to identify themselves as women or as members of underrepresented minorities just before taking an exam lowered their performance. Social psychologist Claude Steele and psychologists Steven Spencer and Diane Quinn were early expositors on stereotype threat (Spencer, Steele, and Quinn, 1999). One possible reason to add the red dot was to qualify for the Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize, named after William Lowell Putnam’s wife; this award, initiated in 1992, is to be “awarded periodically to a woman whose performance on the Competition has been deemed particularly meritorious” and carries a cash prize of $1000 in addition to any other prize the winner might be eligible for. This possibility didn’t outweigh the negative consequences we considered. In December of 2010, AWM President Georgia Benkart sent a letter to the Putnam Exam Committee summarizing our concerns and urging that gender information needed to award the Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize be gathered when participants pre-register for the exam or after the exam is taken for walk-in test-takers. In March of 2011, P&A sent the AWM Statement on Fairness in Testing to the Executive Committee and the EC endorsed this statement (AWM Statement on Fairness in Testing, 2020). Although there wasn’t an immediate change in the practices of the Putnam Exam committee, we are happy to report that in 2017 the practice of using red dots to identify gender ended when Dan Ullman became director of the competition. The system now in place is that there is a small box on the outside lower right corner of the afternoon envelope; there is no explanation for the box. When the competition is over, the supervisor reads an instruction to check this box if you are a woman and you wish to be eligible for the Elizabeth Lowell Prize. The year 2020 will be a singularity due to the COVID-19 pandemic; in 2021, the MAA will probably bring back pre-

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

869

registration and will ask women who want to be considered for the Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Prize to check a box during that time. Another contentious issue we discussed in 2010 was Berkeley mathematics professor Edward Frenkel’s suggestive film Rites of Love and Math, in which a tattoo of the “mathematical formula for love” was imprinted on the body of a naked woman (Donohue, 2010; Ness, 2010). This film by Frenkel and French filmmaker Reine Graves was inspired by Japanese filmmaker Yukio Mishima’s film Rites of Love and Death. The mathematician in Rites of Love and Math, played by Frenkel, was concerned that the precious love formula might be harnessed by powers of evil, so to preserve it he etched the formula on his lover’s stomach. On November 10, 2010, an announcement about an upcoming screening was sent to Friends of the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) in Berkeley, California. Shortly after, MSRI posted information about the screening of the 26-minute film with a link to a 2-minute trailer, and announced the new video was to be shown with Mishima’s original film. Early in the week of November 22, MSRI Director Robert Bryant began receiving emails from “distressed and upset colleagues who had viewed the trailer and found it disturbing, offensive, and/or insulting to women” (Bryant, 2010). “They reported seeing the trailer as ‘depicting a male fantasy of sexual domination of women’ and ‘sending a message that men do mathematics while women are reduced to passive sex objects.”’ Due partly to time constraints, P&A decided not to react to the situation as a committee, but various members wrote to Bryant expressing their concern about how women were depicted. On November 28, 2010, Bryant withdrew MSRI’s support for the December 1 screening of the films of Mishima and Frenkel/Graves and posted a letter explaining his stance on the MSRI website. He announced that there were ongoing plans for a discussion forum and/or an event at MSRI that would focus on the issue of women in mathematics (Bryant, 2010). A quick look at the (MSRI, 2020) website will convince the reader that MSRI has created many programs and amenities to support women and genderexpansive individuals since 2010. The Media Column of the May–June 2011 AWM Newsletter has a review of the full film by (Rehmeyer, 2011) and comments about the controversy surrounding the film by (Greenwald, 2011), who was chair of P&A during this controversy.

Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science In 2011 former AWM president Cathy Kessel and I co-authored a critique of the article “Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science” (Ceci and Williams, 2011) by Cornell psychology professors Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams. The article, which appeared in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, left some of us with more questions than answers. After conducting a review of the literature,

870

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

the authors concluded that discrimination in publishing and hiring was no longer a deterrent. Other scientists pointed out statistical errors, gaps in reasoning, and omission of relevant research. Instead of discrimination, Ceci and Williams proposed three factors to explain the underrepresentation of women in “math-intensive” fields: fertility/lifestyle choices, career preferences, and mathematics ability. The critique appears on the Policy and Advocacy page of the 2020 AWM website, and the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) mentioned it in AWIS in Action, its electronic advocacy and public policy newsletter. Cathy wasn’t an official member of P&A but she was a consultant on this and many other issues that we considered. This was another instance where a response was needed before the full committee and the EC could act. Ceci and Williams have co-authored several articles and a book entitled Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls with their explanations for the scarcity of women in science. At present, a Google search turns up many articles by mathematicians and other scientists criticizing the work of Ceci and Williams. The remainder of the major initiatives I will discuss are from my time as chair of P&A. The two most important and time-consuming were the AWM response to the report Engage to Excel by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the development of a Welcoming Environment Statement. I will treat these issues in chronological order in the next two sections.

Response to the PCAST Report Engage to Excel The first major undertaking of P&A during my term as chair was our response to the report Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. This report was a product of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and was published online on February 7, 2012 during Barack Obama’s presidency (PCAST, 2012). The report claimed that the mathematics community had not adequately developed methods of effective undergraduate teaching and called for the teaching of undergraduate mathematics courses by faculty in other disciplines. AWM learned about this report when P&A member and Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF) representative Rebecca Goldin emailed AWM President Jill Pipher on February 24, 2012. Jill asked P&A to draft a statement of concern and submit it to the EC for approval. AWM was deeply concerned about the effect the report might have on federal funding for mathematics; this concern was shared by many other mathematics societies. We were dismayed to discover that not a single mathematician was on PCAST and were deeply troubled by two parts of the report. The first asserted: Discipline-based education on effective undergraduate mathematics teaching also appears less developed when compared with other STEM fields. (p. 27)

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

871

The second was a pair of recommended actions. (3) college mathematics teaching and curricula developed and taught by faculty from mathematics-intensive disciplines other than mathematics, including physics, engineering, and computer science; and (4) a new pathway for producing K–12 mathematics teachers from undergraduate and graduate programs in mathematics-intensive fields other than mathematics. (p. 29)

Rebecca spoke at length to Deborah Stine, the Executive Director of PCAST, to learn about the process that led to the report and the involvement of mathematicians in the process. Stine objected to our contention that not a single mathematician was on PCAST and pointed out that the co-chair, Eric Lander, who is a systems biologist, got his PhD in mathematics from Oxford. Stine advised Rebecca that giving public comment and handing out a document summarizing our concerns to PCAST members would be our most effective course of action. Subsequently, Rebecca requested a 2-minute time slot to present public comment at the next meeting of PCAST, which was on March 9, 2012. With Cathy Kessel’s help, we drafted a statement for Rebecca to present during the public comment period. Cathy, who was very familiar with the mathematics education research, helped us refute the statement about discipline-based education on effective mathematics teaching and provided us with a long list of references on teaching methods and ways to measure their effectiveness. During the week preceding Rebecca’s public comments Jill Pipher was out of the country and we didn’t have ample time to get EC approval for our statement. The entire Policy and Advocacy Committee and Cathy Kessel approved and were named as authors of the final statement that Rebecca handed out during the March 9 PCAST meeting. Rebecca reported that AWIS also handed out a statement at that meeting. After Jill was back in touch with our committee, we sent the statement we prepared to the Executive Committee for consideration at their March meeting. I also contacted the Mathematical Association of American (MAA), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), and the American Mathematical Society (AMS) to advise them about our activities in response to the report and to ask them if they wanted to collaborate on a joint response to the report. We were persuaded by several parties to make our response to Engage to Excel more positive and we did so. Policy and Advocacy worked with Cathy Kessel and Tara Holm, who chaired the AMS Education Committee at the time, to edit the statement yet again. After sixteen versions, the EC approved the final version of our statement in March 2012, posted it on the P&A webpage, and notified MAA and AWIS that the final version was available. Tara Holm kept AMS in the loop. In the end, the other societies wrote their own responses and agreed to link to our response. Our response was announced in the July–August 2012 AWM Newsletter. A link to the final statement as well as to the responses of other organizations to Engage to Excel appear on the Policy and Advocacy page on the AWM website.

872

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Sexual Harassment and the Welcoming Environment Statement The earliest AWM Statement on Sexual Harassment was drafted by the EC (before the Policy and Advocacy Committee was formed) and appeared in the November– December 1993 AWM Newsletter. The statement included eight main points: sexual harassment is extremely serious; sexual harassment has many forms; sexual harassment must be taken seriously; sexual harassment must be dealt with promptly; sexual harassment charges must be dealt with fairly; sexual harassment must be dealt with effectively; and sexual harassment must not be tolerated. This early statement provided guidelines for institutions to deal with sexual harassment. The statement was updated by the Policy and Advocacy Committee and approved by the EC in July of 2011. Once again, Cathy Kessel assisted us in writing. The policy appeared in the September–October 2011 AWM Newsletter, which can be found in the online archive (AWM Statement on Sexual Harassment, 2011). At that time we endorsed the guidelines of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for academic institutions, “Sexual Harassment: Suggested Policy and Procedures for Handling Complaints” (AAUP, 1990). In the fall of 2012, the P&A Committee (Rebecca Goldin, Sarah Greenwald, Anne Leggett, and Marie Vitulli) started discussions about a significant update to the AWM policy. Various members of AWM, including President Jill Pipher, had been notified about incidents of sexual harassment at conferences, workshops, and institutes. These incidents caused great distress to the alleged victims. Moreover, some people who reported incidents to conference organizers got icy responses from those organizers. Frankly, we were shocked by some of the stories that were shared with us. We were asked to urge conference organizers to adopt anti-harassment policies and train permanent staff on how to deal with these situations. We were informed that there was already a push to make this happen in tech conferences. There was a suggestion that AWM create a repository of formal complaints. The final product of our deliberations was approved by the EC in May of 2013 and appeared in the September–October 2013 AWM Newsletter. The 2013 Welcoming Environment Statement had five sections: an opening paragraph stating the policy emphasizing that “all participants in AWM activities will enjoy a welcoming environment that is free from all sorts of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation”; a section “Sexual Harassment” defining sexual harassment; a section “Other Types of Harassment” with descriptions of other forms of harassment; a section “Scope of Policy” that explained who was covered by the policy; and a section entitled “Further Resources.” The latter contained a link to a page I created that listed references and provided links to relevant documents including: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination in schools; and helpful pointers for those who experience harassment. In order to showcase the challenges that P&A sometimes faced, I want to share the details of the incredibly arduous process that led to this final policy statement.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

873

During the early discussions in 2012, we contacted the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences (JCW), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We asked JCW to conduct a survey to see how many constituents of its nine member organizations had been victims of or had witnessed sexual harassment at a mathematics conference or workshop and what the nature of the alleged harassment was. I spoke to a former AAUP General Counsel about AAUP’s policies. This person thought our best bet was to have associations adopt sexual harassment policies that cover workshops and conferences. She saw no problem with organizations keeping files of complaints. She made other suggestions that I related to the full committee. Members of the P&A Committee were asked to talk to their institutions’ Affirmative Action Offices and review online documents to learn the details of their sexual harassment policies. None of the written policies included off-campus behavior at events such as conferences and workshops. A member of the JCW contacted a program officer at NSF and was told the following via email. The NSF policy on sexual harassment (at conferences or otherwise) is to follow Federal law. If a complaint were made by an individual against an NSF-funded PI [Principal Investigator], the matter would be referred immediately to the NSF Office of the Inspector General [IG], which would conduct an investigation and recommend any punitive actions. The latter might involve reporting the case to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. We Program Officers are told to stay clear of such matters beyond reporting them to the IG.

I made inquiries at NSF as well and was largely unsuccessful in getting a timely reply or much useful information from them. By December of 2012 the P&A Committee unanimously recommended that AWM adopt its own Sexual Harassment Policy that would govern all AWM activities. On advice from AWIS, we reviewed the American Astronomical Society (AAS) policy on Sexual Harassment created by the AAS Committee on the Status of Women. We reviewed the Modern Language Association (MLA) Policy, which was brief and primarily referred to the behavior of employees of the MLA. We were impressed by the scope and thoroughness of the AAS policy and decided to use it as a model for the AWM statement (AAS Policy, 2017). We came up with a first draft policy and discussed it at our December 2012 meeting. The initial draft was a “Statement of Anti-Discrimination Policy.” The 2011 update to the original 1993 policy was called “Statement on Sexual Harassment,” so the title for the 2012 statement followed what had been approved previously. This initial draft called for a complaint form to be placed on the Policy and Advocacy webpage and for alleged victims to use that form to report incidents. The policy covered all AWM events. Some of the language in the AAS Policy was replaced by language from the Equal Rights Advocates website (EqualRights, 2011). We made many edits to the initial draft and then sent it to the full EC for discussion at the January 2013 meeting at the Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM) in San Diego. The JCW was also meeting in San Diego at JMM so the MAA Representative to JMM, Jerry Porter, used the AAS Policy to draft something that he took to the

874

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

JCW meeting with the hope that JCW would send a policy draft to all of its member societies and ask them to adopt their own policies. Jerry also sent a copy of his “Anti-Harassment Policy” draft to leadership at MAA. It was my preference that Jerry wait for the EC to approve our policy draft but he wanted to have something specific to discuss at the 2013 JMM meeting. I was in contact with Carol Wood, a former AWM President and then chair of the newly formed AMS Committee on Women in Mathematics (CoWIM); AWM Treasurer Ellen Kirkman was also on that committee and was interested in pursuing a policy statement. I was invited by Cathy Kessel to attend the MAA Committee on the Participation of Women (CPW) meeting at JMM to discuss AWM’s work on a policy; I attended the meeting and was given an opportunity to speak. When AWM leadership reviewed our policy draft before the January EC Meeting they were concerned that if AWM instituted a complaint process then it would put AWM at some legal risk. The original statement advised that AWM would report an alleged incident of harassment to the alleged perpetrator’s home institution. Mary Gray, the first AWM president, who also holds a law degree, had a problem with this because it assumes harassment without any chance for the accused to defend themself. Mary said she had helped draft a similar policy for Amnesty International several years before. She thought reporting to an institution that a complaint was made could lead to legal liability for AWM. After discussion at the January EC meeting and email from Mary Gray, the statement went back to the P&A Committee for edits. Mary Gray expressed additional concerns about our initial statement, particularly the part that said we would help an alleged victim investigate the complaint process at his or her home institution. Mary pointed out that an institution wouldn’t be able to investigate an incident that occurred off campus. AWM personnel might not be able to access the faculty handbook or other personnel material from an email address off campus. If the home institution doesn’t investigate but places a letter in the alleged harasser’s file and that letter is brought up down the road in a tenure, promotion, or merit raise review, the alleged harasser may sue the institution and AWM for their role in having the letter placed in the alleged harasser’s file. Mary shared my feeling that AWM should make investigations of complaints part of our policy and suggested that we might create a pool of volunteer ombudspersons, one designated for each AWM event. The ombudsperson would decide whether to refer the complainant to the management of the venue or to the police if they felt the incident was potentially criminal, or to investigate the complaint further themself. By late February 2013, it looked doubtful that AWM leadership and the EC would approve a policy that included a complaint process. We thought that if we adopted a policy that didn’t include a complaint process that it would be best to adopt a welcoming environment statement of expected behavior at AWM events. I contacted Joan T. Schmelz, chair of the AAS Committee on the Status of Women (CSWA). AAS was the only scientific organization that had a policy dealing with harassment at activities sponsored by the organization. Joan told me that their policy was drafted by CSWA and approved by the AAS Council at its January 2008

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

875

meeting. She couldn’t share any information about complaints filed and actions taken because that information was confidential. She did make the following remark. The AWM should not be in this alone. The professional organization running the meeting should be doing the heavy lifting.

The EC held a special meeting in April of 2013 to discuss the new proposal that was endorsed by the P&A Committee. It did not include a complaint process or mention of AWM helping an alleged victim file a complaint with their home institution. The EC felt that we should develop a statement rather than a policy. In late April, P&A unanimously approved a Statement of Non-Discrimination at AWM Activities and on May 1, 2013 it was sent to AWM President Ruth Charney and Executive Director Magnhild Lien for a vote by the EC. At the May 2013 EC Meeting the amended AWM Statement on Non-Discrimination was approved subject to Mary Gray’s approval. Mary still had some concerns and some minor edits were made. I went back and forth with Mary a few times and on June 24, 2013 I sent Ruth a yet again revised “Statement of Non-Discrimination at AWM Activities.” Ruth thought it looked excellent and we didn’t need to go back to the EC for approval. She also said we could post the statement on the Policy and Advocacy webpage. The statement appeared online in late June of 2013. I also developed a detailed page of resources for dealing with sexual or other forms of harassment for the Policy and Advocacy webpage. As soon as the AWM statement was posted I notified the other societies and provided them with a link to the policy. We urged AMS to adopt and support a full-blown policy that included complaint and investigation processes more on the lines of the AAS policy and linked to that policy in the email. We suggested to JCW that they recommend that the other professional mathematics societies adopt either a non-discrimination statement or a full blown policy if resources permitted this. JCW co-chair Tanya Leise replied that they had sent a similar statement, which they called a “Welcoming Environment Policy,” to the boards of each society involved in JCW. They promised to press for action on this by the other societies and advised me that someone would get back to me after JCW’s annual meeting in September. Susanna Epp, the AWM representative to JCW reported back to me after their September meeting with the following welcome news. NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics] is reviewing all policies and may have a policy in place soon. AMS Council on Profession is discussing this issue. ASA [American Statistical Association] is working on it, may tweak [it] somewhat. AMATYC [American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges] has adopted. MAA is reviewing its personnel manual and this may be part of that effort; issue has been forwarded to the MAA Council on Meetings. IMS [Institute for Mathematical Statistics] has discussed it and drafted its own policy but would like to see what other societies are doing before sending back to council for approval (they want the document to be more explicit). IMS says incidents should be reported to Executive Committee.

At the January 2014 EC meeting at JMM, I announced that the nondiscrimination statement had been edited and was posted on the P&A webpage. We decided that AWM would not respond to specific complaints. We would send our statement to

876

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

conference organizers who were requesting “In Cooperation” status. We came up with a briefer statement that was suitable for including on conference handouts. This appeared in the AWM program for JMM 2014. I advised the EC about the actions JCW had taken on this issue and what the other societies were doing. At the 2014 JMM the MAA Council on the Profession, chaired by Amy Cohen, passed a resolution to MAA leadership asking them to adopt a statement. The AMS Council gave the task of drafting their statement to a subcommittee. Mary Gray announced that ASA approved a statement and would let us know when it was posted on their website. In February of 2014, Policy and Advocacy gained three new members: Tara Holm, Bryna Kra, and Katrin Wehrheim. In that month AMATYC approved a Welcoming Environment Statement, which appeared as an attachment to their board minutes and later was posted online. JCW posted a Welcoming Environment page with a link to the statements and policies of AWM and AMATYC as well as a link to the AAS Policy (JCW, 2020). The ASA Conduct Policy would soon be posted on their website. Today their policy includes the following paragraph. Violations should be reported to the organizer of the activity. In ASA’s sole discretion, unacceptable behavior may result in removal or denial of access to meeting facilities or activities, and other penalties, without refund of any applicable registration fees or costs. In addition, violations may be reported to the individual’s employer. Repeat offenders may be banned from future ASA activities.

The AMATYC Policy on a Welcoming Environment includes the following sentences. Violations of this policy should be reported to the President of AMATYC. Individuals violating these standards may be asked to leave the activity without refund of registration fees and may have their behavior reported to their employer. Repeat offenders may be banned from future AMATYC activities. Retaliation against individuals who file a complaint will not be tolerated and will be treated in a manner similar to harassment.

In March 2014, AMS produced a draft of a policy that was shorter but much in the same spirit as the policy proposed by JCW with one major difference; AMS proposed a reporting option involving an 800 number, so that the person lodging the complaint would have as much anonymity as possible and AMS could act quickly. The AMS lawyers were vetting the policy draft. A joint subcommittee with members from CoWIM, CoPROF, and COMC came up with the draft proposal. The policy was ready to go to AMS Council by November 2014 and was to be discussed at their January 2015 meeting at JMM. It was approved by the AMS Council in January 2015 and they were working on its implementation. In May 2014 a resolution on “Welcoming Environment” was presented to the MAA Executive Committee. By January 2015 MAA had a brief statement on Welcoming Environment on their website on the page containing the MAA Code of Ethics and the Whistleblower Protection Policy. The MAA Executive Committee discussed the longer welcoming environment statement/resolution and decided to modify their Code of Ethics to cover the Welcoming Environment statement. They

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

877

reported that they were working on an update to what was posted. I went back and forth with MAA about what was posted. Today the statement on Welcoming Environment includes the following sentences. Violations may be reported directly to the Executive Director or the Compliance Officer (Vice President). For immediate concerns at a meeting, proceed to the registration area or hotel/convention center security office.

It is a huge disappointment to me that both the AWM statement passed in 2013 and the updated statement fail to mention reporting violations or a complaint process. On the current webpage containing the Statement of Welcoming Environment, under the toggle “What to Do If You Experience Sexual Harassment,” the following sentences appear. If you experience harassment or are aware of harassment incidents at an AWM event, you are welcome to reach out to AWM organizers of the event and/or other AWM members for advice on how to proceed. AWM members can help guide you to an appropriate venue for filing a complaint. You are not expected to discuss details of the harassment, but if you choose to do so, the AWM members you speak to will keep this information confidential to the extent that is legally possible.

AWM was the first mathematics society to adopt a welcoming environment statement; when the statement was adopted it was agreed that we would revisit it in two years. In June of 2016, under Gail Letzter’s leadership, the P&A committee began their review of the policy; I attended an early meeting as a guest. In 2017, I was informed that the National Academies of Science had formed a committee to examine “Sexual Harassment in Academia,” and had begun holding public educational meetings that could be attended (remotely, via webcast) for free. AWM currently sends a liaison to the Societies Consortium on Harassment in STEMM. My own interest in sexual harassment in academia continues to this day; I have a page on Sexual Harassment in STEM on my personal Women in Math Project website, which is an archive of articles and studies on sexual harassment in the sciences (Women In Math, 1997).

The Early Days of Capitol Hill Visits I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the beginning of AWM’s program of Capitol Hill visits. The first AWM Hill visit took place on April 13, 2015, following the AWM Research Symposium at the University of Maryland, College Park. Talitha Washington and AWM President Kristin Lauter visited Senate and Congressional offices to “make known AWM’s existence and mission and to argue for legislation to increase STEM outreach funding” (Lauter, 2015). Shortly after this initial foray, a second visit occurred during the MAA MathFest, which was held in Washington, DC, from August 5–8, 2015. This was a larger visit, including AWM presidents and leaders as well as both undergraduate and graduate students. Karen Saxe, formerly an AMS Congressional Fellow in Senator Al Franken’s DC office, prepped the

878

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

volunteers on how to talk to Senators, Representatives and their staff and prepared documents to leave behind with members of Congress (see Kelley 2015). Towards the end of my term in late 2015, we began the process of figuring out how best to support these visits. Should we join forces with other organizations such as Association for Women in Science (AWIS)? Should we support specific legislation? Should we advocate for mathematics in general or make this effort more focused on issues affecting women? For the last question, the committee decided that it is more important to advocate for women in mathematics (or more generally, for women in STEM) than to advocate for mathematics in general. Discussions concerning this last question, along with the other two, were continued and the program was formalized during Gail’s term as P&A chair, as you can read in her section of this article on Capitol Hill visits.

From P&A to Publicity: Wikipedia, the AWM Website, and Social Media During my years on P&A it became clear to me that we needed to better highlight both the work of AWM and of women mathematicians. Two ways to do this were to increase the presence of women mathematicians on Wikipedia and to highlight the work of AWM and issues of concern to women in mathematics on social media. I became a Wikipedia editor in 2013 after I attended an Edit-a-thon at the University of Oregon led by Sarah Stierch, a prominent member of the Wikipedia community. My goal was to increase the quantity and quality of articles on women mathematicians. At that time there was a scarcity of both women editors and pages on women mathematicians on Wikipedia. According to WikiProject Women in Red, only 16.36% of the biographies in English Wikipedia were about women as of August 7, 2016. The goal of WikiProject Women in Red is to turn red links (people mentioned on Wikipedia without Wikipedia pages) to blue links (people mentioned on Wikipedia who have Wikipedia pages). In August of 2016 the percentage of US women mathematicians on Wikipedia was about 17%. In contrast, we know that 29% of the PhDs awarded by US mathematics departments between 1991 and 2015 were awarded to women. The first Wikipedia page that I created was on 2012 AWM-AMS Noether Lecturer Susan Montgomery. Almost immediately after the page went live it was proposed for deletion by a novice editor who made this remark: It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: This looks like a case of shameless (self) promotion. Hey, look at me: I teach math and I want my CV on Wikipedia.

Stierch responded to the novice editor by saying the biography was in fact a good faith article by a new editor (not the subject of the article) and removed the proposed for deletion tag.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

879

Since then I have created several more pages on women mathematicians and have updated and expanded numerous pages. I wrote articles for the AWM Newsletter and the Notices of the AMS on Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia. AWM partnered with the Wiki Education Foundation to create the AWM-Wikipedia Visiting Scholars Program. At the 2017 AWM Research Symposium at UCLA, Ursula Whitcher organized the very first Wikipedia Edit-a-thon held during an AWM event; I assisted Ursula as did Jami Mathewson of the Wiki Education Foundation. Several AWM members, including the 2020 AWM Media Coordinator, Denise Rangel Tracy, and AWM member Sean Sather-Wagstaff, participated in the Wikipedia Fellows Programs in which the participants attended a series of weekly online lectures to learn the fine points of creating pages on Wikipedia. There were three different cohorts of Wikipedia Fellows in the summer of 2018: Communicating Science, General Cohort, and Women in Science. There was again a cohort for Women in Science in fall of 2018. Denise organized AWM Edit-a-thons at the 2019 AWM Research Symposium and the 2020 JMM in Denver; I assisted at the latter as did Sean Sather-Wagstaff. At Sean’s invitation, I organized an Edit-a-thon at Clemson University in January of 2019 at which he assisted. Denise and Sean have submitted a grant proposal to lead several more Edit-a-thons. I am happy to report that today there are many more pages on women mathematicians on Wikipedia and that we have trained several new editors. To highlight the work of AWM on social media, I became active with the AWM Task Force on Media and Web Presence, which was formed after discussions at JMM 2015. President Kristin Lauter wanted to greatly increase our web and media presence and set up the task force to do so. After a few months the task force morphed into the AWM Media Committee. AWM had a Facebook page as early as January 2011 and a Twitter account was created by Anna Haensch in March of 2015. In 2016 the AWM Bylaws were amended and the Web Editor position was replaced by the Media Coordinator position; the person who held this position was a member of the EC. After informally acting as AWM Media Coordinator for several months, I formally took over this role early in 2019. Shortly after JMM 2019 in Baltimore, Kim Ayers created an Instagram account for us, which I linked to our Facebook page. I have made almost daily Facebook posts announcing both AWM events and things I think would be of interest to the AWM community since 2015. I linked our Twitter account to our Facebook account so that posts made on Facebook would automatically push to Twitter. Unfortunately, Facebook no longer allows pushing of Facebook posts to Twitter accounts but posts on our Instagram account can still push to our Facebook page. Denise Rangel Tracy became an active poster on Facebook in 2019. There is also an AWM Group on LinkedIn, which Karen Saxe created in July 2015. Beginning in the spring of 2018, we worked on totally revamping the AWM website. Our old Google website, created in 2010, seemed dated and was cumbersome to maintain. We were without a Web Editor for several years after Holly Gaff resigned in 2012. I chaired a committee to find a new Web Editor in 2014. At that time we also were exploring the idea of a new website. In early 2015 Adriana Salerno took over as our new Web Editor. Adriana was succeeded by Joanna Wares, who became Media

880

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Coordinator in 2017. Our current website is a Wordpress website and is much more modern with many photos and graphics. It is also much easier to maintain than the old Google website. I joined the website team in the fall of 2018 and helped launch the new site in December of 2018. I maintained the site until the end of my term as AWM Media Coordinator in March 2020. In April 2020, Denise Rangel Tracy took over as AWM Media Coordinator and Michelle Snider, who was involved in creating the new website, took over as the Web Editor. I still make frequent posts to the AWM Facebook page.

My Years on the P&A Committee: Gail Letzter When the AWM nominating committee approached me in 2015 about running to be a Member-at-Large on the EC, I was told that I would spend the first two years on one of the major committees and then spend the final two years of my term as committee chair. This sounded great to me. It would give me a chance to get to know well one of the important AWM committees first before taking on a leadership role. I remember looking at the committees and thinking, should I join the Membership Committee? Would I be better suited for the Meetings Committee? And then AWM President Kristin Lauter took me aside and convinced me to both join and serve as chair of one of the committees I hadn’t even considered, the AWM P&A. I ended up serving as P&A chair for three years, from February 2016 to February 2019 and stayed on as a P&A committee member for one additional year. Shortly after the 2016 January AWM EC meeting at the JMM, I met individually with Kristin and she provided me with an overview of P&A and some of her vision for new projects we could pursue. One of her central goals was to formalize the new AWM Capitol Hill Visits program she had started and she asked that P&A oversee and expand this new initiative. Kristin was also keen on getting student chapters involved in any way possible. After speaking with Kristin, I reached out to the outgoing P&A chair and co-author of this article, Marie Vitulli, to get her perspective on the committee. In her view, the two most pressing items were the new Hill visit initiatives and reviewing and updating the AWM Welcoming Environment/Non-Discrimination Statement. So I began my term as chair of P&A with two major items on the agenda: Hill visits and Welcoming Environment review; both dominated during my time as P&A chair. While I was chair, P&A also devoted a lot of energy to a third major item: diversity and inclusion. These three major concerns are described in detail in the three subsections of my part of the article. During my time on the committee, P&A delved into all sorts of issues affecting the mathematics community. Sometimes, we brainstormed about various topics of concern related to gender identity, racial diversity, awards, childcare, and more and passed on recommendations to the Executive Committee and/or the AWM President. Other times, the discussions became more focused as we worked on creating official AWM statements in response to troubling national and international events. Taking

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

881

a stand in support of AWM’s values was something that was incredibly important to P&A Committee members. This was also strongly encouraged by AWM leadership and we often worked closely with the AWM President in writing such statements. In the course of just two years—the latter two of my time as chair—P&A wrote a response to the 2017 US travel ban, endorsed the 2017 March for Science, protested Turkey’s arrest of a prominent mathematician, posted a statement on the AWM Facebook page condemning degrading remarks about women in physics made at an international conference, expressed concern for Transgender Civil Rights in light of US proposals to “narrow the definition of gender,” submitted comments in regards to proposed changes for Title IX rules, and sent a letter to the ICM organizers about safety concerns in regards to the location choice. Some of these statements were not easy to write. The “correct response” wasn’t always crystal clear and there were often competing perspectives. We also frequently found ourselves writing AWM responses to similar—but still different— events, which often compounded the difficulty of finding just the right points to include in the statements. For the remainder of this introductory section, I focus on one of these recurring topics—support to our LGBTQ colleagues—which illustrates well the work of the committee and how we addressed some of the challenges in hitting the right tone for AWM’s statements.

Support for Our LGBTQ+ Colleagues In 2018, the International Mathematics Union announced the next location for the International Congress of Mathematicians: Saint Petersburg, Russia in 2022. Moreover, George Poltavchenko, co-chair of the 2022 ICM Executive Organizing Committee and former governor of Saint Petersburg, was responsible for the city’s 2012 anti-gay legislation banning “homosexual propaganda.” Similar legislation was passed on the national level the following year and these bills have led to discrimination and violence against members of the LGBTQ community. Spectra, the Association of LGBT Mathematicians, reached out to AWM President Ami Radunskaya about making a formal response to the choice of ICM location and co-chair. In formulating a response, we discussed a number of possibilities. Should we encourage AWM members to boycott the event? Should we take the opposite tack and show our support of our fellow LGBTQ mathematicians by arranging for a special reception at the ICM? We decided against both these approaches. Some of us on the committee felt uncomfortable about boycotts especially since trends in the US might lead to members of other countries boycotting meetings held in this country. A reception initially sounded good, but could attract negative attention and put the people we were trying to protect as well as their allies at even greater risk. Ultimately, we settled on a letter to the ICM Organizing Committee expressing our concerns about the choices for the 2022 ICM.

882

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

As often happens in cases like this, the issues might appear to be completely clear-cut and yet, there can still be subtleties. A number of people mentioned how it was difficult to be Russian in the US given the current political climate. Somehow, in this letter of protest, we needed to convey support for our Russian colleagues here and abroad. Thus, after an initial paragraph with a brief overview of our concerns, the next paragraph acknowledges Russian mathematical contributions: “Russia has a long, distinguished history of mathematics and we applaud Russian mathematicians’ contributions to the existing mathematical canon.” The rest of the letter focuses on the dangerous consequences of the anti-gay bills of 2012 and 2013 for the LGBTQ community. This letter, signed by AWM President Ami Radunskaya, implores the IMU to take “safety and inclusion of every mathematician wishing to attend the ICM” when in the future “determining the venue for such an important gathering.” AWM further urged the organizing committee to reconsider the choice of location for the 2022 and, if unable to do so, “publish information specifically addressing the particular dangers” facing LGBTQ participants so that they could be prepared and the organizers of the ICM could better protect them. A few short months after completing the AWM letter, it was pointed out that AWM had its own similar problem with the upcoming 2019 AWM Research Symposium. The venue was Rice University in Houston, Texas. California has a law that prohibits state-funded travel to states that have passed anti-LGBTQ legislation and Texas was on their list. AWM’s initial response, offering help in finding other sources of travel money for Californian mathematicians who wished to come to the symposium, yielded cries that AWM was attempting to get around California law. As we sorted out how to respond, committee member and Texas resident Julie Sutton pointed out that, in contrast to the state level, Texas universities were extremely sensitive to LGBTQ rights. So, we did our best to address the issue without taking a hard line that would potentially commit AWM to not hold meetings in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation—even if the local university was inclusive. Ultimately, our response attempted to take the middle road, acknowledging the “complexities of the issue” and included AWM’s promise to make a donation to a specific Houston organization that “supported LGBT individuals and their families.”

Capitol Hill Visits The first major item on the agenda for the 2016 P&A Committee was formalizing the new AWM Hill Visit program. As described in Marie’s section, this was a new initiative started by AWM President Kristin Lauter. During AWM Hill Visits, AWM participants travel to Capitol Hill and meet with various members of Congress in order to bring to their attention issues important to the mission of AWM. Two visits had already occurred while Marie was chair of the committee and the AWM participants came away energized from these day-long events. It was clear that Hill Visits opened up a new way for AWM members to impact the mathematical lives of women and girls. P&A’s charge was to build on these initial trips and figure out

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

883

how to turn AWM Hill visits into regularly occurring events. In this subsection, we describe how we set up this new program. Of course, the fun all lies in the participation and we encourage the reader to look at Michelle Snider’s article in this volume, which so beautifully captures this excitement. Nevertheless, we hope the reader will find some of the preparation and planning necessary to regularly pull off this kind of AWM activity interesting and enlightening. Whenever one sets up a new program, perhaps the first natural question is: what is the goal? Or, put another way, what did we hope to accomplish? It had already been decided that it was important for AWM to advocate for women in mathematics and more generally, for women in STEM. What else? Should we advocate or even lobby for specific legislation? In our discussions, the committee was realistic about what AWM could actually accomplish. AWM is a great but small professional society. Even with a group of enthusiastic volunteers, AWM is not big enough to become an effective lobbying force with constant calls to members of Congress in order to influence passage of specific bills nor can AWM lobby extensively without endangering its tax status. Instead, we approached the Hill visit initiative as a way to offer AWM services as a resource so that members of Congress know that they can turn to us for information on issues of importance to women and girls in math and related fields. We also discussed joining forces with other professional societies, a possibility raised by P&A under Marie’s leadership. We quickly decided not to pursue this option with the gut feeling that AWM would be most effective and, perhaps even more important, more visible as an organization if AWM went solo on these Hill visits. Looking back now at the regular and impressively large AWM Hill visits, and all the follow-up questions and requests we get from members of Congress concerning legislation and initiatives related to our mission, it is clear to me that P&A made the right decision. We turned next to the natural question: when should the Hill visits take place? It was clear we needed to take into consideration what schedule works best for AWM members, especially if we wanted non-local AWM leaders involved. Kristin Lauter proposed coordinating Hill visits with CBMS (Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences) twice-a-year meetings in Washington, DC. This would permit the AWM President, who typically attends the CBMS meetings, to participate in the Hill visits. We discussed other possible times and Karen Saxe gave P&A a brief lesson on Congress’s schedule including when they are in the office, when they make budget decisions, and when they are on the campaign trail. Ultimately, we decided that Hill visits scheduled around CBMS meetings so that AWM leadership could participate was the best choice. With a purpose to guide us and schedule to follow, we set about taking care of other details. The first task of the committee was to prepare documents for AWM Hill visit volunteers to bring with them and leave behind. In addition to a standard brochure on AWM’s mission and activities, we wanted something that laid out issues of importance to AWM. Building on the initial one-page sheet highlighting AWM’s legislative priorities prepared by Karen Saxe, the P&A Committee wrote a onepager that focused on broad themes, instead of actual bills, so that it could be used

884

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

as is over the years without the need for updates. We settled on the following four issues. • Expand STEM educational opportunities. Help us ensure access for girls and minorities to classes devoted to STEM subjects. • Support research funding. Research funding is essential for creating a vibrant research program. Please support funding the National Science Foundation at the highest possible level. These funds provide basic research grants as well as programs, such as NSF’s ADVANCE Grants, that specifically benefit women. • Help Americans achieve a healthier work/life balance. Finding an effective worklife balance is a challenge, especially for women. Please support legislation that expands childcare and family leave options. • Create a welcoming environment. Support legislation and initiatives that aim to create an environment free from all forms of discrimination and harassment so researchers can thrive regardless of gender, gender identity or expression, race, color, national or ethnic origin, religious belief, age, sexual orientation, immigration status, disabilities, or any other reason not related to scientific merit. A fifth theme which was centered around finding solutions to the fact that “many elite groups, such as fellows within professional societies, have very few female members” was ultimately dropped because Congress could not really address this problem through initiatives or bills. And so we were set and officially ready to kick off the AWM Hill visit program as a regular twice a year AWM event. In fact, we had just put the finishing touches on the one-pager and laid the groundwork for record keeping, when we realized that the (2016) May Hill trip was just a short time away. We ended up with a small group for that visit: AWM President Kristin Lauter along with two Executive Committee members, Talithia Williams and Talitha Washington. But even though this was a small group, it was a dynamite one. An article co-authored (Saxe and Washington, 2016) for the July–August 2016 AWM Newsletter summed up the trip well: Talitha, Talithia, and Kristin met with several Senate and House members and discussed everything from Title IX implementation, to equal pay issues, to the new Computer Science for All initiative recently unveiled by the White House.

Upon reading the article, a number of local DC AWM Members contacted Executive Director Magnhild Lien and put their names on the AWM Hill visit volunteer list. One of the people who responded, Michelle Snider, has since become a central player in the AWM Hill visit enterprise. For the next visit, scheduled in December 2016, we had time to attract a much larger AWM contingent, and, moreover, realize Kristin’s vision of involving AWM student chapters. In August, I sent out invites to a slew of local AWM mathematicians. Perhaps, the most exciting response came from Beth Malmskog, faculty advisor for Villanova University’s new AWM student chapter: yes, she and the student chapter would participate! In addition to the Villanova contingent of nine students, we assembled a great team of ten faculty and industry mathematicians.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

885

In many ways, it was this December 2016 visit that really kicked off Hill visits as a regularly occurring AWM event. Anybody who has planned a program knows that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes organization needed in order to achieve success. AWM Hill visits with many participants are no exception! The December 2016 Hill visit involved significant advance preparation. First, the group of volunteers needed to be divided into small teams and each team then needed to be assigned members of Congress to visit. The division was based on information concerning home state senators and home district representatives so as to ensure that each team included a constituent for each office they visited. After the teams and their assigned members of Congress were set, both the scheduling of appointments and the logistics for the day were left to the group of volunteers. Originally, it was suggested that the students take the lead in making the appointments. But that turned out to be very difficult—the students were being put on frustratingly long holds. Fortunately, the professional mathematicians stepped forward and finished the calls, putting together an amazing schedule that included visits to more than twenty congressional offices. On top of logistics, the group of participants needed to be prepped appropriately. Karen Saxe had prepared a basic instruction sheet with instructions such as “dress for a business meeting” and “show up five minutes early and expect fifteen to thirty minutes for your visit.” Based on input from Karen on the importance of making things personal when connecting to members of Congress, I urged both the professional mathematicians and the students to consider sharing stories of their own mathematical journeys and to include anything that harks back to a member of Congress’s home district and/or state. Wrap-up afterwards included writing thank-you notes from participants to congressional offices, counting the number of volunteer hours spent on the visit for AWM tax forms, and writing records of offices visited and issues discussed and other similar items. Beth Malmskog wrote a wonderful AMS blog entitled “DC or Bust: AWM and Villanova Visit Capitol Hill” that captured the excitement of the day. Her closing remarks in this blog summed up not only what the trip meant to her, but the impact it had on the students: This trip was a meaningful experience for me as well. Not only did I get to talk to legislators and make my voice heard on issues I care deeply about, but I met so many awesome math women and had the chance to see my students really shine as awesome math women (and one awesome math man) themselves. I was proud of them, and also glad that they wouldn’t have to wait as long as I did to realize that a trip like this was possible. They will carry this knowledge with them into whatever they decide to do.

With the December 2016 visit over, I knew that planning the next trip, scheduled for May, would have to begin soon. I sent the first letters to faculty advisors of potential AWM student chapter participants the week after the December 2016 trip. Thus a regular cycle of AWM Hill visits was officially launched. The AWM Hood College student chapter participated in the May 2017 AWM Hill visit. A combined group of students from AWM chapters at George Mason University and Trinity College took part in the December 2017 AWM Hill visit. The impact was immediately clear as members of Congress and their staff reached out to the AWM for endorsements of various bills and initiatives. The AWM was becoming a known quantity on the

886

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Hill and other math societies were looking to us on how to approach similar efforts. I was incredibly pleased when Karen Saxe held up the AWM Hill visits as a model for advocacy with respect to Congress during the AMS Committee on Science Policy Panel Discussion at the 2018 Joint Mathematics Meetings. Though P&A now had a much better grasp of the arrangements for visits, it was clear that each trip required a significant amount of work. As chair, I knew that something had to be done in order to keep the AWM Hill visit program going without overburdening P&A and its chairs, both current and future. Thus I decided it was time to form a new committee, the AWM Government Advocacy Committee (GAC), responsible for AWM Hill visits and other AWM advocacy efforts on the local and state level. The chair of the committee would be a regular member of P&A and P&A would provide oversight for the GAC. The formation of the GAC was developed by P&A and then approved by the AWM Executive Committee in early 2018. The first GAC chair was Michelle Snider, an active AWM Hill volunteer. She has done a tremendous job in continuing the AWM Hill visit initiative and I refer the reader to her article in this volume about the amazing visits she has organized.

Welcoming Environment Review and Exploring Complaint Processes The environment surrounding sexual harassment had evolved quite a bit since AWM first started working on the 2013 Welcoming Environment Statement. AWM was the first professional math society and one of the few professional societies within STEM fields to develop such a policy at that time. In contrast, by 2018, the major mathematics societies, some mathematics departments, and many mathematics research institutes had official anti-discrimination/harassment policies. The external environment continued to evolve in other ways over the course of our review. When we began, NSF still had in place a policy that placed all responsibility for addressing harassment complaints with the host institution. In 2017, the #MeToo movement exploded into national view. A year later, NSF and other federal grant-making institutions such as NIH, decided to put processes in place to deal directly with harassment that involved funded investigators. NSF’s 2018 announcement of these processes is a stark contrast to the reply JCW received from the NSF just a few years earlier (see Marie’s section on “Sexual Harassment and the Welcoming Environment Statement”). Starting in 2018, NSF required “awardee organizations to notify the agency of any findings . . . that an NSF-funded principal investigator or co-principal investigator committed harassment, including sexual harassment or sexual assault.” Moreover, NSF will consult with the awardee organization, and determine what action is necessary under NSF’s authority. NSF actions may include substituting or removing principal investigators or co-principal investigators, reducing award funding, and—where neither of those options is available or adequate—suspending or terminating awards.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

887

We did our best to update the policy even as approaches to addressing sexual harassment in the larger academic community continued to change. Ultimately, the P&A and the AWM leadership view this as part of an ongoing process and a topic that AWM will need to revisit (see the “Future Challenges” section below). In June 2016, Marie attended the P&A meeting and gave us an overview of the Welcoming Environment Statement, its original motivation, and some of the difficulties in developing this especially in regards to establishing a complaint process. Marie further explained that the anti-harassment/anti-discrimination/welcoming environment statements of other math societies were in part inspired by the AWM version. But a number of them had some sort of complaint process—something that the P&A wanted but was unable to accomplish in the 2013 version. From that point forward, every discussion on how to update the Welcoming Environment Statement included a lot of back and forth about setting up a complaint process. The committee was torn about this. On the one hand, without a complaint process, the document had no “teeth.” On the other hand, the legal and resource issues were substantial. And even if we could take complaints, it was unclear we could follow-up with any action, punitive or otherwise. In August 2017, when we began in earnest to work on updates, the P&A decided on a two track approach: • Update the document without a complaint process, but including better pointers and advice for someone who experiences harassment. • Explore complaint processes in depth and find out more about different possibilities, with the aim of eventually implementing some sort of reporting system.

Updating the Statement Before the last P&A Committee meeting of 2017, I sent around two proposed revisions for the committee to consider. The first included only minor tweaks to the original statement while the second contained two new sections: “What to do if you experience harassment” and “Filing a complaint” that were designed to give more advice to victims of harassment. The committee preferred the second option. Much of the content for these new sections was taken directly from the 2013 Welcoming Environment Statement web subpage entitled “Further Resources.” The resource page was in turn made shorter so that it really was just a link to resources. Perhaps the biggest change to the updated document was an attempt to provide something personal beyond advice and pointers on a website and/or document. So the P&A introduced a new paragraph that advised someone who experiences harassment at an AWM sponsored event “to reach out to AWM organizers of the event and/or other AWM members for advice on how to proceed.” We were careful here so as to avoid concerns raised by Mary Gray with respect to the 2013 statement (as described by Marie above). Indeed, we stated that “AWM members can help guide [a victim of harassment] to an appropriate venue for filing a complaint” but did not commit AWM members to helping an alleged victim with the actual complaint process and/or investigation. This paragraph, included in the new section “What to

888

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

do if you experience harassment” and quoted in full in Marie Vitulli’s section above, has a hesitant aspect to it and this is because of legal issues. In particular, it ends with the assertion that if someone confides in an AWM member, they “will keep this information confidential to the extent that is legally possible.” I cannot emphasize enough the legal minefields behind all of this. If an incident resulted in a formal investigation, an AWM member could find themselves in the awkward position of having to testify and thus reveal private confidences. Some of the same problems came up in discussions regarding an official AWM ombudsman (see below). And there were even more difficulties for issues at universities that fell under Title IX rules. At one point, we wanted to suggest that students who experience harassment at AWM student chapter events turn to their faculty advisors. It turns out that any such discussion would immediately trigger reporting requirements under Title IX regulations for the faculty member and confidentiality would be thrown out the window. For these reasons, the final statement, approved by the AWM EC in March 2018, did not include this suggestion.

Exploring Complaint Processes The first complaint process we looked at was the one adopted by AMS. AMS used a phone number and website for confidential anonymous reporting of incidents. The underlying system for recording complaints with the AMS is called EthicsPoint and is provided by the company NAVEX Global. In our August 2017 meeting, Karen Saxe, who was now the AMS Associate Executive Director and Head of the Government Relations Division in the Washington DC office, described AMS’s complaint process using EthicsPoint in detail for the committee. She explained that the costs included an initial startup fee as well as ongoing annual fees. Karen also noted that several AMS staff were involved in the initial setup of the system and a number of AMS staff are in charge of following up on the complaints. After listening to Karen’s introduction to the AMS complaint process, members of the committee expressed doubts as to whether AWM had the funds and personnel to support a similar reporting system. Nevertheless, we decided to talk directly to NAVEX to find out more information. AWM Executive Director Karoline Pershell, AWM President Ami Radunskaya, and I participated in a NAVEX conference call where we learned that NAVEX could store and compile data from calls, but AWM would be responsible for responding to and deciding on actions with regards to complaints. This reinforced our concerns about personnel requirements—the system would definitely require dedicated AWM staff. In addition, even though all calls would be anonymous, there could still be privacy and legal issues related to the details of a complaint and AWM, not NAVEX, would be responsible for addressing them. After hearing the details of costs both in terms of money and personnel, and the potential privacy and legal issues, we were not at all convinced that AWM was large enough to support such a service. Other reporting mechanisms, such as the newer Callisto system—an online system for reporting harassment adopted by some universities (see for example (Holley, 2018))—posed similar problems: too expensive in terms of cost and personnel to oversee the process.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

889

We also discussed the option of appointing a dedicated AWM person, perhaps officially an ombudsman, to handle complaints as suggested by Marie and discussed in the context of setting up the earlier 2013 policy. Indeed, MAA has such a position called a Compliance Officer as delineated in their Welcoming Environment, Code of Ethics, and Whistleblower Policy: The MAA’s Compliance Officer is responsible for ensuring that all reported complaints and allegations concerning violations of the Code of Ethics have been properly investigated and resolved and, at his or her discretion, shall advise the Executive Director and/or the Audit Committee.

Again, we were hesitant. Such a person could end up caught up in a complicated process and possibly face legal challenges. Although I ended my term as chair of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee without a complaint process in place, I am hopeful that this issue will be resolved in the near future. Despite the legal, financial and personnel issues involved, there are many external motivating forces at play and there are serious efforts among professional societies to band together to create tools, including formal complaint processes, that address harassment and the environment that permits it. Indeed, in June 2018, the National Academies of Science issued its seminal study on sexual harassment of women in academic STEM fields (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In response to this report, a group of professional societies came together to form a new consortium, the Societies Consortium for Sexual Harassment in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) (Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM, 2020), set up to address sexual harassment. AWM leaders, especially AWM Executive Director Karoline Pershell and AWM President Ami Radunskaya, were there from the start of establishing this new consortium and, as a result, AWM is one of the inaugural members and a member of its Leadership Council. As can be seen from the June 2019 AWM E-Communication, this consortium is committed to developing tools for its member societies: This consortium’s work will focus on (1) creating model policies, guidance and practical tools to address short-term needs of societies and their fields (2) advancing key strategic foundations for mid- and long-term change in conduct, climate and culture that is critical for meaningful impact. The foundational goals include building communities of peers in STEMM societies and their fields—and building bridges among societies, their members and home institutions—to collectively embrace a climate and culture actively intolerant of sexual harassment and other unethical conduct, and committed to inclusion of all talent for excellence. AWM intends to serve as a conduit for information that can be adopted and adapted by our members’ many institutions.

Diversity and Inclusion The conversation about achieving diversity in the mathematical profession and more generally in the workplace has evolved over time. I remember the push for affir-

890

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

mative action to increase participation by women and the other underrepresented groups using special targeted hiring. But there was less talk of supporting people beyond the initial hire. In other words, hiring a diverse workforce was considered enough to achieve—or at least to attempt to achieve—diversity. The realization that one needs to worry beyond the initial hiring and talk about inclusion and belonging is more recent. Of course, professional societies are not in the business of hiring, but they do play a critical role in career development and the professional lives of scholars. Recently, many societies have taken diversity and inclusion of underrepresented groups, especially in STEM fields, more seriously. In her article with Vernon Morris “The Role of Professional Societies in STEM Diversity” (Morris and Washington, 2018), EC member Talitha Washington points out the important role that professional societies such as AWM play in career development and discusses ways that “professional societies can directly impact the broadening of participation as well as the persistence of racial groups in the STEM fields.” Around the time that her article appeared, Talitha requested that the P&A develop a policy that would “advocate racial and ethnic diversity” for AWM committees, speakers, and prize winners. This request was put on the agenda for the August 2017 meeting. Thus began the P&A’s focus on diversity and inclusion, a topic that would remain central to the committee’s activities for rest of my time on the committee and beyond. Shortly before the August 2017 meeting, P&A member Karoline Pershell had another request also related to diversity and inclusion. Karoline asked the P&A our thoughts on AWM participation in the University of Michigan’s STEM Inclusion Study with plans to “examine the experience of women, racial and ethnic minorities, person with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals working in the science technology, engineering and math workforce.” One of the nice things about the study was that the investigators planned to issue separate reports for each participating organization (Cech and Waidzunas, 2018). This was an easy agenda item. We all agreed participation was a great idea, passed our recommendation on to the EC, the EC approved, and AWM members participated in the study. The P&A’s discussions took on even greater urgency after controversy emerged surrounding AWM’s announcement of its inaugural class of AWM fellows in the fall, 2017. The initial AWM fellows were drawn from the following groups: “Past Presidents of the AWM, AWM Lifetime Service Award winners, and AWM Humphreys Award winners” (AMS Notices Jan, 2018). Unfortunately, these criteria did not yield much in terms of diversity. Immediately following the announcement, a number of AWM members expressed to AWM leadership their deep disappointment that the inaugural class did not include fellows from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Moreover, it was pointed out that this was part of a larger systemic problem with AWM awards going to very few minorities. This led to soul-searching by the AWM Executive Committee that culminated in the decision to make the criteria more inclusive with a focus on “mathematicians who have shown an unwavering

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

891

support to promoting women in mathematics” and, at the same time, expand the official inaugural class (AMS Notices Feb, 2018). The situation regarding AWM fellows also made it abundantly clear that AWM had to do more to address issues of diversity and inclusion. AWM President Ami Radunskaya, with the full backing of the Executive Committee, established an Inclusion Task Force whose main job was to prepare a report with recommendations for promoting inclusivity. Moreover, Ami urged each of the major committees to come up with methods of increasing representation of traditionally marginalized populations in all aspects of AWM life, including prominent roles such as awardees, speakers, officers, and committee members. Ami brought these diversity issues to the entire membership in her heartfelt president’s report of January–February 2018 (Radunskaya, 2018): [We] live in a complicated society that has historically disadvantaged certain groups. It makes sense that challenges faced by a gender in the minority are experienced differently, more acutely, by members who also belong to other underrepresented groups. Awareness of this intersectionality can help us develop more equitable programs that promote inclusion. Shifting our attention from diversity to inclusion means acknowledging the dynamics of difference in our jobs, labs and classrooms. In the past months, the AWM has renewed its commitment to creating a more inclusive community, and we continue to push for positive change.

This broader attention by AWM leaders on diversity and inclusion certainly had an impact on the nascent efforts just started by the P&A. Our work took on both greater meaning and sharper focus. For the remainder of my tenure as chair of P&A, diversity and inclusion topics became a high priority on meeting agendas. In December 2017, the committee prepared a list of suggested actions, including providing more oversight to the award and honor selection process, which I passed on to AWM President Ami Radunskaya. Change, even for a small and primarily volunteer organization like AWM, can be frustratingly slow. Two years later, there is finally some movement along these lines as AWM President Ruth Haas, along with EC member Pam Harris, Past President Ami Radunskaya, and Executive Director Karoline Pershell, have “started the process of change” by taking “concrete step[s] . . . to provide much more guidance and oversight to all AWM individual selection committees” (Haas, 2020). The P&A decided to formulate an official AWM diversity and inclusion statement. Many professional organizations already had such statements. Some were broad commitments to diversity; others were more narrow with a focus on awards and honors. The P&A decided on a broad statement, viewing it as a way to express diversity and inclusion as essential AWM values. It should be noted that this committee was in no way naive. As a group, we certainly understood that putting out a public diversity and inclusion statement was not going to directly fix inclusivity issues within the AWM. Nevertheless, we felt it was important to create such a value statement, posting it to our website for all to see, both as a big step in setting the right tone for the organization and as a small baby step in moving the organization in the right direction.

892

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Over the next few months, the P&A crafted the new diversity and inclusion statement. Early on in the process, the University of Michigan STEM Inclusion Study was completed and a few months later, the AWM’s Inclusion Task Force finished its report. We received copies of both reports and pored over their conclusions and recommendations. Both studies emphasized the need to address inclusion of ethnic/racial minorities as well as other marginalized subgroups. Our discussions on these reports helped us focus in on important issues as we developed AWM’s Diversity and Inclusion Statement. In creating the AWM statement, we used as a guide diversity statements from the American Meteorological Society, the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), and the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM). The overall format was based on the AWIS document which has an opening paragraph followed by a list of “guiding principles.” The final version of the opening paragraph of AWM’s new statement harkens back to that of the AWM Welcoming Environment Statement. Both start with a commitment to the kind of environment AWM aims to create and each end with a list of sub-populations that are marginalized in the mathematical world. But the messages of the two statements are different. The Welcoming Environment Statement emphasizes an environment free of harassment and/or discrimination for all AWM participants regardless of their different identities whereas the Diversity and Inclusion Statement celebrates and recognizes these different identities within the mathematical community. The motivation for the Diversity and Inclusion Statement was the very low numbers of ethnic and racial minorities among AWM award and prize winners. So it was extremely important to the committee that the new AWM diversity statement specifically called attention to historically underrepresented ethnic/racial groups. To achieve this, the AWM Diversity and Inclusion Statement includes an endorsement of the NSF’s goal of increasing “participation from underrepresented groups” in mathematics along with a link to NSF’s description of these groups. The committee also wanted to strongly convey that all mathematicians should care about “diversity.” To get this message across, we decided on the following sentence as part of the opening paragraph: Any type of underrepresentation is a problem for the entire mathematical community: it inevitably leads to missed opportunities and the loss of mathematical talent.

In crafting the guiding principles, the committee decided to focus on a number of themes. First, we wanted to reiterate AWM’s dedication to increasing the representation of underrepresented groups within AWM and in the wider mathematics community. The first and third principles directly address this: • The AWM is committed to promoting equal opportunity and equal treatment of women, and more broadly, all underrepresented minorities in the mathematical sciences. • The AWM is committed to actively encouraging the representation of underrepresented groups in all facets of the organization, including membership, awards, prizes, conference speakers, committee members, and leadership.

Second, we wanted to strike a balance between being as inclusive as possible and, at the same time, state clearly our commitment to programs that support women and

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

893

girls in mathematics. The second guiding principle reiterates the mission of AWM in a way that emphasizes this commitment: • The AWM is committed to creating, recognizing, publicizing, and advancing programs aimed at supporting and increasing the representation of women and girls in the mathematical sciences.

Viewing the guiding principles as a statement of AWM’s values, we used the fourth principle to reaffirm our support for a welcoming, inclusive, discrimination-free environment: • The AWM is committed to creating a welcoming, inclusive environment that is free of discrimination and harassment.

Finally, we felt it very important to proclaim that AWM, an organization promoting and supporting women and girls in math, embraced all self-identified women and, more generally, created a supportive environment for all gender identities. This is captured in the final guiding principle: • The AWM is committed to providing a supportive community for all self-identified cisor transgender women and, more generally, for non-binary or gender non-conforming individuals.

A full copy of AWM’s Diversity and Inclusion Statement can be found at the P&A webpage.

Future Challenges The issues the AWM P&A Committee has addressed over the years—and continues to address—are hard, complex, and ongoing. They often can’t be solved by creating a new policy or by issuing a statement, even though these steps are very, very important. Going forward, policies have to be maintained and updated. In addition, the P&A Committee needs to be constantly prepared in order to respond in a timely fashion to “events of interest.” In this section, three major issues that AWM will face and will likely need to be addressed by the P&A are highlighted. The first two are items that build on previous work described earlier in this article: updating and expanding AWM’s policies concerning sexual harassment and addressing diversity and inclusion issues that are still problematic for the AWM. The third issue is bullying on social media. Often called cyberbullying, this kind of bullying takes advantage of the rapid propagation of posts that quickly spread misinformation and hurtful attacks on individuals and organizations. Attacks against members of the mathematics community have come up repeatedly in the past few years. This issue is discussed in the final part of this section.

894

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Policies and Processes for Addressing Sexual Harassment Unfortunately, sexual harassment is still a problem in the academy, in general, and in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM), in particular. This is a stubborn problem that has recently gained a lot of attention in the larger society via the #MeToo movement. In 2018, the National Academy of Sciences issued its report Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018) making it abundantly clear that sexual harassment remains a significant problem for women in STEMM fields. It is important that as the environment evolves and new approaches are developed to address harassment that the AWM P&A Committee periodically revisits and updates the AWM Welcoming Environment Statement. More importantly, AWM needs to continue to explore ways of implementing a complaint process to accompany our Welcoming Environment/Anti-Harassment Policy. It might not be possible for a small organization to devote the resources to develop such a process but perhaps we could join with other societies to pool the financial and personnel resources necessary. JCW was involved when we first announced a policy in 2013. They are in a good position to bring together various societies to do this. As of June 12, 2020 the Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM (Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM, 2020) had 127 members including AMS, ASA, AWIS, AWM, Caucus for Women in Statistics, MAA, and SIAM. The Societies Consortium, which was launched in February 2019, aims to advance full participation and excellence in STEMM and prevent and respond to sexual and gender harassment in STEMM communities. AWM was an inaugural member and is currently part of the eight member Leadership Council for the Consortium. There is a plethora of information on their website some of which is only available to members via a login process. In May of 2020 the Consortium released a new resource “Roadmap Towards Excellence and Integrity in STEMM,” which provides a three-phase approach to supporting efforts to create a more inclusive STEMM field; the resource is intended for members of the Consortium. From the 2020 Work Plan Priorities of the Consortium “How to investigate incidents and conduct concerns” is a high priority of the Consortium as are a matrix regarding misconduct and traditional and alternative/restorative remedies and a society survey instrument for collecting data focusing on the type/frequency of harassment experienced by members and participants at events.” The Resources now available include a Model Ethics Conduct Guide, an Ethics Conduct Participant Guide, and a Model Investigation, Resolution, and Consequences Policy Guide. These model guides are very detailed and should be very helpful if AWM decides to pursue a complaint process. They include customizable policy statements to assist member societies implement their own policies. The Consortium also has model Meeting Policies for both face-to-face and virtual meetings.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

895

Some professional societies have been pursuing award and honorific revocation in the recent past. For example, in December of 2018, the National Academy of Sciences Council approved a Code of Conduct for NAS members, and a process for reviewing allegations that a member has violated the code (NASCode, 2018). In June 2019, the members of the National Academy of Sciences approved a Bylaw Amendment (NASBylaws, 2019) to permit rescinding membership for “the most egregious violations of a new Code of Conduct, including for proven cases of sexual harassment.” As of October 4, 2020, the handful of members of the National Academies who have been found guilty of sexual misconduct and have resigned from their home institutions are still members of the National Academies. Complaints have been filed but we do not know the outcome of those complaints. In a similar vein, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) adopted a fellow revocation policy on September 15, 2018. Starting on October 2018, AAAS fellows who have been proved to have violated professional ethics including sexual harassment may be stripped of the fellow designation (AAAS, 2018). As of October 4, 2020, none of the AAAS fellows who have been found guilty of sexual misconduct have been removed as AAAS fellows. The AWM P&A may wish to get involved in the call for invoking these policies and revoking honorifics for scientists found guilty of sexual misconduct. This could be in collaboration with the AWM Awards Committee, which is working on a Prize Revocation Policy as of the time of writing. It might also be appropriate to visit this problem together with other professional organizations in the context of the greater STEMM community.

Increasing Diversity and Inclusion Efforts Both the University of Michigan STEM Inclusion Study (Cech and Waidzunas, 2018) and the report from AWM’s own Inclusion Task Force came up with specific recommendations for how AWM can improve its inclusion efforts. But, these issues are not going to go away overnight. It is clear that AWM has a lot more to do on this front and the P&A can and should continue to play an important role in terms of timely responses to current events, developing long term policies, and gathering resources. During the writing of this article, protests began in response to systemic racism in the United States that came in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis. The P&A Committee was called to duty again to formulate the official AWM response in the form of the statement “Solidarity with the National Association of Mathematicians (6/1/20)” in which they announced that AWM stands “in solidarity with those protesting systemic racism in the United States, racism that includes police brutality and killing that disproportionately affects Black Americans” posted to various social media channels of AWM (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and our website). In addition, in order to take a small positive concrete step, Marie and the Social Media Committee posted a sequence

896

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

of biographies of Black women mathematicians on the AWM Facebook page. We tweeted shorter versions of the bios and linked to lengthier bios on the websites Mathematically Gifted and Black and Wikipedia. These bios were well received with over 1400 views each and the posts were shared and the tweets were retweeted by many people. Despite these statements of support and small positive steps, AWM still has serious issues in regards to diversity and inclusion. Representation of ethnic/racial minorities and other marginalized populations in AWM awards and honors remains very low. As mentioned earlier, AWM and the Awards Committee instituted new procedures aimed at addressing this issue. But AWM as an organization needs to remain vigilant in this regard and continue to monitor the representation of ethnic and racial (and perhaps, sexual) minorities on our committees and among the winners of our prizes, awards, and named lectures. What role should the P&A play in this effort? Are there natural policies that the P&A could develop to help here? One possibility, as suggested by Talitha Washington when she initially reached out to the P&A, is to create a Best Practices for Awards Policy along the lines of what AMS has adopted (AMSBestPractices, 2014). In developing such a policy, the P&A might also think of how best to vet award winners so as to avoid cancellations as happened with the 2021 Noether Lecture (see Castelvecchi 2020 and the AWM News item “Re: 2021 Noether Lecture” (AWMNoether, 2020)). Shortly after the statement “Solidarity with the National Association of Mathematicians (6/1/20)” was issued, AWM made an announcement that Andrea Bertozzi was to be the 2021 Noether lecturer. Immediately after the announcement there was a plethora of critical posts on social media because of Bertozzi’s work on predictive policing, which some say proliferates racial profiling. A mutual decision was made by AWM and Bertozzi to cancel the lecture. Another avenue for the P&A Committee to explore is the collection of resources for unconscious bias training along with a policy requiring some training along these lines for AWM leaders and committee members so that the organization as a whole can become more sensitive to inclusivity issues.

Cyberbullying According to the US government website stopbullying.gov, Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets. Cyberbullying can occur through SMS, Text, and apps, or online in social media, forums, or gaming where people can view, participate in, or share content. Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation. Some cyberbullying crosses the line into unlawful or criminal behavior.

There is no federal law prohibiting this sort of bullying, but individual states have enacted legislation; you can see if your own state has enacted legislation

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

897

at stopbullying.com. This sort of bullying existed before the web and before the internet became popular. In the late sixties and early seventies what we now call chat rooms were being developed at Xerox Parc in Palo Alto, California. The developers realized that they needed moderators for these virtual rooms after someone reported a virtual rape, that is, a sexually explicit encounter in the virtual room. In the past, AWM’s Facebook page has been bombarded by hateful comments after a contentious post. We can exclude some of the comments by creating a list of prohibited words. Our Facebook Engagement Policy is as follows. We, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM), will do our best to ensure that the posts on our page are in line with the mission of AWM, viewed in a broad sense. Our intention is to inform and to facilitate respectful interaction. We welcome comments and feedback but we reserve the right to remove content unrelated to the mission of the AWM, viewed in a broad sense. The views and opinions expressed in the comments that users submit are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Association for Women in Mathematics. User comments are not edited for accuracy or safety. However to ensure a positive experience for our community, we may report or remove content unrelated to the mission of the AWM or containing spam, profanity, or otherwise objectionable or prohibited material subject to the Facebook Code of Conduct and Terms of Use. We may also block posters of such content.

It is also possible to make a post to the Community section of our Facebook page. These posts must be approved by an administrator of our page before they appear in the Community section. Thus there is a moderator for these posts. In 2017 AWM President Ami Radunskaya requested that the P&A consider whether or not to issue a statement of support for a math educator who was the subject of cyberbullying. There was a second incident of a mathematician being cyberbullied in 2017. After articles that appeared in the online publication Campus Reform were picked up by Fox News, numerous hate messages appeared on social media. In that year P&A decided against a public statement but suggested that it might be wise to develop an anti-bullying framework that would help deal with similar situations in the future. This came up again in 2018 but the P&A did not have time to work on a policy. The 2018 P&A Report stated that: Responding to these attacks and supporting the victims often requires a very quick response and also care so that the AWM does not become a target for attacks as well (i.e., it might be necessary to close down or simply not allow comments for a Facebook posting). Although there were no incidents of this kind of bullying that came to the committee’s attention in 2018, it is likely to happen again. Developing a well-thought out process on how to address incidents in a timely manner is something for the AWM P&A Committee to consider doing.

The question of a Statement Opposing Cyberbullying did not come up in the 2019 annual P&A report. As of October 2020, P&A has not revisited this topic. We hope that there will be time to work on this in the future.

898

G. Letzter and M. A. Vitulli

Epilogue After reading this article, we hope the reader now has a better idea of what the AWM P&A has done in the past and what the committee might take up in the future. We shared many of the details of what we felt were the more important undertakings of the committee during our tenures to give the reader a better sense of what is involved in getting a significant new policy, statement, or program approved. The work of P&A is time-consuming and at times frustrating, but we both feel that we accomplished many important goals and we were glad we served on the AWM P&A. We hope we have inspired some of our readers to take on the crucial work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee as future members of the committee and leaders of the AWM.

References AAAS Revocation of Fellow Process. 2018. https://www.aaas.org/programs/fellows/revocationprocess Accessed 4 October 2010. Anti-Harassment Policy for AAS & Division Meetings & Activities (last updated October 2017) 2017. https://aas.org/policies/anti-harassment-policy-aas-division-meetings-activities. Accessed 09 April 2020. AAUP Sexual Harassment: Suggested Policy and Procedures for Handling Complaints. 1990. https://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/sexharass.htm Accessed 20 April 2020. AMS Prize Committees Best Practices. 2014. http://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/policystatements/best-practices-prize-committees. Accessed 4 October 2020. AWM Inaugural fellows chosen. 2018. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 65(1): 51. AWM Elects inaugural class of fellows. 2018. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 65(2): 193. AWM News Item Re: 2021 Noether Lecture. 2020. https://awm-math.org/re-2021-noetherlecture/. Accessed 4 October 2020. AWM Statement on Fairness in Testing. https://awm-math.org/policy-advocacy/policy-statements/ Accessed 14 April 2020. AWM Statement on Sexual Harassment. 2011. AWM Newsletter 41(5): 19. AWM Website. 1998. https://web.archive.org/web/20010405132549/http://awm-math.org/ announcements.html Accessed June 10, 2020. AWM Website 2010 https://web.archive.org/web/20101124024557/http://sites.google.com:80/ site/awmmath/ accessed June 10, 2020. Bryant, Robert. 2010. MSRI and the film Rites of Love and Math. https://web.archive.org/ web/20110808093811/http://www.msri.org/web/msri/news/Announcements/-/announce/239 accessed September 22, 2020. Castelvecchi, Davide. 2020. Mathematicians urge colleagues to boycott police work in wake of killings. Nature, June 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01874-9. accessed June 20, 2020. Ceci, Stephen J. and Wendy M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(8): 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108. accessed 16 April 2020. Cech, Erin and Tom Waidzunas. 2018. STEM Inclusion Study, Organization Report: AWM. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

The Crucial Work of the AWM Policy and Advocacy Committee

899

Donohue, Caitlin. 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20110615055807/http://www.sfbg.com/ sexsf/2010/12/01/rites-nude-math-professors-and-berkeley Accessed September 25, 2020. Equal Right Advocates Website. 2011. https://www.equalrights.org Accessed September 25, 2020. Greenwald, Sarah. 2011. Rites of Love and Math: The controversy. AWM Newsletter 41(3): 9. Haas, Ruth. 2020. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 50(1): 1–2. JCW Welcoming Environment Website. https://jcwmath.wordpress.com/resources/welcomingenvironment-and-issues-surrounding-harassment/ Accessed 21 April 2020. Holley, Peter. 2018. The latest tools for sexual assault victims: Smartphone apps and software. The Washington Post, September 27. Kelley, Victoria, Kirsten Morris, and Katie Sipes. 2015. AWM Student Chapters: AWM goes to MathFest . . . and Capitol Hill! AWM Newsletter 45(6): 19. Lauter, Kristin. 2015. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 45(4): 1–4. MSRI web page on Women in Mathematics. https://www.msri.org/web/msri/about-msri/womenin-mathematics Accessed 21 April 2020. Morris, Vernon and Talitha Washington. 2018. The role of professional societies in STEM diversity. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 65(2): 149–155. https://doi.org/10. 1090/noti1642 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994. NAS Code of Conduct. 2018. http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/code-of-conduct/ Accessed 4 October 2020. NAS Members Approve a Bylaw Amendment to Permit Rescinding Membership. 2019. http:// www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/NAS-bylaws-amendment-approved_060319. html Accessed 4 October 2020. Ness, Carol. 2010. The true language of love? It’s math says Berkeley professor Edward Frenkel, whose steamy new film touches a nerve. Berkeley News November 30. https://news.berkeley. edu/2010/11/30/rites/ Accessed 16 April 2020. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2012. Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541511.pdf Accessed 16 April 2020. Radunskaya, Ami. 2018. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 48(1): 1–3. Rehmeyer, Julie. 2011. Review of Rites of Love and Math. AWM Newsletter 41(3): 6–9. Saxe, Karen and Talitha Washington. 2016. AWM visits to Capitol Hill. AWM Newsletter 46(4): 8–9. Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM Website. https://societiesconsortium.com/ Accessed 16 April 2020. Spencer, S. J., C. M. Steele, and D. Quinn. 1999. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 4–28. Sexual Harassment in STEM Archive on the Women in Math Project Website 1997. https://pages. uoregon.edu/wmnmath/Publications/Bibliographies/harassment.html Accessed 23 April 2020.

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project Betty Mayfield

ADVANCE, AWIS, and AWARDS How do we recognize professional achievement? How do we acknowledge outstanding scholarship, service, writing, and teaching in mathematics? Professional associations regularly give a variety of prizes and awards to mathematicians, which bring with them prestige and recognition. Do women in mathematics get their fair share of those awards? If not, what are the issues involved, and what can be done? For the past 20 years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program has provided funding for institutions of higher learning and the broader STEM community to “increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers” (NSF, 2020a). In 2009 NSF awarded the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) a three-year ADVANCE grant to examine the rates at which women scientists were recognized by their disciplinary societies with prizes and awards, and to help those societies develop more equitable policies and procedures in the prize selection process, which could in turn lead to more diversity in nominations and awards. This project, Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (AWARDS), ultimately involved 18 professional societies, including four in the mathematical sciences (NSF, 2012).

B. Mayfield () Hood College, Frederick, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_75

901

902

B. Mayfield

How Do Societies Choose Award Winners? Professional societies have many different kinds of awards and different processes for choosing winners. But as Phoebe Leboy, Principal Investigator for the AWARDS Project, noted at the beginning of the AWARDS project (Leboy, 2010, p. 1), for virtually all awards, for all societies, the same general system is in place: “[T]here is a committee constituted to select the recipient of each award, i.e. one committee per award. These committees tend to operate without any guidance other than that specified by the society’s conflict of interest regulations, procedural rules, and the specific criteria for each award.” The committee collects nominations, discusses and deliberates, and chooses a winner. Prize and award committees may meet in person—at a national mathematics conference, for example—but often meet electronically, by email, conference call, or software like Webex or Zoom. Some examples: The Carl B. Allendoerfer Award of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) is made each year to authors of expository articles published in Mathematics Magazine. Every article appearing in the Magazine during the previous year is automatically under consideration for the award; there is no need for further nominations. A winning article (or, at most, two) is chosen by the four appointed members of the Committee on Carl B. Allendoerfer Awards; the editor of Mathematics Magazine serves as a consultant to the committee (MAA, 2020a). The American Mathematical Society’s (AMS) Cole Prize in Number Theory is given every three years, recognizing “a notable research work in number theory that has appeared in the last six years . . . in a recognized, peer-reviewed venue” (AMS, 2020a). Nominations are solicited on the prize’s webpage and may be submitted in paper or online. Nominators must submit a letter of nomination, a bibliographic citation, and a description of why the work is important. A winner is chosen by the AMS Cole Prize in Number Theory Committee. The winner of the annual Deming Lecturer Award of the American Statistical Association (ASA) delivers the Deming Lecture at the Joint Statistical Meetings the year after the award is given. The award honors “outstanding leadership in promoting the discipline of statistics, including remarkable contributions to broad areas of theoretical and applied statistics, especially in performance measurement systems” (ASA, 2020b). Nominators fill out a form online, providing a letter of nomination, a curriculum vitae (an academic résumé, sometimes shortened to “vita”) and a brief biographical sketch of the nominee, and two letters of support. The decision is made by the nine-member Deming Lectureship Committee, supplemented by liaisons to the ASA Awards Council and to the ASA staff. The George Pólya Prize in Applied Combinatorics is awarded every four years by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to an individual “for significant contributions to applications of combinatorics. The prize is broadly intended to recognize specific recent work” (SIAM, 2020a). Nominators submit, via the SIAM website, a letter of recommendation, the candidate’s vita, and two or three letters of support from experts in the field. (There is also a link where one may

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

903

contact the prize committee with questions or comments.) The winner is chosen by a five-member selection committee.

The Need for the AWARDS Project An earlier project, then called Recognition of the Achievements of Women in Science, Medicine, and Engineering (RAISE, 2020), began collecting data in 2006 on the numbers of women who received awards from disciplinary societies in those fields, by “scraping” and analyzing awards data from the websites of professional scientific societies. They published their results and analysis on their own website and in the publications of those societies: see, e.g., Lincoln et al. (2009). Those results showed that women were consistently underrepresented in their disciplinary societies’ prizes and awards. For the mathematical sciences the data showed that, for the years 2001–2010, fewer than 10% of scholarly (research) awards, but 20% of service awards, and 40% of teaching awards, were granted to women (Lincoln et al., 2012). As a comparison, the fall 2005 CBMS survey found, in the middle of the decade in question, the proportion of women holding tenured positions in mathematics departments was approximately 9% in PhD-granting institutions (AMS Groups I, II, and III) and 18% overall (Lutzer et al., 2007). Further analysis (Popejoy and Leboy, 2012a) breaks down the numbers of awards given by different mathematics societies during that time period. Figure 1 shows the percent of scholarly awards given to women by the four mathematics societies represented in the AWARDS project. Here, the authors have assigned each society a possible “target” percentage of female award winners by looking at the proportion of female faculty members at appropriate types of institutions, which would suggest eligibility for scholarly recognition. Scholarly awards from AMS, ASA, and SIAM, for instance, generally go to established scholars for outstanding research; therefore their targets are taken from percentages of tenured female faculty members. AMS Group I consists of the 50 or so top-ranked mathematics departments in (public and private) PhD-granting institutions; together, Groups I, II, and III comprise all PhDgranting institutions. (Either could be considered a target demographic for AMS.) Since the MAA’s scholarly awards include many writing prizes, and can be given to early-career faculty, its pool of possible award winners is therefore wider than just tenured faculty, and just PhD-granting institutions. We note that, except for ASA, all societies fall short of the possible goals assigned to them. Figure 2 shows a similar analysis for service awards. Since service awards are generally given to experienced, long-serving faculty, here the target demographic for the MAA, as for the other societies, consists of tenured female faculty. The graph shows that, except for SIAM, women are overrepresented in the numbers of service awards they receive, in marked contrast to scholarly awards. This phenomenon, known as “gender stratification,” is described in Kessel (2015). At around the same time as the beginning of the RAISE project, AWM leaders began calling attention to the difficulties involved in recognizing deserving women

904

B. Mayfield

30%

% Female Faculty, Math Depts, all 4-year colleges and universies, 2005 (MAA Target)

% Female Scholarly Award Winners

25%

20%

% Tenured Female Faculty by Department, 2005:

15%

Stascs PhD-granng (ASA target) Applied Math (SIAM target)

10%

All Mathemacs PhD-granng

5%

AMS Group I (AMS target)

0% AMS

SIAM

ASA

MAA

Fig. 1 Percentages of female scholarly award winners vs. possible target values, 2001–2010. (This figure is redrawn from Figs. 2 and 3 of Popejoy and Leboy (2012a), with additional data from the 2005 CBMS survey report) 35%

% tenured female faculty by department, 2005:

% Female Service Award Winners

30%

25%

20%

math: All 4-year colleges and universities (MAA Target)

15%

statistics PhD-granting (ASA target) applied math (SIAM target)

10%

all mathematics PhD-granting

AMS Group I (AMS target)

5%

0% AMS

SIAM

ASA

MAA

Fig. 2 Percentages of female service award winners vs. possible target values, 2001–2010. (This graph is adapted from Figure 5 of Popejoy and Leboy (2012a), also supplemented by data from the 2005 CBMS survey report)

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

905

in mathematics for their outstanding scholarly achievement. President Barbara Keyfitz, in the July–August 2006 AWM Newsletter, pointed to the difficulty of ensuring that women are named to awards committees (Keyfitz, 2006). Stephanie Alexander, Jean Taylor, and Karen Uhlenbeck followed up with a letter to the editor two months later, expanding on the problems that can occur even if women are appointed to prize committees: As women who have served on committees, we have observed that it is quite easy for other members of the committee to deny the quality of a woman mathematician and quickly dismiss her from the discussion. A single outspoken committee member bent against women can seriously hinder the possibilities of awarding a woman an honor that isn’t shared by five or six men as well. Even well-intentioned colleagues often don’t realize how their unconscious small assumptions accumulate to become heavy drags on women mathematicians. This can affect both the writing and the interpretation of letters of nomination, as well as committee discussions. Even women mathematicians may fall within this group. (Alexander et al., 2006)

They made several suggestions for AWM to help address their concerns, including educating colleagues about writing strong letters of nomination, condemning openly sexist statements, learning to recognize our own subtle biases—and maybe even creating more awards, to increase the opportunities for recognition. The AWARDS Project leadership recognized the crucial role played by societies’ awards committees, and how little we knew about them (Leboy, 2010, p. 3): “The lack of information available on the processes and dynamics involved in selection committees for awards validates the importance of this project.” Hence, the AWARDS project would focus on helping societies identify awards committees’ practices that may lead to inequities and develop fair and impartial processes for prizes and awards.

Participation of Professional Societies AWIS hoped to include a broad range of sciences in this project—physical, biological, social. And the AWM leadership wanted to make sure that the mathematical sciences were well-represented in that group (Benkart, 2011). ThenExecutive Director Maeve McCarthy brought together the executive directors of four professional associations representing overlapping but distinct constituencies: the American Mathematical Society, American Statistical Association, Mathematical Association of America, and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. After consulting with their boards, each of those associations agreed to participate and, along with AWM, submitted a letter of support for the grant. Thus the seven “pioneer” societies in the AWARDS project were (AWIS, 2014): • • • •

ACS: American Chemical Society AGU: American Geophysical Union AMS: American Mathematical Society ASA: American Statistical Association

906

B. Mayfield

• MAA: Mathematical Association of America • SfN: Society for Neuroscience • SIAM: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Each of those societies assembled a representative Action Group, whose members participated in two workshops in the Washington, DC, area led by AWIS, and then spearheaded further study and action in their own societies. The Action Groups in the mathematical sciences, and the participants’ affiliations at the time, were: American Mathematical Society • Georgia Benkart, University of Wisconsin, AMS Associate Secretary, AWM President • Charles Epstein, University of Pennsylvania, AMS Committee on the Profession (CoProf) • Patricia Hersh, North Carolina State University, AMS Prize Oversight Subcommittee of CoProf • Frank Morgan, Williams College, AMS Vice President. American Statistical Society • • • • •

Pam Craven, ASA Executive Secretary Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, RAND Corporation Mary Gray, American University, former AWM President Mari Palta, University of Wisconsin Ron Wasserstein, ASA Executive Director. Mathematical Association of America

• Frank Farris, Santa Clara University, Chair of MAA Council on Publications • Patricia Hale, California State Polytechnic University, Chair of MAA Committee on the Participation of Women • Betty Mayfield, Hood College, MAA First Vice President 2008–2010 • Martha Siegel, Towson University, MAA Secretary • Francis Su, Harvey Mudd College, MAA First Vice President. 2010–2012 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics • • • •

Pam Cook, University of Delaware, SIAM Secretary James Crowley, SIAM Executive Director Suzanne Lenhart, University of Tennessee, former AWM President Juan Meza, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, SIAM Board of Trustees.

The Association for Women in Mathematics was not an official “pioneer society” for the project because most of its prizes and awards were already designated for women. (The AWARDS project focused solely on gender-neutral prizes and awards.) AWM was instead named a “collaborator” and helped to coordinate the inclusion of the mathematical sciences in the project: they understood the mathematical culture and the part played by each of the different professional societies, and they had many contacts within those societies. In addition to the

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

907

Action Group members with obvious ties to AWM, the Association was formally represented on the project by former president Cathy Kessel and by Maura Mast, AWM clerk, 2004–2010, and former chair of the Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences (JCW).1

The Workshops The AWIS team led two workshops for participating professional societies—one in June 2010 and a follow-up in May 2012. At the June 2010 meeting, Action Groups of the seven pioneer societies convened to get to know each other and the landscape of professional prizes and awards. They drew upon the expertise of AWIS AWARDS leadership and of the Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI) of the University of Wisconsin– Madison (2020) to learn about issues and possible solutions. After reviewing survey benchmark data from each society and discussing the significance and methods of awarding recognition, workshop leaders ran sessions on topics such as the role of implicit bias and stereotype threat in the awards process, and ways to mitigate them—developing an excellent and diverse pool of nominees, running an effective awards committee, and working to overcome the influence of unconscious bias. Action Groups formulated preliminary goals and set off for home to discuss and plan. Over the next two years, the societies’ Action Groups continued to work with their colleagues to firm up and implement their plans. They maintained contact with AWIS and with the other societies via conference calls, email, and a dedicated website. AWIS AWARDS leaders publicized the work of the group in peer-reviewed articles (Lincoln et al., 2011, 2012; Popejoy and Leboy, 2012a) and developed a series of webcasts, posted on their website, designed to “educate disciplinary society members (specifically awards selection committees) about the importance of awards and the effects of implicit bias on the process of selecting scholarly award winners” (AWIS, 2011). AWIS leaders Alice Popejoy and Phoebe Leboy gave a talk at the 2012 Joint Mathematics Meetings in Boston about the project (Popejoy and Leboy, 2012b). The May 2012 workshop included the participation of eleven more professional societies, representing astronomy, economics, physics, psychology, and the biological sciences. The new Action Groups spent an afternoon in an orientation session

1 The Joint Committee, like AWM, was founded in 1971, first as an AMS committee and later as a collaborative group representing nine professional societies—the five AWARDS societies listed here, plus the American Mathematical Association of two-Year Colleges, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, National Association of Mathematicians, and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. JCW facilitates communication among the nine societies and helps to disseminate information about best practices for creating and enhancing opportunities for women in the mathematical sciences (JCW, 2020).

908

B. Mayfield

on AWARDS data, implicit bias, and characteristics of objective selection processes, while the representatives of the pioneer societies met to discuss their progress. Then all 18 societies met to share updates, brainstorm strategies for increasing the number of women in award nominee pools, and finalize plans for the coming year.

Outcomes: The Societies Respond There are many ways in which professional societies can work to increase the numbers of women (and other underrepresented groups) in the awards process; some of them are detailed in the AWIS Best Practices for the Awards Process webpages (AWIS, 2020). Each of the four mathematical societies has implemented strategies based on those practices. In fact, AWM itself has used the AWIS guidelines in developing ways to increase the numbers of awards given to women of color. President Ruth Haas describes advice now given to selection committees: • Learn to recognize (and thus avoid) unconscious biases. • Pay attention to language, as it can subtly influence who is nominated and how nominations are crafted. • Create clear, consistent, and transparent evaluation processes. (Haas, 2020)

Specific strategies now employed by the four professional mathematical societies follow.

Create an Excellent and Diverse Pool of Nominees This strategy focuses on increasing awareness of prizes and awards, on casting a wider net for nominations, on using care in the language associated with awards, and on encouraging society members to nominate deserving colleagues.

Publicize Awards Widely and Actively Seek Diverse Nominations As a first step, one of the societies’ goals was to increase the visibility of awards, to celebrate colleagues’ achievements in public ways. For example, an association might highlight prize and award winners more prominently on its website and in its publications. All four of the associations in the mathematical sciences, plus AWM, have created attractive, informative web pages for their awards. For instance, the AMS Prizes and Awards webpage (AMS, 2020b) features color photographs of award

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

909

winners and a description of their work. The Society states, The AMS is pleased to recognize individuals and programs for their contributions to the mathematical sciences and to the mathematics community. We recognize achievement and diversity at all levels, and welcome nominations for these AMS and joint prizes, awards, and fellowships.

There are lists of all prizes and awards and, for each of them, a link to a complete award description, a list of past winners, and nomination information, including a link for online nomination. Both the MAA and SIAM have created posters (MAA, 2019; SIAM, 2019) listing their awards and their associated deadlines, and send them out every year to department chairs, committee members, and others. Societies are encouraged to solicit nominations from AWM, the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM), and the Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). SIAM’s Prize Canvassing Committee aims to “cause nominations to be made of eligible candidates for SIAM Major Prizes, especially from groups traditionally underrepresented in the list of prize nominations and recipients” (SIAM, 2020b). As noted above, the societies all list their prizes and awards and solicit nominations via their websites. Members of the AWIS AWARDS Team and Action Group members have published articles about the AWARDS project and its goals in their professional publications and elsewhere; see Gray and Ghosh-Dastidar (2010); Mayfield and Su (2012); Popejoy et al. (2011), and Su (2014).

Use Gender-Neutral Language Societies are encouraged to look carefully at the language used to describe awards and solicit nominations, and in particular to avoid using words with masculine associations. If a society’s awards are named for famous male mathematicians, women may be less likely to see themselves as appropriate or deserving nominees. In prize descriptions, words like strong, independent, action-oriented, or risk-taking are often associated with male leadership traits (Carnes et al., 2005, p. 688). The descriptions of prizes and awards and the materials used to publicize them should strive, then, to use gender-neutral words and phrases. Similarly, those writing letters of nomination or recommendation for an award are also cautioned to avoid gendered language in describing a nominee (Schmader et al., 2007).

Consider Creating New Awards The creation of new awards, for early-career faculty or for research into emerging areas of mathematics, may encourage more—and different—nominations (Popejoy and Leboy, 2012a). Setting a good example, in 2013 AWM announced four new research prizes for early-career women in mathematics, in analysis, algebra/number

910

B. Mayfield

theory, geometry/topology, and applied mathematics. As President Ruth Charney noted, Early-career prizes . . . can significantly affect the career trajectory of recipients. Receiving such a prize may lead to promotions, job offers, speaking invitations, and new collaborations. In addition, prizes beget prizes. Highlighting outstanding work by young women increases their chances of being nominated for major prizes in the future. Thus, the new AWM prizes will serve both to celebrate the increasing contributions of women to mathematical research and to identify potential nominees for future prizes. (Charney, 2013)

Provide Explicit Guidelines for Selection Committees All four societies have developed guidelines for their awards selection committees, to preserve and share what they learned by participating in the AWARDS project:

AMS The AMS representatives to the 2010 workshop created a set of recommendations for AMS prizes, including forming a new prize oversight committee, developing ways to encourage more nominations, and establishing good award committee practices, and forwarded them to the AMS Committee on the Profession (CoProf). After a year of study, CoProf established a subcommittee on prize oversight; that subcommittee developed a set of guidelines which became the AMS Prize Committee Best Practices (AMS, 2014), modeled after a similar document of the American Chemical Society. The guidelines were endorsed by CoProf in 2013 and by the AMS Council in January 2014. In 2019, the subcommittee became the AMS Prize Oversight Committee. The best practices document lists suggested procedures to “maximize fairness of the selection process,” such as: • Identify and agree upon selection criteria prior to (evaluating and) deliberating about specific candidates. • Consider each nominee carefully and apply consistent criteria. • Make a personal list of top candidates before hearing other committee members’ recommendations. • Strive to use inclusive methods in creating short lists. These Best Practices also include the Society’s existing Conflict of Interest Policy (AMS, 2007).

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

911

ASA One of the highest honors bestowed by the American Statistical Association is that of ASA Fellow. The Association has adopted and posted on its website (ASA, 2020a) a comprehensive description of this honor, including tips for nominators, a conflict of interest policy, and a detailed rubric describing how candidates will be evaluated.

MAA The Board of Governors of the Mathematical Association of America approved Guidelines for MAA Selection Committees: Avoiding Implicit Bias in August 2012 upon the recommendation of the AWARDS Action Group and the MAA Council on Prizes and Awards; it was updated and revised in 2018 (MAA, 2018). This document is intended to be used by awards committees, but also by committees who choose invited speakers for meetings, or members of task forces, or candidates for office. It is organized under the following topics: • • • •

Implicit bias Composing diverse committees Cultivating nominations Selecting recipients.

The MAA Guidelines suggest that selection committees periodically review the name and the description of each award, and to discuss practices for building a diverse and highly-qualified pool of nominees. Discussion of this document, and specifically of mitigating the effects of unconscious bias, is included in the orientation session for new committee chairs.

SIAM The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics provides several helpful documents for prize selection committees on its Policies and Guidelines page under Prizes and Recognition (SIAM, 2020c), all approved by the SIAM Board of Trustees: • SIAM Prize Policy • Guidelines on SIAM Prize and Recognition Committee Formation and Processes (partially adapted from the MAA Guidelines) • Guidelines for Prize Committees • Guidelines for Conflict of Interest for Prize Selection Committees • Selection Committee Procedures and Roles. The guidelines include a Statement on Inclusiveness and suggestions for appointing diverse selection committees, generating a large pool of nominees, and employ-

912

B. Mayfield

ing inclusive, fair selection criteria. Committees are encouraged to help promote prizes and solicit nominations, especially among underrepresented groups. It states clearly that “SIAM wishes to ensure a welcoming environment in all its activities, including prize selection committees.”

The Question of Double-Blind Reviewing: The Mathematical Association of America Because of the MAA’s long history of promoting excellence in expository mathematics, many of the Association’s most prestigious prizes are writing awards, often for articles which have appeared in MAA journals (MAA, 2020b). As the MAA Action Group examined the number of women who had won those awards, they began to look at the rate at which women authors were published in the top three peer-reviewed MAA journals. After all, women cannot win prizes if their articles are not published in the first place. For the period 2005–2009, an examination of the (presumed) gender of authors showed that only 9% of authors in the American Mathematical Monthly, 17% in Mathematics Magazine, and 11% in the College Math Journal were female, while approximately 25% of MAA members were female (Mayfield and Su, 2012). The connection between gender and one’s selection for a job, or for a positive tenure review, for instance, has long been known and is often cited as an example of implicit (or unconscious) bias. (See the landmark study by Steinpreis et al. 1999.) That analysis has been extended to examine the impact of gender on an author’s chances of being published in an academic journal, with some studies suggesting that the practice of double-blind peer review—the practice in which neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other’s identity—can increase the number of articles published by female authors (Budden et al., 2007). To eliminate the possibility, or the appearance, of gender bias, and to encourage more women to submit papers to MAA journals, the Action Group proposed, and in August 2012 the MAA Board of Governors approved, a plan under which all MAA print journals would move toward double-blind, or doubly-masked, review. This new policy was endorsed by the Association’s Council on Publications and Communications and the Committee on Participation of Women and now appears in the Guidelines for Authors for all three of the journals listed above. We note that ASA now also uses double-blind reviewing for five of its six journals, and gives authors the option of using it for submission to the Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics.

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

913

Are We Making Progress? It has been almost 10 years since the end of the AWARDS project—years in which professional societies have become more aware of the issue of bias in the awards process and have put policies in place designed to mitigate it. Has that effort made a difference? Heather Metcalf, Chief Research Officer for AWIS, has analyzed some early data (AWIS, 2012, 2015; Metcalf, 2015), looking at the rates at which women are awarded scholarly, teaching, and service awards in mathematics, compared to the number of female tenure-track faculty, in the years before and after the AWARDS project. The results are summarized in Fig. 3. We see from the graph that, over the entire time period from 1991 to 2015, the percentage of prizes and awards won by women, for scholarship and for teaching and service, has grown steadily. But the proportion of female tenure-track faculty—those presumably eligible for awards—has also grown. It is not clear if the increase in scholarly awards in particular is due to the use of more equitable awards committee practices, or to the presence of a larger pool of tenured women

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1991-2000 % Female Scholarly Award Winners

2001-2010 % Female Teaching/Service Award Winners

2011-2015 % Female Tenure-track Faculty

Fig. 3 Percentages of female award winners vs. possible target values. This graph shows the percentages of scholarly and teaching/service awards given to women, vs. the number of tenuretrack female faculty, in three periods of time roughly before and after the AWARDS project. The percentages of tenure-track faculty represent both tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in mathematics departments at four-year colleges and universities at the beginning of each decade. (Redrawn from a 2015 AWIS Factsheet)

914

B. Mayfield

in mathematics from whom to choose. And women are still underrepresented in scholarly prizes and awards and overrepresented in awards for teaching and service. As for the effects of double-blind reviewing, they will take longer to manifest themselves: articles must be written, then submitted, published, and finally deemed worthy of an award. However, a quick look at one MAA journal, the American Mathematical Monthly, shows that, for the calendar year 2019, approximately 12% of the authors of mathematical articles appearing in the journal were women, an increase from an average of 9% in the five years before the AWARDS project. Again, this increase could be attributed to any number of demographic changes, and its effect on prizes and awards has yet to be determined. Metcalf cautions that we must maintain vigilance in order to sustain systemic change. Her research shows that, in the year following an intentional intervention effort, the numbers of awards for women may increase, but unless those efforts are sustained, the numbers quickly decrease to previous levels (Metcalf, 2015, p. 28). Professional societies must continue to educate and inform new awards committee chairs, review and update their Best Practices guidelines, and keep a spotlight focused on policies that may help to foster diversity in their prizes and awards. The practices developed and employed by the four mathematics societies to mitigate bias and create a more level playing field should, of course, foster diversity among awards nominees and recipients in other areas, such as race and ethnicity. While the focus of the ADVANCE program is on gender, NSF has also pointed out that, for at least the past 25 years when it has collected data, “persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minority groups—blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska Natives—are underrepresented in science and engineering (S&E). That is, their representation in S&E education and S&E employment is smaller than their representation in the US population” (NSF, 2019) and is committed to broadening their participation in STEM (NSF, 2020b). AWM has long been a champion of inclusivity and diversity in the mathematics community, as expressed in its 2018 Statement on Diversity and Inclusion. As the statement says, “Any type of underrepresentation is a problem for the entire mathematical community; it inevitably leads to missed opportunities and the loss of mathematical talent” (AWM, 2018). As a sign of its commitment to recognizing those who value diversity and work for a more just society, the AWM Executive Committee has recently announced the creation of the Mary and Alfie Gray Award for Social Justice, to reward “the application of the mathematical sciences to . . . promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity” (AWM, 2020). AWM was instrumental in facilitating and encouraging the participation of mathematicians and mathematics societies in the AWARDS project. It can continue to play an important role as a partner in this ongoing process by serving as a resource and a role model, by fostering collaboration among the societies, by helping to collect and disseminate data, by educating our colleagues about unintended bias and its effects, and by pushing all of us to broaden our understanding of diversity and inclusion.

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

915

Acknowledgments Many thanks to society representatives and program participants, especially AWM Presidents Benkart, Gray, Kessel, and Lenhart, for delving into their files and their memories to assist on this project.

References Alexander, Stephanie, Karen Uhlenbeck, and Jean Taylor. 2006. Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter 36(6):5. American Mathematical Society. 2007. Guidelines on conflict of interest for AMS prize selection committees. http://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/policy-statements/conflict-ofinterest-prizes. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. American Mathematical Society. 2014. Prize committee best practices. http://www.ams.org/aboutus/governance/policy-statements/best-practices-prize-committees. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. American Mathematical Society. 2020a. Cole Prize in Number Theory. https://www.ams.org/ prizes-awards/paview.cgi?parent_id=15. Accessed 20 Apr 2020. American Mathematical Society. 2020b. Prizes and awards. https://www.ams.org/prizes-awards/ palist.cgi. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. American Statistical Society. 2020a. ASA Fellows. https://www.amstat.org/ASA/Your-Career/ Awards/ASA-Fellows.aspx?hkey=273df10d-5f50-4a5f-bd4c-0d24b043cf46. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. American Statistical Society. 2020b. Deming Lecturer Award. https://www.amstat.org/ASA/YourCareer/Awards/Deming-Lecturer-Award.aspx. Accessed 20 Apr 2020. Association for Women in Mathematics. 2018. Statement on diversity and inclusion. https://awmmath.org/policy-advocacy/policy-statements/. Accessed 7 Aug 2020. Association for Women in Mathematics. 2020. Help fund the Mary and Alfie Gray Award. AWM e-Communication August 2020. Association for Women in Science. 2011. AWARDS webcasts. https://awis.site-ym.com/page/ Awards_webcasts. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Association for Women in Science. 2012. AWARDS factsheet. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/ acsorg/funding/awards/national/awards-fact-sheet-august-2012.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Association for Women in Science. 2014. AWARDS & recognition. https://awis.site-ym.com/page/ Awards_Recognition/AWARDS--Recognition.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Association for Women in Science. 2015. Improving recognition & advancement through awards equity. AWIS AWARDS Series factsheet #2. https://cdn.ymaws.com/awis.site-ym.com/ resource/resmgr/Fact_Sheets/AWIS_Fact_Sheet_AWARDS_2015.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Association for Women in Science. 2020. Best practices for the awards process. https://awis.siteym.com/page/Awards_Recs. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Benkart, Georgia. 2011. President’s report: Increasing AWM’s visibility and activity inside and outside the mathematical community. AWM Newsletter 41(1):7. Budden, Amber E., Tom Tregenza, Lonnie W. Aarssen, Juia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, and Christopher J. Lortie. 2007. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 23(1):4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07. 008. Carnes, Molly, Stacie Geller, Eve Fine, Jennifer Sheridan, and Jo Handelsman. 2005. NIH Director’s Pioneer Awards: Could the selection process be biased against women? Journal of Women’s Health 14(8):684–691. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684. Charney, Ruth. 2013. AWM institutes new research prizes for early-career women. Notices of the AMS 60(1):89–90. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti939. Gray, Mary and Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar. 2010. Awards for women fall short. AmStat News 1 Oct 2010. https://cdn.ymaws.com/awis.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/imported/ASA %20AmStat%20News%20Oct%201%202010.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

916

B. Mayfield

Haas, Ruth. 2020. President’s report. AWM Newsletter 50(1):1–2. Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences. 2020. JCW-Math. https://jcwmath. wordpress.com/. Accessed 20 Apr 2020. Kessel, Cathy. 2015. Women in mathematics: Change, inertia, stratification, segregation. In Advancing women in science: An international perspective, eds. W. Pearson, Jr. et al., 173– 190. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Keyfitz, Barbara. 2006. President’s report: AWM and world affairs. AWM Newsletter 36(4):1–4. Leboy, Phoebe. 2010. The AWARDS project: Background on award committee dynamics. Handout for participants of June 2010 AWARDS workshop. Lincoln, Anne, Stephanie Pincus, and Vanessa Schick. 2009. Evaluating science or evaluating gender? The Back Page, APS News 18(6):8. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200906/ backpage.cfm. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Lincoln, Anne, Stephanie Pincus, and Phoebe S. Leboy. 2011. Scholars’ awards go mainly to men. Correspondence. Nature 469: 472. Lincoln, Anne E., Stephanie Pincus, Janet Bandows Koster, and Phoebe S. Leboy. 2012. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science 42(2): 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830. Lutzer, David J., Stephen B. Rodi, Ellen E. Kirkman, and James W. Maxwell. 2007. Statistical Abstract of Undergraduate Programs in the Mathematical Sciences in the United States: Fall 2005 CBMS Survey. Providence: American Mathematical Society. http://www.ams.org/ profession/data/cbms-survey/cbms2005. Accessed 13 May 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2018. Guidelines for MAA selection committees: Avoiding implicit bias. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ABOUTMAA/ AvoidingImplicitBias_revisionMarch2018.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2019. Nominations open for MAA awards, prizes, and lecturers. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/awards/2019Award_deadlines_poster. pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Mathematical Association of America. 2020a. Carl B. Allendoerfer Awards. https://www.maa. org/programs-and-communities/member-communities/maa-awards/writing-awards/carl-ballendoerfer-awards. Mathematical Association of America. 2020b. Writing awards. https://www.maa.org/programsand-communities/member-communities/maa-awards/writing-awards. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Mayfield, Betty and Francis Edward Su. 2012. The AWARDS project: Promoting good practices in award selection. MAA Focus 32(5): 18–19. http://digital.ipcprintservices.com/publication/? m=7656&i=130875&p=18. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Metcalf, Heather. 2015. Improving recognition through awards: How to mitigate bias in awards. Insight into Diversity September 2015. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/improvingrecognition-through-awards-how-to-mitigate-bias-in-awards/. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. National Science Foundation. 2012. Partnerships for Adaptation, Implementation, and Dissemination (PAID): Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (AWARDS). Award Abstract #0930073. https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ ID=0930073. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. National Science Foundation|National Center for Science and Enginering Statistics. 2019. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/ nsf19304/digest/about-this-report. Accessed 7 Aug 2020. National Science Foundation. 2020a. ADVANCE at a glance. https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/ advance/. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. National Science Foundation. 2020b. Broadening participation. https://www.nsf.gov/od/ broadeningparticipation/bp.jsp. Accessed 7 Aug 2020. Popejoy, Alice, Phoebe S. Leboy, Jim Crowley, and Pam Cook. 2011. Investigating the gender gap in SIAM prizes. SIAM News 44(10). https://archive.siam.org/news/news.php?id=1937. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

Recognition for Professional Achievement: AWM and the AWIS AWARDS Project

917

Popejoy, Alice B. and Phoebe S. Leboy. 2012a. Is math still just a man’s world? Journal of Mathematics and Systems Science 2: 292–298. https://www.awis.org/wp-content/uploads/ JMSS-is-math-still-a-mans-world.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Popejoy, Alice B. and Phoebe S. Leboy. 2012b. Is STEM still just a man’s world? Awards and prizes for research in disciplinary societies go mainly to men, despite growth in women’s participation. In Program of the 2012 Joint Mathematics Meetings, Boston, Massachusetts, 4– 7 January 2012. http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/amsmtgs/2138_abstracts/1077-00-1439. pdf. Accessed 28 Jul 2020. The RAISE Project. 2020. Recognizing the Achievements of Scholars in Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, Mathematics, and Medicine. http://www.raiseproject.org/index.php. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Schmader, Toni, Jessica Whitehead, and Vicki H. Wysocki. 2007. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57(7-8): 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 2019. Call for prize nominations. https://archive. siam.org/prizes/pdf/poster_19.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 2020a. George Pólya Prize in Applied Combinatorics. https://www.siam.org/prizes-recognition/major-prizes-lectures/detail/georgepolya-prize-applied-combinatorics. Accessed 20 Apr 2020. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 2020b. Prize canvassing committee. https://www. siam.org/about-siam/committees/prize-canvassing-committee-pcc. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 2020c. Prizes & recognition: Policies & guidelines. https://siam.org/prizes-recognition/policies-guidelines. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Steinpreis, Rhea E., Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7):509–528. Su, Francis. 2014. Op-Ed: Solve this math problem: The gender gap. Los Angeles Times, August 25. University of Wisconsin–Madison. 2020. Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute. https://wiseli.wisc.edu/. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

Part XV

AWM Student Chapters

University of Oregon AWM Chapter: Its Creation and Evolution Elisa Bellah, Sarah Frei, Leanne Merrill, and Kelly Pohland

Unbelonging is not an acute sensation; rather, it is creeping, evasive, and insidious. This feeling doesn’t always come from a particular action or event, but is part of a culture, and is therefore very difficult to change. The story of the University of Oregon AWM Student Chapter (UO AWM) begins when its founders arrived as graduate students in 2011–2012, when all 31 of the tenured or tenure-track faculty in the UO mathematics department were men. The two women emerita professors, Marie Vitulli and Marion Walter, had no official responsibilities but were still somewhat involved in departmental activities. Men taught all graduate classes and supervised all dissertations. The woman graduate student population hovered around 20% (see Table 1), and the vast majority of invited seminar speakers were men (see Table 2). It was essentially impossible to witness a woman doing research-level mathematics in the University of Oregon mathematics department. In an effort to create a sense of belonging for women in our department, the UO AWM was founded in 2013 (UO AWM Student Chapter, 2020). The UO AWM is a student chapter of the Association for Women in Mathematics, a national organization whose mission is to “promote equal opportunity and the equal treatment of women and girls in the mathematical sciences, supporting individuals

E. Bellah · K. Pohland University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] S. Frei Rice University, Houston, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. Merrill () Western Oregon University, Monmouth, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_76

921

922

E. Bellah et al.

Table 1 Graduate student demographics Year 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2019–2020 2020–2021

Graduate students Total % women 54 22% 56 20% 62 18% 61 18% 66 23% 61 26% 61 25% 67 18% 64 17% 73 22% 68 21%

First-year graduate students Total % women 15 13% 15 20% 18 22% 10 20% 15 33% 12 33% 9 11% 19 6% 14 14% 22 41% 7 14%

Table 2 2016–2017 Seminar speaker demographics Seminar Algebra Analysis Colloquium Geometric analysis Number theorya Topology/Geometry a

Total seminar speakers Total % women 14 0% 9 11% 25 20% 20 10% 15 25% 21 14%

Outside seminar speakers Total % women 12 0% 7 0% 24 21% 5 20% 12 25% 14 14%

Note: the only tenured or tenure-track women faculty in the mathematics department during this year were number theorists, which may explain the relatively high percentage of women invited as speakers

and institutions as we all work to make a more just and equitable community” (AWM, 2020). We—the founders and early members of the chapter—developed our awardwinning Distinguished Speaker Series to create the role models we lacked in our own department. We designed visits that included a research talk for our general colloquium and a second talk either focusing on the speaker’s life as a mathematician or an undergraduate-accessible mathematics topic. We enjoyed multiple meals with speakers, walked with them around campus, provided them with an honorarium, and created opportunities for graduate student women to interact with them (see Fig. 1). Our chapter won the AWM Student Chapter Award for Scientific Excellence in 2018. Looking back, these interactions—listening to incredible talks, eating meals together, and in one case going to a local park so that our distinguished speaker’s young children could play—are some of the most treasured experiences we had as graduate students. These visits provided an opportunity that was otherwise lacking:

University of Oregon AWM Chapter: Its Creation and Evolution

923

Fig. 1 UO AWM members Max Kutler, Safia Chettih, and Cindy Lester with Distinguished Speaker Talithia Williams, Associate Professor of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd College (third from the left). Williams was our second Distinguished Speaker, visiting in the winter of 2014. Photo courtesy of Katie Gedeon

we could see diverse paths to research mathematics and visualize our own futures as mathematicians. Beyond the Distinguished Speaker Series, the UO AWM oversaw an Undergraduate Reading Program (URP) for several years. This program paired undergraduate students with graduate student mentors who supervised readings outside the undergraduate curriculum, culminating in a poster session. While the URP was open to all genders, our goal was to recruit women. As the URP became popular, we found that some graduate students’ only interaction with our chapter was through this program. The URP had shifted from being a program designed by women graduate students interested in supporting undergraduate women to a service that a few women graduate students were providing to the entire student body. This put an inequitable burden on the graduate student women, particularly as the number of graduate women began to fall from 2015 to 2018: between these years, many women graduated or left the program, and fewer women were admitted (see Table 1). The Undergraduate Reading Program dissolved at the end of the 2017–2018 academic year. It was replaced by a committee of graduate students that used the URP model to form a Directed Reading Program (DRP) as a service to the department outside of UO AWM (Directed Reading Program network, 2021; UO Math DRP, 2020). This program incorporated the ideas of DRPs at other universities

924

E. Bellah et al.

and introduced additional structure to the program. While the DRP still aims to recruit underserved groups into mathematics, the pressure to run this program no longer falls solely on women. The UO AWM has three other non-scholarship arms. The K–12 Outreach Committee holds events for young women at the local children’s science museum and in schools. The Social and Professional Enrichment Committee organizes social events focused on building community and promoting wellness, such as hikes and potlucks (see Fig. 2). Our Reading Room is a library of resources for women in academia. Past and present members of UO AWM believe our programming increased their sense of community and belonging. According to a woman graduate student, “The

Fig. 2 UO AWM members Helen Jenne, Sarah Frei, and Christy Hazel on a hiking trip at Smith Rock State Park in Terrebonne, OR. The trip was organized by the Social and Professional Enrichment Committee. Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Musyt

University of Oregon AWM Chapter: Its Creation and Evolution

925

UO AWM has been nothing but welcoming and supportive, and I honestly don’t know if I would still be here if not for the people I met in this organization who supported me as a graduate student. I am very appreciative to have this group of people to talk to and learn from, and without them I would have felt very isolated and alone.” The founders of the chapter are proud of these outcomes. However, upon reflection, UO AWM members believe that having graduate student women lead so many crucial department programs has had unintended negative consequences on our community. It’s known that the people most often called to do diversity-related service in academia are the “diverse” people themselves, which can create barriers to career advancement for women and people of color (Misra et al., 2011; Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, 2017). In the seven years since the founding of the AWM chapter, it became clear that the UO AWM, directed primarily by a few women graduate students, was performing labor and advocacy for which the mathematics department itself should have been responsible. For example, department seminars have had vastly unequal gender representation (see Table 2). However, we are not currently aware of any formal efforts to address this, such as providing financial incentives to seminar organizers to invite more women speakers. It appears that, rather than encouraging the faculty to increase the number of women seminar speakers, our department instead relied on graduate student women to do this organizing ourselves. Likewise, rather than address the lack of undergraduate mentoring, the mathematics department relied on graduate student women to work on this task for several years with no compensation. Looking to the future, we ask: how can a single AWM chapter, and the AWM as a whole, move forward in a way that serves its members equitably? It is wonderful to have women visibly doing mathematics and helping other women along their academic journeys. But that alone isn’t enough to fix the systemic issues at work, many of which became increasingly clear throughout the growth and evolution of our AWM chapter. As a previous graduate student man, who was highly involved in our AWM chapter, put it: “The founding generation viewed UO AWM as a vehicle for them to influence the policies and official activities of the department. As new cohorts of women came in, attracted by the strong presence of UO AWM, it became clear that the real challenge is addressing the department climate of casual sexism and sometimes flagrant harassment. While the department is still a deeply flawed place, there is, at least among the younger faculty, an acceptance of the need for change.” Moving forward, AWM should focus on shifting the burden of gender equity in mathematics off the shoulders of women alone. We need allies in this fight, and those allies need to share this work at all levels. The women of the AWM have made tremendous progress promoting equity in mathematics for over 50 years. We believe that AWM needs to broaden its mission to include the education and recruitment of allies across the gender spectrum. Additionally, we want to acknowledge that almost all of the women involved in the creation and continuation of the UO AWM are white and cisgendered. Women

926

E. Bellah et al.

of color face immense systemic and specific issues, and trans and nonbinary folks have yet other hurdles in their path. The AWM should recognize and affirm the specific challenges faced by BIPOC women in the mathematical community, and likewise those of trans, non-binary, and non-gender-conforming mathematicians. The challenges faced by white women in mathematics are considerably different than those faced by women of color or non-cis women. AWM needs to publicly address and respond to the challenges of intersectionality, building these ideas into the heart of their programming. In telling the story of the UO AWM, we wish to acknowledge those who helped us. We are deeply indebted to the advice and wisdom of Marie Vitulli, who has been a valuable member of AWM’s national organization for many years, and was most recently inducted as an AWM Fellow in 2019 (see Fig. 3). Marie’s knowledge was instrumental in the foundation of our chapter and guided many of our early decisions. In addition to Marie, we acknowledge many other allies, especially graduate student men and some faculty, who were and continue to be incredible

Fig. 3 AWM President Ami Radunskaya, Ulrica Wilson, Marie Vitulli, Irina Mitrea, Dusa McDuff, Maeve McCarthy, Magnhild Lien, Anne Leggett, Ellen Kirkman, Hélène Barcelo with AWM Executive Director Karoline Pershell at the podium. AWM Fellows induction, 2019 JMM, Baltimore, MD

University of Oregon AWM Chapter: Its Creation and Evolution

927

resources and supporters throughout our growth. These allies did not always start out as “perfect feminists,” but many of them learned and grew through their UO AWM work. In working with these allies, and thinking deeply about issues at the intersection of feminism and mathematics, all of us—including the women— learned about our own internal misogyny and other biases. This difficult work needs to be done by everyone in the mathematical community to see true change for women. We must all experience belonging to one mathematical community. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Katie Gedeon for her work in forming the chapter. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge Adam Layne for collecting the data in Table 2. Finally, we acknowledge the financial support provided by the UO mathematics department, and the individual support of several graduate student and faculty men who were our allies in the UO mathematics department.

References Association for Women in Mathematics. 2020. Policies and governance. https://awm-math.org/ about/governance/. Accessed 12 Oct 2020. Directed Reading Program network. 2021. https://sites.google.com/view/drp-network/. Accessed 18 Feb 2021. Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis. 2011. The ivory ceiling of service work: Service work continues to pull women associate professors away from research. What can be done? Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 97(1). Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group. 2017. The burden of invisible work in academia: Social inequalities and time use in five university departments. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 39(2017): 228–45. University of Oregon Directed Reading Program. 2020. https://blogs.uoregon.edu/uomathdrp/. Accessed 18 Dec 2020. University of Oregon Student Chapter Website. 2020. https://pages.uoregon.edu/uoawm/. Accessed 18 Dec 2020.

Building Community Through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Student Chapter Francesca Bernardi

The Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) has played an important role in my academic career since I became a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In August of 2013, I moved to North Carolina from Italy— my country of origin and where I lived most of my life; I had just graduated with a masters degree in engineering and had never heard of the AWM. At Chapel Hill, during the mathematics department orientation, I learned about the local student chapter whose members were graduate students of all genders. I enthusiastically joined but soon discovered the chapter had no consistent active programming. While the lack of sponsored activities was somewhat of a disappointment, as a first- and second-year graduate student I was so busy trying to stay afloat that I had very little time for anything else. I was lucky to have the support of my small but close-knit applied mathematics cohort with whom I spent most of my days studying. It was only when I passed my comprehensive exams and became a PhD candidate that I felt I finally had the time to learn and do more. That is when I decided to pursue UNC’s Graduate Certificate in Women’s and Gender Studies (WGST). In the Italian higher education system, students pick their major before beginning a course of study and take classes almost exclusively within their field. Consequently, I never had the chance to enroll in any courses outside the engineering curriculum as a college student. At UNC Chapel Hill, I was the first graduate student in STEM to sign up for the WGST Certificate program. The faculty welcomed me with open arms despite my complete lack of relevant background. In the fall of 2015, I enrolled in the graduate seminar in Women’s and Gender Studies, a required course for the certificate program. That semester, I also had my first encounter with AWM members outside of my institution. Attending my first conference as a graduate

F. Bernardi () Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_77

929

930

F. Bernardi

student was intimidating, but the AWM table in the conference exhibit hall quickly became my favorite place to be between presentations. It was always staffed by women like me who had clear goals to improve the mathematics community from a variety of perspectives. Seeing that I wasn’t the only one with such ambitions pushed me to take an active role in these efforts—the UNC AWM chapter seemed like a natural place to make a difference. Being part of the WGST program made me reflect on the actual state of affairs of women and other underrepresented minorities in STEM in the United States. Reading and participating in discussions within such a diverse community of scholars gave me a way to put into words what I had been feeling, experiencing, and observing around me. The AWM chapter is where I got to exercise my newfound voice thanks to what is now a long-standing collaboration with my friend and former fellow graduate student Katrina Morgan. In the spring of 2016, Katrina and I applied for a Mathematical Association of America Tensor Women and Mathematics grant as representatives of our AWM student chapter. Unexpectedly, they took a chance on us, and with the award we founded Girls Talk Math—a free mathematics and media day camp for girls and nonbinary individuals who are rising 9th to 12th grade students in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina. By 2020, Girls Talk Math (GTM) had been running for five years on the UNC Chapel Hill campus and every summer involved more undergraduate and graduate students who volunteered their time as camp leaders. Many of them were members of the AWM student chapter. In 2018, Sarah Cassie Burnett—former UNC undergraduate student and one of the GTM 2016 volunteers—founded a sister camp at the University of Maryland at College Park, where she was a PhD candidate in applied mathematics. In 2020, we hosted a joint Girls Talk Math virtual camp with over 60 participants from across the United States and organizers from UNC Chapel Hill, the University of Maryland at College Park, the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and the University of California Los Angeles (Girls Talk Math, 2016). GTM camps have hosted more than 300 students thus far and produced copious mathematics and media content freely accessible online. We are working on building a long-lasting program that can continue to serve students locally on several US campuses (Fig. 1). The success of Girls Talk Math gave us the confidence to organize other events through our AWM student chapter. In 2018, we hosted the first Association for Women in Mathematics Triangle Conference for Undergraduate and Graduate Students. The conference had over 100 attendees from North Carolina colleges and universities and has since been hosted at other institutions throughout the state. One of the highlights of our chapter’s programming was a public lecture by Moon Duchin titled Political Geometry: How and why shapes matter for voting districts. The topic is particularly relevant in the state of North Carolina and over 100 faculty, students, and community members attended the talk. Thanks to some of these initiatives our chapter was selected as the inaugural winner of the Association for Women in Mathematics Student Chapter Award for Community Outreach in 2017. Being part of the AWM chapter at UNC Chapel Hill was very important to me as a graduate student. I felt I had a clear role to play within the AWM’s broader mission as part of our chapter. The opportunity of developing and implementing programs

Building Community Through the University of North Carolina Chapter

931

Fig. 1 Photos from Girls Talk Math. Left: Camper working at the board on the knot theory problem set, 2017. Right: Group photo from the 2019 camp at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

and initiatives that served the local community gave me a sense of purpose. I have no doubt that these experiences helped me grow into a better person, educator, academic, and mathematician. I felt a strong sense of belonging in the organization during my PhD program, but I realized that a similar support system is not available after graduation; in fact, there isn’t a natural place to continue this type of work within the AWM structure as a postdoc. The postdoctoral years seem to be among the most challenging in a woman’s academic path (Bernardi, 2019), so I urge the AWM to be deliberate in supporting mathematicians at this stage in their careers. While a lot has been achieved in the first 50 years of the Association for Women in Mathematics, our work is not done. There is a need for revolutionary change in the mathematics community and our society at large, and we should lead by example. As often happens, the changes brought about by the AWM and other organizations have disproportionately benefited some underrepresented minority groups in mathematics over others. The progress of some should not be misinterpreted or misrepresented as the progress of all. The 50th anniversary of the AWM is the perfect time to proactively reverse this trend; we can begin by holding ourselves and our institutions accountable. The activism and leadership of the younger generations of students and of mathematicians of color is showing us a way forward—it is on us to listen, support, and follow them. Acknowledgments None of the student chapter initiatives described in this article would have been possible without my fellow chapter member Katrina Morgan. The support and trust that Professor Hans Christianson placed on us as young graduate students is what allowed Girls Talk Math to thrive. We have been able to run and grow our program thanks to funding from the MAA Tensor grants and the support of the department of mathematics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

932

F. Bernardi

References Girls Talk Math. 2016. Camp information. https://girlstalkmath.com. Accessed 15 October 2020. Bernardi, Francesca. 2019. Mathematics postdocs and the challenges of being one of the few. The POSTDOCket 17(7). https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/page/POSTDOCket_1707# section3. Accessed 15 October 2020.

The Florida Atlantic University Student Chapter of AWM: Fundraising and Sustainability Catherine Berrouët, Anae Myers, Angela Robinson, and Yuan Wang

The Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Student Chapter of AWM was created in the spring of 2017 by the founding president, Angela Robinson (see Fig. 1) and faculty advisor, Yuan Wang. The chapter quickly became an integral part of the mathematical community of FAU with help from the chapter’s first vice president, Anae Myers, and first undergraduate ambassador, Catherine Berrouët. Following Angela’s graduation, the chapter continued to flourish with Anae as president and Catherine as vice president. Ever since the AWM FAU chapter was established, the student officers have tirelessly engaged in activities to promote participation of women and girls in mathematics. To support their vision, they found creative ways to secure funding through grants and fundraising. The chapter was awarded a portion of the NSF INCLUDES: WATCH US (Women Achieving Through Community Hubs) funds and a grant from the Women and Mathematics Program (WAM) at the Institute for Advanced Study. A separate, successful, crowdfunding effort was launched with the help of the FAU Department of Mathematical Sciences and College of Science leadership. These unique efforts to raise funds for chapter activities were quickly acknowledged by the national AWM organization and resulted in the chapter consecutively winning the 2018 and 2019 AWM Student Chapter Award for Fundraising and Sustainability (see Fig. 2). With these accolades, Catherine became president in 2020 and the legacy continued.

C. Berrouët () · A. Myers · Y. Wang Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] A. Robinson National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_78

933

934

C. Berrouët et al.

Fig. 1 Anae Myers and Angela Robinson, 2018 Joint Mathematics Meetings, San Diego, CA

With this funding, the chapter hosted events including an AAUW Salary Negotiation Workshop, Florida Women in Mathematics Day (FWIMD), roundtables for students to meet with faculty members and researchers (see Fig. 3), and panel discussions on careers in mathematics. Even during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020, the student officers continued to build community through remote activities. Through all these events, the AWM chapter reached out to girls and women in mathematics at all levels, from high school girls, to undergraduate and graduate students, and eventually to early-career and established faculty. Here are some perspectives on the past, present and future of AWM through the voices of our own chapter’s past and present (as of this writing) leadership with Angela Robinson (AR), Anae Myers (AM), Catherine Berrouët (CB), and Yuan Wang (YW).

Fundraising at the Florida Atlantic University Chapter

935

Fig. 2 Catherine Berrouët, AWM President Ami Radunskaya, Anae Myers, Student Chapter Awards committee chair Giuliana Davidoff presenting FAU with the 2018 AWM Student Chapter Award for Fundraising and Sustainability, MathFest, Denver, CO

Fig. 3 FAU AWM with AWM past president Kristin Lauter sitting at the computer. Catherine Berrouët, Anae Myers, and Yuan Wang are immediately to her right, Spring 2019

936

C. Berrouët et al.

What Led to the Creation of Your Student Chapter? AR: The journey to establishing our student chapter is a bit personal. During the first years of my PhD program, I didn’t see many examples of women succeeding in mathematics. Of the more senior female graduate students, only one passed her PhD qualifying exams. Of the five women in my cohort I was the only one remaining by my third year. The senior graduate students who taught our study sessions or occasional lectures were always male. I struggled to find confidence in myself. I was subconsciously absorbing a false narrative of “there is a direct relationship between looking and behaving like a stereotypical mathematician and succeeding in mathematics.” Some peers of mine started SIAM and AMS student chapters at the start of my fourth year and I asked our department chair if someone could start an AWM student chapter. He cheerfully suggested that I do so (which had never before crossed my mind), so I reached out to Yuan Wang in October 2016 about establishing a student chapter. At that time, I didn’t quite know how the chapter would make an impact in the department. The following semester, I attended an AWM research symposium and the experience was incredibly inspiring. There were women from all levels of mathematics (undergraduates through tenured professors) discussing their research interests and results in an inclusive, welcoming environment. That experience helped shape my goals for our chapter. I wanted to ensure that our AWM student chapter would create a community within our local department for women in mathematics and connect our students to the greater AWM community. Things within our department began to change in parallel to the establishment of our chapter, and the department chair wholeheartedly supported our efforts. I am grateful that once our chapter was ready to begin planning events, we had more female faculty members and the retention of female students had significantly improved.

What Led to Your Participation in Your Chapter and to the Activities that Resulted in the Award? AR: Once the chapter was established, I looked for ways to host events and quickly realized our chapter didn’t receive annual funds from the national body like the SIAM and AMS student chapters. I attended an AAUW Salary Negotiation Workshop at a nearby university and was so impressed by the content that I sought out ways to raise money for our chapter to host the same workshop. That is when I learned how challenging fundraising can be! Our chapter launched an online campaign with the help of the department chair, Rainer Steinwandt, and the College of Science Development office, and successfully raised the funds for the workshop. I knew that this fundraising technique would not be sustainable, and continued to seek out other means to support our chapter financially. Fortunately, we saw a call for

Fundraising at the Florida Atlantic University Chapter

937

minigrant proposals under the NSF INCLUDES: WATCH US grant. Our executive board wrote a successful minigrant proposal called “Dare to Be Exceptionally Encouraged” or “Dare to BEE.” By my sixth year, the stars aligned and I became eligible to apply for an Advanced Graduate Student Ambassadorship with the Institute for Advanced Study’s Women and Mathematics program. These funds seemed much more sustainable, and I felt relieved to know the chapter could likely continue to apply for these funds each year. With the ambassadorship, our chapter organized and hosted the first Florida Women in Mathematics Day (FWIMD). The primary goal of FWIMD was to establish a network of mathematicians of all stages throughout the state of Florida, and to provide a half-day immersion experience for local high school students. I believe we achieved this goal and it was a fantastic event (see Fig. 4). AM: I followed Angela’s steps and applied the following year for both an Advanced Graduate Ambassadorship and a Graduate Ambassadorship from WAM. With the Advanced Graduate Ambassadorship, we successfully hosted the second annual Florida Women in Mathematics Day 2020 (FWIMD). The theme of our conference, tan(s) tan(s) revolution, was mathematics and dance. With the help of enthusiastic participants, volunteers, and FWIMD alumni, it was an amazing experience (see Fig. 5). With the remaining funds, we were able to support our mentoring initiative, Dare to BEE, and to cultivate relationships with local high schools and others in the mathematical community. In addition to the Advanced Graduate Ambassadorship,

Fig. 4 2019 Florida Women in Mathematics Day

938

C. Berrouët et al.

Fig. 5 Dancing tan(s) tan(s) revolution, 2020 Florida Women in Mathematics Day

the chapter was also awarded a Graduate Ambassadorship to build a support structure for undergraduate math majors at our university. Our original intent was to plan a follow-up mini-conference after FWIMD 2020 where we would invite participants and others to join us for a talk and refreshments. This was deemed untenable due to the pandemic and social distancing protocols for COVID-19. We held strategic meetings and discussed ways we could continue to support our community while making safety a priority. We reallocated our budget to purchase reusable masks and blue-light filtering glass with our Dare to BEE logo. We called this our “Care To BEE” initiative and began hosting virtual events to advance our initiative. CB: I started out as a quiet and shy undergraduate mathematics student and I was introduced to AWM by a former president, Angela Robinson, who at the time was a graduate student looking for an undergraduate ambassador. I had known her from the math department and had met her through some volunteering events. We instantly clicked once I understood her mission and what she wanted to do for girls studying math. I became inspired and passionate to become a part of her presidential initiatives for the chapter. That was about three years ago and I’ve been involved ever since. After Angela’s term ended, I worked with the subsequent President, Anae Myers, to put forth an idea I had for mentoring called “Dare to Bee.” Collectively, working as a team and with other groups of students and with the FAU Mathematical Sciences Department, as well as the AWM national members, we still strive to lead a rich mentoring environment. In 2020, as Anae’s successor, I am the FAU AWM student chapter president and I wouldn’t change this for the world.

Fundraising at the Florida Atlantic University Chapter

939

YW: Although at times I wondered about how to improve visibility of women in mathematics, and how to encourage women students to engage in mathematics, it did not seem to me there was much that I could do. This changed one day in 2016 when Angela Robinson, a current PhD student at the time, approached me with the idea of setting up an AWM student chapter. What a great idea! Thanks to the great support from AWM, our AWM chapter was created shortly after we submitted our request to set up a chapter in our university. As the faculty advisor, I am deeply touched by the devotion of the chapter officers. Their creativity always leads to surprising ideas for activities. While working with the student officers to promote and to foster interests in mathematics of younger students, I feel rejuvenated by their energy and passion. I am truly thankful for having the opportunity to work with the chapter.

What Has AWM Meant to You? AR: AWM represents safe spaces and community for me. At the 2017 AWM research symposium, I felt more confident presenting my research poster than at other research symposiums. I was inspired by the women from different career stages, across innumerable research areas offering transparency, visibility, and connection. I wanted the FAU AWM student chapter to leave the same impression on new and prospective students and on middle and high school students. My motivation for establishing our chapter is captured by a quote from “Wind-Wafted Wild Flowers” by Muriel Strode: “I will not follow where the path may lead, but I will go where there is no path, and I will leave a trail.” AM: I didn’t know AWM existed until I was asked to become vice president of our graduate student chapter in 2017 and things haven’t been the same since. Being a member of AWM has become synonymous with growing as a student, mathematician, organizer, and leader in mathematics. AWM is also synonymous with leaving a legacy behind. I am proud to be a part of a two-time award-winning chapter under two different leadership teams. Knowing that our work has made a meaningful impact in the community and that it will be continued is a testament to the importance of an organization like AWM. CB: The Association for Women in Mathematics has been such a great organization for me to practice and learn more in-depth how to apply the grassroots method to build community. This learning experience has been such a pivotal point for me to develop as a leader, and adopting this style of business and professional habits will enrich my future endeavors to encourage individuals to contribute by taking responsibility and action in their community. YW: AWM has been a source of inspiration and encouragement for me. The organization provides a great sense of community, where I belong. I always look forward to receiving AWM publications filled with amazing news, stories, and opportunities.

940

C. Berrouët et al.

What Do You Think AWM Is Doing Right: Or Wrong? AR: The national AWM has done a fantastic job of unifying the organization through its leadership and resources. Student chapters of SIAM and AMS receive annual funds, and I often wished AWM had this sort of financial support for us. However, I realize that AWM is a younger organization and I also appreciate the lesson of fundraising as it exposed us to proposal-writing. I also wish for annual AWM research symposiums—as opposed to the biennial pattern—but I realize that funding is a limiting factor. CB: I think AWM definitely has more flexibility than other organizations to really thrive and grow because every chapter is different. Every chapter has its freedom to choose a method for achieving its goals. Not to mention that every chapter might have one goal that is more important to pursue than another. There is definitely an advantage to having a shared set of fundamental pillars that all chapters support. However, there can always be room for growth in local improvements. I think chapters that share similar initiatives and specific response rate issues should find ways to communicate more directly and collaborate with each other outside of conferences and big events.

What Do You Think AWM’s Focus Should Be in the Future? AM: As members of the mathematical community, we are no strangers to strength in numbers. I see potential for AWM to have a positive impact on younger students. It is never too early to introduce students to the beautiful world of mathematics. CB: I think the focus of AWM in the future should be to have a unique connection between the national leaders and the individual chapters. A great way to do this would be to routinely host virtual “meet and greets” online between chapters and the national AWM leadership. It’s important to set up networks for every chapter’s voice to be heard by a national executive board member. YW: AWM has played a critical role in fostering and maintaining the growth of women mathematicians and in increasing their visibility. An important component for the pipeline of women mathematicians is the K–12 girl students. Perhaps influenced by society, many of the bright and talented school students tend to learn more about careers in fields such as medicine, engineering, and technology than careers in mathematics. Many of the young students and even some college students are not aware of the wide variety of what mathematicians can do. Earlier exposure to women mathematicians and learning about their career paths may encourage more girls to choose mathematics as a major for their college education and even to continue to pursue graduate study in mathematics.

Fundraising at the Florida Atlantic University Chapter

941

Conclusion In closing, our mathematical journeys have been impacted tremendously by our involvement in AWM and we look forward to continuing to contribute to this wonderful organization.

Journey of the University of Houston AWM Student Chapter: From a Bake Sale to an Award-Winning Regional Conference Jasmine Bhullar, Prajakta Bedekar, and Yuliya Gorb

We are writing in 2020, only four years since the establishment of the University of Houston (UH) student chapter of AWM. These four years have seen our chapter grow from the humble beginnings of organizing a bake sale in order to raise funds to being honored with the AWM Scientific Excellence Award. We have been very active in our pursuit to support and encourage women mathematicians with our events, which include a regular seminar series as well as the 2018 Texas Women in Mathematics Symposium (see the UHAWM (2021) website listed in the references). In this article, we reflect on our experiences and hope to give an outline of how a dedicated group of people can build an AWM student chapter from the ground up. It all started in 2014 when our faculty advisor Yuliya Gorb initiated a series of seminars called “Women in Mathematics” (WIM), inspired by the ones that she had as a graduate student at Pennsylvania State University. She invited distinguished women mathematicians for this series. (See Dr. Gorb’s webpage for the list of speakers.) Around that time, she started to discuss the possibility of having an AWM student chapter with the female graduate students in the department. She also organized and ran a two-week mathematics camp for female high school students in July of 2016, covering topics of interest to the students. That same year, graduate students Kayla Bicol and Duong Nguyen approached her with the proposition to start a chapter of AWM and we were thus established as an organization. Our officers initially organized a bake sale to fund the activities of the chapter and to advertise the chapter and its mission. In fall 2018, we also contacted the chair of the department with a request for financial support. After we submitted a comprehensive proposal of tentative activities, the department granted us the same funding as the American Mathematical Society (AMS) and Society for

J. Bhullar () · P. Bedekar · Y. Gorb University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_79

943

944

J. Bhullar et al.

Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) graduate chapters in the department, and continues to support us. From the year of its inception, our chapter has endeavored to organize events that aim at academic and professional development, supporting women mathematicians, community building, and outreach for the students. Our activities are open to all students at UH, with a focus on supporting the graduate students in the mathematics department. We also strive to support other chapters in our vicinity by providing assistance and engagement at conferences that the chapters organize. The WIM seminar series has been an integral part of our events. It has helped us highlight the achievements and struggles of women mathematicians. We go through the lists of speakers being invited by different research groups to find women mathematicians visiting the department. We then send them an invitation through the organizers of the seminars. So far, we have interacted with more than 15 women mathematicians, on topics ranging from research, outreach, time management, the “two-body” problem, finding a postdoctoral position, the importance of networking, and mentoring. The chat is informal and typically involves the speaker communicating about her career path, talking about issues and hurdles that women, in particular the speakers, face in their journey. “Because of the variety of speakers invited, I have been given an opportunity to hear about experiences in academia and industry. Also, I appreciate the networking opportunity the talks give us and the more intimate setting we are in makes me more comfortable to do so,” our 2020 vice president Arianna Cecco says. Her experience highlights why these talks have seen a rising popularity, with an increase in participation from our male colleagues as well as undergraduate students over time. One of the highlights of our work towards our goal of aiding the academic and professional development of our students has been organizing the Texas Women in Mathematics Symposium (TWIMS), first held at the University of Texas, Austin. TWIMS is a two-day conference with the goal of strengthening the network of female mathematicians in Texas and encouraging collaborations and mentoring relations (TWIMS webpages are listed in the references for TWIMS (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020)). We brought the third iteration of TWIMS to Houston (see Fig. 1). The organizing committee consisted of our faculty advisor Yuliya Gorb, and graduate students Kayla Bicol (co-chair), Duong Nguyen (co-chair), Prajakta Bedekar, Sarah Chehade, Daewa Kim, Jennifer May, and Kate Nguyen. “Organizing TWIMS 2018 will always be one of the highlights of my time in graduate school. When I look back at our time, it gives me a sense of pride for what we accomplished together as an AWM chapter,” Kayla Bicol reflects. An important step in organizing a conference is securing the funding needed. It is an extremely challenging task and it can take multiple applications to win a grant for an emerging chapter. It is important to keep exploring and trying. Yuliya Gorb, Kayla Bicol, and Duong Nguyen tirelessly pursued funding opportunities, like submitting a grant proposal to IMA (Institute for Mathematics and its Applications), before they acquired financial support from the UH College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, UH Department of Mathematics, and Mathematical Association of America Tensor Women and Mathematics Program. The Tensor grant is renewable

The University of Houston Chapter: From a Bake Sale to a Conference

945

ˇ c delivering the keynote speech at TWIMS 2018, University of Houston Fig. 1 Sunˇcica Cani´

Fig. 2 Dipanwita Saha, Mary Flagg, Paulette Willis, panel discussion, TWIMS 2018, University of Houston

for up to three years and was renewed for the next iteration of TWIMS held at Texas A&M. We hosted 70 women mathematicians from across Texas, as well as Louisiana. ˇ c, who talked to us about various The keynote speech was delivered by Sunˇcica Cani´ mathematical problems in fluids and real-life applications of rigorous mathematics. Other activities included research talks by about 20 speakers from various subfields of mathematics, poster presentations, and breakout sessions. Ours was the first TWIMS to add a salary negotiation workshop as well as a career panel of academia and industry professionals (see Fig. 2). For the breakout sessions, every participant was assigned a group, whose members were their lunch buddies for the conference. This arrangement served as an informal route to networking and mentorship, leading to fruitful conversations on topics ranging from applying for graduate school, selecting an advisor, work–life balance, maternity leave in academia, and ideas for AWM student chapter activities. Reflecting on her experience at the conference and how it contributed to her growth,

946

J. Bhullar et al.

Sarah Chehade, a member of the organizing committee and former president of our chapter, says, “I am less intimidated to talk to people, I feel less alone, and I know there is always someone to talk to.” For our work on TWIMS 2018, our chapter received the AWM Student Chapter Scientific Excellence Award in 2019. This award has helped strengthen our chapter and contributed immensely to our advancement. Kayla received the Women and Gender Resource Center’s Distinguished Service to Women Award for a Student, and Duong received the Campus Leaders Unsung Hero Award. Conferences can be a little intimidating to organize for a fledgling chapter, especially if the officers are mostly graduate or undergraduate students. We gained the confidence to organize TWIMS by organizing local events, like the WIM seminar series. Another core part of our philosophy has been giving back to the community and attracting participation from young minds. We realize that youngsters, particularly young girls, don’t always get access to resources or encouragement to foster an interest in mathematics. We use hands-on, fun-filled, and low-resource activities to give a more playful introduction to different areas of mathematics. Through the help of various local organizations, we have found a platform to share these activities with a large number of kids, many from disadvantaged communities. Three years ago, our officer Daewa Kim hosted a community booth at Girls Exploring Math and Science (GEMS), an annual event at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Since then we have continued the tradition by participating in the GEMS event every year (see Fig. 3). We have also added more outreach events along the way, like the Chevron Girls Engineering the Future at the UH Cullen College of Engineering

Fig. 3 Jasmine Bhullar, Prajakta Bedekar, An Vu, Girls Exploring Math and Science 2020, Houston Museum of Natural Sciences

The University of Houston Chapter: From a Bake Sale to a Conference

947

and the Sam Houston Elementary Girls’ Empowerment Conference. As the current secretary of our chapter, An Vu, beautifully put it, “To be able to participate in the preparation for the activities and to engage students of different age groups, it reminds me so much of why I want to be in academics: to inspire, to teach, and to spread the love for mathematics.” We hope that through continued efforts we will be able to spread the love for mathematics and motivate more female students to pursue the subject. To build a sense of community, we first organized a “meet” for the women in the department in spring 2019. Some of our faculty members felt that they would have benefited from having someone to turn to when they were graduate students themselves. These experiences shaped this meet, which offered an opportunity for the female graduate students and postdocs to interact with the female faculty in an informal setting over coffee. More recently, we were able to organize the meet successfully in a virtual setting. We hope to make it a periodic event. End-of-semester dinners are another community building activity. What started as an event for female graduate students to hang out together has now expanded to include our male peers. It has given our male colleagues an opportunity to learn about the vision of our chapter and to have conversations with us about the experience of being a female graduate student, so as to become better allies. Being a part of an AWM chapter has been an enriching experience for all of us. It has helped us feel a sense of belonging and community, in a currently maledominated sphere. It has helped us celebrate the accomplishments of other women and also given us an opportunity to learn from other women, who have faced struggles similar to the ones we go through as graduate students. Moreover, we have found a platform where we can raise awareness of the issues that women in our field face. To ensure the continuation of our chapter, we recruit officers who are in different years of the graduate program. It has been very promising to see the enthusiasm of new students in participating in our events, as well as in joining us as officers. We keep working towards making sure that young girls and women feel encouraged to pursue a career in mathematics and related fields. We hope to continue to grow our chapter and to remain deeply involved with AWM in the future.

References Texas Women in Mathematics. 2016. https://web.ma.utexas.edu/conferences/twims/. Accessed 23 Feb 2021. Texas Women in Mathematics. 2017. https://www.shsu.edu/academics/mathematics-and-statistics/ twims/. Accessed 23 Feb 2021. Texas Women in Mathematics. 2018. https://www.math.uh.edu/twims/. Accessed 23 Feb 2021. Texas Women in Mathematics. 2020. http://awm.math.tamu.edu/twims2020.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2021. University of Houston AWM Student Chapter. 2021. https://uhawm.wordpress.com/. Accessed 23 Feb 2021.

Society for Women in Mathematics at the Colorado School of Mines: Professional Development Programming Debra Carney, Karin Leiderman, and Rebecca Swanson

Introduction to SWiM The Society for Women in Mathematics (SWiM) is a student chapter of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) at the Colorado School of Mines (known as Mines) which is a medium-sized public engineering school located in Golden, CO. SWiM meets bi-weekly and provides a variety of programming for undergraduate and graduate students, recognized by the AWM Student Chapter Award for Professional Development. Here, we provide a brief history of our program and share some reasoning behind its success, supported by the voices of both past and current members.

History SWiM was founded in 2013 by two faculty members, Debra Carney and Rebecca Swanson. We had previous experience as members of groups for women in mathematics and we recognized that such a group was missing at Mines. We knew that the women at Mines would benefit from additional support at an institution where about a third of the undergraduate students are women. In 2014, a year after its inception, SWiM became an AWM student chapter, in the hope that the AWM would provide connections to other student chapters across the country. Karin Leiderman joined the faculty advisor team upon being hired at Mines in 2016.

D. Carney () · K. Leiderman · R. Swanson Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_80

949

950

D. Carney et al.

Fig. 1 SWiM student leaders at a Mines student organization fair

SWiM began with Mines alumna, faculty, and other local mathematical professionals sharing their “mathematical story” with mostly undergraduate members, in an informal setting. Due to its success in the first year, and with student requests for more programming, we adopted the current format in which we alternate alumna visits with professional development workshops, panels, discussions, and social events (over dinner) twice a month. SWiM currently provides a breadth of professional development opportunities for students interested in a career in mathematics (see Fig. 1) and a safe space for students to feel comfortable in discussing topics related to women in mathematics. The goal of our meetings is to not only expose students to a variety of different career options, mathematical paths, and general professional advice, but also to empower students with the professional skills and confidence they need as they move into the next stages of their careers. In 2019, SWiM was recognized at the national level by AWM for its professional development programming.

Our Success Although the AWM recognized us at the national level for our professional development programming, this specific programming alone is not what has made us a successful student chapter. We believe that the mentorship provided to

Professional Development at the Colorado School of Mines

951

the students and the community and connections developed among students and faculty, combined with all of our other programming significantly contributed to our success. This belief is supported by survey responses from current and past members. We emailed 25 of our more involved students to ask them about their SWiM experience and received eight responses. Below, we discuss programming, community, networking, and mentoring, and feature quotes from all eight students as they relate to each topic.

Programming SWiM meetings occur bi-weekly and consistently average about 20 student attendees, including both undergraduate and graduate students, per meeting. Our leadership team consists of four undergraduate officers, whose positions rotate annually, in addition to our dedicated faculty advisors. Our permanent faculty team consists of teaching- and research-focused professors, and we also invite temporary faculty members, such as postdocs and visiting professors, to join the team during their time at Mines. Our membership includes both undergraduate and graduate students from computational and applied mathematics, statistics, and a variety of other departments across campus. Financially, we receive support from the applied mathematics and statistics department at Mines, and, since 2014 we have received annual funding from FAST Enterprises, LLC. FAST is a local software company which regularly recruits on campus and financially supports several initiatives on campus, including SWiM. This funding allows us to provide meals at our meetings, pay for portions of travel to conferences, purchase honor cords (worn at graduation to indicate membership in SWiM) for our members, and provide small SWiMbranded gifts to our speakers. FAST also provides a scholarship to one of our members each year. In Table 1, we have listed workshops, panel discussions, and

Table 1 SWiM programming Workshops Professional communication Resume writing

Panels Teaching jobs

Discussions Imposter syndrome

Other Trivia night

Graduate school

Amplification

Career Day preparation

Career

Gender stereotypes

Presentation skills

Summer REUsb and internships

Sexual harassment

Graduation celebration Nebraska Conferencea Fast Enterprises field trip

a b

The Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics is an annual conference held at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln REUs are research experiences for undergraduates

952

D. Carney et al.

Fig. 2 SWiM meeting with alumna guest speaker

other meetings that represent the broad range of professional development and other activities we have fostered as part of SWiM. These activities are in addition to our meetings that feature women mathematician speakers, and we typically alternate speaker meetings with one of these other programs (see Fig. 2). Ideas for these workshops are often requests from our student members and these activities are led by a mix of SWiM faculty advisors, other university staff, and employees of our corporate sponsor. For workshops and discussions we routinely use a short article, podcast, book excerpt, or video to introduce members to the topic and during the meeting use small groups to facilitate discussion. When possible we use freely available discussion guides or the faculty advisors create a list of questions before the meeting. We have found that the use of small groups is an important component to increase student participation. However, we also provide time for the smaller groups to share their ideas with the rest of the attendees. One example of a discussion topic we explored is amplification (repeating a key point out loud, giving credit to the original speaker), and during the meeting we read the article “The Amazing Tool that Women in the White House Used to

Professional Development at the Colorado School of Mines

953

Fight Gender Bias” (Crockett, 2016). Some examples of discussion questions we posed to our students were: Have you had experiences in which your comment was overlooked? How did you feel? What did you do? What can you do to amplify the voices of other women? Another example of a discussion topic we explored is gender stereotypes (judgement or bias of a person based on their gender) and sexual harassment (harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones). During the meeting we read excerpts from the book Feminist Fight Club (Bennett, 2016). Additionally, we were able to use the discussion guide and videos provided by the author. One workshop example is our Career Day Preparation Workshop, which was led by our corporate sponsor Fast Enterprises LLC. Students learned tips for navigating a virtual career fair and were able to get feedback on their resumes from an industry expert. As another example, our student members were also interested in learning more about how to give formal presentations. In response, faculty advisors created a Presentation Skills Workshop and students were able to practice skills learned at a follow-up meeting in preparation for the Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics. Besides workshops and discussions, we moderate panels and hold various other events. For panels, faculty advisors use their own connections to help find panelists and provide panelists a list of questions in advance of the meeting. During each panel, after some short introductions, the students ask questions and the faculty advisors are always ready with questions to help keep the discussion progressing as needed. One of our more unique events is our annual field trip to the headquarters of our corporate sponsor Fast Enterprises, LLC, where students learn about working in industry and practice networking. We also end each semester with a trivia night where we celebrate our graduates by presenting them with a special honor cord that they wear proudly at graduation to indicate their membership in SWiM. The following student quotes illustrate how students have found the SWiM programming to be valuable. While other clubs tend to have a guest speaker present then answer a couple of questions, I love how the SWiM meetings are set up as a discussion. I love hearing from the different perspectives of the students and professors and guest speakers. Additionally, the discussion about graduate school I attended during my freshman year opened my eyes up to the possibilities in my future. Katelyn Broderick, Mines undergraduate Since some of the meetings are workshop or discussion based, we are actually forced to talk to the people around us (peers and faculty) and discuss real topics and issues. Shannon Bride, Mines graduate student, data scientist, ICR, Inc. One of the big draws for me was that SWiM consistently hosted high quality speakers, and this gave me greater perspective on what it means to be a mathematician. Kelsey Kalmbach, Mines alumna, analyst, Ball Aerospace I learned so much about how to navigate difficult situations thanks to conversations, workshops, and reading groups through SWiM, and these lessons have made me feel confident in scenarios where I would otherwise feel nervous.

954

D. Carney et al.

Izzy Aguiar, Mines alumna, PhD student, Stanford University Imposter syndrome is real and something that I continue to struggle with. SWiM meetings allowed me to engage in a dialogue about imposter syndrome and other difficult experiences that women in STEM frequently encounter. These conversations were incredibly beneficial for improving my self-confidence. Kate Bubar, Mines alumna, PhD student, University of Colorado, Boulder

Community While one goal of SWiM is to provide students with programming that supports them as future mathematicians, we thrive because of the community we’ve created among Mines students and faculty. Our current and past members place great value in the community itself and our community is strong because our group has a clear purpose with shared goals. The following student quotes illustrate how we have built this successful community and created connections between students and faculty. SWiM was such an important community for me at Mines. It felt so meaningful to know, despite any challenges that I might experience in the classroom, work, or personal environment, that there was a community of brilliant and empowering women who would always be there to listen and affirm my experiences. SWiM taught me to advocate for myself and other women, to trust in my experiences, and to empower myself and those around me through actionable support. My past experience at Mines, and my current relationship with mathematics, would be completely different without the community that SWiM created and nourished. Izzy Aguiar, Mines alumna, PhD student, Stanford University Meetings were a highlight of my week: a time to relax, catch up with peers, learn from amazing role models, and enjoy delicious food. The SWiM community reinvigorated my excitement for math whenever I had a bad week or doubted my path. I valued my time in SWiM because it empowered me as a woman in STEM. To me, the purpose of SWiM is to build a supportive community of women in mathematics, so that members will have the skills and resources to succeed both at Mines and after graduation. Kate Bubar, Mines alumna, PhD student, University of Colorado, Boulder I am currently an officer for SWiM. I became more involved because I wanted to help out more with a club that has given me so much value. When I was trying to decide whether or not to double major in math and CS, one of the faculty advisors connected me with another professor who gave me great advice. SWiM is a great community of supportive women who, like me, love math. I can’t emphasize enough the positive impact that it’s had on me. Katelyn Broderick, Mines undergraduate One on one bonds with faculty have been some of my most valuable takeaways from Mines. SWiM provides the bridge to form those connections that we, as students, are so lucky to form. Shannon Bride, Mines graduate student, data scientist, ICR, Inc.

Professional Development at the Colorado School of Mines

955

Networking In addition to the community that we have built, our members benefit from making professional connections both within the department and outside of the department. Some of our students have begun research projects due to connections they made through SWiM. Others have found internships. The following student quotes illustrate the networking success of our students. Through SWiM, I made connections and learned about opportunities that were instrumental for my professional development. I met a Los Alamos National Lab scientist at a SWiM meeting and through this connection, I was offered a summer internship at LANL. Kate Bubar, Mines alumna, PhD student, University of Colorado, Boulder I had the opportunity to engage with fellow mathematicians, network with professionals, and gain valuable research experience. Kelsey Kalmbach, Mines alumna, analyst, Ball Aerospace SWiM helped me a ton with professional development. A big opportunity I had was interning at FAST Enterprises, LLC in the summer of 2019, I wouldn’t have had the advantage of meeting the people who interviewed me early without SWiM’s close connection with FAST. Though ultimately I won’t be leaving college, working in academia or at FAST, both opportunities [research projects and FAST] were fundamental to my college experience, helped shape who I am as a learner, and are probably why I was able to find another position that I love. Shannon Bride, Mines graduate student, data scientist, ICR, Inc.

Mentoring Our regular meetings provide numerous opportunities for informal mentoring. Often, upper-division students share advice with newer students; graduate students share advice with undergraduates; and faculty and speakers share advice with students. As a result of our survey, we were proud to see the ways in which students both valued these mentoring experiences and also carried them forward to their future careers and endeavors. The following student quotes mention some of the mentoring activities that our SWiM alumnae have either participated in or started themselves. I am now involved in the Association for Women in Mathematics at CU Boulder. Kate Bubar, Mines Alumna, PhD student, University of Colorado, Boulder In my current position, I have begun mentoring some of the younger female staff in both technical and professional aspects of the job. Kelsey Kalmbach, Mines alumna, analyst, Ball Aerospace I mentor high schoolers during the year and worked with an intern last year that was in SWiM. Chelsae Cameron, Mines alumna, robotic process automation analyst, Xcel Energy

956

D. Carney et al.

Colorado School of Mines Society of Women in Mathematics helped me build a global Diversity and Inclusivity initiative at Hitachi Solutions America, LTD (HSAL). Konsei (“mixed community / mixed voice”) is HSAL’s community voice. We focus on human connection through inclusion initiatives (“Good Vibes Only” internal channel for employees to share good news and pictures, book club calls, discussion sessions, etc.) and pushes diversity conversations within departments and recruiting. As founder of Konsei, I feel beyond blessed to have had the opportunity to learn from my time in SWiM. You cannot be what you cannot see—another cofounder of Konsei told me this famous quote early on and I think about this every day. I am thankful for Debra Carney and Rebecca Swanson for showing me what I could be—a female leader in a male space. Jackie Simens, Mines alumna, solutions architect, Hitachi Solutions Through SWiM, I met Professor Leiderman who became my mentor for my last 2.5 years at Mines. She helped shape my view of my place in the math field and working with her built my confidence in myself and in my work. A mentor of mine [at ICR] this summer and I spoke about starting up women support lunches [at ICR] once a month once I start in January. Shannon Bride, Mines graduate student, data scientist, ICR, Inc.

Conclusions and Future Goals Writing this article allowed us to further reflect on the impact that SWiM has had on our students and on ourselves as advisors. The role of faculty advisor takes time and dedication but it does not go unrewarded. Reading the student quotes and following the success of our mentees shows this work is meaningful and valued. Starting a new student chapter takes momentum but is also very exciting! The work in sustaining a successful chapter, however, is significant. It takes planning, organization, and a lot of student and faculty involvement. A team of faculty advisors helps! Some challenges include keeping meeting topics and ideas fresh, organizing and communicating with guest speakers, and putting together professional development materials. This is where we believe that AWM could be a more valuable source of support and resources. In particular, AWM could provide ideas and resources for monthly meeting topics and/or discussions, relevant studies and articles about women in STEM, and ways for different chapters to connect. The AWM student chapter mailing list could be utilized to share this information. Having monthly common discussion topics shared across hundreds of chapters would not only create a sense of belonging to a larger community but could also serve as a launchpad for networking and workshops at future conferences and research symposia. We are grateful for the current support from the AWM, and we look forward to continuing to provide a space where our students can benefit from SWiM programming, community, networking, and mentoring, as well as a continued partnership with the AWM. Acknowledgments We would like to thank former SWiM co-advisors Kelley Tatangelo (Visiting Professor, Colgate University) and Areeba Ikram (Lecturer, Baruch College) for their leadership and mentorship. We are also grateful for the financial and programming support from Fast

Professional Development at the Colorado School of Mines

957

Enterprises, LLC. Additionally we would like to acknowledge our sources of support at Mines including Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (WISEM) and the Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics (AMS). Last, but certainly not least, we would like to thank all of our current and former SWiM members, especially those who contributed to this article.

References Bennett, Jessica. 2016 Feminist fight club: A survival manual for a sexist workplace. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Crockett, Emily. 2016. The amazing tool that women in the White House used to fight gender bias. Vox https://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12914370/white-house-obama-women-genderbias-amplification. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020.

Looking Within and Reaching Out: Outreach, Friendship, and Community in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign AWM Student Chapter Grace Jaffe and Mina Nahvi

In August 2020, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) held an orientation for incoming mathematics graduate students unlike any before. The new students did not tour the historic Altgeld Hall. They were not led in bunches and batches to check out the shared workspace in Coble Hall, where they would have spent most of their first year. They did not even get to meet the formerly omnipresent gaggle of senior students there. No one was handed a folder full of handouts about comprehensive courses and library resources. Instead, everyone logged onto their computer, launched Zoom, and did the best they could. In the middle of the week, our graduate student AWM chapter joined the call. As we told our newly minted peers, our AWM chapter focuses on three types of activities: academic, social, and outreach. Our academic events include the Teaching and Diversity Seminar series and the Graduate Student Colloquium. The former centers on diversity and inclusion in math and strives to “reflect on how issues of equity and justice impact mathematics teaching, learning, and research” (Teaching and Diversity Seminars, 2020). The colloquium, on the other hand, encourages interaction and community in the department by giving graduate students a platform to share their research in engaging, accessible talks. Our social events have included laser tag, movie nights, holiday parties, and celebrations for International Women’s Day, and this semester, we’ve introduced a weekly virtual board game hour. However, our outreach events are what allows us to call our chapter award-winning. In 2018, we were honored to win the AWM Student Chapter Award for Community Outreach. Our two regular outreach activities are the Getting Engaged in Math and Science (GEMS) workshops and Sonia Math Day. Both activities are women-focused, free for all participants and open to students of all gender identities.

G. Jaffe · M. Nahvi () University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_81

959

960

G. Jaffe and M. Nahvi

GEMS is for students in grades 5–8 and its goals are to “present interesting math in a fun, hands-on way and encourage students from traditionally underrepresented genders to get engaged with STEM” (GEMS, 2020). In past years, we have covered topics such as math and nature, math and culture, and math and art. For each topic, we offer a series of workshops, typically about two hours in length. Sonia Math Day, named after nineteenth-century mathematician and trailblazer Sonia Kovalevsky, is for students in grades 8–12 and its goal is to “encourage students from traditionally underrepresented genders to consider pursuing higher education in math and science by connecting them to peers interested in math, providing them with role models in the department, and introducing them to exciting math content outside of their regular school curriculum” (Sonia Math Day, 2020). Previous topics have included Proof and Consequences, Adventures in Algebra, and Walks through Mathematics. Each such event consists of three hour-long activities, during which we explore a different aspect of the mathematics involved in a familiar phenomenon. All outreach events are staffed by volunteers from the UIUC AWM chapter. These volunteers are usually mathematics graduate students, though we gratefully acknowledge the support the faculty and staff have shown us. Our graduate students fill a variety of roles to keep these events up and running. Some of us focus on preparation, creating lesson and activity plans that present new math content and ideas in engaging and extracurricular formats. We work hard to organize events that supplement and complement the experience of being in math class at school, rather than rehash it. This incorporates a variety of tools, including but not limited to hands-on projects, open discussions, and physical activities. One hands-on project from the Proof and Consequences Sonia Math Day involved cutting right triangles from construction paper, making squares that match up to the side lengths of the triangles, and then cutting, taping, and rearranging until students can see the Pythagorean Theorem in action and at their fingertips (see Fig. 1 for a group photo of the event). We once used an open discussion to kick off an exploration of dihedral groups by letting the students choose shapes and brainstorm their symmetries, rather than listing them ourselves and lecturing to our audience. When we wanted to introduce the traveling errand person problem (our own non-gendered, age-adjusted spin on the traveling salesman problem) during our Walks through Mathematics Sonia Math Day, we had students literally walk along a masking tape path of their choosing, stopping to pick up tokens representing pizza, library books, groceries, etc. by taking the most efficient paths they could conceive. Once the lesson plans have been drafted, our volunteers pivot to bring the activities to life for the students during the events. We practice active learning strategies such as asking leading questions to keep students engaged. We try to model the type of behavior we want to promote in our participants, which involves building ideas up instead of tearing them down, making sure everyone gets a chance to speak, sharing new perspectives and praising the contributions we find insightful or innovative. Other volunteers may help with lunch and breaks: they initiate conversations, set up board games, and encourage interaction between students from different schools and backgrounds. The volunteers who make these outreach events

Outreach, Friendship, and Community at the University of Illinois

961

Fig. 1 Sonia Math Day: Proof and Consequences, Fall 2019

possible come from a variety of backgrounds themselves. We have volunteers who are in their first semester and volunteers finishing their last; volunteers who come to our graduate program from all over the world; volunteers who are analysts and algebraists, not to mention combinatorialists, topologists, number theorists, graph theorists, set theorists, and logicians, alongside our peers who are more interested in the applied side of math. We span a vast range of identities, which helps demonstrate to the outreach participants that mathematics is for everyone. Yet we are united by our enthusiasm for math and desire to share this enthusiasm with a new generation of students. For many of us, this experience is a deeply personal way of giving back, because we can remember a moment when someone else first passed the torch to us. There are many moving parts in the mathematics education of a student who eventually pursues a graduate degree in the subject and our outreach volunteers have had their own personal experience with them. We take enough math classes over the long course of our education that sooner or later, we wind up in a classroom where we feel like we don’t belong. Many of us come to graduate school and find ourselves able to commiserate over that one class in high school where we were doing more teaching than the teacher, or the subject areas we’re wary of because our first experiences in them left us discouraged and doubting our own abilities. But we also find ourselves able to bond over remembering the first time a teacher or mentor told us we were good at math or the thrill when pieces we’d assumed were from different puzzles started fitting together. We can list the names of professors, camp counselors, and outreach volunteers who gave us the support we needed to thrive and to reach the places we are today, and now that we’re standing here, we are honored to use that privilege to keep the cycle alive. Our outreach activities give

962

G. Jaffe and M. Nahvi

us a platform to welcome young people into the world of mathematics, and our own diverse backgrounds allow them to feel like they could belong, if they wanted to. Some of us have also found valuable friendships along the way. One of our members credits our chapter, especially the outreach events, with being a turning point in their first semester of graduate school. Having just moved across the world and therefore feeling disconnected, they were inspired by meeting others who also believe that the underdog deserves equal opportunities. A few years have passed since then, and this member still feels strengthened and supported by the graduate students who spend the little free time they have keeping our AWM chapter alive and nurturing the community. This year, we’ve been obliged to rethink how we teach math. At the time of writing, we are preparing to attempt our first-ever virtual Sonia Math Day, covering the timely subject of voting theory just before the 2020 election. We are going to have to get creative with hosting activities over Zoom and keeping everyone on the same page, but we are glad that many of our outreach volunteers are willing to take up the challenge. The reader may have to check back when the AWM reaches its 100th anniversary to find out how it goes. In the meantime, please wish us luck! Until then, we would like to thank the AWM for the support and encouragement they have shown our chapter, especially when the world around us is less accommodating. We would also like to share our hope for an increased focus on intersectionality moving forward. Each of us takes up more than a single spot when it comes to our identity. One of the authors’ experience as a mathematician has been affected by them being a woman, but their queerness and mental health struggles have had just as immense an impact on how they fit in the community. Many of the women in our chapter feel gratified and accepted into the mathematics community because of the representation from and efforts made by organizations like the AWM. Our non-binary siblings deserve the same. Our neurodivergent peers, our queer classmates, and our friends who have disabilities deserve the same. Mathematics is for everyone, but some of us find that difficult to believe when we do not see ourselves represented in the community. As the AWM continues its vital and much-appreciated efforts to “increase the presence and visibility of women in the mathematical sciences” (AWM, 2020), we look forward to having more members of an increasing variety of identities join our ranks. We have every confidence that the coming years are going to look better.

References AWM. 2020. The AWM. https://awm-math.org/about. Accessed 15 Oct 2020. GEMS. 2020. The UIUC AWM Chapter. https://math.illinois.edu/gems. Accessed 15 Oct 2020. Teaching and Diversity Seminars. 2020. The UIUC AWM Chapter. https://math.illinois.edu/ academics/graduate-program/women-mathematics/seminars. Accessed 15 Oct 2020. Sonia Math Day. 2020. The UIUC AWM Chapter. https://math.illinois.edu/sonia-math-day. Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

The AWM at the University of Kentucky: Community and Community Outreach Kate Ponto, Kalila Sawyer, and Carissa Slone

The University of Kentucky chapter of the Association for Women in Mathematics has two broad goals: we want to build an encouraging community for women and students from other underrepresented groups in our department and support our members in their work to extend the goals of the AWM outside of our chapter. The UK AWM chapter is about ten years old and its founding was initiated by graduate students and supported by faculty member Katy Ott. In a 2020 census of current and former officers, we found that (at least) 24 different people have held leadership roles in our chapter. This range of voices has produced an encouraging variety of goals for our chapter reflecting the diverse needs of our population. Within these changes of leadership and focus there are important constants. We are first and foremost an organization that supports math graduate students at the University of Kentucky from traditionally underrepresented groups. An important part of that support is giving our members a firm foundation that facilitates interactions with other organizations and connections to the broader community. The chapter won the AWM Student Chapter Award for Community Outreach in 2019. Participants in our chapter’s activities can be envisioned as a series of concentric circles. In the center, we have our members and the activities we do to build community among them. Our middle circle is other members of our department and organizations that serve and represent them, such as the math club, the math department graduate student council (GSC), and the University of Kentucky student chapter of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). Our outer

K. Ponto () · C. Slone University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] K. Sawyer Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_82

963

964

K. Ponto et al.

circle is our broader community. This includes members of the University of Kentucky community outside of our department, students at other colleges and universities nearby, and people who live in the city of Lexington, Kentucky. As will be clear from our activities, the boundaries of these circles are more than a little fuzzy! Our most central activities nurture the connections between our members by providing introductions and opportunities to reconnect. When we asked current and former members about their experiences, they almost all started by describing the importance of the connections they made with other members of our chapter. Some of these connections were with more experienced members who became sounding boards and essential sources of wisdom. These mentors confirmed that feelings of frustration were normal and shared how they’d managed similar experiences (including referrals to other members of the department who could help!). Others were with peers who provided support and commiseration during challenging times in graduate school. These connections also provided opportunities to celebrate successes with others who fully understood their significance. We build community through a range of events. We host informal social activities to build camaraderie, external speakers to introduce the women in the department to potential mentors, and outreach activities to provide opportunities for our members to be mentors. The balance among these events is an important consideration for our leadership team. Our social activities include taking over a department tea once or twice a semester and hosting trivia nights and game nights. We also have an ice cream social at the end of each academic year to celebrate graduating students. It often has the best attendance of any of our activities and is a great way to celebrate the end of an academic year! These are some of our most consistent events and they are the foundation of what we do. For many activities, we collaborate with other department organizations and merge service to our members with connections to other groups in our department. We’ve worked with our department’s undergraduate math club, our GSC, and the research seminars in our department. This has many advantages. It increases the visibility of our chapter and brings in new voices. It also allows us to share effort and cost—members of our leadership team have many other responsibilities and our annual budget is small! We’ve hosted panel discussions in conjunction with math club and GSC. Every fall, we host a panel with the GSC for first- and second-year students to ask questions they have about surviving the program that they didn’t know to ask in orientation or didn’t feel comfortable asking then. With the math club, we hold a panel about research experiences for undergraduates. In the spring, we and the GSC host a panel about applying for academic jobs. Panel discussions advance many of our goals. Most obviously, they give our members opportunities to ask questions and introduce them to more experienced members of the department. Our more senior members benefit from serving on the panels and practicing a very different form of public communication than they experience with teaching. It also helps them build their CVs!

The AWM at the University of Kentucky: Community and Community Outreach

965

Our chapter has invited a small number of external speakers on its own, but this is expensive and we’ve found it works better if we work with research seminars in our department. This shares the effort and cost involved in hosting a visitor, but more importantly, it means that more people get to enjoy the visit and talk by a woman or member of another traditionally underrepresented group. (We aspire to welcome members of any underrepresented group. Learning how to be more welcoming to more people is one of our long-term goals.) We’ve had some really amazing visitors who have helped our members broaden their community beyond the University of Kentucky. These have ranged from current graduate students at other institutions to senior faculty who have served in leadership roles of national organizations and include Alissa Crans, Ingrid Daubechies, Pamela Harris, Irina Mitrea, Jill Pipher, and Ami Radunskaya. We usually have lunch or dinner with these visitors since it provides a comfortable opportunity to ask questions—especially questions that seem tricky or awkward to ask in a more formal setting. These meals can also be practice for attending seminar or conference dinners that are such an important source of connections for graduate students and early-career faculty. Our chapter has coordinated trips to local conferences for women in mathematics. In April 2018, some of our members attended the Midwest Symposium for Women in Mathematics at Purdue University. In addition to opportunities to meet women at other departments, this was a great opportunity for our members to build connections with other members of our department. For example, traveling together gave our members opportunities to build and further develop friendships with their local peers. Collaboration with other organizations is central to our outreach activities. We do not want to be the only voices advocating for underrepresented students in STEM! Three outreach activities that have been especially important to our recent members are Inclusive Community Lunches, the University of Kentucky High School Math Day, and the Appalachian Initiative for Mathematics. These activities have significant participation by chapter members but extend beyond our organization. Academic year 2019–2020 was deemed a Year of Equity at the University of Kentucky. This year was the 70th anniversary of Lyman T. Johnson’s lawsuit to integrate the University of Kentucky. The lawsuit was successful and Johnson was the first African American student to attend the University of Kentucky. Special Year of Equity events included talks, movie screenings, receptions, and Inclusive Community Lunches. The Inclusive Community Lunches were informal opportunities for graduate students, professional students, and postdocs at the University of Kentucky to discuss topics related to inclusion and diversity. These were monthly meetings where lunch was provided. A broad range of topics were discussed, including Unconscious/Implicit Bias, Microaggressions, Having Difficult Conversations, and How to Be an Ally. A very important aspect of these lunches is that they reached outside of the math department. They provided opportunities for important

966

K. Ponto et al.

conversations and they also helped publicize our chapter’s concerns outside of our chapter and department. Our AWM chapter achieves visibility in Lexington and Central Kentucky through our participation in the local Julia Robinson Festival. Every year, the University of Kentucky math department has a high school math day. Some years, it serves only women and other years it is open to anyone who is interested. It is a oneday event that involves hands-on activities, a speaker, and a friendly (and optional) math competition. It is important to us that this is not solely an activity of our AWM chapter but a departmental activity directed by Professors Margaret Readdy and Richard Ehrenborg. Many of our chapter members volunteer to help. This distinction means that our AWM chapter is not the only organization at our university advancing the cause of supporting women in math. In 2019, the US Census Bureau reported that Kentucky ranked 49th in bachelors degree attainment among the 50 US states, DC, and 5 US territories that are permanently inhabited. Our department has a significant number of first-generation undergraduate and graduate students. Further, the University of Kentucky has one of only two PhD programs in math in the state of Kentucky. On the other hand, Kentucky has many small colleges, including several in easy driving distance of Lexington, and this provides an opportunity for our members to start addressing the attainment gap. The Appalachian Initiative for Mathematics partners with these colleges to provide math club speakers from among our graduate students. This gives students at these colleges an opportunity to ask a current student their questions about graduate school in math or, in many cases, a first opportunity for students to think about grad school as a part of their future. In addition to serving students at surrounding colleges, the Appalachian Initiative for Mathematics provides opportunities for University of Kentucky math graduate students. They get to visit a college that is very different from our university and possibly very different from the school they attended for their undergraduate education. This is another important opportunity for graduate students to give talks outside our department, build CVs, and gain experience that will help in job searches. To meet the needs of the schools visited and of our graduate students, this program has been extended to high schools. This provides earlier awareness of opportunities in math and greater flexibility for graduate student participants. Pooling of resources and serving all participants is central to our activities. It makes our chapter more sustainable by reducing demand on individual members and bringing in more voices to help us recognize and respond to changing needs. We hope that by continuing to grow with the needs of our community, to welcome new members, and to collaborate with other organizations, our chapter will continue for many more years.

My Unspoken Mathematical Journey Julianne Vega

In this reflection, I share my mathematical journey as seen through the lens of a women mathematicians’ empowerment lunch and contrast this with activities of an AWM student chapter. My story illustrates how even well-intentioned actions may not be supportive and gives an example of an activity that I have found to be supportive. Mentors and students are encouraged to consider what parts of my story resonate with them and to consider how actions, words, and support are interpreted. My mathematical journey is a large part of who I am. It has shaped me far beyond the way I personally approach mathematics. In all regards, my mathematical journey has oriented me towards community building and leadership with a focus on empowering others. It impacts the way I set goals for myself. The way I teach in a classroom. The way I participate in collaborations. The way I interact with others. Like defined and purposeful braids that can be traced back to the roots, my strong emphasis on empowering and lifting the voices of others can be traced through my mathematical journey. Despite how influential my journey is to me, it is one I am ashamed of. My focus on empowerment and community building come from a series of painful experiences and a desire to fix what I see as broken. Unfortunately, sharing my journey is not so easy. The hurdles that I have overcome to become an assistant professor of mathematics are not well defined. I cannot point to one major event, or one person, or one year that provides insight into how I got here. Rather, it is the culmination of many experiences that provides the complete picture. After hearing one part of my journey, it is equally difficult to understand how I feel about my experiences as it is to miss the feelings of isolation and embarrassment that accompany my words. In what is to follow, I hope to convey

J. Vega () Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_83

967

968

J. Vega

these feelings to you through a specific experience during a women’s empowerment lunch at a two-week graduate research workshop. The purpose of the lunch was to provide a space for the women of the workshop to share their experiences, get advice specific to navigating mathematics as a woman, and to talk candidly about challenges they have faced. Despite these intentions, I did not walk away feeling empowered. I share with you my unspoken mathematical journey. I was entering the summer before my final year of my doctoral program filled with excitement about the opportunities ahead. In my eyes, I had made it. I had learned how to navigate the political culture. I had learned how to support myself. I had learned how to accomplish my goals, while still “keeping my head down.” I had made friends in my field. I had formed meaningful collaborations. I woke up excited about the empowerment lunch. I had been to many such meetings and I truly believe in listening to and sharing life experiences. What I love most is how I am left engaging in deep personal reflection. I sat around a table of women mathematicians during the women’s empowerment lunch. As we turned our attention towards our mathematical journeys my heart began to race. My teeth clenched. My mind looked for ways to casually exit the conversation. While I wanted to hear the stories of my colleagues, I also anticipated that our stories would not be so similar. And, yet, I know it is in the act of sharing that we grow closer; that we grow together. I reasoned to myself that perhaps that is enough of a reason to stay. I listened as one by one they shared their stories of early success, having teachers that provided more challenging mathematics, having family members that encouraged them to continue with their passions. As each woman shared her story, I continually hoped that the next would share a story closer to my own, but it did not happen. While the four other women happily shared how they got there, with smiles and laughs, I tried my best to remain quiet in a last-ditch effort to go unnoticed. I hoped that the conversation would change to anything else so I could avoid sharing. That’s when my colleagues turned to me, “So, Julie, how did you end up here? What is your mathematical journey?” My mind couldn’t find a landing point. Should I tell them about how I was mostly in remediation during elementary school or how most homework assignments took several hours and ended in tears? Perhaps the painful memory of being on the other side of the aggravated shout, “I just don’t understand why you don’t understand this!” Should I tell them that every summer involved doing mathematics workbooks to review what I never learned? Maybe I should share how my mom fought to get me into the advanced math class in sixth grade only for me to be called out and left behind on the first day because it was review of material I had not yet seen. No, perhaps those memories are too far in the past. Maybe it makes more sense to recall how when I was choosing a major my friends and family members said “You know math is hard, right?” and “You should definitely have a back-up plan.” Maybe it would be more relatable to stick with graduate school. Ah yes, perhaps I should explain how during orientation the leader made direct eye contact as he said, “Some of you are not as prepared as others” or how my future advisor told me in year one that so many people want to work with him that when I begin to

My Unspoken Mathematical Journey

969

look for advisors I shouldn’t even ask him. Or, maybe that time I was told “You want to teach so it doesn’t matter who your advisor is, you should let all of your other classmates choose an advisor before you do.” Perhaps I should share how after my first semester, the department head informed me that having Bs meant I wasn’t succeeding and that I “need to make sure I am doing my own work.” Or, maybe that time when I was told “It’s OK to be a one and done researcher” before I even started doing research. Perhaps I should just stick to sharing the too-familiar remark that I should stop looking for collaborations/attending conferences/leading events because “I should only focus on my dissertation.” (And, to think, these are only the some of the negative messages that I received that made me question if I belong.) From deep within my internal tension I replied, “I did not have people encouraging me. In fact, in elementary school I wasn’t even good enough to sit in math class with my classmates, instead I was in the hallway with a tutor.” I watched as their broad smiles slowly disappeared. They searched for relatable stories of their own. The best they could do was once I was the only girl in my math class. “Well, I better get going.” I fled the scene as quickly as I could and deep down I wished I had done so sooner. I failed to hold back tears as I looked for a safe place to get away. Despite being at a workshop where I should have been engaging in mathematics and building relationships with my colleagues, I spent the next hour and a half hidden in the corner of an empty classroom with the lights off, sobbing and thinking “I don’t belong here. I never had that encouragement because I was never meant to be a mathematician.” I opened my computer and began an email to my advisor. Even though I knew he wouldn’t get back to me as quickly as I needed, I could do as I have always done and be my own advisor. I could encourage myself to continue on. My email led with my feelings and what happened, acknowledged that I was hiding, and ended with advice to myself: You deserve to be here because you are here and you do have people that love and care about you. Some of those people are here at this workshop. Silent support is support. Everyone’s journey is different. Everyone is trying to understand mathematics just a little bit more than they currently do.

I got up and returned to the workshop. Well, at least physically. I held in the dull ache of not belonging for another two days. Each person I saw, spoke with, worked with—I thought about how they probably had early success as well. They probably had mentors and teachers encouraging them from the start. That’s probably why they know mathematics better than I do. That’s probably why they belong more than I do. So how is it that I actually got here? Continually picking myself up and advising myself is tiring. Lowering my standard to seek silent supporters, which really just means people that enjoy my company and are willing to claim mutual success once I find my own, is not empowering. That’s not thriving, that’s surviving. Why didn’t I listen to all of those negative messages and just give up already? Now that I am in

970

J. Vega

a position to surround myself with positive mentors and colleagues, I can look back and understand the takeaways more clearly. I learned that every mathematical journey is different. I saw early on that although I was not good at math I enjoyed math. I held onto that feeling and I hid it away like a precious treasure. The moment I shared, was the moment I was discouraged and so I only shared with myself. In high school, I kept a list of interesting math topics in my back pocket. I would rush home from school and search the internet to read more, adding to the list daily. When my parents or brother would stop by, I would hide the tab behind some Instant Messenger chats. When my friend thought it was a list of boys I liked, chased me around and tackled me to the ground to see it, I stuck it in my mouth and quickly threw it away. The early lesson learned of maintaining a growth mindset has brought me to focus on my own learning in a way that ignores the comparisons and helps me see that what appears to be natural ability is usually bred from stronger mathematical backgrounds and environments that actively encouraged mathematical growth and discovery. While my journey may feel different, it is still a valid mathematical journey and I do belong. I also recognize the importance of acknowledging the impact of words and actions. In my experience, some mentors believe they are doing justice to their students, but in reality their words are not perceived in the way they intend. I am fortunate to be highly reflective, so when I am on the receiving end of a negative message I think deeply about why it hurt, where is the truth, and what is my role in bettering the situation. I can hear messages like “It’s OK to be a one-and-done researcher” and see that they are coming from a place of care. Such messages are trying, though missing the mark, to say that “No matter what type of researcher you are, you can do this.” There is a history of my own that he does not know and a history of his own that I do not know. Though I feel confident that he is coming from a place of encouraging graduate students to feel like they can be successful mathematicians no matter what type of researcher they are. I know I could remedy the situation by having a conversation where I explain that I do want to do research and he wrongfully assumed otherwise, but I also know I must save my energy. Finally, given my experiences, it has been a core focus of mine to empower others and welcome community. I believe that we can do a better job of supporting mathematics students and supporting each other. While a graduate student at University of Kentucky, I recognized the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) as a professional society that believes, as I do, in the importance of purposeful community building. I watched as each year, the University of Kentucky AWM student chapter (AWM-UK), gained a stronger voice and had a greater impact on the graduate student community (see Fig. 1). Through purposeful events and invited speakers, they positively influenced the lives of graduate students. I realized that being on the AWM-UK leadership board would provide a platform to contribute to that community building. As vice president of AWM-UK, along with the leadership board and graduate students, I forged ahead with my desire to build a welcoming community that encourages listening to and sharing experiences. We did many impactful things that year, which led to being honored with the AWM Student Chapter Award for Community Outreach, but the one initiative that I

My Unspoken Mathematical Journey

971

Fig. 1 Julianne Vega (third from left) with the AWM-UK chapter at the Midwest Symposium for Women in Mathematics, Purdue University, April 2018

found to be really meaningful was the Inclusive Community Lunches. During these monthly meetings, we would spend time reflecting on our own contributions and experiences surrounding a particular inclusion and equity topic. Then, we would have open discussions concerning what we learned about ourselves and how we could better our departmental community. I was continually learning about my colleagues and engaging in deep conversations to better support them. What I valued most about these meetings was that it was a space in which others became empowered to share their story and provided an opportunity to listen. Through sharing and listening we learn how to support one another. We become empowered. We grow as a community. So, reader, what’s your mathematical journey?

Part XVI

National and International Groups That Support Women in Mathematics

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies for Women in STEM Amy Ackerberg-Hastings

For 50 years, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) has exerted influence in all arenas of mathematical activity, such as education, career development, and research. At the same time, AWM’s founders and later members have acted within a broader context of organization-building for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) that chiefly unfolded during the second wave of American feminism (usually defined as the 1960s to 1980s, although this essay will also note first-wave and third-wave developments). Among other achievements, the various groups that emerged in this period established the hallmarks of professionalization—namely, academic societies that published journals and held conferences, all designed for those trained in a given society’s subject matter, generally by completing an advanced degree—for women in STEM. Simultaneously, these organizations raised awareness of women’s contributions and struggles within other STEM organizations, educational institutions, government and business entities, and the public. This article sketches a brief prosopography of a representative, albeit not comprehensive, selection of professional societies for women in STEM established in the United States (US). Specifically, in addition to AWM, it considers Graduate Women in Science, the Society of Woman Geographers, the Society of Women Engineers, Sociologists for Women in Society, the Association for Women in Science, the Association for Women Geoscientists, and the Earth Science Women’s Network. Utilizing professionalization as its primary interpretive lens, the following comparative analysis of these organizations highlights how their founders identified similar concerns, undertook similar actions to achieve similar objectives, and, as a result, have collectively steadily increased the visibility of women in STEM.

A. Ackerberg-Hastings () Rockville, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_84

975

976

A. Ackerberg-Hastings

At least as far back as Aristotle’s division of the natural world into dichotomous relationships, in which he inter alia described supposedly “masculine” characteristics as inherently superior to those classified as “feminine,” STEM activities commonly and consistently have been assumed to be the province of men. Even a cursory reading of the history of women in STEM, of course, demonstrates that women have been interested in these fields all along. (Some of the biographies of early women in mathematics, for instance, include (Arianrhod, 2012; Deakin, 2007; Hollings et al., 2018; Mazzotti, 2007).) Nonetheless, they have far too often had to struggle for access to education, current research, and employment. (For the US, this story has been told most thoroughly in Margaret Rossiter’s (1982–2012) three groundbreaking volumes, Women Scientists in America.) The stereotype of women who were exceptions to their sex for wanting to participate in STEM, and who then had to prove their talents were more exceptional than those of most men in order to receive recognition for their accomplishments, has existed since Hypatia (fl. fourth century) but perhaps accelerated in the West from the eighteenth century until late in the twentieth century. Similarly, until recently, most of the women whose names have been recorded gained entrée into STEM through their relationships with men, such as fathers, brothers, and husbands. Many of the women in the history of STEM must have felt isolated even before the nineteenth-century advent of professionalization further separated the sexes. (On the emergence and broader implications of professionalization in the sciences, see for example Reingold (1976) and Levine (2001).) Most universities refused to admit women to their nascent graduate programs in STEM; those male PhDs would then hold the professorships and positions in industry from which publication decisions were made, professional societies were organized, and meetings were arranged—at which the men in STEM would network, plan collaborative research, make hiring decisions, and generally perpetuate a men-only culture. If they were to reap the benefits that accrued from forming professional group identities, women in various STEM fields gradually realized, they would need to create their own organizations. Even though these professional societies for women proved significant both to their individual members and for the STEM disciplines as a whole, the body of historical work on these associations remains relatively slim. Additionally, the scholarship that exists tends not to consider the societies collectively as a unique phenomenon. For example, Rossiter usually folded her mentions of these organizations into wider discussions of a vast number of formal and informal groups, so that she could convey the broad sweep of women’s extended battle for equal status in STEM careers. Amy Sue Bix has also stressed the importance of women intentionally coming together to establish conspicuous critical masses but has focused more on educational institutions than on detailed discussions of organizations such as the Society of Women Engineers (see, for instance, Bix (2013)). Meanwhile, aside from textbook overviews of women in the history of science (in particular, the very useful Sheffield (2004)), histories of women in STEM in general still gravitate toward individuals—a quick scan of the author’s bookshelves reveals several excellent but life story–focused works published in the twenty-first century, including (Baym, 2002; Case and Leggett, 2005; Fara, 2018;

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies

977

Green and LaDuke, 2009; Des Jardins, 2010; Williams, 2018). Yet, as stated above, women have historically engaged their disciplines not only on their own but also within existing institutions and by forming new expressions of corporate identity. Histories have indeed been written for all eight societies profiled in this essay, usually to celebrate organizational milestones or to educate potential members. Since archival research was not possible for an independent scholar who lacked database access and was weighed down by unpaid professional obligations even before the extensive societal interruptions prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic that occurred during the preparation of this volume, these narratives were invaluable. Although these accounts are typically designed to look inward, their authors have at times also asserted that organizations as a general concept are key to understanding the breadth of spaces women have occupied in the STEM professions. Thus, in addition to the various methodological tools employed in writing histories of STEM, scholarship on structures, structuralism, and gender have informed the argument presented here, such as Pyenson and Sheets-Pyenson (1999). See also Appel (1994), Cowan (1987), Green and Troup (1999), Schiebinger (1987), and Scott (1986). Employing all of these lenses to evaluate the formation of societies for women in STEM suggests both the particular role these organizations have collectively played in asserting the professional status of women in STEM and the fruitful possibilities for further study of their commonalities. How did American women come to establish professional societies in STEM? Throughout the nineteenth century, they had already been forming organizations to amplify their voices, increasing their scope over time from temperance, abolition, and suffrage into realms such as academia. For example, under the leadership of astronomer Maria Mitchell, the Association for the Advancement of Women (founded in 1873) promoted women’s capabilities for a wide range of activities, including science. Other early societies, such as the Association of Collegiate Alumnae (founded in 1882) and the Southern Association of College Women (founded in 1903), which merged in 1921 to establish the American Association of University Women (AAUW), started the work of advocating for women who entered higher education (AAUW, n. d.; Braselmann, 2003; Kohlstedt, 1978; Rossiter, 1982–2012, vol. 1). However, the first notable organization specifically for STEM students or faculty seems to be the group now known as Graduate Women in Science (GWIS), also established in 1921. GWIS began as a sorority house and honor society (Sigma Delta Epsilon) at Cornell University, which was the leading public, coeducational educator of women scientists before 1920, outpaced only by four of the “Seven Sisters” women’s colleges (Rossiter, 1982–2012, vol. 1, p. 10). Within a year GWIS held a national convention, having added a chapter at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Months later, the society began participating in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting; AAAS allowed it to become an affiliate in 1936. Additional markers of a full-fledged organization were gradually added, such as efforts to fund fellowships in 1931, a newsletter in 1935, and a board of directors in 1948. Yet, it was not until 1971 that “Graduate Women in Science” was added to the association’s name, in the midst of a period of reworking the body’s goals and administrative structure. By 2016, when

978

A. Ackerberg-Hastings

“Sigma Delta Epsilon” was dropped from the name, GWIS consisted of 34 chapters, which typically have been situated regionally rather than tied to a specific university campus (Braselmann 2003; GWIS 2018; Rossiter 1982–2012, vol. 1, pp. 300–301). While GWIS concentrated on supporting women in science throughout their graduate training, the Society of Woman Geographers (SWG) was created by and for women who were already engaged in STEM careers. Despite having lived through more adventures than most men, Marguerite Harrison, Blair Niles, Gertrude Shelby, and Gertrude Emerson found themselves excluded from New York City’s Explorers Club. Thus, in 1925 they started an organization to foster collegiality and to highlight women’s achievements in exploration, mountaineering, journalism, cinema, anthropology, archaeology, and related fields. High-profile members in the early years included Amelia Earhart, Margaret Mead—who explicitly noted SWG’s value as a venue for socializing with fellow professionals—and Mary Leakey. Uniquely among the organizations described here, SWG began a flag-carrying program in 1931 to serve as a mechanism for granting members permission to bring the SWG flag on their expeditions. The society inaugurated an annual dinner in 1932, which gradually evolved into a triennial conference, and first awarded its Gold Medal in 1933. It published an annual bulletin with self-reported news of members’ activities and accomplishments. The SWG’s interests have remained relatively niche and selective, with 500 members across five sections at present (Eppinga, 2009; SWG, 2020; Stuart, 2003). In contrast, the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) began by reaching out to a broad swath of students, faculty, and practitioners. Although the organization had a precursor in an attempt in 1919 to establish an American Society of Women Engineers and Architects, it was not until after World War II that women engineering students at the undergraduate and graduate levels were able to sustain groups that agreed to combine their efforts at a conference at Drexel University in 1949. A year later, SWE was officially established during a summer camp for engineers at Cooper Union in New York City—participants carried out all of the logistical aspects of the meeting, even the cooking. Shortly thereafter, a newsletter began publication; it evolved through several incarnations into SWE, Magazine of the Society of Women Engineers, established in 1993. SWE held its first annual meeting in 1951, incorporated in 1952, and set up a Board of Trustees in 1956. Early members’ chief aims were collegiality and cooperation, in order to support women in succeeding at their individual careers. Gradually, though, as membership and meeting attendance expanded from 60 to several hundred, SWE became both more overt and more political in encouraging girls to become engineers. In 1972 it joined the Federation of Organizations of Professional Women to discuss employment equity. Decisions to admit male members and to support the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) evoked internal controversy, after which SWE largely refrained from again weighing in on public policy until the 1990s. Meanwhile, SWE conducted surveys in the 1970s and 1980s that gathered valuable data about the status of women in engineering professions. A 1988 grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) provided a kickstart for renewed, expanded outreach initiatives with high school students, and SWE additionally pursued corporate partnerships. At present,

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies

979

the organization has 40,000 members spread across 100 professional and 300 college sections (CSU, n. d.; Perusek and Eller, 2015; SWE, 2020a; SWE, 2020b; SWE, n. d.). It was no accident that SWE began moving into political arenas in parallel with the second wave of American feminism—roughly, the 1960s to the early 1980s, during which women sought legal rights and protections such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title X (1970), Title IX (1972), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as reforms of laws and social mores regarding rape, domestic violence, divorce, and reproductive health. Frustration with subjugation and injustice at work, at school, and at home unleashed a movement toward creating new institutions among women in STEM fields; indeed, the histories of the next several organizations nearly overlap chronologically. Although key leaders in all of these professional societies spent years that, in retrospect, prepared them to found organizations, some of the earliest direct action occurred when Alice Rossi and 200 other women organized a counter-convention to the 1969 American Sociological Association (ASA) annual meeting in San Francisco. They drew up a list of nine resolutions, outlining ways ASA could treat male and female members more equally, to present at the ASA business meeting. The resolutions were approved—in no small part because the caucus was so wellprepared. Nonetheless, a subset of attendees moved ahead with planning to form a separate entity, gathering at Yale in 1970 and formally launching Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) at ASA’s February 1971 conference. The word “for” was intentionally chosen to welcome men as well as women, and organizational aims addressed both the profession of sociology and wider society. SWS continued to work for change within ASA by attending its Council meetings, choosing candidates to support, and developing additional programs and committees, but SWS members also engaged in public feminist protests, took stands on policy issues such as the ERA, and in 1972 started to distribute a newsletter. The newsletter evolved into SWS Network News in 1986, and SWS established an academic journal, Gender & Society, in 1987 (Laube and Hess, 2001; Roby, 2009). Just as SWS moved rather methodically through confronting ASA and then establishing its own organization, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) grew out of an extended period of discussion and groundwork, although its actual founding in early 1971 was precipitated by several concurrent events. In the late 1960s, women mathematicians in Boston, at Berkeley, and elsewhere compared notes on the overt and subtle obstacles they faced. However, it was at the January 1971 Joint Mathematics Meetings in Atlantic City that a subset of the Mathematicians Action Group (MAG) began to talk about a formal organization. Leaders hit the ground running, advertising the society in February, printing a newsletter in May, organizing a panel discussion at that summer’s Mathematical Association of America (MAA) meeting, and encouraging AWM members to file formal complaints if they had been affected by unfair employment practices. First president Mary Gray sat in on an American Mathematical Society (AMS) Council meeting at Penn State University to open it to all members. The founders assumed from the beginning that AWM would be independent of existing national

980

A. Ackerberg-Hastings

mathematics organizations so they could influence all areas of teaching, research, and general professional activity. By September 1971, the organization had changed its name from “Association of Women” to “Association for Women” to help males feel welcome to join the group’s efforts. Gray and others were extremely vocal advocates; at the same time, early newsletters document both that AMS and MAA audiences often were not openly hostile and that women commonly encountered discrimination behind closed doors. AWM’s activist nature and energy for outreach has persisted, even as membership has grown past 5200 members in 250 institutions. By the end of its first decade, the organization had made itself so well-known and regarded that it was considered one of the major international mathematics societies (Blum, 1991; Gray, 1971–1972; Greenwald, 2016; Greenwald et al., 2015). Although the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) was—just barely—the last of these three societies to be formally established, in April 1971, it also was rooted in several years of informal social gatherings at other professional society meetings, chiefly those of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. In the same year, AWIS sued the National Institutes of Health to force it to commit to appointing more women to grant review committees; AWIS joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1975 to successfully sue the Office of Civil Rights over discrimination by sex and by race in higher education. The organization set up an office in Washington, DC, in 1973. Its first chapter was established in New York in 1974. AWIS began partnering with AAAS to hold a meeting in conjunction with AAAS’s annual meeting in 1981 (where AWIS’s theme was equal representation by gender in mathematics education). Indeed, throughout its history, AWIS has worked with coalitions of organizations to study and advocate for improvements to women’s access to education and working conditions. Its present functions serve general advisory roles rather than offer career development in any particular discipline. One hundred thousand members participate in 80 chapters and affiliates (AWIS, 2019; Braselmann, 2003). In 1972, Marsha Greenwald and Theresa Schwarzer organized a meeting at the Geological Society of America annual conference that stimulated the American Geoscientists Institute to form a committee of nine women that spent the next decade gathering data on women in the profession and preparing outreach materials. Around 50 women who worked in the San Francisco area then met in March 1977 to establish the Bay Area Association of Women Geo-scientists. As the group’s newsletter spread across the United States, additional chapters emerged and the possibility of creating a national organization was discussed, leading to the adoption of bylaws and a constitution in 1980 and national elections and a national meeting in 1981. Once again, development of a national structure included a change in the proposed name from “Association of Women Geoscientists” to “Association for Women Geoscientists” (AWG). The organization was incorporated in 1983, with the national headquarters remaining in San Francisco. One thousand members belonged to 12 chapters before 1986. AWG pursued initiatives to demonstrate careers in the geosciences to girls and women, to support equity in professional development, to continue to collect and analyze data on women’s representation in the profession,

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies

981

and to encourage networking as well as the sharing of individuals’ stories (AWG, 2020; Schneider et al., 2018). That four professional societies for women in STEM appeared during such a short period of time raises the question of whether the founders worked together across disciplines. Definite information was not available during this study, but preliminary indications are that leaders were aware of each other and may have exchanged ideas via umbrella organizations such as AAUW. Although the 1970s were clearly a watershed for the formation of professional societies for women in STEM, the impulse to create new entities has not ended. Rather, in 2002, six colleagues found themselves discussing the communication and collaboration practices amongst them after a session at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. It occurred to them to expand their network. Soon, they had built a list-serv funded by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and then by the National Science Foundation, as well as other agencies. In its second decade, the Earth Science Women’s Network (ESWN) transitioned from an email list to a website so that the resources recommended by members had a permanent home. Besides encouraging women to exchange anecdotes of struggle and success, ESWN’s 2000 members in more than 50 countries hold in-person events such as meet-ups and workshops and have conducted academic studies on topics such as ways to improve workplace climates and same-gender mentoring. Indeed, peer mentoring is the group’s primary focus. Formal nonprofit status was acquired in 2014. Although the two societies do not appear to engage in joint activities—presumably in part because the older organization specializes in earth sciences and the newer, despite its name, in atmospheric sciences—AWG is one of the professional associations offering support to the network (Adams et al., 2016; ESWN, 2018; IEEE Earthzine, 2017). Despite the brevity of these thumbnail sketches, recurring themes have emerged. For instance, like their nineteenth-century predecessors, these women founded societies in order to offer mutual support for navigating male-dominated realms, which retained the prestige of acting as doorkeepers to publication and promotion. Even if they were the only women in their home departments, members of professional societies for women discovered they were not alone in facing chauvinism in the laboratory and classroom, nor were they the only ones dealing with the mundane struggles of daily life. Older women were able to mentor younger generations, and forming a collective identity amplified women’s voices in calling for fair treatment. Additionally, these societies nearly all featured key small coteries of leaders who served as driving forces to conceive and carry out the establishment of new associations. These core groups both inherited a characteristic trait of persistence from first-wave feminism and imparted it into the organizations they founded. The twentieth-century societies described in this article, though, went beyond their predecessors by intentionally aiming for professional standing, bringing together at a national level women who held or were pursuing specialized postgraduate degrees. Further, the organizations prioritized communication, usually holding conferences and starting newsletters or journals early in their histories. Earlier societies, especially, often funded scholarships and research grants to help women finish their degrees. As they participated in the civil rights and feminist movements

982

A. Ackerberg-Hastings

of the 1950s and 1960s, women in STEM turned their formidable energies to overt political and social activism, compiling statistics on barriers to full participation in education and careers and lobbying governments and university administrations for change. Unsurprisingly, numerous organizations were established in the late 1960s and early 1970s during the height of the second wave of American feminism. Although those profiled here understood themselves nearly from their initial planning stages as independent associations, many of the established professional disciplinary societies also set up women’s committees or caucuses within their overall structures—a few of which have been noted above. Yet, despite forming separate identities, the organizations discussed in this article had no interest in gender segregation but instead, in many cases, tweaked the prepositions in their names from “of” to “for” in order to include men in speaking up for the interests of women in STEM. Similarly, a general push in this era by organizations for women in STEM toward providing speakers, clubs, pamphlets and posters, and other resource materials to elementary and secondary schools was mirrored in the more general academic societies. One such case is the MAA’s initiative for Women and Mathematics, which began in 1975 as a lecture program coordinated by Eileen L. Poiani and currently serves as a network for the directors of programs in mathematics for women and girls, who may also apply for project grants from the Tensor Foundation (MAA, 2020, 1916– present). While the leaders of the associations described above surely would assert that their work is not yet complete, perhaps particularly in achieving true equality of working conditions in STEM professions, these professional organizations for women in STEM just as surely have succeeded in raising the visibility of women in their professions and in realizing increased participation by women in STEM education and careers. This article began with an argument that historical scholarship on women in STEM would benefit from additional attention to the phenomenon of organizationbuilding, perceiving a gap in the literature between Rossiter’s encyclopedic portrait of universities, government agencies, private employers, and formal and informal collectives over the whole course of American history; and these professional societies’ own histories, which have usually been prepared by insiders. The article closes with an assessment of the value that this sort of analysis brings to a volume devoted to the 50th anniversary of AWM. First and foremost, even though AWM understandably is most active in mathematical activities and events, the association does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it stands alongside multiple other STEM organizations for women, many of which were founded at the same time and for the same reasons as AWM. Second, the commonalties in the histories of these organizations provide an opportunity to reflect on the types of spaces women create for themselves, revealing especially the importance of organizations that offer a place to both share honestly about experiences with discrimination and to assert one’s own professional identity and competence. Finally, these organizations in turn present professional legitimacy to the rest of their fields of interest, as well as to the entire range of STEM professions, demonstrating that the full participation of women is an essential component of healthy STEM disciplines. AWM is not only a

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies

983

mathematics professional society; instead, its story enriches a history shared by all of the professional organizations for women in STEM. Acknowledgments The author thanks the three anonymous reviewers for their fact-checking and feedback; any remaining errors and omissions are her responsibility. She is also grateful for the women historians of STEM who have mentored her own education, research, and writing.

References Adams, Amanda S., Allison L. Steiner, and Christine Wiedinmyer. 2016. The Earth Science Women’s Network (ESWN): Community-driven mentoring for women in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97(3): 34–354. https://doi.org/10. 1175/BAMS-D-15-00040.1. American Association of University Women. n. d. Our History. https://www.aauw.org/about/ history/. Accessed 27 July 2020. Appel, Toby. 1994. Physiology in American colleges: The rise and decline of a female subculture. Isis 85: 26–56. Arianrhod, Robyn. 2012. Seduced by logic: Émilie du Châtelet, Mary Somerville, and the Newtonian Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. AWG (Association for Women Geoscientists). 2020. About AWG. http://www.awg.org/about. Accessed 31 July 2020. AWIS (Association for Women in Science). 2019. AWIS History. https://www.awis.org/aboutawis/awis-history/. Accessed 30 July 2020. Baym, Nina. 2002. American women of letters and the nineteenth-century sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Bix, Amy Sue. 2013. Girls coming to tech! A history of American engineering education for women. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Blum, Lenore. 1991. A brief history of the Association for Women in Mathematics: The presidents’ perspectives. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 38(7): 738–754. https://www.ams. org/journals/notices/199109/199109FullIssue.pdf. (Reprinted in this volume) Braselmann, Sylvia. 2003. Reluctant rebels: Women scientists organizing. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 23(1): 6–9. California State University, Long Beach SWE. n. d. SWE History: About Us. https://www. csulbswe.org/about-us/swe-history. Accessed 29 July 2020. Case, Bettye Anne, and Anne M. Leggett (Eds). 2005. Complexities: Women in mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. 1987. Less work for Mother? American Heritage 38(6). https://www. americanheritage.com/less-work-mother. Deakin, Michael. 2007. Hypatia of Alexandria, mathematician and martyr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ESWN (Earth Science Women’s Network). 2018. Who We Are. https://eswnonline.org/welcome/ who-we-are/. Accessed 31 July 2020. Eppinga, Jane. 2009. They made their mark: An illustrated history of the Society of Woman Geographers. Guilford, CT: The Globe Pequot Press. Fara, Patricia. 2018. A lab of one’s own: Science and suffrage in the First World War. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GWIS (Graduate Women in Science). 2018. GWIS History. https://www.gwis.org/page/history_ 2018. Accessed 27 July 2020. Gray, Mary (Ed). 1971–1972. Association for Women in Mathematics Newsletter 1–2.

984

A. Ackerberg-Hastings

Green, Anna, and Kathleen Troup (Eds). 1999. The houses of history: A critical reader in twentiethcentury history and theory. New York: New York University Press. Green, Judy, and Jeanne LaDuke. 2009. Pioneering women in American mathematics: The pre1940 PhD’s. History of Mathematics, vol. 34. Providence and London: American Mathematical Society and London Mathematical Society. Greenwald, Sarah J. 2016. Interview with Mary Gray. AWM Newsletter 46(5): 8–16. Greenwald, Sarah J., Anne M. Leggett, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Mathematical Intelligencer 37(3): 11–21. Hollings, Christopher, Ursula Martin, and Adrian Rice. 2018. Ada Lovelace: The making of a computer scientist. Oxford: Bodleian Library. IEEE Earthzine. Lessons from the Earth Science Women’s Network. 2017. https://earthzine.org/ lessons-from-the-earth-science-womens-network-2/. Accessed 31 July 2020. Jardins, Julie Des. 2010. The Madame Curie complex: The hidden history of women in science. New York: The Feminist Press. Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory. 1978. Maria Mitchell: The advancement of women in science. New England Quarterly 51(1): 39–63. Laube, Heather and Beth B. Hess. 2001. The founding of SWS. Sociologists for Women in Society. https://socwomen.org/about/history-of-sws/the-founding-of-sws/. Accessed 29 July 2020. Levine, Felice J. 2001. Professionalization of social and behavioral sciences: United States. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, 12146–12154. Oxford: Elsevier Science. MAA (Mathematical Association of America). 2020. Women and Mathematics Network. https:// www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/outreach-initiatives/women-and-mathematics. Accessed 1 Aug 2020. Mathematical Association of America Records, 1916–present. Archives of American Mathematics, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin. http://legacy.lib. utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00479/cah-00479.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2020. Mazzotti, Massimo. 2007. The world of Maria Gaetana Agnesi, mathematician of God. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Perusek, Anne M. and Troy Eller English (Eds). 2015. We built this: A look at the Society of Women Engineers’ first 65 years. Chicago: Society of Women Engineers. Pyenson, Lewis, and Susan Sheets-Pyenson. 1999. Servants of Nature: A History of Scientific Institutions, Enterprises, and Sensibilities. New York: W. W. Norton. Reingold, Nathan. 1976. Definitions and speculations: The professionalization of science in America in the nineteenth century. In The pursuit of knowledge in the early American republic, edited by Sanborn E. Brown and Alexandra Oleson, 33–69. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Roby, Pamela Ann. 2009. The Women’s 1969 Sociology Caucus, Sociologists for Women in Society and the ASA: A Forty Year Retrospective of Women on the Move. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco. https:// socwomen.org/about/history-of-sws/the-women/. Accessed 29 July 2020. Rossiter, Margaret. 1982–2012. Women scientists in America. 3 vol. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Schiebinger, Londa. 1987. The history and philosophy of women in science: A review essay. Signs 12(2): 305–332. Schneider, Blair, Lisa M. Tranel, and Mackenzie Cremeans. 2018. The Association for Women Geoscientists: Forty years of successes, struggles, and sisterhood. In Women in geology: Who are we, where have we come from, and where are we going? edited by B. A. Johnson, 105–120. Geological Society of America Memoir 214. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Scott, Joan W. 1986. Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American Historical Review 91: 1053–1075. Sheffield, Suzanne LeMay. 2004. Women and science: Social Impact and Interaction. Science and Society Series, edited by Mark A. Largent. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

AWM in Context: Comparing the Histories of Professional Societies

985

SWE (Society of Women Engineers). 2020a. About SWE: SWE Fact Sheet. https://swe.org/aboutswe/. Accessed 29 July 2020. SWE (Society of Women Engineers). 2020b. Celebrating 70 Years of SWE! All Together. https:// alltogether.swe.org/2020/05/celebrating-70-years-of-swe/. Accessed 27 July 2020. SWE (Society of Women Engineers). n. d. History. Kansas State University. https://engg.ksu.edu/ swe/about/history. Accessed 29 July 2020. SWG (Society of Woman Geographers). 2020. History of the Society of Woman Geographers. http://iswg.org/about/history. Accessed 27 July 2020. Stuart, Karen. 2003. Society of Woman Geographers Records: A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 2003. Revised and expanded in 2010 by Karen Linn Femia and Brian McGuire. http://rs5.loc.gov/ service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2005/ms005005.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2020. Williams, Talithia. 2018. Power in numbers: The rebel women of mathematics. New York: Race Point Publishing.

European Women in Mathematics and the European Mathematical Society’s Women in Mathematics Committee Marie-Françoise Roy and Caroline Series

Introduction In Europe, the main network which coordinates activities of mathematical women is European Women in Mathematics (EWM). Founded in 1986 to support, encourage, and bring together women mathematicians across Europe, EWM currently has about 500 members with coordinators in 33 mainly European countries. It holds a regular General Meeting and summer schools, and other local or specialist conferences. It publishes a newsletter at least twice a year and has a Facebook group, an email network, and a website. Independently from EWM, the European Mathematical Society (EMS) has a Committee for Women in Mathematics (EMS WiMC). This committee, set up shortly after the foundation of the EMS in 1991, has always worked quite closely with EWM, but has been able to act from a rather different perspective. This article describes the formation, history, and main activities of both groups. EWM was established before the EMS WiMC. Although at the time there were quite a number of women mathematicians in Europe, many were isolated and longed to find others who shared their problems and life experiences, and with whom they felt a common bond. This article explains how they came together and created an organization in which lifelong friendships were formed and which after almost 35 years is still vibrant and meaningful for new generations of mathematical women.

M.-F. Roy Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France e-mail: [email protected] C. Series () University of Warwick, Coventry, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_85

987

988

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Almost from the start, it became clear to those involved in EWM that different national and regional modes of social, political, and academic organization have very significant and often unexpected impacts on the number of women mathematicians and the conditions under which they work. Because of the immense regional variations, it was probably more or less inevitable that EWM should form along somewhat different lines to those of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM). In working together, the women involved in building EWM have been able to share alternative ideas and mutual support. Our experience has been that, despite the many differences, there is more which brings us together than divides us, and that all those who have taken part feel greatly enriched by the multicultural crossfertilization which a common love for mathematics has made possible. Thus we hope that this article may also be of interest in showing how organizations of women mathematicians have been able to bring together individuals from many different backgrounds and thereby improve conditions and indeed influence the cultures they spring from. The first section is largely based on Series (2018). The remainder of the article has been compiled from personal records and memories of the two authors with reference to many reports, minutes, and newsletters of EWM and the EMS WiMC. We would like to thank the reviewers for helpful suggestions.

Beginnings of EWM The First Phase European Women in Mathematics came into being as a result of a panel discussion organized by the AWM during the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Berkeley in 1986. A number of women from around the world, including the two authors (MFR and CMS), were invited to speak about the position of women mathematicians in their respective countries. The panel was moderated by Lenore Blum, whose detailed account can be found in the AWM Newsletter (Blum, 1986), together with the reports of individual panelists. Leonore wrote, “One of the most exciting outcomes of the panel and meeting was an increased feeling of internationalism and plans to form affiliate chapters of the AWM around the world. A preliminary working meeting to discuss plans to form a European branch will be held in Paris in December.” Indeed when the five European panelists (Bodil Branner, Denmark; Gudrun Kalmbach, Germany; Dona Strauss, UK; together with MFR and CMS) had met after the panel, they had immediately agreed to try to set up a European version of the AWM. The precise form of the organization, whether it was to be a European branch of the AWM or an independent organization, was not yet clarified, but by the end of the Congress the group had decided to organize an open meeting in Paris in December and see what could be done.

European Women in Mathematics

989

The Paris meeting was held in the Institut Henri Poincaré. Besides the French group, participants came from as far afield as Sweden and Italy. There were mathematics talks and discussions of both organization and philosophy. Despite the many and varied views, it was agreed to try to extend the group and have another open gathering the following year in Copenhagen which Bodil Branner offered to organize. In retrospect, the Paris meeting was the starting point of a new organization, which grew into EWM. As the time for the Copenhagen gathering approached, it was very unclear how many people would come or whether there would be any funding. But then suddenly a lot of people started to get interested, and Bodil got some funding from the Danish government. At the event in December 1987, 22 women from nine countries (including Anna Romanowska from Warsaw, then behind the Iron Curtain) gathered at the Technical University of Denmark in Lyngby, Copenhagen, Bodil’s university. There were reports from the countries represented, and some mathematics. Ragni Piene (Oslo) gave a beautiful talk on algebraic geometry in which she managed to carry everyone along. The audience all relaxed and asked questions and felt they really understood. The style was taken as a model to be aimed for on future occasions. Beside the mathematics, the participants, led by Bodil Branner and CMS, decided on the name “European Women in Mathematics,” drew up an EWM information page, and sketched its constitution, so as to have something concrete in place after the meeting. The aims of the new organization were written down and have remained largely unchanged. They are: • To encourage women to take up and continue their studies in mathematics and to promote mathematics among women. • To support women with or desiring careers in research in mathematics or mathematics-related fields. • To provide a meeting place for these women. • To foster international scientific communications among women within and across fields in mathematics. • To promote equal opportunity and equal treatment of women and men in the mathematical community. • To cooperate with groups and organizations with similar goals. The Copenhagen gathering was warm and optimistic and those who participated began to feel that they were really forging a common bond. CMS organized the next open meeting at the University of Warwick, UK, in December 1988. This time 43 women came from 13 European countries with “guests” from as far afield as Brazil and Côte D’Ivoire. Generous funding was obtained from the Women’s Policy Division of the European Economic Community (EEC, precursor to the EU) and also from the London Mathematical Society. There was a more ambitious three-day program which included an afternoon of talks and discussion for 100 girls from local schools, and a day devoted to mathematics. One of the speakers was Vˇera Trnková from Prague (still behind the Iron Curtain) and it was wonderful to make this contact with “the other side.”

990

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Fig. 1 Data collected by the EMS committee in 1993 and 2005 showing the uneven distribution of women mathematicians across Europe. By “mathematicians” we mean here researchers, lecturers, and senior lecturers, but not PhD students or mathematicians in industry. Note the much greater preponderance of women in the “south”

At Warwick, people started talking about culture differences, trying to understand how and why they so dramatically affect the numbers and status of professional women. Already in Copenhagen it had been apparent from the reports from the countries represented that there were enormous differences in numbers of women mathematicians across Europe (see Fig. 1). Roughly, it went from north to south: the further south, the more women. The most by far were in Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The least represented seemed to be Germany. Not what one might naively expect, and least from a “northern” perspective. There was a lot of fascinating and sometimes heated discussion about why this might be, see for example Losada and Series (1989), and also the memories of Laura Tedeschini Lalli (2017). Quite a lot of time at Warwick was spent hammering out ideas for the new organization and its constitution. Since it covered so many different countries and situations, there was a need to have both a central team and also contacts in as many countries as possible. It was decided to elect a convenor (who had the role of chair or president; the name was chosen as being less hierarchical) together with a standing committee with between 8 and 12 members. In addition, there were to be three or four international coordinators (north, south and west, central and east, and Russia), as well as national or regional coordinators in as many countries as possible. From the outset, it was decided that “Europe” would be interpreted in the broadest way possible. A gathering, henceforth to be called a General Meeting, was to be held every two years somewhere in Europe with a scientific program consisting of both invited and contributed lectures and mini-courses, together with some discussion on issues of interest to women mathematicians such as gender balance or family and career, and social events designed to foster networking and getting acquainted with the other participants. The new convenor and standing committee would be elected at a formal General Assembly which would take place during the General Meeting, and would have the responsibility of keeping the organization going and of finding and supporting local organizers for the next General Meeting.

European Women in Mathematics

991

Following the Warwick meeting, Laura Tedeschini Lalli (Rome) started an email network and Capi Corrales (Madrid) made a directory of women mathematicians in Europe. One of the things we did not get right in Warwick was to understand the importance of having a group responsible for carrying forward the organization until the next meeting. As a result, the next meeting which was planned for Lisbon in 1990, was first postponed and then happened at very short notice and only a handful of people attended. Fortunately the French association femmes & mathématiques came to the rescue. (This organization was founded in 1987, see its website for more about the organization and its history.) They, especially Eva Bayer-Fluckiger (then in Geneva), began a lot of hard work which got everything rolling again, and got the provisional promise of a very large amount of funding from the EEC for a General Meeting in Luminy, France in 1991 with an ambitious program. One idea was to continue exploring different models of giving seminars to make them more “user friendly.” The organizers went to the lengths of getting the talks vetted in advance by nonexperts—who asked for a lot of changes! Some of these non-experts were even planted in the audience with instructions to ask any naive question they wanted. It was a good idea which, sadly, rather fell by the wayside in subsequent meetings. Despite the EEC not deciding on their award until a month after the meeting, over 50 women attended. For the first time there was a sizeable group of (West) Germans who before the end of the week had formed a national group. Many contacts were made: there were representatives from all the former Eastern Bloc countries except Yugoslavia and Romania. History was being made even as we met: the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union were crumbling and Europe was in flux. It really wasn’t clear which country was which so it was decided to have a network of “regional” rather than “national” coordinators. And all the participants were invited to an elegant reception in the Mairie de Marseille (Marseilles City Hall). Despite the obstacles, we had succeeded in setting up an organization with some continuity. The success of the Luminy meeting could be taken as marking the end of the first phase of EWM.

Structuring and Stabilizing EWM Following the 1991 Luminy meeting, EWM continued to grow and stabilize. Largely thanks to the efforts of Marjatta Näätänen (Helsinki), in 1993 an office together with a part-time secretary was established in Helsinki. This was crucially important in the days before much electronic communication. For more on how and why this came about, see Näätänen (2017). To support the office work, Marjatta obtained funding from the Finnish Ministry of Education and the Finnish Cultural Fund which continued for more than 10 years. Also in 1993, EWM was registered as a legal organization in Finland, following the example of the European Mathematical Society (EMS) in 1990. A newsletter was started in 1993, the email

992

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

network was expanded and improved in 1994, and in 1997 EWM got its first web page! By 1996 there were regional coordinators in Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Since individual and local circumstances varied so much, it was decided that members should be allowed to choose the amount of their fee, ranging from low for students, unemployed, or those from low-income countries, through “standard,” to high for members with the means and desire to offer more support. This system continues to the present day. The renewal of the standing committee and the election of the new convenor and deputy takes place at a General Assembly (GA), which takes place either during the General Meeting or suitable other event. In 2020, the GA, initially planned to take place at the 2020 ECM in Portoroz, was successfully organized online. At the GA, coordinators present a report on the initiatives in their countries. In 2018, there were 33 countries with coordinators: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan. Women from many different countries and backgrounds have served as convenor and deputy convenor over the years (see Table 1) and their energy and dedication have been crucial for the continuity and development of the organization.

Table 1 Convenors and deputy convenors, 1993–2022 Date 1993–1994 1995–1997 1998–1999 2000–2001

Convenors Anna Romanowska (Warsaw, Poland) Sylvie Paycha (Paris, France) Laura Fainsilber (Gothenburg, Sweden) Irene Sciriha (Valetta, Malta)

2002–2003 2004–2005

Ljudmila Bordag (Zittau, Germany) Laura Tedeschini Lalli (Rome, Italy)

2006–2007

Marjo Lipponen (Turku, Finland)

2008–2009 2010 2011–2013 2013–2016 2016–2020 2020–2022

Frances Kirwan (Oxford, UK) Marie-Françoise Roy (Rennes, Frances) Marie-Françoise Roy Susanna Terracini (Torino, Itay) Carola Bibiane-Schönlieb (Cambridge, UK) Andrea Walther (Paderborn, Germany)

Deputy convenors Capi Corrales Irene Sciriha, Inna Yemelyanova Christine Bessenrodt, Laura Fainsilber Irene Sciriha, Francine Diener Marjo Lipponen, Marie Demlova Karma Dajani & Laura Tedeschini Lalli Marjo Lipponen Frances Kirwan Lisbeth Fajstrup Angela Pistoia Elena Resmerita Kaie Kubjas

European Women in Mathematics

993

The EMS Committee for Women in Mathematics and Its Findings Before discussing the activities of EWM further, we must first briefly introduce the European Mathematical Society’s Committee for Women and Mathematics (EMS WiMC), since its activities are intimately intertwined with those of EWM. Shortly after the EMS was founded in 1990, Eva Bayer-Fluckiger (Lausanne, Switzerland) was asked to join its Executive Committee (EC) and served from 1990 to 1996. As the EC discussed forming committees, Eva suggested there should be a committee for Women and Mathematics. Such a committee was duly set up and chaired by Eva from 1991 to 1998. One of the main purposes of the committee was to work as a fact-finding unit exposing the problems and supporting the recognition of achievements of women in mathematics. Thus one of the first actions undertaken was to write to all the mathematical societies in Europe to gather statistical data concerning women mathematicians in each country. This was the first-ever systematic collection of information about numbers of women mathematicians across Europe. The results were presented at the round table on Women and Mathematics at the first European Congress of Mathematics (ECM) in Paris in 1992 and appeared in the Congress proceedings (see Fig. 1). The very striking preponderance of women in the south was noted and much discussed and without doubt led to some actions to remedy the situation. In 2005, funding from the UK Royal Society Athena Awards enabled a repeat of this data collection exercise. The aim was to compare with the 1993 study, but also to collect further data from countries not previously included. Despite many difficulties in comparing data from different countries, best efforts were made and can be seen on the right in Fig. 1. The proportion of women in mathematical research showed a considerable increase in the 12 years between the two surveys, in many cases dramatically. Some of this can be explained geographically: for example, the figures for Germany in 1993 only included former West Germany. With the unification of Germany, many more women mathematicians from former East Germany were included in the 2005 data. However despite this and other anomalies, it can be seen that in many European countries, the numbers of women in mathematics doubled or even tripled, particularly where the percentage in 1993 was very low. In the countries where women were already well represented, the increase was much less significant. The data broken down by region show distinct profiles of the proportion of women in mathematics in different parts of Europe. There seemed to be a clear difference between western/northern European systems and southern/eastern regions.

994

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

EWM Activities Let us now return to the various activities and initiatives of EWM.

General Meetings Since its inception, EWM has held regular General Meetings at different locations around Europe. Usually these have been held every other year timed to fall between the European and International Congresses of Mathematics. Almost all General Meetings have produced proceedings, many of them published as books. Copies are being collected in the LMS archive, see below under “Communications.” We have already discussed the first meetings in Paris (1986); Copenhagen (1987); Warwick, UK (1988); Lisbon (1990) and Luminy, France (1991). Since then there have been meetings in Warsaw (1993); Madrid (1995); Trieste, Italy (1997); Loccum, Germany (1999); Valetta, Malta (2001); Luminy, France (2003); Volgograd, Russia (2005); Cambridge, UK (2007); Novi Sad, Serbia (2009); Barcelona, Spain (2011); Bonn, Germany (2013); Cortona, Italy; (2015); Graz, Austria (2018). The 2022 meeting is planned for Helsinki. The Warsaw meeting was organized by Anna Romanowska in 1993 and was attended by 60 participants from 16 countries. This is where the establishment of EWM as a legal body was discussed in detail. During the Madrid meeting in 1995, which attracted 46 women from 14 countries, Marjatta Näätänen, together with some students from Helsinki, filmed a video about EWM called Women in Maths Across Cultures (Näätänen, 1996). For the eighth meeting at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste in 1997, there were about 100 participants from 30 countries. It was a truly international event, thanks to funding from ICTP: besides European participants there were representatives from Chile, Egypt, India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, and the West Bank. The ninth meeting took place at the conference center Loccum, located about 50 km from Hanover, Germany in 1999. The meeting was attended by 50 participants from 13 European countries. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung (DMV), and was also supported by UNESCO, the EC and the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik (GAMM). Every year the European Mathematical Society (EMS) invites a prominent mathematician, usually with European connections, to deliver a series of lectures at difference locations across Europe. As a result of an initiative by Eva BayerFluckiger in her role as a member of the EMS EC, it was agreed in 1992 that every other year the EMS lecturer should be a woman and that she should deliver some of her lectures at the EWM meeting. The first occasion on which this happened was at the 10th EWM meeting in Malta in 2001 where the EMS lecturer was Michèle Vergne (Paris).

European Women in Mathematics

995

The 11th General Meeting once again took place in Luminy near Marseille, France. Forty-four women participated, from Algeria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sweden, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA. The 12th General Meeting took place in Volgograd in 2005. Thirty-three participants from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Switzerland, France, Finland, and Sweden attended. Most of the invited lectures were connected to the theory of PDEs and the organizers took advantage of the small scale of the meeting to invite all participants to give 20minute talks on their research. By the 13th meeting in Cambridge in 2007 there were 85 women from 25 countries. In addition to scientific talks, there were reports from regional coordinators, a discussion on the role and future of EWM, a presentation on mathematics in developing countries especially South Africa, splinter sessions devoted to short talks and posters, and other short talks on mathematics education. Social events included a reception at the Master’s Lodge in Trinity College, a buffet reception at Newnham College (one of the first two women’s colleges in Cambridge, founded in 1871), a general interest talk, a reception in the Cambridge University Press bookshop and a punting trip on the River Cam. The 14th meeting in 2009 in Novi Sad, organized by Dušanka Perišiˇc, was particularly ambitious. Ingrid Daubechies was that year’s EMS lecturer and gave three of her lectures during the conference. All the lectures were filmed, and together with a new EWM promotional video can be found on the EWM website, see also Perišiˇc (2009). It was attended by more than 70 women from 25 countries. The 15th meeting took place at Centre de Recerca Matemàtica (CRM) near Barcelona in 2011 with about 50 participants. The plenary lectures included topics ranging from period numbers to hyperbolic geometry. Most of the invited speakers began their lectures with a short mathematical life story and the plenary lectures were filmed by a professional crew. Karen Vogtmann, from Cornell University, was the EMS lecturer and gave talks on the topology and geometry of automorphism groups of free groups. Besides the plenary lectures, participants attended a general lecture about sex, maths and the brain by Gina Rippon, professor of cognitive neuroimaging (Aston, UK), and the 25th anniversary of EWM was celebrated. Marie Françoise Ouedraogo (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) was invited with support from EMS Committee for Developing Countries and the discussions which took place led to the creation of the African Women in Mathematics Association, with statutes similar to those of EWM (see her article in this volume). The 16th General Meeting in 2013 was at the Hausdorff Centre for Mathematics, Bonn with 61 participants. There was a significant international presence from Africa (Ethiopia, Côte D’Ivoire) and Asia (China, India, Korea, and Japan). The EMS lectures were given by Tamar Ziegler (Hebrew University, Israel) on dynamics and prime solutions to linear equations. Helena Mihaljevic-Brandt and Lucia Santamaria, who worked for Zentralblatt MATH analyzing scholarly publication data in connection with women’s careers in mathematics, gave a joint presentation. This was the first contact with Helena and Lucia, who later played a key role in

996

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

the Gender Gap in Science Project, see (Guillopé and Roy, 2020) and the authors’ article on international initiatives for women mathematicians in this volume. The 17th EWM General Meeting was sponsored by the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica Francesco Severi (INdAM) and took place at Il Palazzone in Cortona, Italy in 2015. The program included a mini-course with three lectures by the invited 2015 EMS lecturer Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann (Alberta, Canada) on Functional Analysis, six general talks by distinguished invited lecturers selected by the joint EMS-EWM Scientific Committee (see below), and four thematic special sessions. In addition, there was a public discussion on Women and Excellence Schemes, with panelists Jean-Pierre Bourguignon (president of the European Research Commission), Elisabetta Strickland (vice-president of INdAM) and Rossella Palomba of the Italian National Research Council CNR. Elisabetta also gave a public talk on the impact of women on the development of mathematical thought. The 18th EWM General Meeting took place in Graz, Austria in 2018, with a celebration of the 30th anniversary of EWM. There were 110 women participants and 7 men. Gigliola Staffilani (MIT) was the EMS lecturer. In addition to plenary lectures (see Fig. 2), there were 10 mini-symposia of which 8 were in various areas of pure and applied mathematics, from mathematical logic and “PDEs around the world,” to optimization theory and linear operators, the other two being on mathematics in industry and mathematics and music. Organized by Karin Baur (Leeds) and Laura Tedeschini Lalli (Roma Tre), this last event session was exceptionally well attended, with an attentive and engaged audience (Munday, 2019). Elisabetta Strickland presented her book The Ascent of Mary Somerville in 19thcentury Society (Strickland, 2016), and Lisbeth Fajstrup spoke about Danish women mathematicians. Discussions also took place with two local organizers Klavdija Kutnar and Tomaz Pisanski of the 2020 European Congress of Mathematics in Portoroz (subsequently postponed to 2021) about the participation of EWM.

The EMS-EWM Scientific Committee Following the 2007 Cambridge meeting of EWM, the EMS WiMC worked with EWM to strengthened the ties between the two groups, so as to help EWM get better scientific recognition and the EMS committee to build up a more definite identity, while at the same time recognizing that EWM is an open membership organization while the EMS WiMC is an official committee of the EMS. As a first step, the two organizations jointly established a Scientific Committee, consisting of 12 prominent women mathematicians whose remit was to provide advice to the EMS and EWM on scientific questions involving women and mathematics. The committee advises on scientific topics and speakers for events aimed at highlighting women’s contributions organized separately or jointly by EWM and the EMS. In particular, it has proposed the women EMS lecturers in alternate years and also selected the invited lecturers for EWM General Meetings.

European Women in Mathematics

997

Fig. 2 The most recent meeting in 2018 in Graz, Austria attracted 117 participants from Australia, Brazil, India, United Arab Emirates, and the USA, as well as Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The EMS-EWM Scientific Committee had selected the five plenary lecturers Shiri Artstein-Avidan (Tel Aviv University, Israel), Ilse Fischer (University of Vienna, Austria), Alice Guionnet (ENS Lyon, France), Frances Kirwan (University of Oxford, UK) and Maryna Viazovska (EPFL, Switzerland)

998

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

The group has been chaired by Ulrike Tillmann (Oxford, 2008–2012), Isabelle Gallagher (Paris, 2012–2014), and Cornelia Drutu (Oxford, 2014–2020). In 2020, it was clarified that the group is formally independent of both the EMS and EWM, renamed the EMS-EWM Scientific Panel, and Annette Huber-Klawitter (Freiburg, Germany) became the chair.

Communications and Archives EWM first launched a website in June 1996. It was created and first managed by Olga Caprotti (Austria/the Netherlands) when websites were still quite novel and comparatively few people understood how to set about such a task. For a period it was then run from Helsinki, and later from England. In 2013, the website was completely redesigned and professionally modernized thanks to the efforts of MFR, Olga Lukina (Leicester, UK) and Lisbeth Fajstrup (Aalborg, Denmark). It was again remade by Olga Kuznetsova (Aalto, Finland) in 2018. The email network, which was started in 1989, was reorganized and administered by Sarah Rees (Newcastle) in 1995. The net currently has about 800 subscribers and has proved a very valuable tool both for general discussion and information, and also for job advertisements—so much so that job adverts are now handled separately. It is currently run by Katrin Leschke (Leicester, UK). The EWM Newsletter has appeared at least once every year on a regular basis, starting in 1993. Efforts are being made to complete an archive of newsletters, together with reports from the General Meetings and General Assemblies, and make it generally accessible, as the material contains much interesting detail of EWM activity. From 2018, a new team coordinated by Anna Cherubini (Salento, Italy) has been highly successful in producing a variety of interesting articles and the Newsletter, now circulated to about 1000 people, has become primarily electronic. A Facebook page was set up in 2013 and is very active. In 2019 an EWM poster was designed for publicity purposes (see Fig. 3). An archive of material on EWM, including the proceedings of most of the General Meetings, is being collected in the London Mathematical Society as a complement to its Phillippa Fawcett Collection of books about and by women mathematicians prior to 1940.

EWM Summer Schools From the mid-1990s, EWM started to run summer schools. The first two took place in Paris and Oxford in 1996 and 1998 respectively and were devoted to topics connecting mathematics and physics. The week-long third Nordic EWM Summer School was held in Turku, Finland in June 2009 and in June 2011 the fourth EWM

European Women in Mathematics

999

Fig. 3 EWM poster from 2019

Summer School was held at the Lorenz Center in Leiden, the Netherlands, while the fifth was in ICTP, Trieste, in June 2013. In 2013, following a suggestion by, and with strong encouragement from, Ari Laptev, director of the Institut Mittag-Leffler (IML), EWM and the EMS WiMC jointly established a series of IML summer schools with the special feature that there is a much larger than usual involvement by women; specifically, it is expected that most or all of the organizing committee, at least half the participants, and if possible the lecturers, should be women. The schools, recommended on the advice of the EMS-EWM Scientific Committee and approved by IML, are run in the normal

1000

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

way by IML which provides the core funding, with additional contributions from the EMS and EWM. The first school took place in 2014 on Apollonian circle packings. Other topics have been geometric and physical aspects of Trudinger-Moser type inequalities in 2016 and in 2019, modern theory of group actions and the special role of finite simple groups. The call for proposals was first managed by CMS and then by Ulrike Tillmann (Oxford), and has recently been taken over by Katrin Wendland (Freiburg), under the auspices of the Scientific Panel. Two similar schools planned for 2020 have been postponed due to COVID-19.

EWM and the European Congress of Mathematics (ECM) The European Congress of Mathematics (ECM) takes place once every four years, midway between ICMs. Together with the EMS WiMC (involved as a committee of the EMS), EWM organized round tables on women and mathematics at the 1992 ECM in Paris and the 1996 ECM in Budapest. The ECM in Barcelona in 2000 was preceded by a short meeting aimed at early-career women mathematicians, organized by EWM. In 2008, EMS WiMC and EWM organized a joint EMS-EWM meeting immediately before the fifth ECM in Amsterdam, attended by about 20 women. There were introductory lectures by women speakers on topics close to those represented in the Congress. For the 2012 ECM in Krakow, Poland, two events took place: EWM organized a series of mathematical lectures by distinguished women lecturers on the day before the opening of the ECM, while the EMS WiMC organized a panel discussion, Redressing the Gender Balance in Mathematics: Strategies and Outcomes?, during the Congress and open to all Congress participants. Thanks to the support of Google and Foundation Compositio Mathematica, EWM was able to sponsor over 30 young women mathematicians for their local expenses at the Congress. The EMS WiMC and EWM jointly organized a satellite meeting immediately before the 2016 Berlin ECM. The event included five 50-minute survey/colloquiumstyle lectures by outstanding early-career women mathematicians: Fanny Kassel, Hannah Markwig, Carola Bibiane-Schönlieb, Britta Späth, and Sarah Zerbes. ECM 2016 also saw the launch of Women Mathematicians in Europe, an exhibition created by Sylvie Paycha, and a very successful public lecture by Alessandra Celletti (Rome) who reported, among other topics, on the scientific contributions of women hired as “human calculators” at the beginning of the twentieth century. The EWM involvement at the 2020 ECM in Portoroz, Slovenia was planned as follows: special sessions incorporated in the ECM program that contain survey talks of prominent women mathematicians, a panel discussion, a public lecture, and a networking reception before the start of the Congress. It was hoped that EWM would be able to award additional travel grants for EWM members who will participate in the ECM. Sadly, owing to COVID-19, ECM Portoroz was postponed to 2021.

European Women in Mathematics

1001

For involvement of EWM with International Congresses, see the section on the EMS WiMC below.

National and Local Activities In addition to the General Meetings, various groups have organized other more local or national events (some of which later evolved into summer schools) with EWM support. For example, in 2000 the following activities took place: the French association femmes & mathématiques had a meeting in Paris; there was a special session on women in maths at the first joint AMS-Scandinavian International meeting in Denmark; a meeting of the German section of EWM; and a workshop for British Women in Maths in London. Between 2011 and 2019, national events for women in mathematics took place in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the UK, organized either by national sections of EWM or national associations for Women in Mathematics connected to EWM. A number of European countries have independent organizations for women mathematicians which have also been very active, notably the LMS Women in Mathematics Committee in the UK, whose work has led to a marked culture change with improvements in the conditions and visibility of women mathematicians, and femmes & mathématiques in France. There have also been some significant government or official interventions, a prime example being the Athena SWAN initiative in the UK. For developments in Germany, see Infusino (2015).

EWM Mentoring Schemes In 2002, largely thanks to the efforts of Catherine Hobbs (then at Oxford Brookes University, UK), and with funding from the European Union, EWM launched a web-based mentoring scheme. With additional funding from the UK, the scheme ran for several years and, despite problems in matching pairs, achieved some very positive results. Almost all the mentees felt they had gained something from having a mentor. Some had found a job through talking with their mentor, others had gained confidence to continue their research. It was interesting that the mentors felt they had benefited too: mentoring another woman gave them a chance to reflect on their own careers. Recently a new EWM mentoring program has been launched, similar to the existing AWM program and also to one in the Dutch branch of EWM. The aim is to bring together an early-career member and a more experienced EWM member, to share experiences, to get different perspectives, motivate and inspire.

1002

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

In order to establish connections between mentors and mentees, interested parties from both sides outline their background and interests. Members of the EWM standing committee then match a mentor and mentee based on this information, trying in so far as possible to match members with similar research topic. If either party is not satisfied with the matching, it is possible to request a change.

Recent Developments in EWM Since the EWM annual budget is now quite stable, it has become possible to initiate EWM travel grants. Thus far there have been two application rounds. EWM has also continued to co-sponsor the very successful EMS-EWM summer schools at the IML mentioned above. In 2020, EWM became an associate member of EMS, giving EWM a higher profile within the European mathematical community and enabling it to become part of decision making on the European level. It also brings the prospect of strengthening collaborations both with and between the EWM coordinators and the many European national mathematical societies. An important current project is to increase the number of nominations of women mathematicians for prizes and other academic distinctions. To this end, EWM will be working together with the EMS WiMC and the EMS-EWM joint Scientific Panel. Another ongoing project is to repeat the exercise of gathering statistics by country on the percentages of women mathematicians on the faculties of universities across Europe shown in Fig. 1. The national coordinators are involved in this effort, and use will be made of material gathered by the Gender Gap project (Guillopé and Roy, 2020).

Further Activities of the EMS WiM Committee We return to the activities of the EMS WiMC. Following the strong leadership of Eva Bayer-Fluckiger, the committee has been chaired by Christine Bessenrodt (Hanover, Germany, 1998–1999); Emilia Mezzetti (Trieste, Italy, 1999–2005); Sylvie Paycha (Strasbourg, France, 2006–2009); Dušanka Perišiˇc (Novi Sad, Serbia, 2009–2012); CMS (2012–2015); Beatrice Pelloni (Edinburgh, 2015–2016), and currently Alessandra Celletti (Rome, 2017–2020). Following the project to collect statistics on women mathematicians in Europe (see above and Fig. 1), the second important action of the committee was the Curriculum Vitae Project, started while Christine Bessenrodt was chair and carried out by Emilia Mezzetti. Among the aims was to measure to what extent women mathematicians have their best scientific production later than men. This often observed phenomenon contrasts with the fact that eligibility criteria for certain positions and prizes or for financial support often include fixed age limits, independently

European Women in Mathematics

1003

of whether the applicant is a man or a woman. The results of the questionnaire were presented at the 10th EWM meeting in Malta in 2001 and appeared in the proceedings. Since only around 100 mathematicians responded, the questionnaire could only provide limited evidence, but it raised a question which has begun to be addressed. Indeed we note that this situation has in many cases at least begun to be remedied in a variety of contexts in recent years. For a much more extensive and detailed survey, see Guillopé and Roy (2020). Besides its joint initiatives with EWM as discussed above (the EMS-EWM Scientific Committee, the establishment of IML summer schools, and so on), the EMS WiMC has also been involved in organizing events around international congresses. Together with the AWM, it organized a round table on women and mathematics at the 1994 ICM in Zürich. At the 1998 ICM in Berlin, a panel discussion, Events and Policies: Effects on Women in Mathematics, was organized together with the AWM and EWM. Together with EWM, it also contributed to initiating the International Conference of Women Mathematicians (ICWM) immediately before the 2010 ICM in Hyderabad. The meeting was aimed principally at women mathematicians attending the ICM, and in particular at women from India and from developing countries, providing participants with an opportunity to meet other women mathematicians about to take part in the ICM. This became the first ICWM; a similar meeting being organized prior to the Seoul ICM in 2014. Since then the initiative has passed to the International Mathematical Union’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM), leading to (WM)2 in Rio 2018, with a similar meeting planned for Saint Petersburg 2022 (see the authors’ article on international initiatives for women mathematicians in this volume). In 2012, the committee’s purpose was discussed in some detail and its remit revised and updated. It now is: • To address issues relating to the involvement, retention, and progression of women in mathematics. • To support and promote the recognition of the achievements of women mathematicians. • To discuss and be ready to support appropriate initiatives to this end coming from either groups or individuals. • To act as the coordinating body for the committees for women in mathematics of EMS member societies. • To cooperate with other associations for women in mathematics. The committee also worked behind the scenes to try to improve conditions for women visiting various European research centers with families. As a result, Ari Laptev, chair of ERCOM (European Research Centres on Mathematics), agreed to include a discussion on family-friendliness of ERCOM-centers in the 2016 ERCOM-meeting in Saint Petersburg, to which MFR was invited in her role as CWM chair. There was an unanimous agreement that a concrete list of guidance notes concerning family friendliness (best practice models for mathematics institutes or conference centers), should be developed. The Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge for example reported on its efforts to increase its participation by

1004

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

women, including generous grants and other help to assist the attendance of those with family commitments. Concrete improvements also followed in other centres: Centre International de Rencontre Mathématiques (CIRM) Luminy, for example, changed its policy and is now welcoming families and children with well specified rules. As another example, in 2015 Lisbeth Fajstrup noticed that all the several dozen interviews published by the EMS Newsletter were with men, and that moreover this collection of interviews appeared on the official outreach page for the EMS. It took time to be fixed but, thanks to the repeated efforts of EMS WiMC and its suggestions for women who might be interviewed, the situation changed significantly in 2017 and in the last six issues of the EMS Newsletter, among the nine mathematicians interviewed there have been three women. With respect to the 2020 EMS prizes, the committee led by Alessandra Celletti proposed the nomination of several early-career women and solicited recommendation letters for them from prominent mathematicians. In 2020, EMS announced a total of 12 prestigious prizes: 10 EMS Prizes, the Felix Klein Prize and the Otto Neugebauer Prize. The committee was particularly delighted to see that of these, four were awarded to women: Ana Caraiani (Imperial College, London), Kaisa Matomäki (Turku, Finland), Maryna Viazovska (EPFL, Lausanne) won EMS Prizes and Karine Chemla (Université de Paris and CNRS) won the Otto Neugebauer Prize. The committee is also keeping track of the (currently quite low) proportion of women editors in journals published by the EMS and is acting to increase it. Representation of women on the EMS Council is also in good shape: the EMS had it first woman president, Marta Sans-Solé (Barcelona) from 2011 to 2014, while currently Betül Tanbay (Bebek-Istanbul, Turkey) is a vice president. In the 2020 elections three of the five new members elected to the Council were women: Barbara Kaltenbacher, Beatrice Pelloni, and Susanna Terracini.

Conclusion For the women who have taken part, EWM has offered a most wonderful network of women right across Europe and beyond. Indeed one of the special features of EWM has been the opportunity it affords to meet women from so many different cultures and backgrounds, but all with remarkably similar problems. As beautifully put by Sara Munday (University Roma Tre) in her report about the Graz General Meeting: “Being a part of EWM always brings something new and stimulating to my mathematical world.” When EWM began, the situation for women mathematicians in Germany and Switzerland in particular was pretty dire. They were very few in number, and positions were almost impossible to obtain. As a result of continuous efforts, German women were able to come together for mutual support and gradually the situation improved until Germany is now on a par with other European countries. EWM has also inspired activities for women in many other parts of the world. In particular it has provided a model for the organization and website of African

European Women in Mathematics

1005

Women in Mathematics (see Marie Françoise Ouedraogo’s article in this volume) and stimulated the formation of the IMU’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM) (see our article on international initiatives for women mathematicians in this volume). The contribution of the EMS WiMC has also been both critical and complementary, giving as it does a direct channel through which to bring matters of concern to the community of women mathematicians to the EMS Council and officers, allowing liaison with national mathematical societies and other bodies, and providing visibility and legitimacy both at European Congresses and on other occasions. From the small beginnings in the 1986 AWM panel, the work of EWM and the EMS WiMC has created a lively and effective network of women mathematicians at all career stages right across Europe, which has improved lives and stood both our cause and that of mathematics in general in good stead.

References Blum, Lenore. 1986. Women in mathematics: An international perspective, eight years later. AWM Newsletter 16(5): 9–11. Guillopé, Colette and Roy, Marie-Françoise 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. How to measure it, how to reduce it? Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3882609 Infusino, Maria. 2015. Women in Mathematics in Germany. http://www.math.uni-konstanz.de/~ infusino/KWIM/MInfusino-WIMGermany-report.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2020. Munday, Sara. 2019. The minisymposium “Music and Mathematics.” https://www. europeanwomeninmaths.org/music-mathematics/ Näätänen, Marjatta. 1996. Women and mathematics across cultures. European Women in Mathematics. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CWM/Videos/Women_and_ Mathematics_across_Cultures_1996.mp4 Accessed 25 May 2020. Näätänen, Marjatta. 2017. Personal memories of the founding of EWM as a Finnish association. EWM Newsletter 29: 21–22. Perišiˇc, Dušanka. 2009. Promo video for EWM. https://youtu.be/1VqeOw_HxX0 Accessed 25 May 2020. Series, Caroline. 2018. A brief and personal history of EWM. https://www. europeanwomeninmaths.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/abriefandpersonal.pdf Accessed 25 May 2020. Losada, Maria and Series, Caroline. 1989. Reflections on first and third world relations: Dialogue between an English and an Argentine sister. CSWP Gazette: A Newsletter of the Committee on the Status of Women in Physics of the American Physical Society 9(4): 1–3. Strickland, Elisabetta. 2016. The ascent of Mary Somerville in 19th century society. Springer Biographies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Tedeschini Lalli, Laura. 2017. For EWM’s 30th birthday. EWM Newsletter 29: 19–21.

Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences Soon-Yi Kang and Kyewon Koh Park

We begin this article with our congratulations to AWM for what it has achieved over the past 50 years.

Birth of Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences (KWMS), the first mathematical association for women in Asia, held its first general meeting and inaugural international conference in June, 2004, after launching the unofficial preparatory committee for the organization in November, 2003. Almost 10 years earlier, the first and second generations of Korean women mathematicians had begun to talk informally about the need for such an association. Our discussions had two main goals. One was to awaken ourselves to the idea that we could do better in various aspects of our professional activities. The other was to awaken many male mathematicians and others in the scientific community to our right to equal treatment in all facets of our professional lives. In this way, all of us could bring about changes which would benefit Korean society. In the early 1990s, although more than 40% of college students majoring in mathematics were women, only a mere handful of college faculty members in mathematics were women. Because Koreans have traditionally placed great value on education, discrimination against girls and women had decreased in areas such as admissions to middle and high schools and to colleges since the 1970s. However,

S.-Y. Kang Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea K. K. Park () Korea Institute for Advanced Society, Seoul, South Korea © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_86

1007

1008

S.-Y. Kang and K. K. Park

there were severe gender gaps and inequalities in job opportunities, especially in mathematics and other sciences. Women in mathematics were slightly better off than women in the other sciences and engineering because mathematics instructors were needed at the college level, and many women mathematicians were hired during the 1970s and early 1980s to address this deficit. However, for the next two decades there was essentially no growth in the employment of women mathematicians. Around 2000, the Korean government started to establish a system to promote women’s participation in politics and decision-making processes at the national level. To foster female professionals and increase participation of women in research, the Act on Fostering and Supporting Women in Science and Technology was enacted in 2002. On the basis of this law, in 2003 an academic affirmative action plan (Recruitment Target System) came into effect that allocated a certain percentage of positions for women in faculty recruitment at universities funded by the national or provincial governments. These encouraging changes in the scientific community became a major driving force in the establishment of the KWMS. The KWMS founders had considered creating a committee for women within the Korean Mathematical Society (KMS) rather than an independent organization. Recognizing that we were considering the establishment of an organization to advance women in mathematics, the KMS had invited us to form such a committee. We asked ourselves which would have more impact—on ourselves as well as on the mathematics community in general. Because we thought an independent organization would have more impact, we chose to go through the difficulties of establishing one. Another reason for this decision was that a separate organization might encourage female statisticians and other mathematical scientists to join us as their numbers were too few to support substantial committees for women within their respective professional societies. In June 2004, the women mathematicians who gathered at the Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS) for the inaugural international KWMS conference passionately demonstrated their high quality research and leadership abilities. There were more than 160 participants at the conference and this made a strong impression on the mathematics community, in particular the leaders of KMS (see Fig. 1). We remain grateful to the mathematicians of KIAS, especially the vice director at that time, Hyo Chul Myung, who provided a wonderful atmosphere for all of us and has been supportive of all our activities throughout his life. One of the authors, Kyewon Koh Park, the first president of KWMS, gave the inaugural address: Each of us has felt the need for such an organization as this in the past decade and a half. Most recently, when a small group of us gathered at Ewha Womans University, we began to read each other’s mind. In the course of several meetings since then, we confirmed that those deep seated desires were shared by all. Therefore at last, we are establishing the “Association of Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences,” even if somewhat belatedly. Due to the environment we lived in, many women in math and science had to face their unique difficulties and obstacles alone. Often, they got tired and would give up. Lacking fellowship with other colleagues with similar challenges so as to exchange support and encouragement, the maximum potential of many excellent professional women was not

Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences

1009

Fig. 1 First KWMS meeting, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 2004

achieved, and their capabilities diminished. That time has passed. We will tell each other about our difficulties, search together for solutions, and happily share needed assistance and encouragement. Our hearts will be filled with pride of having found friends and colleagues by our side. We will share our experiences especially with our younger female colleagues and tell them that they too can succeed. We will do our utmost to provide them with the conditions they need to reach their highest potential without hindrance. The association will assure them that they have the right to excel as professionals and contribute to the field, not only for the benefit of the nation and society, but more importantly because they love mathematics and chose it as their profession. Nearly every organization when first established hopes that it will endure for a very long time. We, however, will put our hearts together into working towards the day that this association is no longer necessary. It is our firm desire that our efforts will be an encouragement not only to ourselves, but also to other minority groups in our society, that their choices should be respected and their capabilities should be fully realized.

Without a consensus on its necessity among female mathematicians and many male members of the Korean mathematical community, the KWMS could not have achieved the organizational growth it has had over the past 16 years.

1010

S.-Y. Kang and K. K. Park

Activities of KWMS The main purpose of KWMS is to support equal opportunities, research, and the exchange of information among women in the mathematical sciences. With this aim, we organized two meetings each year from 2004 through 2018. The general meeting, held every June, had a scientific program with invited lectures, contributed lectures and poster presentations as well as public lectures and forums on gender equality in mathematics education and empowerment of women mathematicians. The annual winter meetings, held in different regions of Korea each year, were organized by women mathematicians at the local institutions. These winter meetings played an important role in convincing the mathematics community, in particular the male colleagues in those regions, how competent and professional their female colleagues are. At these meetings, the majority of the speakers were women, but male colleagues sometimes gave invited lectures. In 2010, the winter meeting became a “Leaders Forum for the Careers of the Next Generation of Women Mathematicians.” Each winter meeting was still a regional event, but also served to educate and inspire local female undergraduate and graduate students in mathematics and high school students interested in mathematics. During each meeting, women mathematicians in different walks of life joined forces as team mentors to educate and advise participants about future prospects in mathematics. The last winter meeting, organized and hosted by the University of Suwon in Gyeonggi Province, took place in October 2018. Around this time, numerous organizations and institutions, including KMS, became more involved in math education and mentoring of the public at large. They began to run programs similar to those that KWMS had run for many years at the winter meetings. Among these programs were annual “fun-fests” for middle school students, such as the math research contests, Sudoku competitions, and math storytelling competitions. Because of this overlap, KWMS decided to merge summer and winter meetings into one annual meeting in 2019. The first conference under this new arrangement was held at Seoul National University in August, 2019. KWMS continues to sponsor and supervise specialized activities intended to encourage and support the next generation of scientists and mathematicians. These activities have included the workshop “Women in Geometry and Topology” at Pohang University of Science and Technology, organized in 2019 by two young woman mathematicians, Eunjeong Lee and Minkyoung Song.

KWMS’s Influence on KMS KMS has a 74-year history. However, before KWMS was born, KMS boards had at most one female member, who, unlike other board members, often had no specific assignment. It was considered “natural” for women not to have professional duties at KMS then. We call it a “decorative” position, if we translate it directly from Korean.

Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences

1011

However, many discussions between KMS leaders and KWMS members made male mathematicians start to think otherwise. They observed how well organized our conferences were and after 2006 many KWMS members were selected to carry out important tasks in the KMS. It is clear to everyone that, since then, KMS’s role has expanded, within the mathematics community, and, more generally within the Korean science community. Among many changes in KMS, we mention a few: The biannual meetings of KMS started to have substantially larger numbers of participants, more special sessions, and more diverse types of events—panels, public lectures, and others. KMS has begun to make further efforts to include more members from different regions of Korea for its committees. Hyungju Park, Chair of the Local Organizing Committee of the International Congress of Mathematicians held in Seoul in 2014, acknowledged the contribution of KWMS to that landmark event. A decisive turning point came when KWMS launched a fundraising drive [called the TOGETHER project] to invite “100 Women Mathematicians from Developing Countries” to the Seoul ICM, and quickly raised over 200,000 dollars for the cause. Inspired and encouraged by KWMS’s success, the Seoul ICM Organizing Committee ended up raising 2 million dollars for the travel support program (officially called the NANUM program [nanum means “to share”]). The Korean mathematics community is forever grateful to the brave initiative and contributions of KWMS.

In 2017, Hyangsook Lee became the first woman president of KMS. She was elected with surprisingly strong support from the whole community, which made us proud to see the change since KWMS’s founding in 2004.

AWM, the International Community, and KWMS At the beginning it was not easy for some of us to see the necessity of organizations like KWMS, but the existence of AWM helped to persuade and convince our colleagues. At a personal level, when Kyewon taught at Bryn Mawr College before she moved back to Korea in 1991, Rhonda Hughes, her colleague at Bryn Mawr, was the president of AWM (1987–1989) and provided Kyewon with opportunities to find out more about the AWM. Rhonda’s influence and being at Bryn Mawr College led Kyewon to think more deeply about minority issues, in particular about women mathematicians, and more generally women scientists. The other author, Soon-Yi Kang, also had an experience with AWM. When suffering from a career break with the birth of her first child, she benefited from AWM’s travel grant to attend the Millennial Conference on Number Theory in 2000, held on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Through this experience, she realized the importance of guidance as well as support for early-career women. For the KWMS inauguration ceremony in 2004, AWM president Carolyn Gordon’s congratulatory message made all of us feel that we were well connected worldwide. The same year, AWM published an article about KWMS in its newsletter. Since then, several representatives from AWM have come to our annual

1012

S.-Y. Kang and K. K. Park

conferences and have encouraged our graduate students and postdoctoral fellows throughout many conferences. In 2011, we entered into a membership reciprocity agreement with AWM. Although previously many of us were members of AWM, more have since decided to join AWM. The international community of women mathematicians has been a vital source of support in our founding and continued growth. The president of European Women in Mathematics (EWM), Laura Tedeschini Lalli, also sent us a message of congratulations for the inauguration of KWMS. Throughout the process of starting KWMS, Caroline Series of the University of Warwick, England gave us much help via many emails. To promote and support women in Korea and Japan, we held a joint symposium in 2012, hosted by the Mathematical Society of Japan.

KWMS and the Second ICWM in Seoul, 2014 In preparation for observing its 10th anniversary in 2014, KWMS planned a new leap through international exchange, hosting the International Congress of Women Mathematicians (ICWM 2014) during the meeting of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2014) in Seoul (see Fig. 2). The first ICWM had taken place in Hyderabad, India, in 2010. We hoped that holding the second ICWM in collaboration with the International Mathematics Union (IMU) would be a historic founding convention after which an ICWM would be held in conjunction with the ICM every four years. For that reason, we were happy that the World Meeting for Women in Mathematics was held in the same spirit at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2018. TOGETHER 2014, a special travel grant project of ICWM 2014, was aligned with the vision of NANUM 2014 in supporting 1,000 mathematicians from developing countries to attend ICM 2014. TOGETHER 2014 was intended to offer at

Fig. 2 International Congress of Women Mathematicians, Ewha Womans University, 2014

Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences

1013

least 100 women mathematicians from developing countries partial travel support to participate in both ICM 2014 and ICWM 2014. These travel grants were planned by the Korean mathematical community in the hope of sharing the academic and educational growth of mathematical fields with students from developing countries, who had fewer opportunities for participating in these advancements. They embodied the generous spirit of the founding members of KWMS, who, after attaining leadership positions in the mathematics community of Korea despite challenges and hardships, reached out to their juniors and peers. We believe that neither program would have been initiated and successfully carried out without the help of KWMS.

The Next 10 Years Over the next 10 years, KWMS will strive to carry on the mission epitomized in its founding: Love for mathematics, passion for equality and justice, consideration for minorities, and concern for the next generation of women mathematicians. We at KWMS will make extraordinary efforts to include the diverse voices of other underrepresented groups besides women, working diligently to ensure that nobody is alienated in the mathematical community. We also hope to strengthen our connections throughout Asia in addition to other continents. For many years, KWMS has made an effort to include women mathematicians from different parts of Asia and has discussed the issue with them on several occasions. Although we are aware that it will not be easy because of disadvantageous attitudes toward women and the diverse languages in Asia, we think that it is now time to make progress and we are in the process of initiating a preliminary meeting to establish an Asian women’s mathematics organization at the Asian Mathematical Conference in Ha. Long, Vietnam, in July 2021. We hope to carry out this important task after the global COVID-19 crisis. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the current president of KWMS, Eunmi Choi, for her help. This article is based on “Looking forward to the next 10 years of Korean Women in Mathematical Sciences,” Seoul Intelligencer, 2014.

Indian Women and Mathematics Nikita Agarwal, Amber Habib, and Geetha Venkataraman

Introduction In the early 2000s, there were local, national, and international meetings that foregrounded the issues relating to women and mathematics in general, and Indian women and mathematics, in particular. We shall begin by tracing some of these events, their nature and how they created an environment that allowed for the Indian Women and Mathematics (IWM) to be established. IWM itself has three distinct phases. The first phase was essentially 2009–2015. This period had strong precursor events related to women and mathematics such as an International Conference on Advances in Mathematics with a special focus on women in mathematics in 2009 at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi and the International Conference of Women in Mathematics (ICWM) in 2010 which was held just prior to the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) in Hyderabad, India. This period also included the formal launch of IWM in 2013. The second phase is the period 2016–2019. This was the period when IWM was re-organized following a suggestion from the National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India. The group of mathematicians that came together to apply for the second round of funding from NBHM was termed the executive

N. Agarwal IISER Bhopal, Bhauri, Madhya Pradesh, India e-mail: [email protected] A. Habib Shiv Nadar University, Uttar Pradesh, India e-mail: [email protected] G. Venkataraman () Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Delhi, Delhi, India e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_87

1015

1016

N. Agarwal et al.

committee (EC). The EC took care of all the details related to the events proposed under the IWM project. Riddhi Shah of Jawaharlal Nehru University was the chair. The third phase, 2019–2022, is currently underway with Neela Nataraj of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay as the chair. Some members of the previous EC stepped down and younger women mathematicians were invited to join the EC by the existing members. We plan to trace the activities of the IWM, its goals and aims. We will also critically analyze whether these aims and goals have been met. “What next?” is another question which will be elaborated on. Through this essay we hope to communicate the journey of IWM from its early days to what is now almost a decade of its existence. We include the rich discussions that have taken place in IWM executive committee meetings as well as during its IWM events on topics such as whether the collective needs to become an association like AWM, should it be entirely dependent on government funding, what more can it do, should it suggest policy changes, and so on. We will also consider its impact in the South Asian region.

Genesis What led to the creation of the IWM collective? Was it due to movements at the grassroots level or because decision makers felt that some impetus had to be given to increase the number of women in mathematics in India? We would argue that it has been some of both: a steady decade-long increase in women students taking mathematics at the higher levels, conjoined at the right time with a NBHM-sponsored project like IWM. Before we take a closer look at the period preceding IWM, it is worth noting the changes that had already occurred by the end of the last century as far as women students of mathematics in India were concerned. By the 1990s, women were almost half of the undergraduates in mathematics classrooms in universities located in major cities. Just two decades earlier, the ratio of female to male students in such classrooms was about 1:8. Indeed, since the 1990s, a large number of faculty teaching in undergraduate colleges at a premier Indian university like the University of Delhi have been women.1 While one may lament the fact that many did not pursue a PhD in mathematics or continue with

1 To teach at the undergraduate level in those days a masters degree in mathematics would suffice. Most teachers at that level would not have a PhD degree in mathematics but many would have had some experience of reading research papers and writing a thesis about them for an MPhil degree. A masters degree in mathematics along with an eligibility test held at national or state level is still a minimum eligibility requirement for assistant professor positions at universities and colleges. Currently persons with doctorates are exempt from the eligibility test. However, from 2023, a PhD degree will be a mandatory requirement for an assistant professor position in any university in India.

Indian Women and Mathematics

1017

research even if they had a PhD, nevertheless, it was not mere happenstance that a swell of women, of relatively higher social classes, pursuing mathematics for higher studies as well as a career had taken place. Government policies, middleclass aspirations for the girl child, and the notion of an independent woman able to seek and hold employment were all contributing factors. The catch though was that the mathematics departments at universities, research institutes and institutes offering PhD programs in mathematics,2 which were the primary source of PhD supervisors, had very few women in their faculty. Even those that had women faculty members had a minuscule number at the highest levels as professors or in leadership roles. The lack of role models for women students who aspired to do research in mathematics was a very real phenomenon. Moreover, bias continued to manifest in various ways. A study (Subramanian, 2007) of seven science research institutes in Bangalore revealed that women were, on average, earning their first faculty position later in life and at lower levels than men. They also came from a narrower, more privileged, band of the socio-economic spectrum. In a sense the situation was ripe for channeling resources to universities as well as for systemic corrections to begin. One of the early events was a panel discussion organized in early 2000 on women in science and mathematics at St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi. For at least one of the authors, this was the first time that she participated in a discussion about women in science and mathematics. The panel had a senior woman mathematician from the University of Delhi, a male faculty member of mathematics from ISI, Delhi and a young female faculty member of chemistry from IIT Delhi. Two of the panelists were vocal about the issues facing women in science and mathematics as well as the possible systemic reasons. However, there was also an opinion that there was no systemic discrimination against women in mathematics. The environment and period in which one has entered academia perhaps affect one’s ability to acknowledge issues related to women in academia. As the new century began, in 2003, the Indian Academy of Sciences instituted a committee on women in science to recommend to the Academy various initiatives and actions to be taken for changing the underrepresentation of women in sciences. The Academy also referred to a report published in October 2004 titled Science Career for Indian Women: An Examination of Indian Women’s Access to and Retention in Scientific careers (INSA, 2004). This led to the Academy constituting a panel for women in science in 2005 to oversee and execute the recommendations of the earlier committee.

2 In the India of the 1990s, higher education in mathematics largely took place in governmentfunded universities and institutions like the Indian Statistical Institute, Indian Institutes of Technology and Regional Engineering Colleges. There were also a few research institutes that were well funded by the government and had PhD programs in mathematics like the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Institute of Mathematical Sciences Chennai, Harish-Chandra Research Institute. Now, additionally, there are several private universities that offer opportunities for research in Mathematics.

1018

N. Agarwal et al.

Another pertinent event was an international conference held in Delhi in January 2006, titled “Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: In Commemoration of the Birth Centenary of André Weil.” This was organized by the Mathematical Sciences Foundation (MSF) (MSF, 2020). One of the events was a symposium on “Women and Mathematics in the Twentieth Century.” Contributions of women mathematicians as well as issues facing Indian women in mathematics were discussed. This was possibly a first for an international conference in India. Marie-Françoise Roy who was then the president of the Société Mathématique de France spoke at this conference. She visited Delhi again in January 2008, under the MSF program titled “From a Life of Mathematics.” As part of this program, a panel discussion was organized at the Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi, to discuss issues related to women in mathematics. This had a large number of participants who were young women doing an undergraduate degree in mathematics. MarieFrançoise Roy gave a historical and European perspective on the issue of women in mathematics, and mentioned how even countries that were known for their commitment to gender equality still suffered from the gender gap in mathematics. In France, the progress that followed the upheavals of the 1960s had stalled and there had been a clear stagnation over the preceding decade. A participant brought up an interesting point related to women seeking security of employment rather than waiting for a superior job which would be better for their capabilities and to achieve their potential. By this time, India was gearing up to host its first-ever International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) at Hyderabad in August 2010. Another exciting event was the first-ever International Conference of Women Mathematicians (ICWM), two days prior to the ICM. This led to a conference titled “Advances in Mathematics: Focus on Women in Mathematics (AIM)” being held at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi in October 2009. The convenor of the conference was Riddhi Shah who had overseen the start of the mathematics programs at JNU. She later headed the revamped IWM executive board from 2016 to 2019. As the conference website said, “About two-thirds of the speakers were women—the special focus on Women in Mathematics was a central theme running through the program, culminating in a panel discussion on the theme on the last day. The panelists were Gita Chadha, S. G. Dani, Rohini Godbole, Amber Habib, and Jayasree Subramanian.” This conference was in a sense a trial run for the ICWM. During 17–18 August 2010, the ICWM took place in Hyderabad, India. It was organized with support from the European Women in Mathematics, the European Mathematical Society and the Association for Women in Mathematics. Maryam Mirzakhani, who went on to win the Fields Medal four years later, was a speaker. There were predictions that she would be amongst the winners the next time around. Neela Nataraj, the current chair of IWM, was a speaker at the ICWM. A panel titled “Women Mathematicians Around the World” took place with Beatrice Pelloni as chair. The other panelists were Basabi Chakraborty (Japan), Rashida Adeeb Khanum (Pakistan), Marie Françoise Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso), Kyewon Koh Park (Korea), Sylvie Paycha (EWM), Vera Spinadel (Argentina), Geetha Venkataraman (India), and Carol Wood (AWM). Every subsequent ICM has continued with this

Indian Women and Mathematics

1019

tradition first established in 2010 in India, the latest being The World Meeting for Women in Mathematics (WM)2 , at Rio, Brazil in 2019. The scene was thus set for IWM to enter into being.

The IWM Project In January 2012, there was a conference titled Indian Women and Mathematics at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences (IMSc), Chennai. This three-day conference was organized by Jaya Iyer and Vyjayanthi Chari. Jaya Iyer was a faculty member at IMSc and Vyjayanthi Chari was at the University of California, Riverside. Jaya Iyer had also been on the local organizing committee for ICWM. The conference formally cited its purpose to be that of encouraging and supporting women in mathematical careers. All the speakers were women, with male speakers only on a panel delving into the connections between mathematics and industry. The audience consisted of women students, researchers and faculty members at universities and institutions from all over India. The success of the conference led to an ambitious proposal titled Indian Women and Mathematics for a five-year project commencing in 2013. The proposal outlined many activities like workshops, conferences, courses as well as collaborative research. In order to ensure that all regions were covered, zonal committees were planned. The main coordinators were Vyjayanthi Chari, Jaya Iyer, Girija Jayaraman of IIT Delhi and Suneeta Vardarajan of the Indian Institute for Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune. The proposal was submitted to NBHM and was funded on a trial basis for two years from 2013 to 2015. This led to the IWM beginning its activities in a project mode with funding from the NBHM, which is still continuing. The first phase of IWM (2013–2015) saw many activities taking place: annual conferences in 2013 and 2015 at IISER Pune and University of Delhi respectively, a teacher training program at University of Mumbai in 2013, and Young Women and Mathematics, a conference held in 2014, again at IISER Pune. Details of all these events can be found at IWM (2020). All these events gave women mathematicians a platform, a chance to present their research, a place to voice their concerns and to collectively share their experiences (see Fig. 1). IWM had thus begun its baby steps towards the goals and aims outlined. From its second phase, starting in 2016, IWM expanded its executive team and scope of its activities. Events were now organized throughout the year. The main activities were regional mini-workshops, annual conferences, visitor programs, and mathematical workshops for young women (see Fig. 2). Each activity was designed to encourage more and more women to pursue higher education in mathematics, the main goal of IWM, and to communicate exciting career opportunities enabled by higher studies and research in mathematics. The venues were chosen to reach women from varied geographic and socio-economic backgrounds. The biannual Regional Workshops are aimed especially at women of the region engaged in teaching and research at various levels. The speakers are distinguished

1020

N. Agarwal et al.

Fig. 1 Glimpses of IWM activities.

Indian mathematicians, with at least half of them being women. These day-and-ahalf long workshops expose the participants to new trends in mathematical research and career opportunities through several talks and one panel discussion. Participants are encouraged to use the occasion to interact with senior mathematicians, and they get to present their research ideas in a poster session. The workshop has a presentation on career opportunities followed by a Q&A session. The participants have liked both these sessions greatly. In addition to promoting ideas, they serve as an ice-breaker and encourage discussion with the experts on varied topics. The lecture topics are chosen to convey the excitement of research mathematics. Through these workshops, IWM has reached all major regions of the country, including the North-East states which offer relatively few educational opportunities (see Fig. 3). At the NIT Meghalaya workshop in the North-East region, an interaction session was preferred over the panel discussion. The session started with an interview of Tanvi Jain, a mathematician at ISI Delhi and a recipient of the prestigious Indian National Science Academy Medal for Young Scientists. The interview was conducted by Shreemayee Bora who is an EC member and was the convener of this workshop. The interview focused on Tanvi Jain’s academic journey, the challenges she faced, and how she overcame those on the way to remarkable accomplishments. Tanvi Jain also took questions from the participants who were quite encouraged by the journey of a young achiever. The questions made the session lively, with participants opening up on several aspects of their research and teaching

Indian Women and Mathematics

1021

Fig. 2 IWM Activities: Some frames

careers. Several women teachers who had left their doctoral studies midway due to other pressing commitments felt inspired to make a comeback. In addition to the regional workshops, IWM holds an annual conference. It is a three-day event featuring invited talks by notable women mathematicians from India and abroad. It also has contributed talks by early-career female Indian researchers. Moreover, the event consists of a mini-course in an advanced topic in mathematics, panel discussions, and poster presentations. This major activity brings together women research students, college and university teachers, and earlycareer researchers, with an objective of connecting them with the mathematicians working at the frontiers, especially the women mathematicians. The event facilitates

1022

N. Agarwal et al.

Fig. 3 From left to right: maps of IWM regional workshops, annual conferences, and visitor programs across India. Map data ©2021 Google, INEGI

exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences. The venues have spanned all major regions in the country (see Fig. 3). The talks are on wide-ranging topics. Feedback from the young participants shows that they find the event more useful than the thematic conferences. Moreover female participants feel particularly enthused and motivated by an event where the speakers and most participants are women. While young women are specially encouraged to participate in IWM activities, these events are open to both men and women. In 2019, IWM introduced a new six-day activity called Mathematical Workshop for Young Women, meant for second-year undergraduates from across the country. It involves lectures and tutorials or problem-solving sessions on select themes intended to complement the undergraduate mathematics curriculum. The objective is to deepen and widen students’ ability for mathematical thinking. With the theme “Catch Them Young,” this initiative provides mentoring of undergraduates aimed at motivating them to take up a career in mathematics. The inaugural workshop held at IISER Thiruvananthapuram in December 2019 with 100 participants was a great success. The feedback for the workshop has been positive. Participants got ample opportunity to interact with each other and the lecturers. The post-dinner informal problem solving sessions were particularly appreciated by participants. Also, several participants from local colleges said they were encouraged by being selected to attend the workshop. Young women could see the mentors as their role models. To paraphrase what a participant said, “It is highly motivational to see and interact with women mathematicians who successfully manage several roles at the same time. For me and some of the fellow participants I have interacted with, the platform has opened up an unexplored world.” The CWM has agreed to support a follow-up event which aims to mentor around 30 or 40 selected participants in a workshop during December 2020. Another major activity is the Visitor Program in which well-established women mathematicians from India and abroad visit and lecture in, as far as possible, nonurban areas to promote and popularize mathematics amongst female students. The visitors deliver semi-popular talks on topics building on undergraduate mathematics.

Indian Women and Mathematics

1023

To inspire the budding minds, a few talks have been on the life and work of women mathematicians. The lectures have been organized at numerous locations all over the country (see Fig. 3). Through this activity, IWM has reached out to the smaller and neglected educational institutions around the country. One of the talks was held in the southern part of Assam from where there is hardly any participation in conferences, workshops, and other such activities, mainly due to lack of information. The visitor observed that a lot of faculty from nearby colleges also came to attend the lecture. Interestingly, it is observed that in addition to questions and queries from those majoring in mathematics, there is a lot of curiosity about the subject among those majoring in subjects that use mathematics as a tool. Another talk in the Visitor Program was held in Kashmir at the Islamic University of Science and Technology in March 2017. There were special buses organized to bring women students from Srinagar to the talk. Given the sudden closures and truncated teaching semesters that institutions in Kashmir were facing, it was quite remarkable to have a packed auditorium with young men and women for a talk on group theory and symmetry. Nalini Joshi from University of Sydney in Australia visited several places in Andhra Pradesh. An IWM EC member, B. Sri Padmavati, who coordinated this visit, reported that the participants found it exciting to see and hear from an accomplished woman mathematician who has a pleasant personality and is accessible. Such talks help dispel the misperception that a woman doing a PhD, especially in mathematics, is not a normal person! Students and college teachers specially find it encouraging when they see successful women researchers continuing to enjoy their mathematical research careers along with other responsibilities of life. At times, visitor lectures open up different perspectives to teachers in local colleges about interesting ways of teaching mathematics. For instance, after the visitor talk at Government Girls College, Sehore, a small town of Madhya Pradesh, during the interaction session, students said that they would be more regular in attending classes if the teaching techniques used in the talk were adopted by their teachers. On the other hand, the college teachers observed that the girl students were more responsive and participated in the visitor’s lecture, perhaps because the speaker was a woman. The visitor program and regional workshops have proven especially effective in helping the IWM meet its goals. This might be surprising, but students in remote areas are unaware of good teaching and research centers within the state, and even the nearest public transport. A frequent response from participants in our activities is that they become much more informed about the opportunities available to them after attending the event. A PhD scholar from a state university in Assam is one of the several cases in point. Without any fellowship she was finding it difficult to carry on with her research. It was through the regional workshop that she learnt about various scholarships, drastically improving her prospects as a researcher. Another important benefit of such events has been to the local women teachers who can discuss issues that they face in practice, academic and otherwise, with women mathematicians. The latter include managing research along with a heavy teaching load in colleges, teaching innovations, and work–life balance.

1024

N. Agarwal et al.

Many teachers in remote areas are also not up-to-date about the scholarships and other career opportunities. The visitors serve as a great source of information dissemination in this regard. Going by the account of several visitors, some of the local teachers have reached out to them to seek information about career schemes, and in some cases to discuss research issues. To create awareness and initiate exchange of views on varied issues related to mathematics and women in mathematics, IWM holds panel discussions with panelists drawn from all over the world. Themes of panel discussions have been diverse ranging from initiatives for women in mathematics from India and around the world, status of women in mathematics, and mathematics education. At one of the panels on Women in Mathematics: Perspectives from Science and Mathematics, there were panelists from across the globe. Sujatha Ramadorai, University of British Columbia, talked about the initiatives taken by the Indian Academy of Sciences in publishing Lilavati’s Daughters (Godbole and Ramaswamy, 2008), and a special issue of Economic and Political Weekly (Thakurta, 2017), which had intersectional autobiographies from women and gender minorities in mathematics and sciences. She also highlighted the gender gap project of the International Council for Science (ICSU). Apala Majumdar, University of Bath, spoke about the Athena Swan initiative. Krishna S. Athreya, Iowa State University, said women (and other underrepresented minorities) in STEM face many challenges in functioning at their intellectual best. Some are rooted in external constraints resulting from social conditioning that sets differential expectations in communication styles. Šárka Neˇcasová, Czech Academy of Sciences Prague, spoke about women scientists with small children being usually excluded from important committees. Indira Narayanaswamy, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore spoke about the “leaky pipeline” with women dropping out of science and the “science glass ceiling” for women scientists, who struggle for acceptance, appreciation and rewards/awards at various levels. During the discussion, quite a few audience members emphasized the need for women to work twice as hard to achieve the same result. A male member of the audience remarked that this expectation was grossly unfair as no such requirement was imposed on him. Young women spoke about parental pressure to not continue in research, and to get married instead. Other young women married to fellow academics spoke about the two-body problem and the unwritten rule, which often prevented institutions from hiring both of them. These issues have come up time and again during several panel discussions. During another panel discussion, it was felt that, in the Indian context, parents of women students had to be convinced of the advantages of supporting their daughters’ study further, even for research degrees. From these discussions it is amply clear that much more remains to be done to understand and address these complex issues, to intervene from a systemic point of view and to bring about changes to societal practices. Nonetheless, the platform provided by the panel discussions has been quite useful in raising issues faced by practicing and aspiring women mathematicians and to discuss them freely. Participants mentioned that such platforms are very useful because they focus on issues faced exclusively by women.

Indian Women and Mathematics

1025

Through several activities all over the country, IWM has been able to make many delegates, drawn from different regions, aware of its existence. It is expected that these delegates will be IWM’s brand ambassadors and will publicize IWM and its activities. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, IWM could not conduct its 2020 activities in the usual way. However, all of them were carried out in a virtual mode. For instance, under the Visitor Program, every month, talks were delivered online by wellestablished women mathematicians from India and abroad. A significant benefit was that the virtual mode enabled IWM to connect with women mathematicians from all over the country, particularly with those who would otherwise have been unable to attend in person. The support of the International Mathematical Union’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM) has been crucial. For instance, the visits of several distinguished women mathematicians from across the globe have been possible only due to the valuable support provided by CWM. It has also enabled IWM to invite and support participants from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) nations, resulting in participation by women from Nepal and Bangladesh. These participants benefited from exposure and networking; in addition, they used this opportunity to attend another conference in India at their own expense. The networking opportunities for women from the South Asian region was further enhanced by the Symposium for South Asian Women in Mathematics held in October 2017 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The IWM was represented by several EC members and the conference provided an opportunity for lively discussions on mathematics and more. One can see from the above sections that a large number of the activities and events aimed at encouraging women to take up higher studies in mathematics as well as research have taken place primarily under the aegis of the IWM project. The impact of these taking place in last decade has revealed interesting correlations if not causations. In 2010–2011, of the PhD students in mathematics in India 39% were women and around 52% of students pursuing masters degrees in mathematics were women. By 2018–2019, this has gone up to 46% and 65% respectively. This is one of the many interesting observations available in the All India Survey on Higher Education reports (AISHE, 2019).

Next Steps In the next few years IWM aims to continue and expand our current activities, and also attempt to influence policy by making recommendations to grant-giving agencies. The planned expansions of current activities include: • Organize more programs in Central and East India, where they have been relatively sparse so far.

1026

N. Agarwal et al.

• Extend our reach to undergraduate women students of mathematics via extended summer programs. • Expand our joint activities with mathematicians and associations in other countries, especially our neighboring countries. • Form an online community (like Stack Exchange) where women mathematicians can share their experiences, raise issues, discuss how to solve the problems they face, and create support systems at academic events. • Create a directory of women who have earned a PhD in mathematics and work in India, with the goal of building a network of women mathematicians and ease collaboration and mentoring. The IWM collective will engage with policy makers to seek adequate representation of women in all mathematics conferences and workshops. Some of our recommendations are given below. • Women speakers benchmark. Organizers of conferences and workshops should be issued an advisory that it would be desirable to have adequate representation of women amongst speakers at the plenary or invited level at conferences and as lecturers in workshops. At the 2018 ICM, 15% of the speakers at the plenary or invited level were women, and it was recorded that a conscious effort had gone into looking for women speakers. The numbers of women working in India may vary according to research area. However, it is perceived to be around 15% in many areas of research, and organizers of events focused on these areas may be advised to make a conscious effort to achieve this benchmark. • Women on scientific committees. There should be at least one woman on the scientific committee of any conference or workshop. This would go a long way in remedying the problem of underrepresentation of women speakers. It would also enhance the visibility of the event to junior women researchers who are getting acquainted with conference or workshop environments. The Indian Academy of Sciences has, quite recently, appointed at least one woman scientist to each of its sectional committees. • Inclusivity audits. Organizers of conferences and workshops should be required to report data on the number of women on committees and among speakers, with separate mention of their numbers at the plenary or invited speaker level; and among participants. This report would serve as a form of inclusivity audit for the event. It would provide much needed data on gender balance to policy makers, while also inducing a degree of conscious effort on the part of organizers to maintain gender balance. • Childcare. Conferences and workshops should provide funding for childcare for young children who accompany a participating parent. The challenges faced in attending conferences, by scientists and mathematicians who have young children—which are faced by women researchers to a disproportionate extent—are well documented. Several scholarly societies and funding agencies in mathematics provide daycare facilities or equivalent facilities to women speakers and participants with young children. For IWM activities, we have managed, with the goodwill of the organizing institutions, to provide local hospitality for

Indian Women and Mathematics

1027

children and an accompanying person for a limited number of women speakers or participants. The final major challenge facing IWM is to ensure the long-term viability of its activities. At present, IWM relies financially on projects funded by the National Board of Higher Mathematics. Registering as an organization that can generate its own funds through donations and membership dues would help to ensure IWM’s financial stability. Acknowledgments The authors thank their colleagues in the IWM Executive Council as well as the members of the International Advisory Council. On behalf of IWM, they acknowledge the support received from NBHM, CWM, and all the institutions that have hosted IWM activities. We also thank all who have participated in our activities and been ambassadors for the cause.

References All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE). 2019. Reports. http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/reports. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. Godbole, Rohini, and Ram Ramaswamy. 2008. Lilavati’s daughters: The women scientists of India. Bengaluru: Indian Academy of Sciences. Indian National Science Academy (INSA). 2004. Science career for Indian women: An examination of Indian women’s access to and retention in scientific careers. New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy. Indian Women and Mathematics (IWM). 2020. Archives. IWM: Indian Women and Mathematics. https://sites.google.com/site/iwmmath/archives. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. Mathematical Sciences Foundation (MSF). 2020. Front Page | Mathematical Sciences Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Sciences_Foundation. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. Subramanian, Jayasree. 2007. Perceiving and producing merit: Gender and doing science in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies; 14(2): 259–284. Chadha, Gita and Achutan, Asha ed. 2017. Review of women’s studies. Special issue, Economic and Political Weekly 52(17).

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society Cheryl E. Praeger and Lesley A. Ward

In this article we discuss women’s participation in and contribution to the mathematical sciences in Australia, focusing on efforts to remove barriers to participation, and in particular on WIMSIG, the Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society. We are proud of and grateful for what women in Australia have achieved in mathematics,1 and we are very pleased to offer this article to help celebrate the 50th anniversary of the AWM.2 After outlining some of the history of women in mathematics in Australia, we describe the pre-history, formation, and activities of the Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group (WIMSIG) of the Australian Mathematical Society (AustMS). We conclude with some other Australian initiatives that aim to expand opportunities for women and girls in mathematics, and a discussion of broader equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives. We close with some insights.

1 In this article, we use “mathematics” to signify the whole range of mathematical sciences, including applied mathematics, statistics, pure mathematics, mathematics education, and industrial mathematics. 2 An expanded version of this article is to appear in the Gazette of the Australian Mathematical Society.

C. E. Praeger University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] L. A. Ward () University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_88

1029

1030

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

Women in Mathematics in Australia: Our Focus The first university established in Australia was the University of Sydney in 1852, soon followed by the University of Melbourne in 1855, the University of Adelaide in 1876, the University of Tasmania in 1893, and other universities in the early twentieth century (Cohen, 2006, p. 93). However, the first women appointed as lecturers in mathematics were much later: Margaret Barr Moir in 1921 at the University of Western Australia and Edith Rita Lowenstern in 1929 at the University of Tasmania (Cohen, 2006, p. 129). There were women in several mathematics departments in the following decades, and most were in teaching roles. They were generally called “tutors” or “senior tutors” and were not encouraged to pursue a research career nor a doctoral degree. The rank of professor (Level E) at an Australian university is perhaps close to a named chair in the US, and a relatively small proportion of staff achieve this grade, though more now than in the past. The first woman mathematician to achieve this rank was Hanna Neumann when she was appointed professor of mathematics in April 1964 at the Australian National University. The first author CP3 was the second such appointment—in 1983, at the University of Western Australia, and at the time of writing (2021), at least 38 women have achieved the rank of professor (Level E) in the mathematical sciences in Australia, including the second author LW in 2020, at the University of South Australia. This article focuses on higher education, and especially on the formation of WIMSIG within the Australian Mathematical Society (AustMS). The AustMS, founded in 1956, is the largest Australian professional association in the mathematical sciences at university level, with around 1000 members. It has two “divisions”—in applied mathematics and mathematical physics—and six “special interest groups,” one of which is WIMSIG. Increasingly women have taken leadership roles in Australian and international professional bodies, though this did not happen immediately. This female leadership has had a major effect on strengthening responses to gender inequity challenges, as we discuss below. At the end of this article, we list Australia-based women who have held leadership roles in Australian and international mathematical sciences organizations, together with female recipients of major research awards (Table 2). Participation by women in employment in Australian universities is lower in mathematics than in the natural and physical sciences, where it is in turn lower than in all other discipline groupings. As in many other countries, it also declines at higher levels of employment (cf. Hobbs and Koomen, 2006), and at higher levels of study. However, these differences are often little known, or underestimated. We have found it effective to use data such as the following snapshot (Fig. 1) from 2014 to inform both discipline leaders and participants at women-in-mathematics events.

3 The authors refer to themselves throughout as CP (Cheryl) and LW (Lesley). We first met at a women-in-maths event at the Australian National University in the 1980s; LW was the organizer, as an undergraduate student, and CP was the guest speaker.

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1031

Female Academic Participation in Australian Mathematical Sciences in 2014 100 91 90 81 80

75 68

Participation (%)

70 60

59

62

63

38

37

71

69

50 41 40

32 30

29

31 25 19

20

9

10 0 Bachelor Honours & PhD Casual Associate Lecturer Senior Completion Other Completion Teaching Lecturer B Lecturer Postgrad A C Areas of Involvement in Mathematical Sciences Female Total Percentage

Associate Professor D

Professor E

Male Total Percentage

Fig. 1 Participation rates by gender in Australian university mathematical sciences, 2014. Figure courtesy of Neil Garrard. Compiled by Maaike Wienk, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI). Sources: Student completion data from Australian Government Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) data; Staff profile data from AMSI Universities Survey 2014

Women’s participation was substantially lower than men’s, at every level. Women’s participation dropped steadily from bachelor completions (41%) through Level A (29%) to Level E (9%). The employment category with the highest proportion of women was casual (sessional) teaching (32%).

Building Community and the Formation of WIMSIG At the 2006 Australian Mathematical Society annual conference, two of the 14 plenary lecturers were women: Katrin Tent and Claire Voisin. The incoming AustMS President, Peter Hall, suggested to CP that it would be appropriate to bring women participants together to meet with Katrin and Claire. Independently, AustMS President Michael Cowling asked LW, who had recently relocated from the US where she had been involved with the AWM, “Could you help the Society to ginger up its support for women?” Together CP and LW organized an impromptu women’s morning tea. This was the catalyst for get-togethers of women participants at later AustMS conferences, in the form of discussions and panels on issues relevant to women in mathematics, with catering by the AustMS.

1032

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

Clearly there was continuing interest by women mathematicians in having regular networking events during AustMS conferences. An important precursor to formalizing these was the creation of the annual AustMS Hanna Neumann Lecture (championed by Nalini Joshi, CP, and others) in 2010, a response to there being no female plenary speakers at the 2007 AustMS annual conference. The AustMS Council supported women’s networking efforts; it sought a framework whereby ongoing funding could be provided. At its meeting in 2010 in Brisbane, the Council decided to revamp “special interest groups” of the AustMS, making a provision for such funding. At the Women in Maths lunch during the 2011 AustMS annual conference, there was discussion about establishing a women-in-maths group, and four women volunteered to move this forward: Julie Clutterbuck (Australian National University), Barbara Maenhaut (University of Queensland), Robyn Stuart (University of New South Wales), and Anne Thomas (University of Sydney). There was general support from the AustMS.4 The group of four submitted proposed rules of procedure, and the Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group (WIMSIG) of the Australian Mathematical Society was formally “admitted as a Special Interest Group of the Society” at the AustMS Council meeting on 23rd September 2012. Anne Thomas sent out an email to generate an initial membership list, while Julie Clutterbuck organized the call for nominations to form the first Executive Committee and ran the first election as returning officer. Membership of the first Executive Committee was announced in February 2013: Asha Rao (chair), Joanne Hall (secretary), Giang Nguyen (treasurer), with Amy Glen and LW as ordinary members (see Fig. 2). Later (2018), an elected student representative was added to the Executive Committee. WIMSIG currently has over 550 people on its mailing list, of whom about 90% are women. Those on the mailing list who are AustMS members are, formally, the WIMSIG Members, while the others are Friends of WIMSIG. Membership of WIMSIG is open to people of any gender, to members and nonmembers of the AustMS, and to academic staff, postgraduate and undergraduate students, people working with mathematics in industry, and other interested people.

Why So Late? Readers may wonder why WIMSIG’s formation came so late on an international time-scale, noting that by 2012 the Association for Women in Mathematics had 4 The AustMS President Professor Peter Taylor mentioned this offer at the AGM held during the conference, and “the meeting expressed enthusiastic support for this suggestion” (55th AustMS AGM Minutes, Item 15(b)). The Council meeting following the AGM resolved to invite Barbara Maenhaut, “in consultation with others, to submit an application to form a women’s Special Interest Group of the Society” (112th Council Minutes, Item 4, Resolution 2).

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1033

Fig. 2 Some early WIMSIG leaders, 2014. Left to right: Julie Clutterbuck, Giang Nguyen, Joanne Hall, LW, Asha Rao, CP. Photo courtesy of Giang Nguyen

been operating for over 40 years, the European Women in Mathematics network was established in 1986, and both Indian Women and Mathematics (2009) and the Chinese Mathematical Society Working Committee for Women in Mathematics (2012) were established earlier than WIMSIG. It is hard to convey how difficult it felt to make progress in removing barriers to participation, and to form publicly a women-in-mathematics group; it was not straightforward in Australia. Women mathematicians have worked in Australian universities for almost 100 years. However, they were few in number, and mostly in relatively junior positions with limited influence. Until 1966 the socalled marriage bar was in force (Sawer, 1996) meaning that married women were barred from permanent employment as school teachers and in the Commonwealth Public Service. In the following years, by comparison with today, there was little appetite to work on equity issues, little data, little scholarly literature on equity, little respect for equity as a valid subject of study, and little understanding either of institutional and structural barriers to the participation of underrepresented groups, or of the sociological and psychological factors that contribute to those barriers. Conceptual understanding of micro-inequalities, the accumulation of advantage and disadvantage, unconscious bias and cognitive schemas, imposter syndrome, priming, and stereotype threat lay far in the future. Imbalances in participation, if considered at all, were often presumed to be due to individual deficits—of talent, of ability, of background, of interest. The nascent field of women’s studies was more tightly linked with humanities and social sciences than with science. Efforts to tackle equity issues, while sometimes finding warm support, were not viewed as mainstream in mathematics, and could be hampered by a fear of being misinterpreted as seeking unwarranted

1034

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

preferential treatment. Indeed, decades later LW feels that her gender equity work was sometimes perceived as detracting from her worth as a mathematician. However, in other spheres, progress was made which impinged on mathematics education. In 1987 the Australian Commonwealth Schools Commission released a report presenting advice that aimed to ensure that “what is being taught and learned [in schools] does justice to girls and women, taking account of their cultural, language, and socio-economic diversity, and is equally valuable for girls and boys” (Commonwealth Schools Commission, 1987). This led, through the University of Adelaide’s Gender and Curriculum Project, to a public lecture given by CP at that university in 1989 on gender and curriculum in the mathematical sciences (Praeger, 1989). She spoke about research findings affecting girls’ learning in schools, reflecting her own learnings as a ministerial appointee on the Australian national Curriculum Development Council, 1984–1987, and her own experiences with the undergraduate university mathematics curriculum, in the light of these findings. She was surprised to discover that her friends and colleagues (male mathematicians at the University of Adelaide) felt somehow threatened that she would give such a lecture—they hastened to assure her that they treated their male and female students equally. We are not aware of much activity around gender equity in Australian mathematics through the 1990s, and the women-in-maths event at the Australian National University where CP and LW met was very unusual. Perhaps these personal experiences might help explain how very happy we have been to contribute to the establishment and activities of WIMSIG.

What WIMSIG Does WIMSIG’s activities encompass events, newsletter and website, travel awards, advocacy, research conferences, and mentoring.

Events WIMSIG runs both free-standing events and embedded events within meetings organized by others. We have developed an advice sheet for organizers (WIMSIG, 2021). One of WIMSIG’s goals is to reduce isolation and to build community and connections among women in mathematics. As a first step, the Executive Committee (EC) initiated twice-yearly WIMSIG Gatherings held around Australia, open to people of any gender but typically attended mostly by women. An EC member recruits local organizers. These Gatherings of academic staff and students typically have a guest speaker or discussion on gender equity, inclusion, career development,

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1035

and so on. The May–June Gatherings are now held under the banner of International Women in Mathematics Day. The connections made through the Gatherings have assisted with later WIMSIG endeavors as well as directly benefiting the individual women involved. WIMSIG’s embedded events include dinners at AustMS conferences (2013– present), and lunches at Australia and New Zealand Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ANZIAM) conferences (2014–present). All female plenary speakers at these conferences are invited to speak briefly, addressing a set of prompts written by Nalini Joshi. Their written responses to these prompts form the WIMSIG Q&A archive (WIMSIG, 2020). We have run events within the Mathematics in Industry Study Group (MISG), the Australian Mathematical Sciences Student Conference, and specialized research workshops. We also assisted the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI) to plan and implement women-in-mathematics events within their national annual events for students (see Table 1).

WIMSIG Newsletter and Website We established a mailing list5 and monthly email newsletter, which is available on the WIMSIG website. Joanne Hall has served as newsletter editor since its inception in 2013. Regular newsletter topics include job advertisements, upcoming events, opportunities to nominate for awards, media coverage, reports on WIMSIG events, links to new articles on gender equity, diversity, inclusion, and so on, and recognition of WIMSIG members for their awards, promotions, and other achievements. Advertising events in the WIMSIG newsletter has become part of the inclusion strategy that funding bodies such as AMSI look for when evaluating conference funding proposals. The WIMSIG website, developed and maintained since 2013 by WIMSIG Website Editor Amy Glen, includes a funding directory listing scholarships, fellowships, and other opportunities, as well as resources including WIMSIG’s annual reports, and scholarly and media articles about gender equity and mathematics. In 2019, WIMSIG launched its Twitter account, @wimsigAU, and designed the WIMSIG logo.

5 The WIMSIG mailing list replaced a women-in-mathematics email list set up by CP (its nucleus was the contact list collected at our first morning tea at the 2006 AustMS conference) and administered from the University of Western Australia, 2006–2012. It is administered by WIMSIG separately from the AustMS, since formal membership of WIMSIG is not required for subscribers to the WIMSIG mailing list.

1036

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

WIMSIG Travel Awards In 2014 the WIMSIG EC secured AustMS funding to establish the AustMS WIMSIG Travel Awards. Our rationale was that funding travel for research collaborations is a highly effective and practical way to support the development of women’s research careers. LW and Giang Nguyen (WIMSIG treasurer, 2013– 2019) developed the funding proposal, selection criteria, rules for the awards, application procedure, and structure and procedures of the selection committee. WIMSIG named the Awards in honor of the second and third women to attain the rank of professor in the mathematical sciences in Australia (CP, University of Western Australia, 1983, and Anne Street, University of Queensland, 1985). The Cheryl E. Praeger Travel Award funds women mathematicians for travel to conferences or for research visits. The Anne Penfold Street Award funds mathematicians of any gender for caring responsibilities in connection with travel for research purposes. Short reports by awardees are posted on the WIMSIG website and serve two purposes: accountability and giving future applicants ideas for how they might use an award. Planning for the WIMSIG Travel Awards was informed by LW’s prior experience with the AWM-NSF Travel and Mentoring Grants; she had served on the AWM’s Travel Grants Selection Committee and as a Co-Principal Investigator on an NSF grant proposal which secured a funding renewal. Rules for such awards must respond to the changing needs of women. For example, knowing that the AWM Selection Committee had varied the rules of those grants in order to approve a research collaborator visiting a grant recipient, rather than the reverse, we included this option from the start. Like the AWM Selection Committee, the WIMSIG Travel Awards Selection Committee (SC) has three members, each of whom serves for three rounds and chairs the committee in their last round. The WIMSIG EC recruits the SC members, striving to maintain diversity across career stage (early, middle, senior), research field, type of institution, ethnicity, cultural background, and geographical location. We have consistently seen strong pools of applicants, and in 2015 the AustMS agreed to triple the annual Travel Awards funding. To date (2021), we have made 38 Praeger Awards and 13 Street Awards (see Fig. 3). The WIMSIG Travel Awards continue to increase women’s opportunities to advance their research careers. Direct outcomes include conference talks and seminars, participation in semester-long research programs at institutes, new research collaborations begun, publications, and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) work done by awardees while traveling. More broadly, an external award can make it easier to get further travel funding from other sources, and the award and its outcomes are useful for building a track record and reporting it on grant proposals, job applications, and promotion applications.

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1037

Fig. 3 CP with past recipients of the WIMSIG Cheryl E. Praeger Travel Award and Anne Penfold Street Award, 2017. Left to right: Valentina Wheeler, Joan Licata, Barbara Maenhaut, CP, Joanne Hall, Catherine Penington, Bronwyn Hajek. Photo: Sia Duff

The positive effects of the awards are evidenced by these comments from Praeger awardees:6 “We are now writing up two papers resulting from this intensive research time. . . . This productivity and recognition has already helped me to achieve further grant success,” “Attending this conference gave me an opportunity to present my latest work. . . . I was also able to meet academics from many institutions in Europe, where I am currently applying for postdoctoral positions,” “I also took the opportunity to meet my overseas collaborators, we worked efficiently on the paper . . . and managed to get it submitted during the meeting.” From Street awardees: “I am extremely appreciative for this support in the dual challenge of being a mathematician and a parent,” “We are grateful to WIMSIG for the receipt of a Street Award to support childcare at our conference. . . . The award covered almost all the childcare expenses of two of our invited speakers.” In 2019 an additional annual award was introduced. The AustMS WIMSIG Maryam Mirzakhani Award provides top-up scholarships for female international postgraduate students. (These are scholarships intended to supplement the main award funding a postgraduate student.)

6 See

the Australian Mathematical Society website for reports from Praeger and Street awardees.

1038

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

Advocacy A named, widely known and respected group addressing gender equity issues can achieve a seat at the table in the decision-making and information-sharing processes of influential professional organizations, and thereby get traction for consistent consideration of equity issues. WIMSIG has a regular slot on the agenda of the Australian Council of Heads of Mathematical Sciences (ACHMS), where we have presented data on women’s participation rates, publicized scholarship on unconscious bias and ways to reduce the influence of bias in the functioning of departments, and highlighted major initiatives such as the SAGE Athena SWAN program (Science in Australia Gender Equity Athena Scientific Women’s Academic Network). For example, at the 2015 ACHMS meeting, LW as WIMSIG Chair provided data on the correlation between the percentage of women speakers and the absence or presence of women among the organizers (AMS, 2014). Specifically, in the special sessions at the 2013 American Mathematical Society conferences, with no women organizers the percentage of women speakers was 19%, while with at least one woman organizer it was 27%. WIMSIG’s annual reports to AustMS Council incorporate specific suggestions for action. In one report, WIMSIG proposed that calls for nominations for AustMS office-bearers should be more widely advertised and that the AustMS Nominations Committee should expand its role in developing diverse slates of candidates. Both these innovations were adopted. The AustMS also agreed that the Programme Committee for each AustMS annual conference should include a WIMSIG representative, with the brief of increasing the numbers of women among the plenary speakers. Second, a group such as WIMSIG gives people somewhere to obtain expert advice on equity issues. We offer three examples of this kind of advocacy. In 2013 WIMSIG wrote a submission to the 2016–2025 Decadal Plan for the Mathematical Sciences, an initiative of the Australian Academy of Science championed by Nalini Joshi. Our submission identified a wide range of issues, including endemic bias against women in hiring and in peer review of research, excessive committee workload on women, scarcity of data on women’s participation, scarcity of female role models and mentors, resentment against women perceived as being offered opportunities as token women, gender imbalance in workload allocation models, and low rates of participation by girls in high-school mathematics. We provided extensive references to scholarship on these matters and suggested numerous actions to address them. In 2015, WIMSIG wrote a submission to a review of AMSI’s workshop funding program. We proposed specific ways to achieve greater diversity among workshop participants, and recommended that AMSI start to provide childcare funding for dependents of workshop speakers and participants. In 2015–2017, WIMSIG was invited to comment on the draft proposal for the Simon Marais Mathematics Competition, a new Asia–Pacific undergraduate

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1039

mathematics competition inspired by the North American Putnam Competition. WIMSIG’s suggestions focused on eligibility, format, governance, and organization. Our recommendation of introducing a team component of the competition was adopted. As WIMSIG predicted, the team component attracts a higher proportion of female entrants than the individual component (Do et al., 2018).

Mentoring Program A 2017 survey of WIMSIG members revealed strong interest in a mentoring program. In response, in September 2019, we launched a 12-month WIMSIG Pilot Mentoring Program. It aims to assist female WIMSIG members to find suitable mentors, to facilitate mentee–mentor relationships covered by a mentoring agreement, and to ensure these relationships take place in a safe and supportive environment that complies with the AustMS Code of Conduct (see below). Expressions of interest were sought both of mentees (female members of WIMSIG) and mentors (members or friends of WIMSIG of any gender). Mentees and mentors were paired in early 2020.

WIMSIG Conference 2017 By 2015 WIMSIG had built connections among women in mathematics around the country, established a track record of running events that women found useful, devised and delivered the Travel Awards scheme, and built credibility with the Australian mathematics community and professional associations. The time was ripe to create a major national event focused on women’s mathematical research, for the first time in Australian history. LW proposed to the EC that WIMSIG should run a conference, and she served as conference director. The WIMSIG Conference 2017: Celebrating Women in the Australian Mathematical Sciences was held at the University of South Australia. Features of the conference included: • 190 participants (see Fig. 4) from 10 countries; 85% women, 30% students. • 100 research talks by women, in 12 special sessions. • Plenary talks in statistics, mathematics in industry, pure mathematics, and applied mathematics, given by Kerrie Mengersen, Christine O’Keefe, Malabika Pramanik, and AWM President Ami Radunskaya (see Fig. 5). • Poster session. • Panel: Gender Equity Landscape in the Australian Mathematical Sciences. • Panel: Broader Perspectives on Gender Equity, across Countries and Disciplines. • Professional development workshop: Shameless Self-Promotion. • LGBTQI Folks and Allies Afternoon Tea and Discussion.

1040

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

Fig. 4 WIMSIG Conference 2017: Celebration of Women in Australian Mathematical Sciences. CP is fifth and LW seventh from left in the front row. Photo: Sia Duff

• Information session: WIMSIG Travel Awards. • Each special session had a networking get-to-know-you discussion, inspired by similar discussions LW had experienced at the 2013 AWM Research Symposium. • Conference booklet with a gender equity resource kit. (See conference booklet posted on the AustMS website.) • Travel grants to 33 participants, some for travel by caregivers of participants’ children. • Lactation room. • Free childcare on-site. • Conference song: “Build a New Network” with lyrics by Ami Radunskaya to the tune of “Waltzing Matilda”; choir included all three women AustMS presidents up to 2017 (as listed in Table 2). • Evaluation survey: 98% of respondents said they would attend a future WIMSIG conference. Core funding resulted from our successful joint funding proposal to four professional bodies: AustMS, AMSI, ANZIAM, and the Statistical Society of Australia. We also developed a sponsorship prospectus and attracted funding from 12 further sponsors, helping to keep registration fees low. Before this conference, most people in Australian mathematics had never spent even a day in a majority-female research environment. Here, women had the rare experience of a research conference where most participants were of the same

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

Fig. 5 Poster for WIMSIG Conference 2017

1041

1042

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

gender as themselves, and the resulting encouragement, networking, and boost to morale. Further, discipline leaders of any gender expanded their networks, hearing research talks by many female researchers from different fields and career stages. Thus, the conference helped to increase future participation by women in both conferences and recruitment processes. In creating something so novel in Australia, it helped that LW had already experienced the transformative and affirming effect of majority-female research conferences, namely AWM’s 1999 Olga Taussky Todd7 Celebration of Careers in Mathematics for Women, and the 2013 AWM Research Symposium. Those events gave us proof-of-concept, practical ideas, and emotional fuel which helped us persuade others to support our initiative. In turn, our conference inspired South African participant Karin-Therese Howell to organize the inaugural African Women in Mathematics Conference (AWiM 2019). Back in Australia, WIMSIG’s next conference was planned for 2020.8 Participants commented on the visibility of women: “seeing and listening to so many capable young female mathematicians in one venue. Being inspired by more senior female mathematicians/statisticians” and “I had not fully realized that there was so much mathematical research being done by women in Australia”; on the conference itself: “I have never been to a conference with . . . such a feeling of harmony and love in the air, with so few egos on display” and “Having a lactation space available in the same building was great”; and on impact: “My experience at the WIMSIG conference inspired me to create the Women in STEM Society (WISTEMS) at the University of Adelaide . . . which now has over 360 members” and “It was amazing how friendly everyone was. I felt very much like I could become one of the ‘older’ mathematicians in the room.”

Other Australian Mathematics Program Support We list in Table 1 some further Australian initiatives in support of girls and women in mathematics. The Australian Research Council’s Georgina Sweet Australian Laureate Fellowship provides both research funding and additional funds of $50K Australian dollars (AUD) to be used to support women in research in science and technology. Nalini Joshi, the first mathematician awarded one, used these funds to support women-inmathematics events at AustMS and ANZIAM conferences over five years, as well as national Mentoring and Guidance in Careers (MAGIC) workshops9 for earlycareer researchers (post-PhD) who are women or people of diverse gender identity

7 There

is a nice connection here: Olga Taussky Todd was Hanna Neumann’s DPhil supervisor. was postponed to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 9 A collaborative initiative by Georgina Sweet Fellows Nalini Joshi, (physicist) Nanda Dasgupta, and (chemist) Michelle Coote. 8 It

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1043

Table 1 Selected Australian programs supporting girls and women in mathematics Organization Australian Mathematics Trust

Sector Schools

AMSI and BHP Billiton Foundation

Schools

University of Adelaide

Schools

University of New South Wales University of South Australia AMSI

Schools Schools Universities

Australian Research Council

Funding agency

Details Australian participation in European Girls Mathematics Olympiad (EGMO) (since 2018) CHOOSEMATHS capacity-building program involving teachers and students (2015–2020) Women and Mathematics Workshop (annual) Girls Do the Math Day (annual) STEM Girls program (annual) Women’s events (now equity diversity and inclusion events) embedded in AMSI’s BioInfoSummer, Summer School, Winter School, and Vacation Scholar programs Georgina Sweet Australian Laureate Fellowship

in mathematics, physics, or chemistry. Kate Smith-Miles, the second mathematician recipient, contributed funds from her Georgina Sweet Fellowship to the WIMSIG Conference 2017.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Australian mathematics is not alone in experiencing a broadening of concern to a wider context of equity, diversity and inclusion. Such a context can encompass axes that “include, but are not limited to, gender, gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability status, family status, and socioeconomic background,” and can take an intersectional approach, meaning “one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by those with multiple minoritized identities” (Topaz et al., 2020, pp. 223, 224). In this section, we highlight progress in this direction.

SAGE: A National Program for Science and Gender Equity In 2013, none of the twenty scientists elected as Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science were women. This occurred during the presidency of Suzanne Cory, the first woman elected to that office since the Academy’s founding in 1954. A shocked

1044

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

Table 2 Women’s leadership roles and awards Office or honor Australian Mathematical Society President

Officer or honoree

Initial or award year

CP Nalini Joshi Kate Smith-Miles Jacqui Ramagge Christine O’Keefe

1992 2008 2016 2018 2000

Australian Mathematical Society Medal (established 1981) Kate Smith-Miles 2010 George Szekeres Medal CP 2014 (established 2001) Nalini Joshi 2020 Australia and New Zealand Industrial and Applied Mathematics (division of AustMS) Chair Mary Myerscough 2016 ANZIAM Medal (established 1995) Kerry Landman 2014 ANZIAM Michell Medal Antoinette Tordesillas 2000 (established 1999) Yvonne Stokes 2007 Frances Kuo 2011 Ngamta (Natalie) Thamwattana 2014 Alys Clark 2017 Claire Postlethwaite 2018 Jennifer Flegg 2020 E. O. Tuck Medal (established 2013) Kate Smith-Miles 2017 Yvonne Stokes 2018 WIMSIG (special interest group of AustMS) Chair Asha Rao 2013 LW 2015 Yvonne Stokes 2017 Jessica Purcell 2019 Catherine Greenhill 2021 Australian Academy of Science Council CP 2000, 2014 Nalini Joshi 2010 Louise Ryan 2020 Thomas Ranken Lyle Medal CP 2013 (established 1935) Moran Medal (established 1990) Melanie Bahlo 2009 Aurore Delaigle 2013 Jean Yee Hwa Yang 2015 Kim-Anh Lê Cao 2019 Janice Scealy 2021 Christopher Heyde Medal Catherine Greenhill 2015 (established 2011) Jennifer Flegg 2020 Vera Roshchina 2021 Ruby Payne-Scott Medal (established CP 2021 2021) (continued)

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1045

Table 2 (continued) Office or honor Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute Interim director Australian Government Prime Minister’s Prize for Science International Mathematical Union Executive committee member-at-large Vice-president Statistical Society of Australia President

Pitman Medal (established 1978)

Officer or honoree

Initial or award year

Asha Rao

2020

CP Susan Scott

2019 2020

CP Nalini Joshi

2007 2019

Helen MacGillivray Kaye Basford Kerrie Mengersen Jessica Kasza Kerrie Mengersen Louise Ryan

1995 2006 2012 2020 2016 2018

International Statistical Institute President Helen MacGillivray Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers President Marjorie Carss Dawn Bartlett Di Siemon Thelma Perso Judy Anderson Kim Beswick Mary Coupland Allason McNamara Lauren Beams International Commission for Mathematical Instruction Vice-president CP Merrilyn Goos Felix Klein Medal (established 2003) Gilah Leder Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PISA 2012, chair, Math Expert Group Kaye Stacey

2017 1980 1994 1998 2006 2008 2012 2015 2017 2019 2013 2017 2009

Of the mathematicians listed in Table 2, Aurore Delaigle, Nalini Joshi, Kerry Landman, Kerrie Mengersen, CP, and Louise Ryan, and Susan Scott have been elected Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science, as have Robyn Owens and Naomi Wray

Academy introduced far-reaching initiatives to address the underrepresentation of women in science: in 2014, it established the Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) Forum, with mathematician Nalini Joshi and Nobel laureate astronomer Brian Schmidt as co-chairs. Consultations with national stakeholders led to an Australian version of the UK’s Athena SWAN Charter, whereby universities and

1046

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

science research institutes commit to policies, practices, and action plans aimed at creating a gender-inclusive workplace. Further, Athena SWAN accreditation (expiring after three years) is awarded after rigorous peer-review of an institution’s “in-depth self-assessment of its structures, systems, and culture” and its “robust and measurable plan to address identified gaps in and barriers to gender equity in STEMM” (SAGE, 2021). After a pilot of Athena SWAN, supported by the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, an Australian Government investment of $1.8M AUD allowed SAGE to transition to an independent not-for-profit company. By 2020, the majority (39 institutions or 86%) of Australia’s higher education and research institutions had achieved the entry-level Athena SWAN Bronze Award. Crucially, under the SAGE and Athena SWAN schemes, responsibility for progress on institutional equity, diversity, and inclusion shifts from isolated individual champions to being among senior management’s key performance indicators. The evidence-based and collaborative (within and between institutions) nature of the accreditation application process is also productive.

EDI in AustMS In 2015, Nalini Joshi initiated a robust discussion at an AustMS Council meeting on appropriate initiatives that AustMS might consider in response to the London Mathematical Society’s Good Practice Scheme and the developments in SAGE described above. This, and WIMSIG’s decision described next, led to the formation of the AustMS Gender Equity Working Party in 2016 with representatives from ANZIAM (applied mathematics), ANZAMP (mathematical physics), WIMSIG, the New Zealand Mathematical Society, and the LGBTQI community. Initially AustMS had asked WIMSIG to adapt the Good Practice Scheme for Australia. The WIMSIG Executive Committee declined, noting that “we suggest that Council set up a committee for this express purpose. We believe that such a project would be most successful if undertaken by the Society as a whole, not only by WIMSIG. WIMSIG would be supportive of such a committee, and would be happy to contribute (for instance by recommending potential participants), but will not be taking responsibility for the project.” It was important to put the responsibility for this work where it belongs, namely with the leadership of the whole AustMS. The wisdom of this decision was borne out by later developments. As a result of the Gender Equity Working Party’s 2017 report, the AustMS Council established an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee to promote the objectives of AustMS concerning equity, diversity, and inclusion practices; to promote awareness of equal opportunity for AustMS members; and to provide strategic advice to the AustMS Council on matters relevant to diversity practices. Major outcomes to date include adoption of a comprehensive code of conduct, together with detailed procedures for investigating and responding to reported

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1047

breaches of the code; Special Sessions on inclusivity, diversity, and equity in mathematics at the AustMS 2019 and 2020 annual conferences; and establishment in 2020 of the Dr. Mandawuy Yunupingu Lecture Series—an annual plenary equity lecture at AustMS conferences. The inaugural lecture was delivered by Rowena Ball.

EDI in ANZIAM Starting in 2018, ANZIAM developed two codes of conduct, for ANZIAM as a whole and for ANZIAM conferences. After extensive discussion, draft codes were ratified by a Yes/No vote by the entire ANZIAM membership. Agreeing to the conference code of conduct is now a condition for conference registration, and each conference has several ANZIAM allies, who can assist in addressing and resolving potential breaches of the code of conduct. ANZIAM made two further important innovations: in 2019 it established a nominations committee to “ensure that appropriate applications and/or nominations are received” for various medals, prizes, and committee positions; and in 2020 it changed the composition of the ANZIAM medals selection panels, ensuring they are gender-balanced (ideally at least 40% women and 40% men), and address other axes of diversity such as research area, geography, ethnicity, and cultural background.

Mathematics and First Nations The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mathematics Alliance (ATSIMA), an Indigenous-led non-profit organization co-chaired by Chris Matthews and Caty Morris, was formally incorporated in 2015. Its vision is that “all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners will be successful in mathematics.” ATSIMA works with government curriculum authorities to embed Indigenous perspectives in the mathematics curriculum. It coordinates student camps and runs teacher professional development programs. The major ATSIMA outreach is through the ATSIMA Biennial Conferences, starting in 2014, from which has grown a community of educators, researchers, and industry professionals which aims to create a new education paradigm to transform mathematics education for all learners in Australia.

Mathematics and the LGBTQI Community At the WIMSIG Conference 2017, a meeting of LGBTQI Folks and Allies was held—to our knowledge the first such gathering in Australian mathematics. Similar events took place during the AustMS 2017 conference and at the ANZIAM

1048

C. E. Praeger and L. A. Ward

annual conferences in 2018–2020. The 2019 ANZIAM conference organizers also provided space for pronouns to be written on name badges, and re-designated some conference toilet facilities for open use (not restricted by gender). The AustMS EDI Committee is considering proposing that LGBTQI and Allies events be held at all AustMS-sponsored conferences.

Insights and Conclusion It is profoundly useful to know about the achievements of women’s organizations in other countries and other disciplines. We in Australia have benefited directly from models, data, and collaboration from the AWM, European Women in Mathematics, London Mathematical Society, Indian Women in Mathematics, and the International Mathematical Union’s Committee for Women in Mathematics, as well as the Astronomical Society of Australia’s Inclusion, Diversity and Equity in Astronomy Chapter. Acquiring good data on women’s participation is time-consuming and requires persistence, but it’s worth doing. When women are completely excluded from a high-profile event, it can fuel strong motivation for change, leading to new structural mechanisms that reduce barriers to the advancement of women and make such exclusions less likely in future. Examples discussed above are the establishment of SAGE and the AustMS Hanna Neumann Lectures. Potential for lasting change results when a granting body or professional association develops a scheme that supports work on EDI issues alongside toplevel research. An example is the ARC’s Georgina Sweet Australian Laureate Fellowship, which resulted in financial support for women-in-maths events at AustMS and ANZIAM conferences, for the WIMSIG Conference 2017, and for the MAGIC workshops. Another example is the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering’s initiation of the Australian Athena SWAN accreditation framework, which now drives valuable structural changes in our universities and research institutes. Finally, this is a story of hard-won success in an unfinished activity. We are proud of what has been achieved in the endeavors described here, and we remain committed to working towards equity. We hope that our account of women’s participation in mathematics in Australia may be helpful for readers. Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank those who helped us by contributing information and commenting on a longer draft article, Women doing mathematics in Australia, which was the precursor of this one, and which will be published separately at the suggestion of the editors of this volume. These colleagues include Amie Albrecht, Lynn Batten, Nigel Bean, Julie Clutterbuck, Michael Cowling, Neil Garrard, Amy Glen, Catherine Greenhill, Bronwyn Hajek, Joanne Hall, Deborah Jackson, Alex James, Nalini Joshi, Barbara Maenhaut, Giang Nguyen, Melinda Pearson, Jessica Purcell, Asha Rao, Jacqui Ramagge, Marian Sawer, Katherine Seaton, Margaret Sheil,

Women in Mathematics Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society

1049

Aidan Sims, Kate Smith-Miles, Janine (McIntosh) Sprakel, Yvonne Stokes, Robyn Stuart, and Maaike Wienk. Any errors and omissions that remain are of course our responsibility. We also express our thanks and appreciation to the many people who have worked tirelessly, skillfully and effectively to remove barriers and improve opportunities and experiences for women and other underrepresented groups within the mathematical sciences.

References American Mathematical Society. 2014. Statistics on women mathematicians compiled by the AMS. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 61(9): 1104. Cohen, Graeme. 2006. Counting Australia in: The people, organisations and institutions of Australian mathematics. Australian Mathematical Society. Broadway Bay, NSW: Halstead Press. Commonwealth Schools Commission. 1987. The National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools. Canberra: Union Offset Co. Pty Ltd. Do, Norman, Tony Guttmann, and Anthony Henderson. 2018. The inaugural Simon Marais Mathematics Competition. Australian Mathematical Society Gazette 45(2): 79–83. Hobbs, Catherine and Esmyr Koomen. 2006. Statistics on women in mathematics. European Women in Mathematics. http://www.europeanwomeninmaths.org/women-in-math/report/ statistics-women-in-maths-in-europe-1993-and-2005. Praeger, Cheryl. 1989. Why don’t girls do mathematics? Lumen (The University of Adelaide’s News Magazine) 18(11): 7–8. Sawer, Marian. 1996. Removal of the Commonwealth marriage bar: A documentary history. Centre for Research in Public Sector Management, Canberra: University of Canberra. SAGE. 2021. SAGE is accepting new subscribers. https://www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/sageis-accepting-new-subscribers-apply-now/ Topaz, Chad M., Maria-Veronica Ciocanel, Phoebe Cohen, Miles Ott, and Nancy Rodríguez. 2020. Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity (QSIDE). Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(2): 223–227. WIMSIG. 2020. WIMSIG Q&A’s with female plenary speakers. https://austms.org.au/specialinterest-groups/wimsig/wimsig-qas/. Accessed 15 Apr, 2021. WIMSIG. 2021. WIMSIG supported events. https://austms.org.au/special-interest-groups/wimsig/ wimsig-supported-events/. Accessed 15 Apr, 2021.

The African Women in Mathematics Association Marie Françoise Ouedraogo

First of all, let me introduce myself. I am the first woman from Burkina Faso to get a PhD in mathematics. After a bachelor and master’s degree in mathematics, I continued with a thesis in the field of algebra, specializing in Lie superalgebras. When I did my thesis, the University of Ouagadougou, in Burkina Faso where I studied, had a two-thesis educational system: a thesis called “thèse de troisième cycle” and then a thesis called “thèse d’Etat.” That is why I had to do a second thesis. I chose another topic and worked on pseudo-differential operators at University Blaise Pascal of Clermont-Ferrand in France. Pseudo-differential operators are extensions of differential operators with the help of Fourier transforms and the theory gives a fundamental tool for the study of some partial differential equations. Pseudo-differential operators are also used in the study of quantum field theory in physics. My country, Burkina Faso, is located in western Africa. The population of Burkina Faso is about 20 million. In Burkina Faso, we have 17 public universities and about 80 mathematicians. Among them, there are four women, about 5%. The gender gap is quite similar in most countries of Africa. In 2005, the Commission on the History of Mathematics in Africa (AMUCHMA) of the African Mathematical Union (AMU) published in its newsletter a list of examples of African doctorates in mathematics, mathematics education, and the history of mathematics. In the introduction, the compiler, Paulus Gerdes, commented It is unknown how many African scientists were awarded a doctorate in mathematics. We estimate it to be around 2,000 in North Africa and more than 1,000 south of the Sahara. The first North African to have completed a doctorate in mathematics was probably the Egyptian Ali Mostafa Mosharafa, who received his PhD and DSc from the University of London in 1923 and 1924 respectively. Excluding South Africa, the first mathematician from Africa South of the Sahara to earn a doctorate in mathematics was probably the Nigerian Chike

M. F. Ouedraogo () Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_89

1051

1052

M. F. Ouedraogo

Edozien Umuezei Obi (b. 1921) who received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1950. (Gerdes, 2005)

In 2006, the AMUCHMA Newsletter presented a list of 241 African women who held a doctorate in mathematics or mathematics education (Gerdes, 2006). According to this publication, women were 11% of all African doctorate holders in mathematics. Countries with the highest percentages of female doctorate holders in mathematics were: Malawi (31%), Egypt (21%), South Africa (18%), Tunisia (18%), Algeria (17%) and Mauritius (17%). This includes women who studied outside of Africa. In 1963, the first women were awarded doctorates: Grace Awani Alele-Williams (Nigeria) who received her PhD in mathematics education from the University of Chicago and Soraya Sherif (Egypt) who received her PhD in mathematics from Birmingham University.

Factors Identified as Hindering Women in Mathematics in Africa The idea of the creation of AWMA began when I met Marie-Françoise Roy in September 2011 at the 15th General EWM Conference in the Centre de Recerca Matematica, Barcelona. I was the chair of the Women in Mathematics Committee of the African Mathematical Union (AMU) and Roy was the convenor of European Women in Mathematics (EWM). She was also a scientific advisor for the Centre International de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées (CIMPA) in Nice, France, which, among other activities, conducts CIMPA schools—research schools held in what the United Nations considers “developing countries.” CIMPA supports students and researchers financially. In response to the growing need to promote mathematics and women mathematicians in Africa, we decided to organize a two-day workshop for African women mathematicians from different regions of Africa (North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, that is, West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa). Our aim was to organize a workshop each year, just before a CIMPA school. The workshops would have two main objectives: to create an opportunity for regular meetings between African women mathematicians (including doctoral students) and to allow them to attend the CIMPA school. The workshops also aim to increase African women’s participation in CIMPA schools. In general, between 20% and 30% of participants in CIMPA schools are women. However, in sub-Saharan Africa only 10% of CIMPA schools participants are women. The first workshop took place in West Africa in October of 2012 at the University of Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso (see Fig. 1). It was held two days before the CIMPA school at the University of Bobo Dioulasso, on the theme “Discrete mathematics, combinatorics, dynamic and algorithmic aspects.” The workshop was supported by local funds as well as by international organizations such as the International Mathematical Union (IMU), International Centre for Theoretical Physics

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1053

Fig. 1 Participants at the workshop for African women mathematicians before the CIMPA school, University of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2012

(ICTP), London Mathematical Society (LMS), African Mathematics Millennium Science Initiative (AMMSI), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). More than 70 people participated in the workshop, including at least 40 women, from the following countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo (also known as Congo-Kinshasa), Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Côte D’Ivoire, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Women participants were mainly university professors and PhD or masters students. Among the participants from Burkina Faso, there were also women who teach mathematics in secondary schools and working mathematicians, some from the ministry of education. During a panel on the situation of African women mathematicians, the participants identified various factors hindering women in mathematics, such as socio-cultural stereotypes and habits, men’s lack of confidence in the capacities of women, small numbers of women students in mathematics, lack of opportunities in Africa for those with degrees in mathematics, and lack of role models. The participants highlighted: • Financial difficulties. Most women in Africa have no financial resources to support their education. Because of the lack of collateral, women cannot take out loans to finance their education. So they rely on men to financially support them in order to move from one level to another. But some men are unwilling

1054

•

•

•

•

•

M. F. Ouedraogo

to give needed support. For most grants, selection committees formed mainly by men make the situation even harder as there is overt discrimination and inequity in the distribution of the awards. At the association level, women’s concerns have limited financial support. Most organizations rely on international funding as the local institutions have no budgets for such activities. This limits local outreach, which plays a key role in encouraging high school girls to study mathematical sciences at the university, thereby increasing the gender gap problem. Poor representation of women in the sciences is even more dire due to a complex mixture of social, cultural, and economic barriers faced by women in Africa. In most science academies and organizations, the norm is one or no female council member. That is the case also in many of our institutions of higher learning where the leadership is male dominated, thus lacking a specific agenda for the women in the departments. Lack of support from local institutions in our member countries. Institutional structures, and a persistent lack of support in the workplace, have disadvantaged women in their quest to progress in scientific careers. Marginalization of women in science affects not only African women, but is a common pattern around the globe. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimates that, on average, only 30% of science positions throughout the world are held by women (UNESCO, 2019). Men, given a chance, will almost always support their own for positions that are well paying and highly competitive. Although it is often hidden, overt and persistent discrimination remains. Women in leadership are often criticized unfairly and looked down upon as lesser performers. Few role models and senior women in mathematical sciences. Historically, girls and women in Africa have not had the same access to education as their male counterparts have enjoyed. Because there are smaller numbers of women and because they are usually concentrated at the lower levels, with little influence, few stand out to girls as role models. Access to universal education in Africa favors the boy child, who seems to be a suitable family heir. Thus, families with scarce resources invest more in the boy’s education than the girl’s. An educated girl who marries is seen as taking “family wealth” (the investment in her education) to other families, so few families keep girls in school for long. This makes even promising female mathematicians lose out on the opportunity for higher education. Family obligations and household chores keep many girls in the kitchen while the male child enjoys more freedom. This is the leading factor preventing professional growth of women in mathematics. It reduces the excellent performance of girls in school, thus limiting the number of women mathematicians in the making. Methods of teaching science have not benefited from gender equality in teacher education and curriculum development. There is a lingering tradition in some schools of encouraging boys to study physical science and girls to focus on biology and become teachers. In most African societies, women are considered “administrators and leaders of their household” and have a higher level of responsibility for their children and homes than their husbands. This

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1055

makes it difficult for them to leave their children for extended periods of time for further education or training courses, something that limits their career growth. • Sexual harassment and sexual violence. Sexual harassment happens to African women in mathematics due to the environment in departments that are dominated by men. It varies from use of suggestive or derogatory language by male professors and/or students to actual physical demands for sex. Since in most African countries the definition is so broad, it is sometimes difficult to establish exactly what constitutes sexual harassment. We have examples of students being abused by university lecturers in exchange for better grades, and sometimes even the female staff being bullied into sex to gain promotion in the departments. Workshop participants reported that in Kenya, male academics often hesitate to mentor or work collaboratively with female colleagues for fear of being seen as having a sexual relationship with them. This keeps women out of much needed research collaborations, resulting in poor research and publication records, and delayed career advancement. • Obstacles to the promotion of women to senior academic positions. Many women face obstacles in the pursuit of academic careers and in achieving promotion once they have been hired. Female candidates for academic positions sometimes endure harassment from senior male faculty members. Workshop participants reported that in Kenya, it is common for men to be promoted more quickly than women, especially in public universities, even when they join the university at the same time and at the same rank. To some extent, the concentration of women in the lower academic ranks can be explained by the fact that they tend to take longer to complete their PhDs, spend less time on research, and often have fewer publications. Some have argued that where there is competition for resources, women are less likely to have access to research tools such as computers. Workrelated travel, including fieldwork or participation in conferences, may also be problematic, especially for women with young families. To improve the situation, the workshop participants during the panel proposed the following actions: • Create an “African Association for Women in Mathematics” similar to organizations around the world, such as European Women in Mathematics, the Association for Women in Mathematics, Indian Women and Mathematics, and African institutions such as AMU and the African Union. • Appoint national or regional coordinators and create a mailing list and a website. • Write a booklet in several languages promoting African women in mathematics and disseminating their achievements, so that they can be used as role models. • Disseminate information about the new association of African women in mathematics within the African mathematical community. • Organize at least every two years a similar workshop in a different part of Africa, in connection with another scientific event.

1056

M. F. Ouedraogo

Creation of AWMA As a follow-up to this first workshop, we started to organize women mathematicians in Africa and launched a permanent framework aimed at creating an association of African women in mathematics. The goals of this association would be to improve the situation of women mathematicians in Africa, including increasing their number, capacity, research activity, and collaboration with each other and with their male colleagues. All of this arose from that one workshop! AWMA’s actual founding came during a second workshop in 2013 held at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (AIMS) in Cape Town, South Africa. This took place just after the 2013 CIMPA-UNESCO-South Africa meeting on “Evolutionary equations with applications in natural sciences.” Jointly organized with CIMPA and AIMS, the workshop attracted 42 attendees from the following countries: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte D’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe (see Fig. 2). It ended with a round table discussion aimed at the adoption of the 20-article constitution, in French and in English, of the African Women in Mathematics Association (AWMA) and the election of the following officers, who make up the AWMA standing committee, for the period 2013–2017: • President: Marie Françoise Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) • Vice President West Africa: Joséphine Guidy-Wandja (Côte D’Ivoire) • Vice President Central Africa: Rebecca Walo Omana (Democratic Republic of the Congo) • Vice President North Africa: Schehrazad Selmane (Algeria) • Vice President East Africa: Yirgalem Tsegaye (Ethiopia) • Vice President Southern Africa: Sibusiso Moyo (South Africa) • Secretary: Senelani Dorothy Hove-Musekwa (Zimbabwe) • Vice Secretary: Winifred Mutuku (South Africa/Kenya) • Treasurer: Fagueye Ndiaye (Senegal) • Publicist Secretary: Milaine Sergine Seuneu Tchamga (South Africa/Cameroon). The decision to form our own organization was made because we realized that, to reach a large number of people, we needed to be independent of other organizations, so that we could create statutes and strategies which respect our objectives and unique environment. This was more practical because we have the freedom to set our own statutes and can make decisions, not under an umbrella as a committee of another organization, but independently. AWMA is registered as a foreign association in Sengal. Of course, the founding of AWMA has been influenced by similar organizations and networks of women mathematicians around the world. At the founding of AWMA, we intentionally linked it with similar organizations such as European Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics, Indian Women and Mathematics, and with African institutions such as AMU and the African

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1057

Fig. 2 Founding members of AWMA. I am standing in the front row, third from left

Union. In creating the structure and writing the statutes of AWMA, we were inspired by those of EWM but adapted them to the African context and our objectives. The main tool for implementing the Association’s goals is the general meeting and assembly, held at least once every two years and organized by the standing committee of officers. Between these meetings are activities organized by the standing committee. The vice presidents act as AWMA representatives in their regions. Their role is to promote AWMA activities and membership in the countries in their region and to gather and distribute information.

AWMA Activities and Achievements The first General Assembly of AWMA took place during the next workshop. This was held in 2015 at Naivasha in Kenya on the theme “Women in Mathematics for Social Change and Sustainable Livelihoods” and followed by the CIMPA school “Mathematical Modeling and Analysis of Complex Systems.” The workshop attracted 43 participants from the following countries: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte D’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France,

1058

M. F. Ouedraogo

Fig. 3 Participants at the workshop Women in Mathematics for Social Change and Sustainable Livelihoods, Naivasha, Kenya, 2015

Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe (see Fig. 3). The aims of this first General Assembly were many, including approval of the report of activities for 2013–2015, and AWMA’s logo, and website. The website was professionally designed with funding from the IMU Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM).The content was posted by myself and Marie-Françoise Roy, who was then chair of CWM. Milaine Sergine Seuneu Tchamga, the publicist secretary of AWMA at the time, was responsible for designing the logo of AWMA (see Fig. 4). She also created a Facebook page for “African Women in Mathematics Association” and a discussion forum on Google named “awmassoc.” The main aim of AWMA is to promote women in mathematics in Africa and promote mathematics among young girls and women in Africa. Since its creation, AWMA has been involved in activities such as: • Organization of workshops in our five regions of Africa. The program of each workshop included scientific lectures by renowned mathematicians, scientific presentation of the work of some participants as well as discussion on the situation of African women mathematicians. To complete the series of workshops in the five AWMA regions of Africa, after the ones in Burkina Faso in 2012 and South Africa in 2013, we organized three other workshops: – East Africa-Kenya, 2015. At this workshop, the first General Assembly took place and adopted the logo and the website of AWMA.

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1059

Fig. 4 AWMA’s logo

– North Africa-Morocco, 2017. This was a satellite event during the Panafrican Congress of Mathematicians (PACOM 2017). During PACOM 2017, for the first time since its creation in 1976, the African Mathematical Union elected a woman, Nouzha El Yacoubi from Morocco, as AMU president. – Central Africa-Cameroon, 2019. This workshop followed the 2019 CIMPA Research School on “Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory and Applications in Cryptography and Robot Kinematics.” This workshop ended our series of workshops in the five regions of Africa. • Organization of regional meetings. Senegal, 2016; Nigeria, 2018; Ethiopia, 2018. • Creation of national associations. Following the foundation of AWMA and as consequence of the various workshops with panels aiming to discuss and improve the situation of women mathematicians in Africa, the following national associations have been created: – – – – – – –

2014: Association of Nigerian Women in Mathematics (NWM) 2014: Kenya Women in Mathematical Sciences Association (KWIMSA) 2015: Tunisian Women Mathematicians Association (TWMA) 2015: Association de Jeunes Filles en Mathématiques (AJFM) (Côte d’Ivoire) 2015: Senegalese Women in Mathematics Association (SWMA) 2016: Cameroon Women in Mathematics Association (CAWOMA) 2017: Moroccan Association of Women & Mathematics (AMAFEM)

In fact, these national associations have been created after the participation of women mathematicians of the country in a workshop of AWMA. Since then, some of these associations have organized scientific events such as schools

1060

M. F. Ouedraogo

Fig. 5 KWIMSA mentorship program at Uthiru Girls High School, in Kimabu, Kenya

and seminars. Some, including KWIMSA and CAWOMA, have developed mentorship programs for girls attending high schools (see Fig. 5). Beside the work done by AWMA through its activities to organize the African women mathematicians inside AWMA and national associations, some workshop participants, mainly PhD students, reported that the workshops were the first time they had attended such an event. It was the first time they met women mathematicians from their own countries as well as internationally-renowned women mathematicians. • Database of women mathematicians and booklet featuring role models. The aim is to create and maintain a database of African women mathematicians for the AWMA website. Updates are made from the list of participants to AWMA activities, during meetings and also requests made via the website of AWMA. We hope that providing role models will help motivate and stimulate young girls to pursue mathematical careers. Over 20 “portraits” of African women in mathematics can be found on the AWMA website as of 2020. Booklets of these portraits, financed by CWM, were distributed during (WM)2 , the World Meeting for Women in Mathematics, and during further activities in order to make them available in libraries of African universities. • Participation in international meetings and committees. AWMA participated in the following activities to promote women mathematicians:

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1061

– Congress of European Women in Mathematics (EWM-2013), Bonn, Germany. AWMA representatives were Joséphine Guidy-Wandja, vice president for Western Africa, and Yirgalem Tsegaye, vice president for East Africa. – International Congress of Women in Mathematics (ICWM-2014), Seoul, South Korea. As president of AWMA, I was invited to serve on a panel discussing “Mathematics and Women: Different Regions, Similar Struggles.” At least 11 other women mathematicians of AWMA received travel funding from the NANUM grant offered by the International Mathematical Union’s Commission for Developing Countries (IMU-CDC) to participate in ICWM and ICM. – Day “Femmes Mathématiciennes Africaines,” Institut Henri Poincaré (IHP), Paris, France, 2015. The conference featured African women mathematicians working in France. I gave a lecture entitled “AWMA: une association au service des femmes mathématiciennes Africaines.” – (WM)2 , held in conjunction with the 2018 ICM in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was invited to serve on the panel, “Networks of Women in Mathematics.” At least 26 African women mathematicians participated and some of them benefited from the Open Arms grant of the IMU-CDC. – IMU’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM). I was a member of CWM from its founding in 2015 to 2018. The general secretary of AWMA, Josephine Kagunda Wairimu from Kenya, is a member of CWM. – Gender GAP in Science Project. This three-year project (2017–2019) included a Global Survey of Scientists examining perceptions of gender differences in 12 regions across the globe. More than 30,000 respondents from 159 countries, half male and half female, participated in the survey, 1,275 of them came from Africa. Even though the number of survey respondents was low in Africa, the survey highlighted the gender gap in science in Africa (Guillopé and Roy, 2020). – Celebration for Women in Mathematics May12 coordination group. This worldwide initiative was proposed by the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society at (WM)2 . The date May 12 was chosen because it is the birthdate of Fields Medalist Maryam Mirzakhani, who was born in Iran. The initiative is supported by several organizations for women in mathematics worldwide, including AWMA. In 2019, May12 was celebrated in seven countries in Africa. There was a showing of the IMU film Journeys of Women in Mathematics (Egypt, Tunisia), a presentation of women role models in mathematics (Tunisia), a symposium or a lunch to celebrate women working in mathematical sciences (South Africa), a one-day conference of women promoting science to the young generation (Ethiopia, Senegal), a conference on the role of women mathematicians in society (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and a panel on how to reduce the gender gap in mathematical sciences (Benin). In 2020, due to the COVID-19 crisis, virtual events have been organized, including screening of the movie Secrets of the Surface: The Mathematical Vision of Maryam Mirzakhani.

1062

M. F. Ouedraogo

AWMA Challenges Beside the various factors hindering the promotion of women in mathematics, AWMA faces other problems: • Diversity of languages. Africa is a multicultural continent whose people speak many languages. This can lead to communication difficulties about the activities of AWMA. We choose for example to present our website only in English and French versions for now. • Diversity of currencies. AWMA has a mailing list of more than 500 African women mathematicians. The diversity of currencies in Africa makes it difficult to collect fees and only about 35 members have paid dues. This situation explains somewhat our difficulties in collecting funds for activities. • AWMA members’ difficulty in attending workshops. According to the constitution of AWMA, the standing committee is elected for four years and must be renewed during the General Assembly with the requirement of at least two-thirds of the votes cast by members. After not having this majority of members at the 2019 meeting, we organized electronic voting to renew the AWMA standing committee.

AWMA Categories of Membership According to our statutes, AWMA has three categories of membership: ordinary membership, honorary membership and supporting membership. The first category is open to women mathematicians working in or for Africa who support the purpose of the association and to organizations concerned with mathematics and their applications. Nevertheless, any person can be a supporting member and pay dues, as indicated by the name, to support the association growth or selected to be an honorary member.

Support Received by AWMA AWMA is heavily dependent on the initiatives of its volunteers. It has also received different kinds of support for specific activities: infrastructure support from organizations like EWM, and financial support from organizations that offer grants for meetings and conferences: AMMSI/LMS, IMU, ICTP, UNESCO, Simons Foundation.

The African Women in Mathematics Association

1063

AWMA and Other Organizations for Women in Mathematics Since our founding, AWMA has collaborated mainly with EWM and IMU through its committee CWM. Nevertheless, for example AWMA is supporting the May12 Initiative with the European Women in Mathematics, the Association for Women in Mathematics, Indian Women and Mathematics, Colectivo de Mujeres Matemáticas de Chile, and the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society.

AWMA Meetings AWMA has stand-alone meetings, sometimes organized with other organizations, as mentioned above. We started by organizing workshops in various parts of Africa. Each workshop includes scientific lectures by renowned mathematicians in their area of research, a panel discussion on the situation of women mathematicians in the region as well as scientific presentations of the work of some participants. Participation is not limited to women but is open to everyone. Women participants have priority in receiving funds and grants. For speakers, we try to balance between women and men. We now organize scientific events, seminars, and conferences rather than workshops. The aim is to have as many women lecturers as possible with respect to the topic of the event. The next event will be a scientific conference “Women in Sage in Senegal” in July 2021. SageMath is an open-source mathematical software system. The program will focus on courses as well as Sage projects realization in different areas of mathematics (Cryptography, Combinatorics, Number Theory, Geometry and Applied Maths). Given the lack of conferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, AWMA organizes monthly virtual seminars. These gather interested mathematicians for one-hour discussions with a speaker on various themes.

Conclusion Since AWMA’s founding in 2013, we have worked to promote women in mathematical sciences in Africa. We have built a community through a variety of different types of activities, including meetings, workshops, and conferences. These workshops gave impetus to foundation of national associations, for which AWMA has become an umbrella organization, acting as a framework to support women and girls in mathematics. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following people for fruitful discussions and also for proofreading the article: Marie-Françoise Roy, chair of CWM, Aissa Wade, Pennsylvania State University, and Josephine Kagunda Wairimu, secretary of AWMA and member of CWM.

1064

M. F. Ouedraogo

References Gerdes, Paulus. 2005. Over 600 examples of African doctorates in mathematics. AMUCHMA Newsletter 30. http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/AMU/amuchmapdf/amuchma30full.pdf Gerdes, Paulus. 2006. African women with a doctorate in mathematics. AMUCHMA Newsletter 33. http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/AMU/amuchmapdf/amuchma33.pdf Guillopé, Colette and Marie-Françoise Roy 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. How to measure it, how to reduce it? Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.3882609 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2019. Women in Science (Fact Sheet No. 55). http://uis.unesco. org/en/topic/women-science. Accessed 7 Jan 2021.

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview Dhana Thapa and Anjana Pokharel

Introduction Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences (WoNiMS) is dedicated to support and promote women’s engagement in mathematics in Nepal. We envision equal participation of women and men in the mathematical sciences in higher education in Nepal. Our mission is to provide leadership to professional women mathematical scientists and to advocate for a supportive environment that promotes girls and women in mathematics studies. We aim to promote the participation of girls and women in mathematics and the exchange of ideas in mathematics teaching and research among teachers, students, and members of similar international mathematical organizations. Since its establishment, WoNiMS has been a platform for women working in the field of mathematics teaching to share their problems, experiences, ideas, and innovations. WoNiMS aims to increase the participation of women mathematicians in research work and academic activities in Nepal by creating a platform for sharing experiences and disseminating new knowledge. It also intends to contribute to the professional growth and development of Nepali women mathematicians through a variety of activities: seminars, workshops, research schools, and exposure to new methods of mathematics teaching and research. We believe that girls’ studies and women’s engagement in mathematics can be enhanced through collaboration and partnership with mathematical organizations with similar goals and by exchanging ideas in mathematics research and teaching of mathematics. WoNiMS is emerging as a leading society for women in the mathematical sciences, and it already plays

D. Thapa · A. Pokharel () Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_90

1065

1066

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

Fig. 1 First WoNiMS Annual General Meeting with Ram Man Shrestha (president of Mathematical Sciences Trust, Nepal) and Chet Raj Bhatta (president of Nepal Mathematical Society), September 7, 2019

a critical role in increasing the presence and participation of women in the mathematical sciences (see Fig. 1).

Background Nepal is a land-locked country, sandwiched between the People’s Republic of China in the north and the Republic of India in the south, east, and west. It is a low-income country with a low standard of living. The gross national income per capita is $1085 (CBS, 2019), and Nepal ranks 147th in the human development index, a measure that combines life expectancy, access to education, and standard of living (UNDP, 2019). Gender inequality is one of the major barriers to human development and equal access to education. Because of the large gender gap in access to education, the literacy rate is 75% for males and 57% for females (CBS, 2019). The net enrollment rate in higher education is only 14% (UGC, 2020). With the expansions of universities and colleges, the number of students in higher education in Nepal has rapidly increased, from 38,000 in 1980 to 408,000 in 2010. Percentages of female students in higher education have sharply increased, from

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1067

19% in 1980 to 56% in 2019 (UGC, 2020), but their enrollment in STEM programs is very low (8%). In 2019, a total of 423,996 students pursued higher education, most (about 80%) at Tribhuvan University (TU), the oldest and largest university of Nepal (UGC, 2020). At TU, about 3% of all bachelor’s level students were enrolled in mathematics courses (Thapa and Paudel, 2019). Of those, 17% were women. At the master’s degree level in mathematics, about 5% of students are women. Twentyfour women teach mathematics at Nepali universities (about 3% of the mathematics teaching faculty). Of these, only six have PhDs (Thapa, 2017). In general, as educational level increases, the participation of female students in mathematics and science gradually decreases, not because of low grades, but because of a lack of confidence and a supportive environment. Furthermore, girls are discouraged from enrolling in higher-level mathematics and science programs by their families, societal prejudices, and gender stereotypes (Leslie et al., 1998). Thus, to increase the number of women in mathematics careers in Nepal, there should be continuous advocacy, promotional and motivational activities for women mathematicians and concerned stakeholders in Nepal. Realizing this, a few Nepali women mathematicians united and committed to carrying out organized efforts for promoting and attracting female students to the mathematical sciences in higher education by forming a women’s organization, Women of Nepal in the Mathematical Sciences (WoNiMS).

Inspiration for WoNiMS The founding of WoNiMS was inspired by our participation in several events. The first was the National Conference of Mathematics in 2010, organized by the Nepal Mathematical Society at Biratnagar, an eastern city of Nepal. This was the first occasion at which issues of women mathematicians were raised. At this conference, Dhana Thapa gave a presentation entitled Women Mathematicians: A Historical Glimpse about notable women mathematicians across the globe and their contributions to the mathematical sciences (Thapa, 2010). After the conference, some of us began to discuss a related question: “How could Nepali women learn from eminent women mathematicians to contribute to mathematics research?” This was a critical concern to us and to mathematics! It was especially important with regard to women and girls in the mathematics teaching and learning context of Nepal, because only very few women have been involved in this field, and they have struggled. “Why do women lag behind in advanced study and research in mathematics?” was a common question for all. “What are the factors behind this?” and “How to improve?” are issues for women to address as relevant stakeholders. Other questions arose regarding our experiences related to family and social constraints hindering academic and professional career. The role and responsibilities of women’s leadership in STEM fields and in the management of the universities is often underestimated by the relevant authorities. Women are rarely appointed to administrative positions such as head of department, academic director, campus

1068

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

chief, and dean. Gender parity is not considered even though there are capable and competent women in academe who could serve in these positions. Two important announcements were made at the National Conference of Mathematics. Later in the year, the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2010) would be held in India. Also, a research school would be held in our country, sponsored by the Centre International de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées (CIMPA). This was an ICM 2010 satellite meeting—the first such meeting ever held in Nepal and the first opportunity for Nepali women to participate in research schools. Two women (Kabita and Dhana) from Tribhuvan University (TU) were invited to participate in the CIMPA school, and received financial support from their institutions and the local organizing committee. At the CIMPA school, they met eminent professors from developed countries (from the region and the globe) who delivered interesting lecture classes on number theory in cryptography and its applications. Dhana and Kabita’s reaction was: Our activities are limited to only teaching and teaching . . . ! We had no idea about the link between teaching and research. First time; we met international professor and students, and we learned so many things about recent trends in mathematics study from several lectures delivered by eminent professors. We are so much enlightened from CIMPA school.

It was an eye-opening event for them, and they wanted to participate more in such events and to enhance their mathematical knowledge by research and advanced studies. One month later, at the ICWM 2010, Kabita and Dhana discussed the situation of Nepali women with other women mathematicians (mostly from India) at tea and lunch breaks. They learned about new research from women mathematicians and about the status of women in mathematics around the world. ICWM 2010 was another wonderful experience for Kabita and Dhana, who wished they had research and experiences to present. Since then, they have made an effort to be connected with other colleagues (both men and women) in their home country and with mathematicians of India and other countries. Previously, it was difficult for women mathematicians to communicate with each other in Nepal due to poor access to internet and phone networks. Moreover, they could not easily discuss their ideas and experiences with mathematicians from international communities due to language barriers and lack of communication and social network skills. Despite this, our small group of women organized several meetings and discussions between 2011 and 2013 about the possibility of forming an organization of Nepali women mathematicians. As we knew, forming such organizations has been done elsewhere with great success. Finally, almost four years after its conception, on December 28, 2013, an ad hoc committee of eleven members was formed under the leadership of Shanti Bajracharya, a TU professor, with Dhana Thapa serving as secretary. At the end of a one-day seminar, The Mathematical Sciences in a Nepali Context, at Padmakanya Campus, the only TU campus for female students, we announced our organization’s name—WoNiMS: Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences (see Fig. 2).

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1069

Fig. 2 Announcing the formation of WoNiMS 2013 December 28 with Madhav Paudel (in the middle with red scarf), Minister of Education and guest of honor at the seminar The Mathematical Sciences in a Nepali Context, organized by the Nepal Mathematics Center, the Nepal Mathematical Society, and the Council for Mathematics Education

Establishing WoNiMS was not solely the endeavor of our committee; it was made possible with the encouragement and motivation of senior professors of mathematics, especially Ram Man Shrestha, president of the Mathematical Sciences Trust of Nepal.

Introducing WoNiMS to Other Organizations After its establishment, some of our members introduced WoNiMS at national and international events in related fields. In 2015, with the financial support of the IMU Commission for Developing Countries, eleven Nepali mathematicians, including three women, participated in a Southeast Asia Mathematical Society (SEAMS) school in Vietnam. At the opening of the school, the WoNiMS secretary Dhana Thapa gave a talk about WoNiMS. In November 6, 2016, she gave another talk, The University System, Mathematics and Mathematical Societies in Nepal, at the ninth International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education in Developing Countries at the University of Mandalay, Myanmar. A month earlier, WoNiMS Executive Committee members and invited women speakers from the Second International Workshop and Confer-

1070

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

ence on Commutative Algebra in Kathmandu had met in order to become acquainted and discuss possible activities. These meetings helped to connect mathematicians from developed countries with those in South East Asia. Some eminent mathematicians—Ram Man Shrestha (Nepal), Ajaya Singh (Nepal), Sylvia Wiegand (US), Sara Faridi (Canada), MarieFrançoise Roy (France), Michel Waldschmidt (France), Francesco Pappalardi (Italy)—played instrumental roles in making these connections.

Influence of AWM WoNiMS has been not only influenced by the example of AWM but has worked with former AWM president Sylvia Wiegand (1997–1999). There is a bond between Sylvia and Dhana, the WoNiMS secretary, Dhana met Sylvia and her husband Roger Wiegand while attending Sylvia’s lecture class on Commutative Algebra and Prime Ideals at TU in 2014. Ever since, Dhana has met with them every year in programs at TU—even in April 2015, when a devastating earthquake occurred. In 2017, Dhana (as coordinator of the local organizing committee) and WoNiMS successfully organized an international event, the Symposium for South Asian Women in Mathematics with Sylvia as one of the co-organizers.

Activities of WoNiMS WoNiMS has had several meetings at different times and places with other mathematicians to discuss development of mathematics and ways to uplift and enhance Nepali women’s mathematical knowledge. Such discussions gave us insight about organizing the Symposium for South Asian Women in Mathematics (SSAWM 2017). WoNiMS successfully organized this conference together with the Mathematical Sciences Trust of Nepal, and the Nepal Mathematical Society in collaboration with the Central Department of Mathematics and the Padmakanya Campus of TU, and support from others, both internationally and in Nepal.1 This was the first program of its kind initiated and organized by Nepali women mathematicians in collaboration with various institutions and societies (see Figs. 3 and 4). The purpose of SSAWM 2017 was to promote scientific communication in mathematics among women and to establish a mathematical network for sharing 1 International support came from the Atlantic Association for Research in Mathematical Sciences, the IMU Committee for Women in Mathematics, Dalhousie University, the European Mathematical Society Committee for Developing Countries, the Foundation Compositio Mathematica, Lions Club International, and the Roman Number Theory Association. In Nepal, support came from the University Grants Commission of Nepal and textbook publisher Sukunda Pustak Bhawan.

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1071

Fig. 3 SSAWM 2017, October 12

Fig. 4 Banquet address by Sylvia Wiegand and Dhana Thapa at SSAWM 2017, October 14.

and communicating with women mathematicians, experts, and organizations with similar goals in this region. A total of 25 participants from 11 other countries (Bangladesh, Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, US), and 45 from Nepal, including 9 undergraduate women from TU, participated in the symposium. Participation in this conference was not limited to women; however, almost all were women. Altogether 39 papers and 9 posters were presented in different sessions of the four-day symposium. At the end of the symposium, a volunteer committee, the International Committee for WoNiMS, was formed to facilitate activities of women mathematicians in South Asia and to promote professional activities of WoNiMS in the future. This committee hopes to assist and inspire Nepali women who are getting

1072

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

Fig. 5 Committee meeting for WoNiMS May 13, 2018

PhDs in mathematical sciences. In 2018 and 2019, members of this committee met in Kathmandu to discuss possible activities of women mathematicians (see Fig. 5). WoNiMS has also organized talks on women and mathematics as well as activities for occasions like the International Day of Women and Girls in Science in 2018 and 2019 (see Fig. 6), May 12 Initiatives: Celebrating Women in Mathematics on Maryam Mirzakhani’s birthday, and WoNiMS Day 2019 to inspire and empower women and girls in mathematics and STEM education. WoNiMS has also been involved and participated in collaborative activities at workshops and conferences organized by other mathematical societies: on the high school mathematics curriculum, information and communication technology (ICT) tools for teaching mathematics in school education, challenges and opportunity in mathematics in Nepal, and the Guru (Teacher) Felicitation Program and Chariot Program for senior professors and teachers who are 75 years old for their contributions to mathematics teaching at universities and high schools. Communication, information, and social networking are key instruments for sharing ideas and knowledge, and promoting members’ engagement in mathematics-related activities. Thus, WoNiMS has a website, a Facebook page, and a communication network among members. Photographs, news, and information about these activities are uploaded to the website and Facebook page. The members communicate with each other through phone calls, email, and text message. During the COVID-19 pandemic, WoNiMS has also organized virtual meetings.

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1073

Fig. 6 WoNiMS group and two students on the left, International Day of Women and Girls in Science 2018

Achievements and Progress WoNiMS’s biggest achievement so far has been to successfully organize an international symposium (SSWAM2017). That achievement sent the message to the mathematics community that our organization would be capable of holding another international seminar and conference in the future. Many Nepali women in mathematics and undergraduate women were able to participate. Thus they were exposed to international events and they could share and communicate their experiences with speakers and other participants. Another achievement is that WoNiMS has a good relationship with the IMU Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM). WoNiMS has been listed as a country representative on the CWM webpage since September 2016. Dhana Thapa, secretary of WoNiMS, was designated as a CWM Ambassador for Nepal in 2016 and attended the Gender Gap in Science workshop, a project led by CWM in Taiwan in 2017. It is a matter of pride for WoNiMS that Saraswati Acharya received The World Academy of Sciences Award 2016 from the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, and participated in the ICM2018 and World Meeting for Women in Mathematics.

1074

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

The PhD programs of TU and Kathmandu University (KU) in mathematics and mathematics education, and the masters (MPhil) program that started in 2014 have helped women interested in advanced study in their home country. So far, five WoNiMS members have earned an MPhil, three members are in the phase of thesis writing, and another is in the MPhil course. Five WoNiMS members are doing PhD research at different universities in Nepal. Two of them have fellowships: Kabita Luitel’s from the University Grant Commission of Nepal and Anjana Pokharel’s from IMU’s Graduate Research Assistant in Developing Countries program. Nine members presented talks or posters in the Indian Women in Mathematics Annual Conferences in 2018 and 2019. Their participation was possible because of travel grants from Indian Women and Mathematics. They had learned of these grants via WoNiMS and encouraged to apply. WoNiMS circulates information from national and international sources (such as the Nepal Mathematical Society, IMU’s Committee on Developing Countries, IMU’s CWM, and Indian Women and Mathematics) regarding mathematics programs, seminars. workshops, conferences, fellowships, and travel grants among the members and female students at different universities through email, Facebook page, and its website.

Resources and Collaboration In 2020, WoNiMS had 34 members, with 20 life members. Almost all are mathematics teachers (23 at university and 11 in high school). Few are involved in research. Only four have PhDs and do research occasionally. Most members are busy with routine professional work and household chores, so busy that it took nearly four years after the formation of the WoNiMS ad hoc committee to prepare a constitution and register formally as an organization at the government district administration office in Kathmandu. As per its constitution, WoNiMS holds an Annual General Meeting (AGM) to review yearly activities and prepare the annual plan. Every two years, Executive Committee members are elected at the AGM. In 2019, two years after its formal registration, an Executive Committee of eleven members comprising president, vice-president, secretary, joint secretary, treasurer, and six members were selected unanimously at the first AGM. Only, the president, secretary, and treasurer have significant responsibilities. Human resources, as well as financial resources, are essential for conducting various programs and activities directed towards the missions and goals of an organization. Executive Committee members, as well as general members, are assets and drivers of the organization, who engage in various WoNiMS activities as unpaid volunteers. Unfortunately, WoNiMS has no consistent sources of funds or grants. Membership fees, and donations from well-wisher mathematicians, societies, and individuals are the main source of funds for WoNiMS expenses. Occasionally, WoNiMS receives funds for organizing particular events (e.g., SSAWM 2017) from a central government source, the University Grant Commission of Nepal, partner

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1075

societies, local and international institutions and organizations, and individual sponsorships. Partnership and collaborative approaches are the main strengths of the organization. There are some professional organizations such as the Nepal Mathematical Society, Nepal Mathematics Centre, Council for Mathematics Education, and Mathematical Olympiad of Nepal with which WoNiMS can collaborate and work together on common agendas in the future. Possibilities of assistance from and collaboration with other national and international organizations will be explored through our existing network.

Challenges and Barriers Faced by WoNiMS WoNiMS faces several challenges and constraints in carrying out activities in line with its mission and goals. Prevailing negative perceptions, gender stereotypes, and biased attitudes towards women mathematicians have been great challenges for the organization. Historically, mathematics has been stereotyped as a male domain, and considerable evidence supports this belief (Heilman, 2012) Some male mathematicians thought there was no need for a women’s mathematics society, since other mathematical societies already existed in Nepal. There are conceptual and structural barriers to the promotional activities of the organization. Because of a lack of good understanding and a clear trajectory for their professional growth, women mathematicians are unable to organize various women’s professional promotional activities including short-term schools, workshops, seminars, and research projects in collaboration with national and international organizations to meet its purposes. Other challenges include carrying out our goals: to encourage Nepali women to take up and continue their studies in mathematics, to promote mathematics among women, to support Nepali women who have or desire careers in research in the mathematical sciences or related fields, to provide a meeting place for these women, to increase the access of Nepali women to socio-economic benefits of mathematics, to increase the access of Nepali women to grants and scholarships for young students, to provide mentoring for Nepali female students from primary to postgraduate levels. Women mathematicians in Nepal are still not able to explore and grasp opportunities for advanced study and research in different fields of mathematics. The main problems are lack of communication, time management skills, a network for sharing their mathematics knowledge and experiences, opportunities, low participation, motivation and encouragement, financial support, and exposure to international activities. All of these contribute to low participation in mathematics.

1076

D. Thapa and A. Pokharel

Plans and Future Direction WoNiMS has overt and covert plans according to its mission and goals to encourage women and girls to pursue advanced studies in mathematical sciences and advocate for promoting equal participation and equal treatment of women and girls in the field of mathematical sciences. We have a plan to increase the number of members and continue regular events such as meetings, discussions, programs of talks, celebrations of special days, small-scale research project works, and Annual General Meetings. We are planning to publish a newsletter in the future, and conduct a big research project in the gender gap in mathematical sciences in senior high school and higher education in STEM. We will seek regular sources for funding that can support and encourage girls and women to continue higher studies in mathematics. In the long run, WoNiMS will continuously advocate for the promotion and participation of women and girls in mathematical sciences as well as equal treatment of women and girls in STEM education in Nepal.

Conclusion WoNiMS was established to assist women in the mathematical sciences and related fields. Since its founding, we have conducted regular events and activities and have gradually extended our network according to our organizational goals, existing capacities and available resources. We have shown that we can organize international events like seminars and conferences. WoNiMS is slowly growing as a leading society for women in the mathematical sciences in Nepal. It faces resource constraints and several challenges including social, cultural, and gender stereotypes. WoNiMS will continue its regular events, programs, academic and research work including advocacy for equal treatment of women and girls in mathematics in collaboration with the Nepali government, universities, and national and international organizations with similar missions and goals. Acknowledgments We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Sylvia Wiegand, past president (1997–1999) of AWM, for being a source of inspiration to us and continuously supporting our organization. We are grateful to the Executive Committee members (2019–2021) of WoNiMS: Shanti Bajracharya, president; Neelam Subedi, vice president; Bindra Devi Shakya, treasurer; and Goma Shrestha, Rachana Joshi, Sarala Luitel, Saraswati Acharya, Sushmita Pathak, and Tara Paudel who provided encouragement and feedback in the process of preparing this article.

References CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). 2019. Nepal in figures. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Heilman, Madeline E. 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior 32: 113–135.

Women of Nepal in Mathematical Sciences: An Overview

1077

Leslie, Larry L., Gregory T. McClure, and Ronald L. Oaxaca. 1998. Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education 69(3): 239–276. Thapa, Dhana Kumari. 2010. Women mathematicians: A historical glimpse. Proceedings of National Conference of Mathematics, January 17–19. Kathmandu: Nepal Mathematical Society. Thapa, Dhana Kumari. 2017. Gender differences in mathematics study and teaching: University mathematics teachers’ perceptions. Proceedings of National Conference on History and Recent Trends of Mathematics, June 2–4. Kathmandu: Nepal Mathematical Society Thapa, Dhana Kumari and Tara Paudel. 2019. Women in mathematics and science in higher education of Nepal. A SRDI research report submitted to the University Grant Commission of Nepal. UGC (University Grants Commission). 2020. Annual report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2019. Human development report 2019. New York: Author.

Now That We’re Together: Biography of the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians and Overview of Latin American Organizations for Women in Mathematics María Isabel Cortez and Andrea Vera-Gajardo

In this article we give an account of the history of the Chilean collective of women mathematicians. We begin by describing the context of the mathematical community in Chile and the process of forming the Collective. We discuss characteristics of our organization as well as our collective events and individual projects. We also provide an overview of women in mathematics organizations in Latin America.

The Context of the Mathematical Community in Chile According to the International Mathematical Union, the modern development of mathematics in Chile began in 1930 with the arrival of Carlos Grandjot (De La Peña et al., 2014), a German mathematician who played a key role training the first Chilean mathematicians (Gutiérrez and Gutiérrez, 2004). On the other hand, the first local articles published in international journals were written in the 1940s by Roberto Frucht, another German mathematician based in Chile, who worked

Both authors were supported by proyecto ANID PIA Anillo SOC180025. “Now that we’re together, now that we’re seen” (Ahora que estamos juntas, ahora que sí nos ven) is a slogan that has been widely used both in the “Ni una menos” (“Not a single woman less”) movement in Argentina, and in the movement born during the so-called Feminist May of 2018 in Chile. M. I. Cortez () Facultad de Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile e-mail: [email protected] A. Vera-Gajardo Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_91

1079

1080

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

at the Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María (UTFSM) until the end of his professional career (Mercado, 2020). It is worth noting that in 1949 Frucht published “Graphs of degree three with a given abstract group” in the Canadian Journal of Mathematics, the same year in which women’s right to vote in presidential elections was approved in Chile. By 1970, Chilean mathematicians had already graduated from PhD programs abroad. The first was Jaime Michelow, who obtained his PhD from the University of Washington in 1962. Nevertheless, as the study commissioned by the National Commission of Science and Technology (CONICYT) points out, by 1970 there was still no “systematic and planned mathematical research, nor high-level researchers to initiate it,” and there was also “a lack of human resources in terms of quantity, capacity and adequate knowledge, for university teaching and postgraduate studies” (Harding et al., 1970, p. 2). This reality stood in stark contrast to other Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Argentina. The case of Brazil is emblematic, since by the 1950s it had already trained mathematicians who would later gain international recognition through their guest lectures at the International Congress of Mathematicians (De La Peña et al., 2014). On the other hand, Argentina had established the Argentine Mathematical Union (UMA) in 1936, which was created with the aim of “promoting the evident progress of mathematical research in Argentina” (UMA, 1936). In Chile, institutional development for the training of mathematicians began in 1962 with the creation of the first degree in mathematics at the Universidad de Concepción (Harding et al., 1970). This was followed in 1965 by degrees in mathematics at both the Universidad Católica and Universidad de Chile, as well as a degree in mathematical engineering from the Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (FCFM) at the latter institution (Harding et al., 1970). In 1967, the Universidad Técnica del Estado (UTE)—now the Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH)—created the country’s first postgraduate program in mathematics at the master’s level, called the Licenciatura Académica en Matemática (LAM). The first PhD in mathematics granted in Chile was awarded in 1975 by the Universidad Católica (UC) to Pablo Salzberg.1 The second one was awarded in 1978 by the same program to Irene Mikenberg, who became the first woman to obtain her PhD in mathematics in Chile. By the end of the 1970s, Chile had 47 PhDs in mathematics working in the country, of which five were women: María Angélica Astaburuaga (UTE), Lidia Consiglieri (U. Católica de Valparaíso), Carmen Cortázar (UC), Nancy Lacourly (FCFM U. de Chile), and Irene Mikenberg (UC) (CONICYT, 1978). It is important to highlight Inés Harding, since she played a very relevant role in the mathematical community of the time. Harding read further postgraduate courses leading to a PhD degree at the University of Moscow in the 1960s (CONICYT, 1978), working as a professor (Pedemonte, 2017) at UTE until 1981.2 She became one of the pillars of the LAM program (Calderón and Verdugo, 2003), managing the

1 Private 2 Private

communication with Irene Mikenberg. communication with Rafael Labarca.

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1081

program and recruiting students, while also co-authoring groundbreaking textbooks, such as Elementos de Computación (Elements of Computation) in 1973 (Michelow and Harding, 1973). She died in Paris in 1996. One of the many consequences of the 1973 coup d’état was the loss of many students and academics who were forced to leave the country (SOMACHI, 2014), thus delaying the consolidation of the local mathematical community. This situation slowly began to turn around in the early 1980s as several mathematicians who had obtained their PhDs abroad started returning to Chile. Founded in 1975, the Chilean Mathematical Society (SOMACHI) was instrumental in drawing these mathematicians back home as well as promoting mathematical activity at the time (SOMACHI, 2014). A milestone that shaped the way science is done in Chile was the creation of the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT) in 1981, which finances basic scientific research in Chile through “open competition for public grants” (FONDECYT, 1981). Even today, being awarded a FONDECYT project is considered a decisive milestone in a researcher’s career. In most cases, opportunities for national and international collaboration, the possibility to train students, and even the academic workload allocated to each person depend on a research project being awarded one of these grants. Between 1982 and 1990, FONDECYT funded 144 math projects,3 of which 13 were awarded to women. These women included Carmen Cortázar, Marta GarcíaHuidobro, and Rubí Rodríguez—recognized scholars who remain scientifically active to this day—and Cecilia Yarur, who has recently retired after leading a successful career as a researcher and teacher. After the return to democracy in 1990, the development of Chilean mathematics started to gain momentum. Not only did the number of researchers and publications grow, but also the number of international cooperation schemes (SOMACHI, 2014). The number of FONDECYT projects in mathematics awarded in the 1990s grew by more than 80% compared to the previous decade, although the ratio of women among the researchers behind these projects remained largely unchanged. There are currently more than 350 mathematics researchers working in Chile (SOMACHI, 2014). According to data collected from 11 mathematics departments in the country, approximately 20% of the scholars who hold a PhD in mathematics or related fields are women (Cortez and Hersant, 2016). Nevertheless, a review of the statistics of FONDECYT mathematics projects shows that grants awarded to women between 2011 and 20204 did not surpass 15%—an even lower rate than the 2001–2010 period, at 17%. This suggests that women in our community are even

3 FONDECYT provided us with data for all the FONDECYT mathematics projects between 1983 and 2019. 4 Statistics for FONDECYT projects since 2001 include both Regular and Initiation requests for proposals (RFPs). Regular RFPs are oriented to senior researchers whereas Initiation RFPs are for junior researchers.

1082

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

more underrepresented in leading positions,5 and this situation does not seem to have improved over time. To further emphasize this situation, it is worth mentioning that in the “FONDECYT regular”6 in 2020 no proposal from a woman was funded in the area of mathematics, something not seen since 1990. At the school level, the picture is no more promising, as can be seen from the gender gap in performance in mathematics, present since primary school (Radovic, 2018). There seems to be a consensus within our community on the need to increase female participation in the discipline. What is less clear, however, is how to do this; and even more so, whether that is indeed the problem or rather a symptom of something that goes much deeper. Clémence Perronnet details this problem by stating that institutions expect to receive “individualizing and psychologizing” explanations for inequalities in science, which leads to hiding and concealing “the collective and structural dimension” of these inequalities (Perronnet, 2020). In other words, the lack of women in mathematics is not a problem of motivation of individuals (women in this case), but rather the consequence of practices that are usually incompatible with the way in which those individuals are socialized. In the following we present the process of forming the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians and we refer to the main activities that we have carried out. We also describe other mathematics organizations in Latin America that support girls’ and women’s participation in mathematics.

How the Collective Began After one of the roundtable discussions at the International Congress of Women in Mathematics 2014 in Seoul, several colleagues from Chile who attended met to discuss the issues presented at the conference. The general consensus that day was that our experience had been very different from that of the speakers, in the sense that our parents had not prevented us from studying mathematics, nor had we endured explicit complaints from our husbands or partners about the profession being unladylike. Yet we were familiar with the experience of being the “only woman” in our workplace, and we perceived that treading through a heavily maledominated space had consequences that were not easy to identify and describe, given how subtle they generally were. Trying to understand this phenomenon triggered our need to meet as a group for further discussion; this group would later become the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians. Our discussion group was structured around weekly meetings in the Council Room of the Mathematics Department in the Science Faculty at Universidad de Chile. Javiera Barrera, M. Isabel Cortez, Leslie Jiménez, Monica Musso, Adriana

5 Being awarded a FONDECYT grant is considered a sort of symbolic credential of prestige for the recipient. 6 This is the fund oriented to senior researchers.

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1083

Piazza, Anita Rojas, Mariel Sáez, and Andrea Vera participated in these first meetings. This space was used to share our experiences, as well as the literature that we came across. We think it was very liberating for all of us to realize that we shared the same experiences as many other women, some of which had even been documented. Shortly after we created our discussion group, we received an invitation from USACH students to speak about women in mathematics at an activity organized for the anniversary of the Mathematical Engineering degree. This was a great opportunity to present the issues we discussed every week to a wider audience. Instead of preparing a simple slideshow with biographies of female mathematicians, we decided that it would be much more interesting to shine a light on the situation of women and mathematics in Chile in quantitative terms, with the aim of starting a conversation. The activity was titled “Panel Discussion: Women and Mathematics” (Conversatorio: mujeres y matemáticas), and was held on November 4, 2014, in a nearly full auditorium with capacity for 100 people. The audience included mathematical engineering students (mostly male), some mathematical colleagues, and several social science researchers specializing in gender issues. After our brief presentation, the discussion with the audience lasted almost two hours. Students’ stories related to their experience and difficulties of studying in a place where there are mostly men. Some colleagues were uncomfortable with questions about the Mathematics Olympiad that arose during the conversation, while colleagues from the social sciences summarized and organized the discussion within certain theoretical frameworks. What took place on that day made us realize that there was a great need to address certain issues. We agreed that meeting once a week to discuss these matters was not enough. That is when we decided to come together under the umbrella of the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians, as a way of making gender issues in mathematics and our future efforts visible. Having the experience of other women’s mathematical associations in different countries as a reference— for example, the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM)—was crucial to creating the Collective. It is important to mention that the collective is not the only initiative carried out by women in mathematics in Chile. Some of these examples are MATEA and Collectivo Resistencia Noetheriana. The first one focuses on the organization of summer maths camps for high school girls, and the second one aims to ensure inclusion in the teaching and dissemination of mathematics, from an interdisciplinary perspective. One of the founders of Resistencia Notheriana is also a member of the Collective. Besides mathematics, it is important to highlight the Red de Investigadoras (Network of Researchers), which is an association that promotes gender equality in research in all areas of knowledge. A mathematician who is part of the Collective of Women in Mathematics was its first president.

1084

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

Organizational Characteristics of the Collective The objectives of our Collective were not entirely clear upon its establishment. In fact, the main reason why we decided to band together was the need to be together. We needed to share our experiences with other women mathematicians and confirm that, despite the differences in our lives and academic careers, the sole condition of being women mathematicians in Chile was a shared experience that united all of us. Every one of us had many questions. In time, we realized the need to share them with other women mathematicians, so we could begin to understand them and seek answers. The decision to form an all-women’s collective can be explained through Julieta Kirkwood’s words: “Only women have the problem of asking themselves what their condition means. Womanhood is otherness” (Kirkwood, 1987). It is important to say that unlike the AWM, this Collective is not—yet—a membership organization, but rather a group that was spontaneously conformed with common interests, and whose number of members varies between 15 and 5 members, depending on the moment and the particular initiative that is being carried out. We were very clear from the start about the way in which we made our decisions and the structure that we wanted for our organization. We all agreed that our organization was to be horizontal; in other words, that its organizational structure should be flat, without hierarchies, resulting in democratic decision making which means most of the time by consensus and in some other times by simple majority. As stated by Pérez-Arrau et al. (2020), “groups lacking allocated hierarchical leadership may develop different forms of collective leadership.” Much as described by these authors, our notion of collective leadership is a relationship that is built among us, one that is nourished by taking advantage of our different paths and experiences, and that gives way to collective decision making. On the other hand, since our respective workloads are different and dynamic, our time availability for the Collective also varies. Therefore, we could also talk about a kind of “occasional leadership,” in which depending on the time available and what each individual seeks, members may from time to time take a leading role to organize specific activities. Still, there are certainly many initiatives that have been possible thanks to the commitment and dedication of everyone involved. We will talk about this in detail in the next section. Although our work takes place within academic institutions, we decided from the onset to be totally independent, both organizationally and financially. That is to say, we do not want to depend on any institutions, including the Mathematical Society of Chile. The purpose of this decision was to remain free to discuss whatever we believe to be important, all the while protecting our capacity for independent thought. However, from time to time, especially when organizing large events, we resort to some financing and contingent sponsorship. For example, to organize the Second Meeting of Women in Mathematics in Latin America, held in 2018 in Valdivia, Chile, we received funding from various institutions such as: International Mathematical Union’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM), CONICYT, our home universities, and some local research grants in mathematics.

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1085

Today we can say that these decisions we made for our organization— horizontality and independence—turned out to make our Collective unique compared to similar organizations across Latin America. The establishment of the Collective, however, has been questioned by some colleagues in the local mathematical community. During our first year, we sensed that few colleagues understood the need for and relevance of an organization devoted to issues about gender and mathematics. We even saw considerable resistance from some colleagues to our organization. Moreover, our decision to be horizontal and independent also brought about challenges and greater efforts to achieve credibility within the local community. This is definitely something we have in common with AWM and its history, sharing the same feelings expressed by Greenwald et al. (2015) when referring to the decision made by AWM to be autonomous from AMS and MAA: “the advantages of forming an independent association outweighed the challenges of doing so.” Another principle that we share with AWM is the desire to foster a cultural change within the mathematics community, so that young people who are new to the field will experience a less hostile environment than those who came before them. We also seek to highlight and put a spotlight on the life and work of women throughout Latin America who have devoted themselves to mathematics. In fact, one of our regular events is a photo exhibition of women mathematicians from Latin America and Europe, which we will explore in the following section.

Joys and Challenges: Some Events Organized by the Collective The Mathematics and Gender Panel Discussion (Conversatorio Matemáticas y Género) held on November 27, 2015 in Pucón, has been one of the most complex activities we have organized so far, mainly because of the high amount of exposure it meant for us. This discussion was held as part of SOMACHI’s annual meeting and it was probably the first time that gender issues in mathematics were addressed at such a massive local scientific event. Participants included Javiera Barrera, M. Isabel Cortez, Adriana Piazza, Anita Rojas, and Mariel Sáez, in addition to social science researcher Marcela Mandiola, who we invited as a guest speaker after having met her at the first discussion group at USACH. Organizing this event was far from easy. In fact, a dispute about which names to include on the list of sponsors in the promotional poster even led to a rift within the Collective. Yet the event was held, generating enormous expectation among the local mathematical community. On the day of the event, during lunchtime, we realized that the congress participants (mostly men) felt a kind of “moral duty” to attend our discussion, and that not doing so was somehow considered socially reprehensible. And indeed, when the event took place, everyone at SOMACHI was there, including foreigners who could hardly speak any Spanish, which was the language in which the discussion took place. The activity consisted of two lectures: in the first one, M. Isabel Cortez provided a quantitative overview of women mathematicians in Chile. The second lecture was

1086

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

given by Marcela Mandiola, dealing with her research paper on gender in academia (Mandiola et al., 2019). In her presentation she explained how the different practices in academia where hierarchically gendered, where research and teaching appear as masculinized and feminized respectively. Attendees found these conclusions to be very controversial, triggering a discussion that lasted for hours. Some colleagues felt under attack, others kept making jokes in mathematical language, and some others expected to hear concrete solutions. The conversation ended very late, so we all went to have dinner together. The discussion went on all through the evening and until the end of the congress. For us, the greatest achievement of this activity was to have introduced the topic to our colleagues. In 2017, Mariel Sáez suggested the possibility of bringing to Chile the travelling photographic exhibition “Women of mathematics throughout Europe: a gallery of portraits,” created by mathematician Sylvie Paycha and photographer Noel Matoff and presented for the first time in 2016 at the European Congress of Mathematics. As a Collective we approved of the idea but decided to modify the original exhibition to also include portraits of women mathematicians from Latin America. Thus, the Mathematics Portraits Exhibition was born, whose first version took place between March 8 and 28, 2018, at the GAM Cultural Center in Santiago, Chile. This was a major project that involved many people and received funding from different sources (see Fig. 1). The first stages were managed by CONICYT’s EXPLORA program. The interviews were conducted by Paula Arenas and the photographs were taken by Cristian Translaviña, Nicolás Sanhueza, and Dario Cuellar. We chose to portray diversity in mathematics from multiple perspectives: regional (not only mathematics in the capital), institutional (from different universities), age and also in terms of their main occupation, taking into account that we were also interested in showcasing outstanding women who excel not only in their research, but also in terms of teaching or outreach initiatives. This has been the largest activity we have organized for a more general target audience. The exhibition has continued to travel around Chile and Latin America, currently thanks to the funding provided by a research project involving M. Isabel Cortez, Mariel Sáez, and Andrea Vera. Thanks to this exhibition Mariel Sáez edited a book called Retratos de Matemáticas (Mathematical Portraits) (Sáez and Paycha, 2018), whose printed version we anticipate soon, as of the date of writing this article. Organizing and running the Second Meeting of Latin American Women in Mathematics (see Fig. 2) has been undoubtedly our most important event, and probably the one we are most proud of. It all started at the meeting dubbed “Women in Mathematics in Latin America: Barriers, Advancements and New Perspectives,” held in August 2016 at the Casa Matemática de Oaxaca, Mexico in collaboration with the Banff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and Discovery. M. Isabel Cortez attended this meeting and suggested Chile as the venue for the next such encounter. The project was kicked off with an application to the IMU’s Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM) 2017 call for proposals, which, fortunately, funded us. Even though the awarded amount was not enough for the event, it still meant a lot to us because it encouraged us to shape our expectations and venture forth to get more funding, form a scientific committee, start inviting

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1087

Fig. 1 Poster of photographic exhibition “Retratos de Matemáticas” (Mathematical Portraits)

the first speakers, etc. The organizing committee was made up of Javiera Barrera, M. Isabel Cortez, M. Isabel del Río, Adriana Piazza, Salomé Martínez, Mariel Sáez, and Andrea Vera. We decided to hold the meeting in the last week of January 2018, which is summer in the Southern Hemisphere and right before the holiday season in Chile. The place: Valdivia, a beautiful city in the south of Chile, bordering Patagonia.7 While preparing for this meeting, we once again encountered less-thansupportive reactions from some colleagues who did not see the need or the relevance of holding a meeting on women in mathematics. It would seem that questioning certain practices within our community is seen as a threat by some. It was clear to us that in order to deal with the issue of women in the sciences, it is necessary to draw on knowledge and expertise from other areas such as the social sciences and philosophy. Therefore, the event was roughly divided as follows: 50% of the time was spent on lectures and posters on mathematics (presented by women), 25% on lectures in the social sciences and/or philosophy and the rest of

7 The most important street in Valdivia is called Ramón Picarte, in recognition of the father of the first Chilean mathematician (of the same name) having international recognition (Gutiérrez and Gutiérrez, 2000).

1088

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

Fig. 2 Second Meeting of Latin American Women in Mathematics. January 2018, Valdivia, Chile

the time was devoted to a leadership workshop and a roundtable entitled “Mujeres en Ambientes Masculinizados” (Women in Male-driven Environments), which was open to the general public. Also, during the whole week and in parallel to the abovementioned activities, we set up an exhibition called “Iluminación Matemática” (Mathematical Illumination), organized by Mónica Canales. The inclusion of social scientists in this meeting was undoubtedly a great decision. These points of view gave new insights to our discussions, which led us to approach the issue of women in science and mathematics from a structural perspective, allowing us to get a taste of interdisciplinary collaboration and its advantages.

Women’s Mathematical Organizations in Other Latin American Countries It is important to acknowledge our colleagues and allies in other Latin American countries, since to some extent we consider them part of our organization. Indeed, some of the activities where the Collective has been involved were organized jointly with these organizations. For example, the panel on Gender and Mathematics at the

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1089

Mathematical Congress of the Americas, held in 2017 in Montreal, was organized together with the Mexican organization described below. The next conference on women in mathematics in Latin America (to be held next year in Colombia), is another example of international collaboration. Between 2013 and 2018, several organizations of women mathematicians (and scientists in general) emerged throughout Latin America. Many of these organizations, in addition to the Collective in Chile, constitute what we have named the Network of Women in Mathematics in Latin America and the Caribbean (Red de Mujeres Matemáticas en América Latina y El Caribe), which began to take shape during 2016 and was consolidated in 2018 at the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. From a historical point of view, it should be noted that in 2018 the “WM2 : World Meeting for Women in Mathematics” took place as a satellite event of the ICM in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This probably contributed to the creation of some of the organizations that we will mention in the following paragraphs. In this same line, we also think it is relevant to mention that in May 2018 the so-called “Feminist May” broke out in Chile. It started out as a university protest movement to complain about the lack of protocols to prevent and sanction cases of sexual harassment and abuse in higher education institutions. The movement gained a lot of traction and finally became a national and citizen-wide protest united under the slogan “Non-Sexist Education.” Much has been written about this social movement, see for example, Pérez et al. (2019) and Zerán (2018), or Dessi (2018) for an article in English. Next, we provide a review of the women’s mathematical organizations in Latin America that we are currently aware of. We particularly refer to their organizational characteristics. To do this, we relied on the report by Araujo-Pardo and VeraGajardo (2019) and updated the information according to conversations we had with colleagues in Peru, Argentina, and Brazil.8 In Argentina there is the Gender Commission of the Argentine Mathematical Union (UMA), founded in 2018. At first it was made up only of women, but now it is a mixed-gender group of five people, including a female coordinator. They also have representatives in different parts of the country. The committee sees itself as a coordinating entity rather than a resolving body. It works as a gender advisor to the UMA and proposes its own specific initiatives. In Colombia there is the Commission on Equity and Gender of the Colombian Mathematical Society (SCM, 2017), created in 2017. It is currently a mixedgender organization made up of six members, with a female chairperson. One if its objectives is to encourage participation in mathematics by women and minorities in Colombia. Mexico’s organization is the oldest in Latin America. It is called the Commission on Equity and Gender of the Mexican Mathematical Society (SMM, 2013), founded in 2013. It is a mixed-gender group of three people, one of whom acts as

8 Roxana

López Cruz (Peru), Gabriela Ovando (Argentina), and Christina Brech (Brazil).

1090

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

Coordinator. Its purpose is to promote the inclusion of underrepresented groups, particularly women, in the country’s mathematical endeavors. The case of Brazil is slightly different. Because it is such a large and diverse country, there are different organizations and networks. Some of them include the Gender Commission (SBM, 2018) created in 2018 as a joint effort between the Brazilian Mathematical Society and the Brazilian Society for Applied and Computational Mathematics. On the other hand, some Brazilian women mathematicians created the platform “Mathematics, a feminine noun” (MSF, 2019), which aims to promote actions being developed in different parts of the world, especially in Brazil, in order to increase women’s participation in mathematics. We should underscore that these are just some of the many networks that exist in Brazil. In Peru, Grupo de Mujeres Peruanas en Ciencias Matemáticas, the group of Peruvian Women in Mathematical Sciences (MPM, 2016), was formed in 2016. This is a network of more than 100 members, which has an organizing committee, a list of representatives in different parts of the country and is financially dependent on the Peruvian Society of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. The main—although not the only—activity performed by this group is to coordinate and organize the Sofia Kovalevskaia Prize in Peru, awarded in many countries by the eponymous Fund.

The Present and the Future: Paths Taken by the Collective’s Members In 2020, the members of the Collective continue to carry out some activities together and others on their own, focusing on topics related to mathematics and gender. For example, we continue to regularly display the exhibition “Retratos de Matemáticas” (Mathematical Portraits) in different cities and contexts, as well as attending most of the activities in which a member of the Collective is invited to present. We also stay in contact with our partners in the Network of Women in Mathematics in Latin America and the Caribbean. Javiera Barrera and Adriana Piazza generally participate in a few national activities to spread scientific knowledge, such as the “Feria Ingeniosas” (Ingenious Fair). Similarly, the Collective, represented by Andrea Vera, is one of the organizations involved in the global coordination of the “12 de Mayo Celebration of Women in Mathematics initiative honoring Maryam Mirzakhani on her birthday.” Javiera Barrera is also part of the Equity and Gender Committee of the Faculty of Engineering and Sciences at her home institution. Since 2018, M. Isabel Cortez, Mariel Sáez, and Andrea Vera have been part of an interdisciplinary research team in the “Anillo Matemáticas y Género” (Mathematics and Gender “Anillo” Grant) (Anillo, 2019). The team is integrated by Jeanne Hersant, Marcela Mandiola, and Tania de Armas, who are all social science researchers. This is a three-year project funded by the Chilean National Agency for

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1091

Research and Development. The main objective of this research is to understand and analyze the situation of women in mathematics in Chile from a gender perspective, told through the stories and career paths of those who are part of it. To achieve this, we have separated it into three specific goals giving rise to four stages of research. These goals are as follows: 1. To gain awareness of the scientific field of mathematics in Chile from a gender perspective, as well as its subsequent analysis. 2. To understand and analyze the subjectivities (in the sense of Foucault) of female mathematics scholars from their interpretations and self-interpretations regarding the academic field of mathematics, as well as in relation to their career paths. 3. To identify the common career pattern of women researchers in mathematics, that is, the different stages they must go through to reach the status of researcher; in addition, to analyze the barriers and difficulties that women researchers in mathematics must overcome to become researchers, in relation to internal hierarchies and prestige ladders. Regarding the future, in these months (November, December 2020) we are preparing a workshop that will have the objective of re-founding the Collective. Specifically, in January 2021 we will hold an open day to women in mathematics in Chile, who wish to be part of the Collective. Additionally, one of our plans is to create, within the Collective, a chapter for students. On the other hand, together with AWM and some mathematician colleagues from Latin America, we are organizing a virtual bilingual (English–Spanish) mathematics outreach program. Undoubtedly, since the formation of the Collective, our careers have been strongly influenced by issues that touch upon gender and mathematics. Without a doubt, one of the lessons learned from belonging to a Collective of Women Mathematicians is the certainty that any change we want to promote requires coordination with others; that is, collaboration. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Hernán Henríquez, Rafael Labarca, and Irene Mikenberg for providing us valuable information regarding the history of mathematics in Chile. We would also like to thank FONDECYT for providing us the complete database concerning FONDECYT grants in mathematics.

References Anillo Matemáticas y Género. 2019. Mujeres matemáticas en Chile, Sociología de un campo científico desde una perspectiva interdisciplinaria y de género [Mathematical women in Chile, Sociology of a scientific field from an interdisciplinary and gender perspective] CONICYT PIA ANILLO SOC 180025. https://www.anillomatematicasygenero.cl. Accessed 29 May 2020. Araujo-Pardo, Gabriela and Andrea Vera-Gajardo. 2019. Sobre la Red de mujeres matemáticas en América Latina y El Caribe [On the network of mathematical women in Latin America and the Caribbean]. In La Brecha de género en Matemática, Computación y Ciencias Naturales: un

1092

M. I. Cortez and A. Vera-Gajardo

abordaje desde América Latina, ed. Lilia Meza Pontes and Silvina Ponce Dawson, 175–181. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Fíåsica. Calderón, Raúl and Angélica Verdugo. 2003. Licenciatura Académica Matemática (LAM) “un milagro chileno” [Academic Mathematical Degree (LAM) “ a Chilean miracle ”]. Undergraduate Thesis, Universidad de Santiago de Chile. CONICYT (Comisión Nacional Científica y Tecnológica). 1978. Plan de Desarrollo de la Matemática para Chile [Mathematics Development Plan for Chile]. Santiago, Chile: Author. https://issuu.com/conicyt-biblioteca/docs/132.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2020. Cortez, M. Isabel and Jeanne Hersant. 2016. Femmes et mathématiques au Chili [Women and mathematics in Chile]. Synergies Chili 12: 59–71. Collectivo Resistencia Noetheriana. https://fiestadelaciencia.cl/colectivo-resistencia-noetherianauniversidad-de-chile/. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. De la Peña, José Antonio, Angel R. Pineda, Lius Cáceres, Carlos Di Prisco, and Andrea Solotar. 2014. Mathematics in Latin America and the Caribbean: challenges and opportunities. (Commission for Developing countries, International Mathematical Union Report.) https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CDC/cdc-uploads/CDC_MENAO/ Mathematics_in_Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean.Report.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2020. Dessi, Giulia. 2018. Occupying against the patriarchy. New Internationalist 25 June. https://newint. org/features/web-exclusive/2018/06/25/chilean-feminist-student-occupations. Accessed 26 November 2020. FONDECYT (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico). 1981. Historia. https:// www.conicyt.cl/fondecyt/sobre-fondecyt/historia/. Accessed 20 May 2020. Greenwald, Sarah J., Anne M. Leggett, and Jill E. Thomley. 2015. The Association for Women in Mathematics: How and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Mathematical Intelligencer 37(3): 11–21. Gutiérrez, Claudio and Flavio Gutiérrez. 2000. Ramón Picarte: the feat of doing mathematics in Chile. (Spanish. English summary) QUIPU, Revista Latinoamericana de Historia de las Ciencias y la Tecnología 13(3): 307–341. Gutiérrez, Claudio and Flavio Gutiérrez. 2004. Carlos Grandjot, tres décadas de matemáticas en Chile: 1930–1960 [Carlos Grandjot, three decades of mathematics in Chile: 1930–1960]. Bol. Asoc. Mat. Venez. 11(1): 55–84. Harding, Inés, Edgar Pino, and Jaime Michelow. 1970. Programa Nacional de Desarrollo de Matemática en Chile. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT) [National Program for the Development of Mathematics in Chile. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT)]. https://issuu.com/conicyt-biblioteca/ docs/158. Accessed 20 May 2020. Kirkwood, Julieta. 1987. Feminarios. Chile: Ediciones Documenta. Mandiola, Marcela, Nicolás Ríos, and Alejandro Varas. 2019. “There is something we haven’t talked yet.” The cassata as gendered academic organization in Chilean universities. (Spanish). Pensamiento Educativo 56(1): 1–16. MATEA. https://matea.cl/hypatia/. Accessed 31 Dec 2020. MSF (Matemática Substantivo Feminino [Mathematics, a feminine noun]). https://matematicasf. wordpress.com. Accessed 29 May 2020. Mercado, Alberto. 2020. Roberto Frucht, matemático en tránsito. Cuaderno de Cultura Científica. Roberto Frucht, mathematician in transit. Scientific Culture Notebook. https://culturacientifica. com/2020/02/23/roberto-frucht-matematico-en-transito/. Accessed 18 May 2020. Michelow, Jaime and Inés Harding. 1973. Elementos de Computación [Elements of Computation]. Santiago: Universitaria. MPM (Mujeres Peruanas en Ciencias Matemáticas [Group of Peruvian Women in Mathematical Sciences]). https://sites.google.com/view/mujer-peru-c-matematicas/. Accessed 29 May 2020. Pedemonte, Rafael. 2017. Le sort des “lumumbistes” chiliens face aux enjeux de la guerre froide (1964–1973) [The fate of the Chilean “ lumumbists ” faced with the challenges of the Cold War]. Caravelle 108: 149–168.

The Chilean Collective and Latin American Organizations for Women Mathematicians

1093

Pérez, Lelya Troncoso, Luna Follegati, and Valentina Stutzin. 2019. Más allá de una educación no sexista: aportes de pedagogías feministas interseccionale [Beyond a non-sexist education: Contributions of intersectional feminist pedagogies]. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana. 56(1): 1–15. Pérez-Arrau, Gregorio, Alvaro Espejo, Marcela Mandiola, Nicolás Ríos González, and Juan Pablo Toro. 2020. Organizando los Estudios Organizacionales en Chile: Historia de la creación del Grupo Minga [Organizing Organizational Studies in Chile: History of the creation of Grupo Mingo]. RAE-Revista de Administraçã de Empresas 60(2): 156–167. Perronnet, Clémence. 2020. Cacher l’éléphant dans la pièce: la censure sociale des institutions scientifiques [Hiding the elephant in the room: social censorship of scientific institutions, blog entry]. Hypotheses. https://academia.hypotheses.org/23931?fbclid= IwAR3qhOjliJDy6Tdxr7taxbs2Kypb8s3U31x76tlNYfPCnpWQCdOiCnW6D1g. Accessed 27 May 2020. Radovic, Darinka (2018). Diferencias de género en rendimiento matemático en. Chile [Gender differences in mathematical performance]. Revista Colombiana de Educación, (74), 221– 242. Red de Investigadoras. https://redinvestigadoras.cl Accessed 31 Dec 2020. Sáez, Mariel and Sylvie Paycha. 2018. Retratos de matemáticas: Entrevistas a mujeres matemáticas de Europa y América Latina [Mathematical Portraits]. Santiago de Chile: Colectivo de Mujeres Matemáticas de Chile. http://www.mat.uc.cl/archivos/libro-retratos-de-mujeres.pdf SBM (Sociedade Brasileira de Matemática). 2018. Comissão de Gênero SBM/SBMAC [Gender Commission]. https://www.sbm.org.br/comissao-de-genero-sbm-sbmac. Accessed 29 May 2020. SCM (Sociedad Colombiana de Matemáticas). 2017. Comisión de Equidad y Género [Commission on Equity and Gender]. http://scm.org.co/comision-de-equidad-y-genero/. Accessed 29 May 2020. SMM (Sociedad Matemática Mexicana). 2013. Comisión de Equidad y Género. http://www. comisiondeequidadygenero.org/home. Accessed 29 May 2020. SOMACHI (Sociedad Matemática de Chile). 2014. Mathematics in Chile, a half-century of steady development. Santiago, Chile: Author. https://issuu.com/rpmat/docs/folleto_final_4_21_2014. UMA (Unión Matemática Argentina). Historia. http://www.union-matematica.org.ar/v2/historia/. Accessed 19 May 2020. Zerán, Faride. 2018. Mayo feminista. La rebelión contra el patriarcado [May feminist. The rebellion against the patriarchy]. Santiago de Chile: LOM.

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians Marie-Françoise Roy and Caroline Series

Introduction The last decade has seen a great burgeoning of activity among women mathematicians internationally. Added impetus has been provided by two very significant achievements: in 2011, Ingrid Daubechies became the first female president of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), while in 2014, Maryam Mirzakhani became the first woman to win a Fields Medal. In the last few years, mathematical women in many countries have come together to launch meetings and networks. Much but by no means all of this activity has been spearheaded by the IMU Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM), which was created by the IMU Executive in March 2015. An idea of the scope of the international activity can best be gained from the CWM website (CWM, 2020). The Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM), founded in 1971, was the first major organization for women mathematicians. Although firmly based in the United States, the AWM has always had members from around the world and has never viewed itself as solely American in nature. Indeed, it has played a key role in inspiring and encouraging activities worldwide. The AWM has had a presence at the quadrennial International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM), the premier conference and meeting place for mathematicians worldwide, since 1974. It has also participated in and organized symposia at the International Congress for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) since 1995.

M.-F. Roy Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France e-mail: [email protected] C. Series () University of Warwick, Coventry, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_92

1095

1096

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

At the 1986 ICM in Berkeley, California, the AWM sponsored a panel entitled Women in Mathematics: An International Perspective Eight Years Later. Among the nine panelists, four were from Europe. Inspired by the example of the AWM and wishing to initiate some activities closer to home, the Europeans formed a group which by the end of that year had become European Women in Mathematics (EWM). Involving as it did many countries and cultures with a variety of educational systems and problems, the organization rapidly evolved independently with a somewhat different structure from that of the AWM (see the authors’ article on EWM in this volume). In 2013, the African Women in Mathematics Association (AWMA) was founded on a similar model to that of EWM. The AWM’s involvement with the ICMs continued with the organization of a panel discussion at the ICM in Kyoto in 1990 which included a number of women from Asia. It also worked with the IMU to establish the ICM Emmy Noether Lecture which is delivered at international congresses and sponsored by the IMU. The initial lecture was delivered in 1994 in Zurich by the distinguished Russian mathematician Olga Ladyzhenskaya and the second by Cathleen Morawetz in 1998 in Berlin. (The ICM Emmy Noether lecture is not to be confused with the AWM’s Noether Lecture which is delivered at annually at the American Mathematical Society’s January Joint Mathematics Meetings.) Since 2010, an increasing number of activities have been organized jointly by AWM and EWM. Both organizations were involved in the selection of the 2010 and 2014 ICM Emmy Noether Lecturers. Initiated through a collaboration between AWM and EWM, and with the support of the European Mathematical Society, the first one-day International Conference for Women Mathematicians (ICWM) was held immediately prior to the 2010 ICM in Hyderabad. A similar event was organized immediately prior to the Seoul ICM in 2014. Both of these meetings brought together female mathematicians from around the globe and stimulated many further actions, in particular enhancing the level of activity both in India and South Korea. Most importantly for our present article, this international cooperation, combined with initiatives taken by Ingrid Daubechies as IMU president, led first to the establishment of webpages for international women mathematicians on the IMU website, and thence to the formation of CWM. Since its inception, CWM, aided by the funding and the international platform provided by the IMU, has done a great deal to coordinate and stimulate activities throughout the world. Its first and main focus was to build up networks at the trans-national or continental level, to which end it has given funding and support to many groups, particularly in developing countries. One result has been the greatly increased activity in Latin America, in part stimulated by the 2018 ICM in Rio de Janeiro. The pre-ICM one-day event, World Meeting for Women in

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1097

Fig. 1 The Mirzakhani Memorial Exhibition at (WM)2 , Rio de Janeiro 2018

Mathematics, known as (WM)2 , organized by CWM and local hosts in close collaboration with the ICM, was extremely successful in encouraging many women from many countries to attend the ICM itself. The beautiful exhibition on Maryam Mirzakhani prepared for the meeting has since been exhibited around the world (see Fig. 1). It was moreover at this meeting that the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society proposed that May 12th, the anniversary of Maryam’s birthday, should be designated as a day of celebration for women mathematicians worldwide. There is no doubt that CWM and these other activities have generated a feeling of solidarity among women mathematicians around the world. The major collaboration with other scientific bodies involved in the Gender Gap in Science Project described below signaled a new departure in other directions. With support and dynamism behind it, the work of CWM is now entering a second phase. Recommendations have been formulated in the conclusions of the Gender Gap Project and will need to be carefully implemented to impact many aspects of mathematical life worldwide. Moreover it remains necessary to reinforce networks of women in mathematics in other parts of the world, for example in Russia and other Eastern European countries, and also in parts of Asia. The second (WM)2 is planned for Saint Petersburg on July 5, 2022, just before the ICM and in the same venue. It will be a special satellite event of the ICM and will mark a new milestone in this process.

1098

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM) Beginnings The Committee for Women Mathematicians was officially created by the International Mathematical Union in March 2015. Its first meeting took place in a beautiful location near Cortona, Italy, 4–5 September 2015, timed to take place immediately following the 17th General meeting of EWM in the same venue. The original committee members can be seen in Fig. 2. MFR (the first author) was chair and CMS (the second author) was vice-chair. The other members were Carolina Araujo (IMPA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Bill Barton (University of Auckland, New Zealand); Ari Laptev (Imperial College, UK and Institut Mittag-Leffler, Sweden); Kristin Lauter (Microsoft Research, USA and then AWM president); Sunsook Noh (Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea); Marie Françoise Ouedraogo (University of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso); Sujatha Ramdorai (University of British Columbia, Canada); and Betül Tanbay (Bogaziçi University, Bebek-Istanbul, Turkey). In addition, John Toland (Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge, UK) acted as a liaison with the IMU Executive Committee (IMU EC). But the story goes back further than that. The origins of CWM can be traced to an initiative of Ingrid Daubechies, during her presidency of the IMU, to create a section of the IMU’s webpages which would be a repository of information about organizations, activities, and resources for women mathematicians worldwide.

Fig. 2 The first CWM meeting in Cortona. Left to right: Sunsook Noh, Neela Nataraj (for Sujatha Ramdorai), Carolina Araujo, Magnhild Lien (for Kristin Lauter), Caroline Series, Marie Françoise Ouedraogo, Marie-Françoise Roy, Bill Barton, Betül Tanbay. Photo by Alicia Dickenstein, the IMU EC observer present at the meeting (substituting for John Toland)

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1099

Ingrid gathered a small group to help with this undertaking, among whom the original driving force was Dušanka Perišiˇc of the University of Novi Sad, the main organizer of the wonderful 14th meeting of EWM which took place in Novi Sad in 2009, at which Ingrid was the prestigious EMS Lecturer (see the authors’ article in this volume). Another member of the website working group was CMS. The CWM webpages were designed to be a service to the international community and were set to be launched on August 12, 2014, immediately prior to the ICM in Seoul. In the course of gathering and collating information for this project, CMS consulted MFR, who joined in with great enthusiasm. It was apparent that there was already a huge amount of worldwide activity, but there were big gaps, and it all needed to be coordinated. Between them they determined that the momentum gathered through the setting up of the CWM webpages, together with the opportunity of acting while Ingrid was still president of the IMU, should not be lost, and thus they proposed the creation of an IMU committee dedicated to women in mathematics. With Ingrid’s help and advice, details were worked out and the proposal was presented at the 2014 ICM in Seoul. It was finally ratified by the IMU Executive in March 2015. The remit of the committee was (and still is): • To promote international contacts between national and regional organizations for women in mathematical sciences; • To maintain up-to-date content on the Women in Mathematics part of the IMU website and, with appropriate assistance from the IMU, to ensure its technical development; • To consider how best to facilitate electronic communications among the community of women mathematicians internationally; • To work with groups, committees and commissions of IMU on topics pertaining to women mathematicians and their representation; • To publicize, and where needed to suggest, working practices that ensure equal opportunities for women mathematicians in universities and research institutions, for example appropriate funding arrangements, family friendly policies and facilities; • To report annually to the IMU Executive Committee, and to the IMU General Assembly, and to propose actions that would foster equal treatment of women in the mathematical community and lead to an increase in the representation of women in mathematics at all levels. CWM got to work immediately, greatly aided by significant funding from the IMU as one of its official committees. As described in more detail below, it was quickly decided that the first main activity should be to work to help establishing worldwide networks of female mathematicians at the continental or subcontinental level. To this end, in 2015 it launched its first call for proposals for actions which would further these aims. Such calls have been ongoing since then and to date have funded a great range of activities all around the world. CWM has held further face-to-face meetings annually: in 2016 and again in 2017 these took place at the IMU headquarters in Berlin. Otherwise its work is

1100

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

mainly done by email, with occasional video-conference calls. Following its second meeting in 2016, the committee co-opted two associate members, Neela Nataraj (IIT Mumbai) assisting with coordinating grant reports, and Petra Bonfert-Taylor (Dartmouth College, USA) assisting with the website, both of who are now full members of the 2018–2022 committee. Following the ICM in Rio de Janeiro, in September 2018, the committee organized a meeting at the London Mathematical Society’s headquarters in London, using their video-conference equipment to enable all members of both the outgoing and incoming committees to take part. Following the first four-year term of CWM, a new committee was formally instated in 2019. MFR continued as chair while Carolina Araujo became the vicechair. Petra Bonfert-Taylor and Neela Nataraj became official members, while all other members of the original committee stood down. Other new members are Alejandro Adem (University of British Columbia, Canada); Tony Ezome (USTM, Franceville, Gabon); Josephine Kagunda (University of Nairobi, Kenya); Motoko Kotani (Tohoku University, Japan); Ekin Ozman (Bogaziçi University, Turkey); and Cheryl Praeger (University of Western Australia). Demonstrating the importance that the IMU attaches to the committee, the new IMU EC liaison is the IMU President Carlos Kenig (University of Chicago). The new committee had its first meeting in the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) Trieste in 2019, coinciding with the final meeting of the Gender Gap Project (see Fig. 3). The funding and support of the IMU have been essential to the success of CWM initiatives. The help of the IMU’s office staff has also been invaluable.

Support for International Activities With the annual budget from the IMU, together with some additional support from the Friends of the IMU (FIMU), from the start CWM was in the happy position of being able to consider the best use of its funds. It was decided in the first instance to focus on activities that would support and encourage the formation of networks of female mathematicians on a regional basis in developing or emerging countries. From its 2015 budget, CWM supported the creation of a website for the African Women in Mathematics Association (AWMA), which was launched in July 2015. (AWMA was founded in 2013, following the participation of several African women mathematicians at a workshop organized by the African Mathematical Union’s Commission on Women in Mathematics in Africa in Cape Town.) The site is in both English and French. CWM also supported the first general meeting of AWMA in Kenya (July 2015) and a meeting of Latin American women in São Paolo, Brazil (March 2016). The first formal call was made for activities in 2016. Almost 50 applications from 28 countries were received, mostly in the developing world. Of these, seven proposals which fitted precisely with the stated aims were funded at £3000 per

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1101

Fig. 3 The CWM meeting in Trieste, November 2019 with the 2019–2022 committee. Left to right: Carlos Kenig, Motoko Kotani, Tony Ezome, Julia Pevtsova (link with ICM 2022 local organizing committee), Petra Bonfert-Taylor, Ekin Ozman, Josephine Kagunda, Carolina Araujo, Marie-Françoise Roy, Neela Nataraj

project. All took place successfully, in Colombia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Senegal, and Tunisia. In all there were about 500 participants of whom the great majority were women. The CWM 2017 call for networks and schools received 50 applications of which CWM decided to support 12. The various events and projects took place in Brazil, Canada (a round table, Women in Mathematics in the Americas, during the Mathematical Congress of the Americas 2017), Chile, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, South Africa, Tunisia, and Vietnam (see Fig. 4). In total, there were about 960 participants in these various meetings, among them about 675 women. In 2017, the IMU Executive Committee, pleased with the activities CWM was sponsoring and encouraging, substantially increased the budget, enabling CWM to both make its usual 2018 call and also to support events around the ICM in Rio de Janeiro. CWM supported 10 of the 55 applications, among which were regional meetings of AWMA, one in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) for East Africa and one in Ibadan (Nigeria) for West Africa, and also a second Central Asia Women in Mathematics Association (CAWMA) meeting in Uzbekistan. (Supported by CWM, CAWMA had its first meeting in 2016, and included women from

1102

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Fig. 4 Some of the projects funded by CWM in Africa and Latin America. These are two of three posters about CWM-supported events displayed at (WM)2

universities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.) The Indian Women in Mathematics association (IWM) was given a grant to enable the participation of women from the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation at their meeting in Uttar Pradesh, while women from surrounding countries were enabled to participate in the first Women in Mathematics in the Balkan Region Workshop, in Skopje (Macedonia). A workshop in El Salvador was focused on less developed Central American countries and activity inspired by the series of meetings “Women in . . .” held at the Banff International Research Station in Canada took place for the first time in South America, in Uruguay. CWM also supported the attendance of women from developing countries at the EWM meeting in Austria and a female-organized school on dynamical systems in ICTP Trieste. With a budget back to the usual level, new calls were issued and granted for 2019 and 2020. In 2019, CWM received 40 applications and supported events in Argentina, Cameroon, the Dominican Republic, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Tunisia. In 2020, the call received 35 applications of which CWM decided to support 8, among which 6 are meetings taking place in Chile, Colombia, India, Senegal, Turkey, and Vietnam. (Owing to COVID-19, most were postponed to 2021.) It is also supporting the May 12 initiative website (see below) and an exhibition MATEMATNKA, Through a Land of Mathematics being prepared for (WM)2 in Saint Petersburg.

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1103

World Meeting for Women Mathematicians (WM)2 and ICM 2018 The World Meeting for Women in Mathematics (WM)2 was a satellite event for ICM 2018, held in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday July 31. It was an international meeting with a Latin-American focus. It had a total of 296 registered participants, mostly women, coming from 51 different countries ranging from Algeria to Vietnam, plus around 50 guest participants and accompanying persons. The meeting had been proposed at the 2015 Cortona meeting of CWM, and was sponsored and partly organized by CWM. The scientific committee was chaired by Georgia Benkart of University of Wisconsin–Madison, while CWM committee member Carolina Araujo (IMPA), also a member of the ICM local organizing committee, was the main organizer, aided by a committee with largely Latin American, especially Brazilian, members. CWM also collaborated with the IMU to offer women free advance registration for (WM)2 in conjunction with the travel grants from the ICM 2018 Open Arms program. The meeting opened with the world première of the first part of the film Journeys of Women in Mathematics described below. The scientific program included a keynote lecture by Monique Laurent (Netherlands), invited lectures by Alicia Dickenstein (Argentina), Salomé Martínez (Chile), and Maria Eulália Vares (Brazil), and a public lecture by Maria Esteban (France). The lectures were aimed at a general audience of mathematicians, and covered different areas of mathematics: algebraic geometry, analysis, applied mathematics, optimization, and probability. For part of the meeting the participants divided up into small discussion groups, each focusing on one topic and using a common language of their choice from Arabic, English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. Topics included public policies to promote women in science and to overcome the gender gap in mathematics, and strategies to stimulate girls to become undergraduates in mathematics, with conclusions presented at the end of the program. A lively poster session displayed 57 research posters covering various areas of mathematics, as well as 14 thematic posters describing initiatives and statistics about women in mathematics worldwide. As a tribute to Maryam Mirzakhani, CWM had commissioned the creation of a memorial exhibition with 18 original posters about Maryam, two volumes containing her mathematical work, a volume with articles about her, and a book of condolences for attendees to sign. The exhibition was designed by Rafael Meireles Barroso and curated by Thaís Jordão. It remained open during the ICM 2018, and has since been displayed at a number of venues around the world. Information about how to obtain the exhibition for display can be found on the CWM website. The memorial for Maryam also included a screening of the film shown in ICM 2014 when she received the Fields Medal, followed by some words by CWM committee member Betül Tanbay and one minute of silence. On behalf of the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society, Ashraf Daneshkhah then presented a proposal to declare that May 12th, Maryam Mirzakhani’s birthdate, should be designated as a day of celebration for women mathematicians worldwide.

1104

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Fig. 5 Panel discussion from (WM)2

This proposal was approved by a vast majority of attendees of (WM)2 at the close of the meeting. The program concluded with a panel discussion about networks of women in mathematics including Magnhild Lien as a representative of AWM (see Fig. 5). During the ICM itself, CWM organized a panel discussion entitled The Gender Gap in Mathematical and Natural Sciences from a Historical Perspective, chaired by CMS, followed by a reception. A brief description of IMU and CWM was given by MFR, followed by presentations by June Barrow-Green (Open University, UK) on The Historical Context of the Gender Gap in Mathematics, and Silvina PonceDawson (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina) on The International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Working Group on Women in Physics: Activities and Perspectives.

Other CWM Activities The Website The CWM website has always been central to its work. The purpose is to provide a repository of information for and about women in mathematics worldwide and to enable efficient communication among the international community of

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1105

women mathematicians. Originally collected as described above, the material was collated and organized by CMS, helped in the latter stages by Petra Bonfert-Taylor (Dartmouth College, USA). The website was launched at the ICM in Seoul in 2014. In 2018, as part of a general move to completely redesign and update the IMU website, the site was moved to a new format which is consistent across all the IMU committees and commissions. It is currently managed by Petra, MFR, and Natalia Garcia-Colin (Brussels). The site lists an impressive number of events taking place in all parts of the world. No less than 38 countries are listed with some form of organization, activities or contacts. It also contains numerous resources such as biographies, books and papers of interest, links to related organizations and other information. The site has a unique and important function as the only platform for coordinating so much diverse worldwide activity.

CWM Newsletter The CWM Newsletter was launched in May 2019 and appears twice a year. Much of its content relies on the information that is already on the CWM webpages. Each issue also contains an interview with a CWM member and original articles. For example, in May 2020 the Newsletter contained an interview with Cheryl Praeger, an article by Christiane Rousseau about the new International Day of Mathematics (Pi Day on March 14) and testimonies from the COVID-19 crisis: brief contributions written during the second half of April 2020 by CWM members and ambassadors from different countries all around the world on what the COVID-19 crisis has meant for their lives as women mathematicians (see issue 3 of the CWM Newsletter).

CWM Ambassadors In 2016, CWM initiated a program of CWM Ambassadors to be special correspondents worldwide. The idea was to devise a more effective and efficient way of disseminating information than attempting to compile a huge list of all possible female mathematicians. About 120 women known to be active in women in mathematics activities were asked to take on this role, the aim being to have a small number of ambassadors in each of as many countries as possible. Each ambassador has the job of disseminating information such as CWM funding calls in her geographical or mathematical neighborhood, and equally of keeping CWM informed about relevant activities or initiatives. There are currently about 140 CWM ambassadors in over 100 countries, and the program appears to be very successful in its aims. The list is posted on the CWM website.

1106

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Films Together with her sister Irina Linke, a professional film maker, Eugenie Hunsicker, chair of the London Maths Society Women in Maths Committee, created a short film, Faces of Women in Mathematics, for International Women’s Day 2018. The film features women mathematicians from around the world each saying “I am (name) from (country), and I am a mathematician!” in their own language (Linke, 2018). The project was approved by CWM and a request for selfie film clips sent around the world through the CWM Ambassadors list resulted in a phenomenal response: 146 clips of 243 women mathematicians from 36 different countries speaking 31 different languages. The edited output is delightful. In the lead up to the ICM 2018, CWM proposed making a short film to be called Women in Mathematics Around the Globe. This proposal was accepted by the Simons Foundation, who selected Micro-Documentaries, the company which made the short films on the Fields Medal winners in Seoul and again in Rio de Janeiro, to create the film. Finally entitled Journeys of Women in Mathematics (CWM, 2018), the film was made in two parts, the first of which was prepared for Rio de Janeiro while the second was shot during (WM)2 and the ICM 2018 itself (see Fig. 6). Rather than showcasing “famous women mathematicians,” it was decided that the focus should be the quality and diversity of women mathematicians worldwide. The first part features Carolina Araujo (IMPA, Rio de Janeiro), a CWM member, (WM)2 main organizer, and also an ICM lecturer; Neela Nataraj (Mumbai), now CWM member and also active member of Indian Women in Mathematics; and Amina Pecha (Yaounde, Cameroon), the founding chair of the Cameroon Women in Mathematics Association. The film-makers traveled to meet and film them in their home countries. The second augmented version highlighted several women mathematicians in Latin America including female speakers at (WM)2 and documented the enthusiasm of the meeting. As already mentioned, the world première of the first part of Journeys of Women in Mathematics was shown at the opening of (WM)2 .

The IMU, ICMs, and Women Not only has the IMU Executive Committee (EC) created, supported, and highlighted CWM (e.g. Kenig, 2020), it has also been making consistent efforts to improve the situation of women in mathematics. In particular, it has been giving attention to the gender balance of the various committees it creates for selecting speakers at the ICM. The IMU EC has encouraged these committees to diversify their choices and distributed material on unconscious bias IMU (2020). As a result, the proportion of women plenary or invited lecturers at ICM is now around 15% (Mihaljevi´c and Roy, 2018), better than the proportion of women authors published in top mathematical journals (see below).

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1107

Fig. 6 Journeys of Women in Mathematics

Prizes are another issue, partly since each committee works independently. The percentage of women on the prize committees is very reasonable. However, having women in committees does not imply women receiving prizes. Very often the committees do not receive enough female nominations, so that to change the situation, it is crucially important to nominate women. If someone believes in an outstanding woman, he or she needs to make sure that she is nominated!

1108

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

Notwithstanding these efforts, female representation on the EC received a serious setback as a result of the elections at the São Paulo General Assembly just before ICM 2018. Despite several nominations, out of 11 members on the committee there is now only one woman, namely Nalini Joshi (Sydney), one of the two vicepresidents. The 2015–2018 EC had included (ex-officio) the former IMU president Ingrid Daubechies, one vice-president Alicia Dickenstein (Buenos Aires), and Christiane Rousseau (Montreal), while in 2011–2014 it included, besides Ingrid as president, Christiane as a vice-president, and Cheryl Praeger (University of Western Australia). Thus the composition of the current EC came as a disappointment and regression. The IMU recognizes the work of women who have made fundamental and sustained contributions to the mathematical sciences through a special ICM plenary lecture, the ICM Emmy Noether Lecture, although the invitation to deliver this is not considered to be an IMU award. In fact at the ICM 2018, no woman was awarded one of the prestigious IMU prizes. Thus during the award ceremony, there was no female prize winner and no woman representing the IMU on stage. Of the five women who were on the stage, one was a banker representing a sponsor and four were female staff assistants. Not much encouragement then, rather a reinforcement of stereotypes, especially for the young Olympiad medalists in the audience, who of course included both girls and boys. Contrast this with the 2014 ICM in Seoul at which Ingrid Daubechies, IMU president, Park Geun-hye, president of South Korea, and Maryam Mirzakhani, first woman Fields medalist were all on stage together— what an inspiring picture of three strong women! Unfortunately to date this great event remains a singular isolated point. CWM was of course not the only group to express disquiet after the result of the EC election and the absence of women awardees. In fact many members of the GA and many attendees at ICM expressed the same concerns. We must hope and work for better at the next Congress in Saint Petersburg. One piece of good news: 2022 will mark the 100th anniversary of Olga Alexandrovna Ladyzhenskaya (1922– 2004) and the organizers of ICM 2022 are planning to celebrate her life and legacy in a multitude of ways. In particular, a new medal in mathematical physics has been established in her honor, to be awarded for the first time at a special event during the Congress, see the announcement on the ICM (2020) blog and Dumbaugh et al. (2020). The deadline for nominations is December 1, 2021.

The Gender Gap in Science Project The main goal of this ambitious and extensive project, funded by the International Science Council (ISC, formerly ICSU, International Council of Scientific Unions), was to investigate the gender gap in science from different angles, globally and across disciplines. The full title of the project was A Global Approach to the Gender Gap in Mathematical, Computing and Natural Sciences: How to Measure It, How to Reduce It? The aim was to produce sound data to support the choices

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1109

of interventions that ISC and member unions can feasibly undertake to address the barriers to achievement by women in mathematical and natural sciences which persist in all parts of the world. The idea of this project was discussed at the 2017 CWM meeting in Berlin. It was decided to join forces with the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) to make a bid to ICSU. The IMU and IUPAC were the lead applicants with IUPAP, ICIAM (International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics), and seven other scientific bodies as partners. The project was awarded ISC funding of 100,000 euros per year over three years. During the first year 2017, a launch meeting in Paris and three regional workshops were organized: in Asia (with participants from Australia, China, France, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Nepal, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, US), in Latin America (with participants from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, US), and in Africa (with participants from Algeria, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, France, Kenya, Lesotho, Morocco, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, US, and Zimbabwe). A second coordination meeting was held in Paris in 2018. The purpose of the project was to collect evidence for informed decisions and to provide easy access to materials proven to be useful in encouraging girls and young women to enter these fields. Regional information was collected, highlighting the contrasts and common ground across regions and cultures, less and more developed countries, men and women, mathematical and natural sciences. Project participants carried out a global survey of scientists of all genders, with more than 32,000 responses from more than 130 countries using seven languages. They also conducted a joint study on publication patterns which analyzed comprehensive metadata sources corresponding to several millions of scientific publications since 1970 relative to gender and location. Finally they complied a list of best-practice initiatives which address the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences at various levels. A final conference was held in late 2019 in ICTP Trieste to report on the findings and achievements, discuss and evaluate the results and to formulate recommendations and discuss new initiatives. There were 110 participants (90% female, 10% male) from more than 50 countries. The project concluded that the gender gap is very real in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. With regards to publications in mathematics worldwide, there has been a regular increase in the proportion of female authors over the last 50 years; currently about 30% of authors of mathematical papers are women. However with respect to the top journals the situation is very different: despite the growing proportion of women among authors, their proportion is stagnating as authors in top journals (Roy, Guillopé, and Cesa, 2020, Figure 9). Moreover the situation is much worse in mathematics and theoretical physics than in other disciplines such as astronomy, astrophysics, or chemistry, where a positive change can be observed. The final report of the Gender Gap Project (Guillopé and Roy, 2020) can be found on the Gender Gap website (Gender Gap in Science, 2020). The report

1110

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

presents methodologies, insights, and tools that have been developed throughout the project, as well as a set of recommendations for different audiences: instructors and parents; educational institutions; scientific unions and other organizations responsible for science policy. See Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 The final report of the Gender Gap Project, a booklet summary, in several languages and containing the entire text of the recommendations, and slides presenting the results of the project in English, French, and German, are freely available online and can be found on the Gender Gap website. A paper copy of the report can be ordered through many retailers worldwide, e.g., on Book Depository

International Initiatives for Women Mathematicians

1111

Plans have been made for the tools of the Gender Gap in Science to become permanent. In addition, a permanent Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science is being created between the scientific unions which were members of the Gender Gap in Science project, in particular the IMU and ICIAM.

Maryam Mirzakhani and May 12 Maryam Mirzakhani, the first female Fields medalist, was born on May 12th, 1977, and sadly died prematurely from cancer on 14th July, 2017 aged only 40. Maryam was Iranian and after traveling to the US to study for her PhD in Harvard, became professor of mathematics at Stanford University when she was only 31. She was awarded the Fields Medal in 2014 for her outstanding contributions to the dynamics and geometry of Riemann surfaces and their moduli spaces, becoming the first woman, and the first Iranian, to be recognized in this way. Her achievements have evoked an extraordinary level of interest all over the world, and the story of her career, brilliant work, and tragic early death have touched and inspired women mathematicians everywhere. One example of the tremendous level of interest, is the 60-minute documentary Secrets of the Surface: The Mathematics Vision of Maryam Mirzakhani (Csicsery, 2020). Through an agreement with the May 12 coordination group, it was made freely available for viewing during the COVID-19 crisis in April and May of 2020. Information about this generous offer was widely circulated and resulted more than 20,000 viewings in 131 countries. As already touched on above, the suggestion of making May 12th, Maryam’s birthday, a day of worldwide celebration for women mathematicians came from the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society who brought their proposal to the World Meeting for Women in Mathematics, (WM)2 , where it was enthusiastically endorsed. The coordination group of the May 12 initiative includes representatives from EWM, AWM, AWMA, Indian Women and Mathematics, Colectivo de Mujeres Matemáticas de Chile, and the Women’s Committee of the Iranian Mathematical Society. Thus far there have been two such days in 2019 and 2020. Publicized through the CWM Ambassadors and other mailing lists, many events were organized around the world. See (Agarwal et al., 2019) for the May 12 celebration in 2019. Because of the COVID-19 crisis, many 2020 events had to be organized virtually, turning often into individual or collective screening of Secrets of the Surface. More information can be found on the May 12 website.

1112

M.-F. Roy and C. Series

References Agarwal, Nikita, Araujo, Carolina, Bonfert-Taylor, Petra, Mahmoudi, Mojgan, Ouedraogo, Marie Françoise, Paris-Romaskevich, Olga, Roy, Marie-Françoise, Strickland, Elisabetta, and Vera Gajardo, Andrea 2019. May 12: Celebrating women in mathematics: From one idea to one hundred events. Notices of the AMS 66(11): 1879–1886. Csicsery, George, dir. 2020. Secrets of the surface: The mathematical vision of Maryam Mirzakhani http://www.zalafilms.com/secrets/. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM). 2018. Journeys of women in mathematics. https:// youtu.be/tphQ0eRim4w. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Committee for Women in Mathematics (CWM). 2020. https://www.mathunion.org/cwm. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Dumbaugh, Della et al. The ties that bind: Olga Alexandrovna Ladyzhenskaya and the 2022 ICM in St. Petersburg. 2020. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 67(3): 373–381. Gender Gap in Science. 2020. A Global Approach to the Gender Gap in Mathematical, Computing, and Natural Sciences: How to Measure It, How to Reduce It? https://gender-gap-in-science.org Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Guillopé, Colette and Roy, Marie-Françoise. 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. How to measure it, how to reduce it? Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.3882609 International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM). Ladyzhenskaya Medal in Mathematical Physics. 2020, January 30. Blog. https://icm2022.org/blog/ladyzhenskaya-medal-in-mathematicalphysics International Mathematical Union (IMU). 2020. IMU Awards, Prizes, and Special Lecture. https://www.mathunion.org/imu-awards/imu-awards-prizes-and-special-lecture. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Kenig, Carlos. 2020. The International Mathematical Union (IMU) at 100. Notices of the AMS 67(3): 404–407. Linke, Irina, dir. 2018. Faces of women in mathematics. https://vimeo.com/259039018. Accessed 15 Dec, 2020. Mihaljevi´c, Helena and Roy, Marie-Françoise. A data analysis of women’s trails among ICM speakers. In World women in mathematics 2018, eds. Araujo, Carolina, Benkart, Georgia, Praeger, Cheryl, Tanbay, Betül 111–128. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Roy, Marie-Françoise, Guillopé, Colette, and Cesa, Mark. 2020. A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences: results and recommendations. In A global approach to the gender gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences. How to measure it, how to reduce it?, eds. Guillopé, Colette and Roy, Marie-Françoise, 9–36. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.3882609

Part XVII

AWM at Fifty

No Ordinary Time: Reflections from AWM’s 24th President Ruth Haas

As of this writing, I have the honor of being the current president of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) as it enters the second half of its first century. When I became AWM president in 2019, there was plenty to keep us busy: Trump was president of the US, the #MeToo movement was going strong. There was plenty for us to celebrate: Karen Uhlenbeck was the first woman to receive the Abel Prize and former AWM president Jill Pipher was president of the AMS. AWM was doing it all! We had programs for women at all levels, prizes, mentoring programs, contests, research networks, teacher partnerships, activities at multiple meetings, biannual research conferences (see Fig. 1), and a policy and advocacy group issuing statements on legislation and world affairs that affected mathematicians, women, and humankind. Our biggest challenges were not new: How do we keep doing everything we want to do, (and more!) with very little paid staff or money? How do we engage young women in the AWM? How do we become a more diverse and inclusive organization that supports and encourages all women (and nonbinary people) in math of all kinds? Against this background came the coronavirus. What had started as a local epidemic became a worldwide pandemic. Universities moved to online classes and sent students home with little or no warning. Cities shut down, those who could work from home did, many could not work at all, and people started getting sick. In March 2020, when I prepared my President’s Report for the May–June AWM Newsletter I wrote: As I write this, the world is shutting down as we battle the coronavirus. I hope, by the time you read this, we are already starting to see a glimmer of hope that normalcy is around the corner.

R. Haas () University of Hawai‘i at M¯anoa, Honolulu, Hawaii e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_93

1115

1116

R. Haas

Fig. 1 Omayra Ortega, Heather Russell, Ruth Haas, Ami Radunskaya, Kristin Lauter singing at 2019 AWM Research Symposium, Rice University. Photo courtesy of Shelly Harvey

Of course, in March of 2020 we were still at the beginning of a new reality. For most of 2020 and likely a good part of 2021, we led a different life. As is often the case, a crisis is more difficult for those with less and it shines a glaring light on inequality of all kinds. This is certainly true of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this piece I will describe some of the issues that faced women in math and the AWM in 2020, and how they may be exacerbated in the near future due to the pandemic. Of course what I expect is that by our 60th anniversary in 2031 we will see that the AWM has taken positive measures in addressing many of these.

Inclusion The Trump era was a tumultuous time for programs for women and for those from underrepresented groups in mathematics. For example, the US Department of Education began investigating many programs for women in STEM for potential gender discrimination. Some programs changed their names and their descriptions (e.g., Summer Research in Math at MSRI was formerly Summer Research for Women in Math). An opinion piece ran in the Notices of the AMS expressing deep dislike for requiring “contributions to diversity” statements in job applications. That spawned a flurry of concern about the mathematical community’s commitment to improve its diversity. These events were reminders that despite years of saying we

No Ordinary Time: Reflections from AWM’s 24th President

1117

care about giving everyone access to mathematics, we have not succeeded, and arguments about fairness of proposed policies meant to address this remain. The AWM was called to task for not doing more for women of color, both historically and in 2020. In particular, what were we doing to increase the percentage of women of color winning our awards? In June, 2020 AWM announced the next JMM AMS-AWM Noether lecturer, an esteemed woman mathematician whose broad and diverse research included some work on predictive policing. The announcement was made as many people in the US were rising up in protest over systemic racial discrimination and in particular police brutality, following the horrific murder of George Floyd, a Black man, at the hands of the police. The juxtaposition of these events was jarring; insensitive at best, illuminating the AWM’s flawed practices at worst. The chosen speaker, the AMS, and AWM agreed that the lecture should not be given. The sequence of events was a difficult time for AWM. There was a flurry of reactions from outrage and anger to bewilderment and disappointment. In particular, a letter from student chapter members expressed their outrage at AWM’s subsequent response. In any event, to move forward required re-centering the conversation to be about the Black, Indigenous, People of Color that we wished to encourage and promote.

Positive Steps The AWM needs to do a better job recognizing and encouraging women of color in mathematics and we have been working to do this, within our leadership team, on the Executive Committee, and other committees. In 2018, under President Ami Radunskaya, AWM was part of two studies designed to help us understand and reshape our policies to better align with our mission of inclusion of all women and gender-expansive mathematicians. The first was the findings of an AWM task force comprised of Kimberly Ayers, Mary Gray, Fern Hunt, and Herbert Medina. The second was a STEM inclusion study organizational report for AWM by sociologists Erin Cech and Tom Waidzunas. These studies helped us think about where we were coming up short and we took action based on them. We were further prodded by the events described above. Here are some changes that have happened during my time as president. As awards are seen as an indicator of the values of an organization, it was and is critical to think about how we can make sure this is accurate representation for AWM. The role of the overall Awards Committee previously, was mainly to create new awards. Pamela Harris, chair of the Awards Committee, Ami Radunskaya, past president, Karoline Pershell, executive director, and I realized that we needed that committee to provide guidance and oversight to all AWM individual selection committees and to think about the overall set of awardees. The awards committee took that task very seriously and began instituting more structure to the process of selecting awardees. Among the changes were the following. All members of awards selection committees now must participate in anti-bias training. Awards selection

1118

R. Haas

committees must now pass their recommendations to the Awards Committee, which, together with the AWM president make final selection of all awards to insure representation across categories. New processes for collecting demographic information on nominees and award winners are in place. This will be useful for understanding, and then improving our nomination and selection processes so that we do a better job recognizing women from underrepresented groups with our accolades. These changes incorporate recommendations from the Association for Women in Science for addressing issues of bias in awardee selections. We focused on three specific actions: (a) learn to recognize and avoid unconscious biases; (b) pay attention to language as it can subtly influence who is nominated and how nominations are crafted; (c) create clear, consistent, and transparent evaluation processes. As I write this, the AWM Awards Committee is poised to take on the task of reconsidering the language of our calls for nominations, and stated awards criteria, again, with an eye toward honoring the wide diversity of women whom we wish to encourage in mathematics (that is, all of them!).

AWM for Every Woman in Mathematics Awards are perhaps the most visible activity of the AWM but they are fraught with problems. By definition, awards create winners and thus losers. Even if our awardees become as diverse as our nation’s population, there will be many, many great women mathematicians who are not so recognized. I agreed to run for president of the AWM, because I am passionate about encouraging women to do math. I have my doubts about how much giving awards does this. Sure, the five women each year who get acknowledged feel great, but what about the rest of us? In August 2017, the Washington Post ran an article entitled “Women who are elite mathematicians are less likely than men to believe they are elite mathematicians” (Pope, 2017). The article discussed how the underrepresentation of women in STEM may in part be due to women underestimating their abilities with an example about SAT scores. A widely quoted internal study at Hewlett Packard found that men apply for a job or promotion when they meet just 60% of the qualifications, but women apply only if they meet fully 100% of them (e.g., see Youn, 2019 writing for ABC News). A 2019 study by LinkedIn confirmed that women apply for fewer positions and are less likely to ask for referrals (see Youn). There are many studies that show that competition does not motivate many women as much as it motivates many men (e.g., see Weinschenk, 2012). Men are often more eager to compete, and their performance improves with competition. Not necessarily so for women. My goal was and is to encourage all the non-winners in mathematics. We fill the newsletter with articles about a few who have won awards, but let us not forget that just being an ordinary mathematician is extraordinary. Most of us get a lot of rejections, fail to prove a lot of theorems, and may not even really understand the research of the person two doors down the hall. In the decade or so preceding my presidency, the AWM created many new awards and a Fellows program so that more

No Ordinary Time: Reflections from AWM’s 24th President

1119

women are recognized for their accomplishments, and receive the public affirmation of success and merit pay that often accompanies national awards. This is great for the winners. But we know that women are more likely to suffer from the imposter syndrome and generally underestimate their abilities. So the AWM needs to work hard to support the non-winners too. We all could use a confidence boost! AWM does so much more than awards, but during my presidency (as before and surely after) we struggle with being able to support all the things we are doing. We continue to run workshops for graduate students and sponsor sessions at major meetings (SIAM, JMM, and MathFest). We do outreach like running a booth at the National Math Festival. We enable collaborative research with the NSF-sponsored “Women in” research communities. As of 2020, our Springer book series has over 20 titles in a wide range of mathematical and mathematics education areas and we are starting a journal La Mathematica. We work toward changing the climate in our workplaces (e.g., the 2020 NSF-funded Moving Towards Action workshop at the JMM) and affecting national policy (AWM was mentioned on the House floor by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson in her opening statement proposing the “Combating Sexual Harassment in Sciences Act of 2019”). These are so important and I hope as we move forward the AWM continues to prioritize programming that empowers and encourages girls and women throughout the mathematical sciences.

Women, the Economy, and COVID-19 The economic and social toll of the COVID-19 era has hit women particularly hard, and the effects are expected to linger for quite some time. Women have experienced a disproportionate number of job losses since the start of the pandemic. The Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for September 2020 showed four times the number of women dropping out of the labor market than men. While that was perhaps the worst month, women have been harder hit overall. This is different than most previous economic downturns, where men lost more jobs than women. “The fact that this recession is impacting men and women differently from past recessions could also have broader consequences for families and the trajectory of the economic recovery,” according to Econofact (Alon et al., 2020). A report by the Center for American Progress entitled How COVID-19 Sent Women’s Workforce Progress Backward states, “The collapse of the childcare sector and drastic reductions in school supervision hours as a result of COVID-19 could drive millions of mothers out of the paid workforce. Inaction could cost billions, undermine family economic security, and set gender equity back a generation” (Kashen et al., 2020). Women in math and science have also been disproportionately affected. An article in Nature reports: “female researchers, particularly those at early-career stages, are the hardest hit. Submissions to preprint servers, such as arXiv, rose more quickly for male authors than for female authors” (Gewin, 2020). The Nature article continues with some initial suggestions for how to respond including

1120

R. Haas

alter evaluation criteria, set quotas, and de-stigmatize care-giving. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is undertaking a fast-track study in 2020 focused on early indicators of the potential impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the careers of women in academic science, engineering, and medicine. I am sure the AWM will stay abreast of their findings and advocate for the appropriate measures to aid women in mathematics. Some of the same, but also additional challenges face other underrepresented groups in STEM. The title of another article in Nature sums it up: “‘It’s like we’re going back 30 years’: How the coronavirus is gutting diversity in science” (Woolston, 2020). An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education predicts that “whatever form the university takes post-pandemic, it will be more white, more male, more straight, more monied, and less accessible to people with disabilities than it was before the pandemic” (Flowers, 2020). These are scary thoughts as we enter 2021, but I am confident that the fantastic energy of the AWM will rise to meet the challenges and help create a better future.

References Alon, Titan, Matthias Doepke, Jane Olmstead-Rumsey, and Michèle Tertilt. 2020. Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on women’s employment. https://econofact.org/impact-of-the-covid-19crisis-on-womens-employment. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020. Flowers, Johnathan Charles. 2020. The university we’re losing: Academe is about to get whiter, straighter, and less accessible. Chronicle of Higher Education 67(2): 38–39. Gewin, Virginia. 2020. The career cost of COVID-19 to female researchers, and how science should respond. Nature 583: 867–869. Kashen, Julie, Sarah Jane Glynn, and Amanda Novello. 2020. How COVID-19 sent women’s workforce progress backward. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Pope, Devin. 2017. Women who are elite mathematicians are less likely than men to believe they’re elite mathematicians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/08/ women-who-are-elite-mathematicians-are-less-likely-than-men-to-believe-theyre-elitemathematicians/. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020. Weinschenk, Susan. 2012. When competition helps and hurts motivation: Whether competition motivates or de-motivates depends on gender and numbers. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ us/blog/brain-wise/201210/when-competition-helps-and-hurts-motivation. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020. Woolston, Chris. 2020. “It’s like we’re going back 30 years”: how the coronavirus is gutting diversity in science. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02288-3. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020. Youn, Soo. 2019 Women are less aggressive than men when applying for jobs, despite getting hired more frequently: LinkedIn. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/women-aggressive-menapplying-jobs-hired-frequently-linkedin/story?id=61531741. Accessed 30 Dec, 2020.

Creating A Place: Reflections of the 2021 AWM President-Elect Kathryn Leonard

I am writing this on my 50th birthday. Yesterday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Last night, I was thrown out of bed by an earthquake. There are wildfires, a pandemic, massive job losses, police killings and protests against them, plots by white supremacists to kidnap government officials. Next year I will be AWM’s 25th president. It’s hard to plan for the future amidst so much uncertainty. But my life is better today because a group of women came together 50 years ago, in another time of uncertainty, to create and implement a vision for a mathematical culture where they might thrive. My path to mathematics was not one that we perceive as standard. I excelled in math and English in school, but was routinely tracked toward English. I was forced out of my house at sixteen, and spent almost a year sleeping on friends’ couches, at homeless shelters, in bus stations. As a result, I dropped out of high school. I took what work I could find, slowly gained stability, then enrolled in the high school for students who had been ejected from their regular schools, a school that offered enough flexibility for me to remain employed while completing coursework. At the local university, working multiple jobs, I followed the pattern of my previous schooling and decided to major in English. After the school rejected my petition to waive the general education requirement in math (why would I ever need math?!), I found myself as a junior in a Calculus 1 for Non-majors course. It was the first time I heard an instructor describing the structures behind the formulas. It was the first time I experienced math as something creative, something more than algorithmic problem solving. I was hooked. I completed the math major in a year and a half, starting again at Calculus 1 for Majors. The short time I spent in the major meant that I missed out on mentorship, research opportunities, and connection to the math community, but I didn’t know those things existed. After an internship at a national

K. Leonard () Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA, USA © The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_94

1121

1122

K. Leonard

lab, I entered a PhD program. I will save stories from graduate school for another time and say only that there was not one moment when I felt like I belonged. The entering class consisted of students from Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley, and then there was me. I spent most of my time caught between feeling like I should take full advantage of my opportunity, and feeling like I was a terrible mistake. I later learned about impostor syndrome, which sounded familiar but unhelpful: I was a real impostor, and the messages I received throughout were consistent with that message. Many of us have non-standard paths but aren’t often inclined to share our stories publicly. For those of us who believe we are real imposters, we aren’t, no one is, we all follow our interests as best we can and that can’t possibly be faked. It took a couple of decades before I finally found my place in math, and AWM played a key role. Two friends from graduate school, both number theorists, participated in the 2008 Women in Number Theory (WiN) workshop at BIRS. The workshop was a research collaboration workshop, where participants spent most of their time on initial explorations of specified open research problems that they completed after the workshop and published in a proceedings volume. I expressed a repeated wish for someone to organize such a workshop in my own research area, finally giving up a few years later and organizing it myself. The resulting workshop, Women in Shape Modeling (WiSh) 2013 at IPAM, generated international research relationships for me that continue today. That workshop is the first time I felt like I had a place in the math research community, a place that over the years has come to feel permanent and real. WiSh 4 will take place at Casa Matemática in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2021, and I’ve also helped organize two Women in the Science of Data and Mathematics (WiSDM) workshops at ICERM. AWM supports a number of research areas and can provide resources and guidance to support a workshop. We have two committees devoted to supporting new research workshops which can provide detailed feedback and examples of workshop models. What makes these workshops so powerful for me? There are the obvious reasons: I have experienced no sexual harassment, no bait-and-switch where a research meeting suddenly turns into a date, no seeing myself as one of a few women in a sea of men. But there are deeper reasons as well: The collaboration structure puts the burden on the group leader to figure out ways to include all group members, instead of expecting junior researchers to reach out to senior participants or to fall into collaborations naturally. The expectation that the research will continue beyond the workshop generates long-term connections and greater likelihood of future projects (see Fig. 1). The proceedings volume ensures that the work is completed and disseminated. In 2015, AWM received an award from NSF’s ADVANCE program to support these research networks and to evaluate their effect on participants. The results have far exceeded our expectations: there are now research networks for women in more than 20 areas, and the evaluations have been glowing. In fact, the evaluator noted in one of her reports that she has never seen such uniformly positive evaluations of a program. An unexpected result of these workshops has been that women from countries with strong gender restrictions are able to attend and therefore expand and globalize their research connections. Even those for whom

Creating A Place: Reflections of the 2021 AWM President-Elect

1123

Fig. 1 Kristin Lauter, Maria Basterra, Ami Radunskaya, Kathryn Leonard, AWM panel on Research Collaboration Conferences for Women: Who, What, Where, When, Why and How? 2016 JMM, Seattle, WA. Photo by Steve Schneider/JMM, courtesy of AMS

research is no longer central can repurpose these ideas elsewhere—collaboration happens everywhere and benefits from intentional construction. People often tell me that AWM is no longer necessary—the field is now equitable, we’ve had a woman Fields Medalist, QED. In fact, I find myself in this argument with one or more male mathematicians every time I staff the AWM booth at a national meeting. But the sad truth is that the proportion of women students seeking math PhDs has declined in past years after a long run of increases. Representation among tenured and tenure-track faculty at top PhDgranting institutions is only 15% (Benkart, 2021). Most of the recent major prizes have been awarded to white men. And many studies show the range of ways in which men with similar qualifications to women and members of other minoritized genders are ranked higher (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; National Academy of Sciences, 2007). We should celebrate our victories, to be sure. There are far more women at conferences than when I was a fresh PhD. As of 2020, three AMS presidents have been women. A woman did win the Fields Medal and a few women have won other prominent awards as well. We should celebrate our victories, but we also notice that women of color are underrepresented in them, and that women as a whole still have substantial progress to make. We must continue to build and expand on the vision established for us 50 years ago. Those who think that math is equitable are encouraged to look at the data, talk to more colleagues from minoritized genders, read the #WomenInSTEM and #BlackInTheIvory twitter feeds. What’s next for AWM? One major effort will be to raise additional funding for the organization. Amazingly, AWM provides its vast array of programming—

1124

K. Leonard

Fig. 2 Kathryn Leonard and Cynthia Flores, AWM workshop luncheon, 2014 JMM, Baltimore, MD

including K–12 outreach, prizes for research and for mentoring, student chapters, special sessions at mathematics meetings (e.g., see Fig. 2), graduate student poster sessions, mentoring programs, and our newly launched research journal—with only 1.75 full-time employees. Most of the work is carried out by volunteers. Recently, comments about the exploitation of unpaid labor in academia have arisen. While those comments certainly have merit, the truth is that organizations serving minoritized groups, as AWM, NAM, and Spectra do for math, rely heavily on volunteers to do the sort of work often done by paid staff members in other organizations. We are working to increase charitable giving to our endowment, but donor relationships take time to build. Please consider donating time—however little—to AWM. Students might form AWM student chapters. Non-students might review for the Essay Contest or our new journal, La Matematica, run for a seat on the Executive Committee, or consider joining one of our standing committees. (Committees are listed on the AWM website, along with a form for self-nomination.) Consider making a financial contribution to AWM. Unrestricted donations might support operating costs or contribute to our endowment. Consider urging an institution to become a member of AWM. Another major AWM effort centers on broader inclusion and equity. In 2018, AWM commissioned a Diversity and Inclusion Task Force to understand and improve how AWM functions and to consider new initiatives that would promote inclusivity in the organization. The members of the task force—Fern Hunt, Herbert Medina, Kim Ayers, and Mary Gray—familiarized themselves with the organization and gathered input through surveys and interviews from AWM membership, AWM leadership, and the broader mathematical community, to inform its recommenda-

Creating A Place: Reflections of the 2021 AWM President-Elect

1125

tions. Themes from that input pointed to some groups with unmet needs, specifically women working outside academia; women in academia not at research-focused institutions; younger women; trans women and non-binary mathematicians; and women from ethnic and racial groups that are minoritized in the US. The task force made ten recommendations, including: (1) Work to diversify AWM leadership. (2) Work to diversify plenary speakers and prize winners. (3) Develop specific goals and metrics to determine progress. (4) Educate the AWM leadership and community around issues of diversity and equity. While we have made some progress in each of the ten recommendations, we have significant work left to do. Volunteers are needed—please reach out! Emailing the executive director or president can start a conversation about possible avenues for participation. We can’t know what the future will bring, though there are clear challenges on humanity’s horizon. But we can commit to building a mathematical community that is better in 50 years than it is today. The current generation gives me great hope— whereas I survived keeping my head down and being grateful for being allowed into the community, current students are demanding that we listen to what they need to thrive. We should listen, we should demand and contribute to a better system than the one we survived, we should think proactively about creating mathematical spaces where everyone can find their place. Join me and AWM in doing the hard work of shifting the heart of our culture toward warmth, openness, and support. Acknowledgments Like everyone who has found some success, I have only done so thanks to a wide range of support. The events described above could not have taken place without the generosity of friends in Albuquerque who shared what they could, Freedom High School, Pell grants and Stafford loans, 1990s tuition prices, the University of New Mexico, India Kitchen Restaurant, Carla Wofsy, Jay Epperson, Jeff Hoffstein, Alina Bucur, Michelle Manes, the Rose Whelan Society, Brown University, Jill Pipher, Cindy Wyels, Ivona Grzegorczyk, Kristin Lauter, and Erin Chambers. AWM itself only exists because of all those who have shared their precious time to further its mission, most especially those women from 50 years ago.

References Benkhart, Georgia, Kristin Lauter, and Sylvia Wiegand. 2021. AWM at 50 and beyond. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 68(3): 387–397. Moss-Racusin, Corinne A. et al. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109(41): 16474–16479. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2007. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/11741

Index

A Abel, Niels Henrik, 10, 107, 114, 152, 414–415, 651, 693, 718, 729, 1115 Acharya, Saraswati, 1073, 1076 Acosta, Ayleen, 265 Acosta, Denia, 265 Adams, John, 352 Addington, Susan, 608 Adem, Alejandro, 1100 Afflack, Ruth, 90 Afilal, Soumaya, 685, 686 Agarwal, Nikita, 1015–1027 Aggarwal, Gagan, 796 Agnesi, Maria Gaetana, 80, 328, 456 Aguiar, Izzy, 954 Ahmadi, Dora, 201 Ahmed, Sana, 244–245 Albert, Abraham Adrian, 346 Albrecht, Amie, 1048 Alder, Henry, 392 Alele-Williams, Grace Awani, 1052 Alexander, John W., 18, 674 Alexander, Stephanie, 905 Alexanderson, Gerald, 395, 476 Allen, Linda, 149 Allendoerfer, Carl B., 902 Alpert, Hannah, 400 Alvarez, Josefina, 96 Alvin, Lori, 268 Ameziane, Souad, 686 Amrani, Majda, 686 Anderson, Beverly, 663 Anderson, Jaclyn Kohles, 396 Anderson, Judy, 1045

Anderson, R.D., 135 Andreae, Peter, 709 Andreae, Phillip, 709 Anthony, Euthie, 485 Anthony, Patty, see Ashford, Patty Anthony Araujo, Carolina, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1106 Archer, Kassie, 858 Arenas, Paula, 1086 Aristotle, 741, 976 Armas, Tania de, 1090 Arnold, Douglas, 781 Arthur, Benjamin, 189 Arthur, James, 729, 730 Arthur, Penny, 729 Artin, Emil, 349 Artin, Michael, 667 Artstein-Avidan, Shiri, 997 Ascher, Marcia, 455 Ashford, Patty Anthony, 173 Astaburuaga, María Angélica, 1080 Athreya, Krishna S., 1024 Atiyah, Michael, 414 Auslander, Bernice, 79, 95 Ayers, Kimberly, 879, 1117, 1124 Ayoub, Christine, 135

B Bagley, Elizabeth, 612 Baglivo, Jenny, 104, 658 Bahlo, Melanie, 1044 Bailey, Honor, 252 Bajracharya, Shanti, 1068, 1076

© The Author(s) and The Association for Women in Mathematics 2022 J. L. Beery et al. (eds.), Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics, Association for Women in Mathematics Series 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1

1127

1128 Ball, Deborah Loewenberg, 496 Ball, John, 680 Ball, Rowena, 1047 Ballester, Concepción, 820 Banach, Stefan, 550, 851 Barcelo, Hélène, 782, 926 Bargagliotti, Anna, 581 Baribaud, Claire, 628 Barnes, Mabel, 98, 144 Barrera, Javiera, 1082, 1085, 1087, 1090 Barrett, Lida, 98, 103, 130–131, 148, 153, 379, 468, 472, 475, 663, 667 Barroso, Rafael Meireles, 1103 Barrow-Green, June, 1104 Bartlett, Dawn, 1045 Barton, Bill, 1098 Barucci, Valentina, 686 Basford, Kaye, 1045 Basor, Estelle, 782 Bass, Hyman, 449, 496 Basterra, Maria, 794, 1123 Batten, Lynn, 1048 Bauer, Kristine, 794 Bauman, Patricia, 95 Baur, Karin, 996 Bayer, Margaret, 123, 299, 490 Bayer-Fluckiger, Eva, 991, 993, 994, 1002 Bean, Nigel, 1048 Beck, Anatole, 26 Becker, Joanne Rossi, 574, 602 Becker-Santos, Daiana, 505 Bedekar, Prajakta, 944, 946 Beecher, Catharine, 572 Beechler, Barbara, 453, 456 Beers, Donna, 467 Beery, Janet, 124, 269, 756 Beichl, Isabel, 100 Beier, Julie, 269 belcastro, sarah-marie, 390 Beldotti, Jodi, 759, 784 Bellow, Alexandra, 72, 73, 91, 665 Benbachir, Amina, 685, 686 Benbow, Camilla, 356, 361–367, 372, 382, 507, 648, 750, 751 Benbow, Robert Michael, 365 Benkart, Georgia, 8, 123, 124, 479, 613–615, 622, 764, 765, 777–784, 794, 795, 813, 814, 816, 821, 823, 868, 906, 1103 Bennett, Curtis, 616 Bennett, Kristin, 762 Berger, Marsha, 115, 718 Bergman, George, 32 Bergman, Stefan, 718

Index Bergner, Julie, 185, 231 Berman, Elizabeth, 76, 136 Bernardi, Francesca, viii, 124, 929–931 Bernstein, Dorothy, 3, 90, 153, 464, 468 Berrouët, Catherine, 933–935, 938–941 Bers, Lipman, 4, 29, 78, 94, 722 Bertozzi, Andrea, 72, 172, 185, 683, 896 Bessenrodt, Christine, 628, 992, 1002 Beswick, Kim, 1045 Bezrukavnikov, Roman, 399 Bhargava, Manjul, 397, 399 Bhatta, Chet Raj, 1066 Bhawan, Sukunda Pustak, 1070 Bhullar, Jasmine, 946 Bibiane-Schönlieb, Carola, 992, 1000 Bicol, Kayla, viii, 124, 943, 944, 946 Bidwell, Len, 58 Bieri, Joanna, 257, 269 Billard, Lynne, vii, 427–436, 687 Binder, Christa, 279 Bing, R.H., 118, 359, 360 Birgen, Mariah, 269 Birman, Joan, 9, 85, 91, 103, 134, 249, 271–272, 376, 379, 821 Birman, Joseph, 249, 821 Blackwell, David, 797 Blake, Gwen, 334, 335 Bliss, Gilbert Ames, 94 Blum, Lenore, vi, ix, 3, 26, 39, 61, 71–110, 114, 130, 136, 187, 273, 302, 310, 370, 371, 379, 380, 527, 599, 618, 631, 638, 639, 657, 674, 676, 682, 716, 988 Blumenthal, Richard, 850 Boas, Harold, 169 Bôcher, Maxime, 718 Bodine, Erin, 780 Boersma, Stuart, 312 Boindala, Priya Shilpa, 780 Bokli, Vrushali, 770 Bombieri, Enrico, 95, 791 Bonfert-Taylor, Petra, 1100, 1101, 1105 Bonner, Jill, 348 Bora, Shreemayee, 1020 Bordag, Ljudmila, 628, 992 Borel, Armand, 93 Borg, Anita, 289, 291 Borkovitz, Debra, 496 Bourbaki, Nicolas, 27 Bourguignon, Jean-Pierre, 996 Boutin, Debra, 390 Bowen, Jen, 528 Bozeman, Sylvia, 104, 280, 303, 469, 643, 782, 796, 813

Index Braddy, Linda, 231 Bradley, Mary Elizabeth, 172, 183, 184 Brady, Dorothy, 740 Brandeau, Margaret, 663 Branner, Bodil, 96, 988, 989 Brayfindley, Eva, viii, 124 Brech, Christina, 1089 Breckinridge, Sophonisba, 345 Breit-Goodwin, Megan, 581, 614 Bremser, Priscilla, 614, 615 Brenner, Sheila, 84 Brenner, Susanne, 149, 153, 841 Bride, Shannon, 953–956 Bridger, Maxine, 311 Britto, Ruth, 393–394 Broadwater, Macey, 262 Broderick, Katelyn, 953, 954 Broman, Beth, 602 Brown, Stacy, 620 Brown, Viveka Borum, 614, 616 Brugh, Sherri, 310 Brunner, Regina Baron, 577 Bryant, Robert, 183, 391, 869 Bubar, Kate, 954, 955 Bucur, Alina, 771, 1125 Buffett, Warren, 478 Buford, Glenna, 269 Bunting, Mary Ingraham, 164, 367, 496, 561, 637 Burke, Meghan, 634 Burnett, Sarah Cassie, 930 Burroughs, Elizabeth, 613, 616 Burson, Hannah, 831, 832 Bush, George W., 499 Butler, Lynne, 72, 379

C Cachazo, Freddy, 393 Cahn, John, 95 Calderón, Alberto, 73 Calegari, Danny, 401 Callahan, Jacquie, 141 Cameron, Chelsae, 955 ˇ c, Sunˇcica, 727, 814, 945 Cani´ Canu, Helen Marion, 680 Cao, Kim-Anh Lê, 1044 Caprotti, Olga, 998 Caraiani, Ana, 399, 1004 Carney, Debra, 949 Carpenter, Jenna, 208, 617 Carr, Danielle, 172 Carss, Marjorie, 1045 Carter, Jimmy, 363

1129 Case, Bettye Anne, vi, 6, 43–45, 74, 127–155, 186, 187, 592, 593, 628, 634, 645, 658, 668, 676, 683, 704, 706, 709, 711, 714, 715, 780, 834, 835 Casey, Bob, 808 Cassamajor, Kailande, 262 Catlla, Anne, 269 Cawley, Elise, 72 Cecco, Arianna, 944 Cech, Erin, 1117 Ceci, Stephen, 869, 870 Celletti, Alessandra, 1000, 1002, 1004 Cerezo, Graciela, 292 Châtelet, Émilie du, 328, 329, 456 Chadha, Gita, 1018 Chakraborty, Basabi, 1018 Chambers, Erin, 798, 1125 Chan, Melody, 398 Chandra, Jagdish, 172 Chang, Alice, see Chang, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Rosemary, 104, 663 Chang, Sun-Yung Alice, 75, 103, 104, 153, 155, 379, 673, 835 Chapman, Sharon, 141 Chari, Vyjayanthi, 1019 Charney, Ruth, 9, 44, 45, 80, 83, 104, 106, 114, 153, 182, 186, 230, 532, 613, 616, 658, 779, 782, 785–788, 795–797, 800, 801, 806, 807, 812–815, 819, 822–824, 830, 836, 841, 851, 875, 910 Cheeger, Jeff, 178, 190 Chehade, Sarah, 944, 946 Chemla, Karine, 1004 Chen, Connie, 177 Chen, Hang, 190 Chen, Lily, 796 Chern, S.S., 675 Cherubini, Anna, 998 Chettih, Safia, 923 Chibnik, Lori, 261 Chichester, Fred, 69 Childress, Nancy, 269 Chisholm, Shirley, 136 Choi, Eunmi, 1013 Chomsky, Noam, 415 Choquet-Bruhat, Yvonne, 91 Chou, Ching-Shan, 43 Christ, Carol, 445 Christ, Lily, 348 Christensen, Alex Julia Hinojosa, 532–539 Christianson, Hans, 931 Chudnovsky, Maria, 398, 796 Chung, Fan, 379

1130 Clapp, Margaret, 345 Clarkson, Levinus, 319 Clelland, Jeanne Nielsen, 390–392 Clifford, William Kingdon, 346 Clinton, Bill, 682 Clinton, Chelsea, 21 Clutterbuck, Julie, 1032, 1033, 1048 Coble, A.B., 94 Cohen, Amy, 607, 609, 610, 612, 704, 709, 750 Cohen, I. Bernard, 450–451, 453, 456 Cohen, Moshe, 860 Cole, Frank Nelson, 902 Condon, Anne, 288 Conrad, Brian, 402 Conrey, Brian, 782 Consiglieri, Lidia, 1080 Conway, Jill Kerr, 444, 445 Conway, John H., 828 Cook, Pamela, 104, 153, 906 Cooke, Roger, 95 Coote, Michelle, 1042 Cordero, Minerva, 231, 581, 617 Corrales, Capi, 991, 992 Cortázar, Carmen, 1080, 1081 Cortez, M. Isabel, 1082, 1085–1087, 1090 Cory, Suzanne, 1043 Coste-Roy, Marie Françoise, 96 Cotwright-Williams, Carla, 858 Coupland, Mary, 1045 Courant, Richard, 189, 726 Cowen, Lenore, 178, 179 Cowling, Michael, 1031, 1048 Coxon, Pamela, 95 Cramer, Evin, 320 Crannell, Annalisa, 208, 233, 234 Crans, Alissa, 202, 210, 234, 235, 263, 490, 528, 965 Craven, Pam, 906 Croco, Suzanne, 255, 260 Cross, Patricia, 74, 102, 121, 652, 660–662, 759 Crowley, James, 831, 906 Crowley, Katherine, 528 Cruz, Roxana López, 1089 Cuellar, Dario, 1086 Curie, Marie, 253, 440 Curtis, Cynthia Louise, 390

D D’Agostino, Susan, 246 Dajani, Karma, 992 Daley, Muriel, 709, 710

Index Daly, Hope, 20, 74, 131, 668, 705 Dancis, Jerome, 183 Daneshkhah, Ashraf, 1103 Dani, S.G., 1018 Danielli, Donatella, 193–197 Darden, Christine, 864 Darden, Geraldine, 87, 136 Darken, Joanne, 31–33, 57, 59, 64 Dasgupta, Nanda, 1042 Daubechies, Ingrid, 8, 106, 107, 153, 664, 690, 796, 965, 995, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1099, 1108 David, Chantal, 800 Davidoff, Giuliana, 935 Davis, Annie, 594 Davis, Chandler, 18, 25–30, 75, 78, 114, 117, 130, 134, 309, 457, 725, 783, 835 Davis, Frances, 451 Davis, Martin, 95 Davis, Nancy, 588 Day, Dorothy, 17 Day, Kami, 411 Day, Muriel, 759 DeAlba, Luz, 296 Dean, Carolyn, 72 Delaigle, Aurore, 1044, 1048 DeLay, Dorothy, 398 Deming, W. Edwards, 902 Demlova, Marie, 992 Denjoy, Arnaud, 680 Descartes, René, 410 Despeaux, Sloan, 269 Deturck, Dennis, 95 Devadas, Sheela, 402 Devine, Nancy, 41 DeVos, Betsy, 849 Dewar, Jacqueline, 123, 580–582, 588, 589, 599, 609–617, 619–620, 622–623, 709, 711, 751 Diaconis, Persi, 391, 402 Dickenstein, Alicia, 1103, 1108 Dickson, L.E., 94, 396, 399 Diefenderfer, Caren, 312 Diener, Francine, 992 Dietz, Jill, 72, 173, 527 Dieudonné, Jean, 725 Diffie, Whitfield, 304 Dobrovolska, Galyna, 399 Dobson, Shanna, 236 Dodzuik, Jozef, 94, 95 Dolciani, Mary, 456, 488 Donaldson, Brianna, 269 Donaldson, James, 18, 19, 26, 278 Donovan, Elizabeth, 770

Index Dooley, Mike, 74 Dorfman, Florence, 346 Dorman, Karin, 297 Dougherty, Anne, 310 Douglas, Aaron, 168 Douglas, Lloyd, 47–48, 528, 644, 675 Douglas, Ronald, 373 Dresselhaus, Mildred, 274 Driessche, Pauline van den, 279 Drutu, Cornelia, 998 Dubinsky, Ed, 26, 747 Duchin, Moon, 930 Dudley, Richard, 20, 456 Dumitriu, Ioana, 248, 394 Dunn, Michelle, 503, 796 Dunnett, Agnes Mecklenberg, 681 Duren, William, 346 Dyer, Cindy, 121, 124

E Earhart, Amelia, 978 Earle, Cliff, 134 Eccles, Jacquelynne, 364 Edelman, Alan, 394 Edwards, Stephanie, 203, 204 Ehrenborg, Richard, 966 Einstein, Albert, 409 El Yacoubi, Nouzha, see Yacoubi, Nouzha El Elkhayyiri, Zahra, 686 Elkins, Judith Molinar, 60, 61, 135 Ellis, Wade, 474 Emerson, Gertrude, 978 Engle, Jessie Ann, 90 Engler, Hans, 95 Eodice, Michele, 411 Epp, Susanna, 875 Epperson, Jay, 1125 Epstein, Charles, 779, 906 Erd˝os, Paul, 403, 405, 415–418 Ernest, John, 487 Escher, Christine, 269 Español, Malena, 269 Esteban, Maria, 1103 Euclid, 409, 693 Euler, Leonhard, 368, 392 Ewing, John, 251, 475 Ezome, Tony, 1100, 1101

F Fagin, Ronald, 286 Fainsilber, Laura, 992

1131 Faires, Barbara, 475 Fajstrup, Lisbeth, 992, 996, 998, 1004 Falconer, Etta, 7, 87, 135, 139, 150, 228, 268, 455, 473, 488, 714, 819, 831 Faridi, Sara, 695, 1070 Farquhar, Douglas, 704 Farris, Frank, 782, 906 Fasanelli, Florence, 521 Fauci, Lisa, 153, 280 Fawcett, Phillippa, 998 Federer, Leslie, 104 Feigenbaum, Joan, 72, 477 Feit, Walter, 93, 414 Fen, Tan Rui, 571 Feng, Bo, 393 Fennema, Elizabeth, 362, 364 Ferrini-Mundy, Joan, 605–607, 821 Ferrucci, Steven, 175, 770, 833 Fields, John Charles, 9, 103, 107, 151–152, 336–339, 414, 415, 506, 718, 727, 728, 731, 733, 735–736, 782, 791, 813, 1018, 1095, 1123 Fintzen, Jessica, 797 Fischer, Ilse, 115, 997 Fisher, Naomi, 604–607, 623, 746 Fister, Renee, 709, 711 Fix, Miranda, 261 Flagg, Mary, 299, 945 Flegg, Jennifer, 1044 Flores, Consuelo, 96 Flores, Cynthia, 1124 Floyd, George, 895, 1117 Foldes, Antonia, 177, 187 Folio, Catherine, 377 Fonseca, Irene, 153 Ford, Lester, 441 Foucault, Michel, 410 Fowler, Kathleen, 805, 809 Fox, Jacob, 401 Fradkin, Alexandra Ovetsky, 398 Francis, Lesley Lee, 759 Franken, Al, 805, 847, 848, 877 Franklin, Johanna, 257–258, 269 Frei, Sarah, 924 Frenkel, Edward, 869 Friedan, Betty, 440, 445, 487 Friedlander, Susan, 146, 677 Friedrichs, Kurt, 337, 726 Frisch, Sophie, 686 Frucht, Roberto, 1079 Frye, Shirley, 643, 664 Fung, Inez, 782

1132 G Gaal, Lisl, 95 Gaff, Holly, 128, 593, 610, 732, 777, 778, 867, 879 Gage, Michael, 559 Gale, David, 361 Gallagher, Ann, 372 Gallagher, Isabelle, 998 Gallo, Lisa, 121 Galvin, Toni, 243–244, 268 Gamba, Irene, 146, 148, 178, 189 García-Huidobro, Marta, 1081 Garcia, Rebecca, 617 Garcia-Colin, Natalia, 1105 Garnett, Lucy, 94 Garrard, Neil, 1048 Garsia, Adriano, 412 Gates, Melinda, 478 Gauss, Carl Friedrich, 368 Gavosto, Estela, 185, 187, 188 Gaze, Eric, 313 Ge, Karen, 255, 260, 263 Gedeon, Katie, 927 Geiringer, Hilda, 332 Geller, Sue, vi, 161–170, 658, 682, 703, 704 George, Shanell, 189 Gerdes, Paulus, 455, 1051 Germain, Sophie, 19, 80, 86, 330, 346 Gerstenhaber, Murray, 59 Gethner, Ellen, 72 Ghatage, Pratibha, 30 Ghazaryan, Anna, vi, 503, 505 Ghosh-Dastidar, Bonnie, 906 Gibbons, Courtney, 207, 860 Gibbs, Josiah Willard, 818 Gillespie, Maria Monks, 400 Gillibrand, Kirsten, 805, 806 Gilliland, Kay, 94 Gilman, Jane, 94 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 321, 491, 706, 1121 Ginzburg, Victor, 399 Gionnet, Alice, 153 Girolami, Florida, 686 Glazman, Mary, 628 Gleason, Andrew, 103 Glen, Amy, 1032, 1035, 1048 Glenn, John, 487 Godbole, Rohini, 1018 Golbeck, Amanda, 439, 446 Goldberg, Lisa, 147, 279, 370 Goldin, Rebecca, 734, 870–872 Goldschmidt, David, 380 Goldstein, Cora Sol, 820 Goldstein, Daniel, 63, 64, 820

Index Goldwasser, Shafi, 103, 850 Golubitsky, Martin, 711, 729 Gong, Sherry, 401 Gong, Yanna, 261 Goodman, A.W., 349 Goodman, A. W., 350 Goodwin, James, 358 Goos, Merrilyn, 1045 Gorb, Yuliya, 943, 944 Gordon, Carolyn, 7, 95, 150, 174, 183, 267, 477, 609, 622, 713–719, 728, 730, 731, 734, 778, 1011 Gornet, Ruth, 173 Gottlieb, Sigal, 43, 798 Gould, Helen Day, 389 Gouvêa, Fernando, 311 Grötschel, Martin, 148 Grabiner, Judith, vi, 449–457 Grabiner, Sandy, 451, 452 Graham, Karen, 605 Graham, Ronald, 103, 476 Grandjot, Carlos, 1079 Granger, Leah, 319, 807 Granville, Andrew, 374 Granville, Evelyn Boyd, 78, 99, 100, 136, 452, 456 Graves, Reine, 869 Gray, Alfred, 16, 17, 26, 57, 58, 155, 914 Gray, Mary, 2, 15–23, 26–28, 31, 57–61, 63, 67, 73, 78–79, 81–83, 85–87, 89, 93, 117, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137, 155, 233, 271, 273, 303, 334, 336, 350, 355, 358–360, 362–364, 372, 375, 376, 379, 380, 427, 456, 463–464, 482, 491, 592, 600, 627, 628, 631, 634, 645, 663, 664, 670, 682, 717, 777, 778, 807, 841, 874, 876, 887, 906, 914, 979, 1117, 1124 Green, Gary, 280 Green, Judy, vi, 26, 33, 57–64, 73–75, 78, 88–89, 98, 117, 129, 134, 136, 137, 155, 606, 607, 639, 669, 744, 820 Green, Linda, 72, 390, 391, 658 Green, Paul, 26, 57–59, 63, 155, 820 Greengard, Leslie, 189 Greenhill, Catherine, 1044, 1048 Greenwald, Marsha, 980 Greenwald, Sarah, 123–125, 299, 490, 753, 756, 807, 811, 867, 869, 872 Gretencord, Sharon Ann Lozano, 394, 395, 404 Grey, Genetha, 503 Gross, Benedict, 661, 662 Grossman, Jerrold, 415

Index Grosz, Barbara, 664 Groth, Jens, 53 Gruis, Leslie, 687, 688 Grundman, Helen, 545–557 Grzegorczyk, Ivona, 1125 Gudermann, Christoph, 454 Guidy-Wandja, Joséphine, 96, 1056, 1061 Guionnet, Alice, 997 Gung, Yueh-Gin, 389 Gurski, Katharine, 280 Guth, Larry, 400

H H, Piper, 258 Haas, Ruth, vi, 10, 184, 185, 299, 404, 644, 770, 771, 819, 859, 908, 1115–1120 Habib, Amber, 1015–1027 Haensch, Anna, 811, 879 Haggerty, Julie, 262 Haiman, Mark, 400 Haimo, Deborah, see Tepper Haimo, Deborah Haimo, Franklin, see Tepper Haimo, Franklin Hajek, Bronwyn, 1037, 1048 Hakima, Najid-Zejli, 686 Hakosalo, Miilja-Riita, 72 Hale, Jessica James, 581 Hale, Patricia, 580, 581, 906 Hall, Joanne, 1032, 1033, 1037, 1048 Hall, Monty, 554 Hall, Peter, 1031 Halmos, Paul, 449, 476 Halmos, Virginia, 476 Hamm, Jessie, 503 Hammond, Janice, 663 Hamstrom, Mary Elizabeth, 85 Hanna, Gila, 663 Hans-Gill, Rajinda, 96 Hansen, Elaine, 274 Harding, Inés, 1080–1081 Harding, Nate, 297 Harper, John, 559 Harrell, Marvin, 496 Harris, Joe, 392 Harris, Pamela, 538, 753, 891, 965, 1117 Harrison, Jenny, 28, 180, 356, 369–371, 374–375, 378, 380–382, 749, 750 Harrison, Marguerite, 978 Harvey, Shelly, 795 Hauk, Shandy, 620 Haunsperger, Deanna, 72, 153, 203, 204, 480, 525–529, 797 Hawkins, Jane, 779

1133 Hay, Louise, 6, 68, 84, 94, 100–102, 104, 137, 274, 373, 469, 617, 641–643, 653, 660, 661, 664, 667, 714, 819 Hayden, Linda, 21 Hayes, Brian, 789 Haymaker, Katherine, 808 Haynes, Douglas, 185 Haynes, Martha Euphemia Lofton, 99 Hazel, Christy, 924 Hedrick, Earle Raymond, 401, 681 Heiligman, Deborah, 417 Heinen, Nikki, 262 Heisenberg, Werner, 409 Heller, Katherine, 614 Helson, Ravenna, 80 Henig, Tzipora, 247–248, 255, 260–261 Henríquez, Hernán, 1091 Heraclitus, 772 Herb, Rebecca, 103, 128 Herman, Richard, 63, 669 Hermiller, Susan, 187, 188 Hernandez, Ulysses, 189 Hersant, Jeanne, 1090 Hersh, Patricia, 906 Hewitt, Gloria, 87, 135, 587 Heyde, Christopher, 1044 Higgins, Aparna, 269 Higgins, Raegan, vii, 211–217, 797 Hilbert, David, 96 Hile, Cheryl, 172 Hill, Anita, 6, 446 Hill, Shirley, 3 Hille, Einar, 99, 452 Hines, Wendy, 682 Hinton, William, 27 Hironaka, Erico, 152 Hirsch, Charity, 380 Hirsch, Morris, 80, 380 Hoàng, Xuân Sính, 29, 84 Hobbs, Catherine, 1001 Hobbs, Stephen, 587, 588 Hoffstein, Jeff, 1125 Hogben, Leslie, 295–300, 419, 490, 821 Holden, Helge, 729, 730 Holder, Leanne, 263, 264 Holland, Kitty, 72 Holm, Tara, 871, 876 Hopf, Heinz, 337 Hopkins, Kimberly Spears, 398 Hopkins, Michael, 400 Hoppensteadt, Frank, 278 Hopper, Grace, 291, 292, 486 Horn, Ilana, 611, 612 Horn, Mary Ann, 42, 709

1134 Houlahan, Chrissy, 851 Houston, Johnny, 18, 674 Hove-Musekwa, Dorothy, 1056 Howell, Karin-Therese, 1042 Howle, Victoria, vii, 215, 242–243, 246, 247, 249, 269, 711 Hrabowski, Freeman, 290 Hsu, Pao-sheng, 587, 588, 593–595, 597, 599, 604–617, 619–620, 622–623, 709, 711, 750 Hu, Charles Y., 389 Hu, He-sheng, 96 Huang, Lan-Hsuan, 190 Huber-Klawitter, Annette, 998 Huffington, Arianna, 478 Hughes, Anthony, 642 Hughes, D.J., 449 Hughes Hallett, Deborah, 91 Hughes, Rhonda, 5, 73, 92, 94, 98–101, 104, 145, 280, 379, 526, 546, 576, 602, 627, 641–645, 649, 650, 652, 657, 658, 660, 661, 667, 688, 777, 780, 796, 813, 814, 821, 1011 Hull, T.E., 724 Humphrey, Ana, 114 Humphreys, M. Gweneth, 9, 63, 532, 559, 779, 819 Hunacek, Mark, 296 Huneke, Craig, 687, 688 Hunsicker, Eugenie, 1106 Hunt, Fern, vi, 98, 128, 261, 268, 277–281, 664, 732, 1117, 1124 Hutchinson, Joan, 29, 186, 852 Hypatia, 80, 242, 693, 976

I Idowu, Elayne, 87, 136 Idrissi, Anissa, 686 Infante, Nicole, 620 Inniss, Tasha, 212, 245–246 Ipsen, Ilse, 317 ipsey, Sally, 578 Iyer, Jaya, 1019

J Jabbusch, Kelly, 212 Jackson, Allyn, 102, 141 Jackson, Deborah, 1048 Jackson, Mary, 372, 373 Jackson, Trachette, 184, 185 Jacobs, Janis, 364 Jacobson, Nathan, 93, 296

Index Jaffe, Arthur, 690 Jain, Tanvi, 1020 James, Alex, 1048 James, R.C., 452 Jayaraman, Girija, 1019 Jenne, Helen, 924 Jensen-Vallin, Jacqueline, vi, 199–210 Jiménez, Leslie, 1082 Jochnowitz, Naomi, 559–564 Johannsen, Sheila, 80 John, Jessica, 250 Johnson, Eddie Bernice, 805, 806, 861, 1119 Johnson, Golden, 846 Johnson, Kiandra, 214 Johnson, Lyman T., 965 Johnson, Nancy, 94, 100 Johnson, Niles, 208 Johnson-Leung, Jennifer, 614, 615, 623 Jones, Burton W., 391 Jones, Eleanor, 87, 136–137, 658, 670 Jones, Vaughn, 103 Jordão, Thaís, 1103 Joseph, George Gheverghese, 455 Joshi, Nalini, 1023, 1032, 1035, 1038, 1042, 1044–1046, 1048, 1108 Joshi, Rachana, 1076 Jovovic, Mirjana, 310 Just, Ernest Everett, 454

K Kabba, Salah, 685 Kagunda, Josephine, 1100, 1101 Kahan, W.E., 724, 744 Kahrobaei, Delaram, 186, 187 Kalmbach, Gudrun, 96, 988 Kalmbach, Kelsey, 953, 955 Kaltenbacher, Barbara, 1004 Kang, Soon-Yi, 1011 Kant, Immanuel, 409 Kao, Chiu-Yen, 43 Kaplan, Janice, 789, 814 Kaplansky, Irving, 449 Kappmeyer, Kristin, 612–616 Karaali, Gizem, 417 Karp, Carol, 58 Karplus, Robert, 363 Kassel, Fanny, 1000 Kasten, Virginia, 500 Kasza, Jessica, 1045 Katan, Nechama, 177 Katok, Svetlana, 629, 762 Katz, Victor, 311 Kaufman, James, 372

Index Kaufman, Linda, 663 Kavanagh, Kathleen, 317–321 Keen, Linda, 4, 26, 73, 74, 78, 86, 90, 94–96, 103, 104, 187, 271, 379, 637–639, 642, 661, 722, 778 Keller, Evelyn Fox, 97 Kenelly, John, 476 Kenig, Carlos, 1100, 1101 Kennan, Elizabeth, 508 Kennedy, John Fitzgerald, 16 Kennedy, Joseph, 806 Kennedy, Stephen, 201, 526, 527, 688, 689 Kennedy, Ted, 363 Kenschaft, Lori, 586, 596, 642, 647–653, 759 Kenschaft, Patricia, 67, 87, 90, 103, 136, 167, 348, 580–582, 647, 719 Kerckhoff, Steven, 395 Kerr, Megan, 187, 188 Kessel, Cathy, vi, 8, 28, 123, 124, 128, 249, 366, 371, 372, 572, 573, 595, 608, 739, 608–756, 762–765, 777–779, 813, 869–872, 874, 907 Keyfitz, Barbara, 8, 9, 30, 68, 107, 123, 128, 146, 149, 155, 279, 506, 610, 711, 715, 721–737, 744, 752, 760, 762, 764, 777, 778, 781, 813, 814, 905 Keynes, Harvey, 663 Khanum, Rashida Adeeb, 1018 Kharroubi, Souad, 686 Khiyar, Khedija, 768, 829, 860 Kılıç-Bahi, Semra, 307–315 Kilmer, Misha, 245 Kim, Daewa, 944, 946 Kim, Wansoon, 779 Kime, Linda Almgren, 79 King, Alessandra, 259, 265 King, Hala, 614 King, Karen, 390, 455, 573, 613, 616 King, Martin Luther, 278, 461 Kirby, Robion, 359, 360 Kirkman, Ellen, 20, 293, 456, 794, 841, 874, 926 Kirkpatrick, Kay, 396, 397 Kirkwood, Julieta, 1084 Kirwan, Frances, 992, 997 Klawe, Maria, 103, 104, 274, 283–293, 379 Klee, Victor, 464 Klein, Felix, 62, 679, 1004, 1045 Klein, Robert, 616 Klivans, Caroline, 395, 396 Klotz, Eugene, 296 Knecht, Amanda, 212 Knight, Genevieve, 500, 698, 711 Koblitz, Ann Hibner, 29, 95, 97, 95–97

1135 Koblitz, Neal, 29, 745 Koetz, Matt, 268 Kolda, Tamara, 100, 223, 242, 293, 502, 612, 691, 703, 709 Kolmogoroff, Andrey, 337, 338 Kopell, Nancy, 26 Korten, Marianne, 178, 179, 183–185 Kotani, Motoko, 1100, 1101 Kovalevskaia, Sofia, see Kovalevsky, Sonia Kovalevsky, Sonia, vii, 5, 7, 21, 29, 38, 80–81, 86, 95, 102, 104, 113, 149–150, 220, 221, 228, 257, 267, 330, 374, 440, 469, 471, 476, 489, 495–499, 516, 583, 607, 610, 637, 638, 651, 663, 676, 679, 693, 705, 711, 714, 749, 797, 819, 826, 830, 831, 960–962, 1090 Kowalsky, Nadine, 310 Kra, Bryna, 143–144, 174, 175, 876 Kra, Irwin, 94, 143–144 Kranzer, Herbert, 726 Kreinberg, Nancy, 91 Kremer, Darla, viii Krener, Arthur, 400 Krishna, Riya, 861 Kubjas, Kai, 992 Kunyosying, Suda, 576, 577, 602, 603 Kuo, Frances, 1044 Kuperberg, Krystyna, 128, 146, 147, 732 Kuske, Rachel, vi, 173, 502–503, 505, 609, 711 Kutler, Max, 923 Kutnar, Klavdija, 996 Kuznetsova, Olga, 998

L Lührmann, Jonas, 413 Labarca, Rafael, 1091 Lacourly, Nancy, 1080 Ladd-Franklin, Christine, 346, 347 LaDuke, Jeanne, 62, 73, 93, 98, 129, 744 Ladyzhenskaya, Olga, vii, 145–147, 151, 337–339, 690, 1096, 1108 Lahme, Brigitte, 616 Lai, Yvonne, 582, 616, 620 Laison, Diane, 26, 59, 135 Laison, Gary, 26 Lakshminarayanan, Gitanjali, 253 Lalli, Laura Tedeschini, 990, 991, 996, 1012 Lam, Wai-Ting, 249 Lamb, Evelyn, 222 Landau, Susan, vii, 301–305 Lander, Eric, 871 Landman, Kerry, 1044, 1048

1136 Landry, Aubrey Edward, 94, 99 Langevin, Elizabeth, 264 Langlands, Robert, 399 Lanier, Justin, 259 Lantonkpode, Fifonsi, 189 Lanzani, Loredana, 223 Lappan, Glenda, 606, 691 Laptev, Ari, 999, 1003, 1098 Larson, Hannah, 402 Latimer, Claiborne, 92 Lau, Anthony To-Ming, 285 Lauderdale, Lindsey-Kay, 858 Laurent, Monique, 1103 Lauter, Estella, 791 Lauter, Kristin, 9, 126, 228–230, 232–235, 419, 615, 619, 622, 779, 781, 787, 789, 787–816, 819, 823, 824, 826, 827, 829, 831, 840, 841, 848, 856, 859, 877, 879, 880, 882–884, 935, 1098, 1116, 1123, 1125 Lawrence, Emille, vi, 503 Lawson, Blaine, 190 Lax, Anneli, 488, 722 Lax, Peter, 725, 729, 735 Layne, Adam, 927 Leahey, Erin, 802 Leakey, Mary, 978 Lebesgue, Henri, 681 Lebiedzik, Catherine, 710 Leboy, Phoebe, 902, 907 Leder, Gilah, 1045 Lee, Barbara, 808 Lee, Eileen, 612–614, 616 Lee, Eunjeong, 1010 Lee, Heisook, 779 Lee, Hyangsook, 1011 Lee, Susan, 310 Leggett, Anne, viii, 6, 74, 82, 113, 114, 117–125, 132, 368, 580, 588, 592, 593, 645, 661, 668, 676, 683, 699, 704, 709, 711, 714, 715, 736, 778, 780, 809, 811, 834, 872, 926 Lehmer, Emma, 439 Lehr, Marguerite, 93 Leiderman, Karin, 949 Leise, Tanya, 146, 186, 875 Leiterman, Terry Jo, 746 Leitzel, Joan, 187, 188 Lenhart, Suzanne, 7, 119, 155, 318, 351, 573, 580, 588, 590, 593, 608–612, 622, 688, 709–711, 750, 751, 834, 906 Leonard, Kathryn, 187, 197, 794, 795, 798, 1121–1125 Leonard, Walter, 360

Index Leschke, Katrin, 998 Lester, Cindy, 923 Letzter, Gail, vi, 796, 807, 808, 846, 849, 856, 865–867, 877, 878, 880–893 Leveson, Nancy, 288, 291 Levin, Mariana E. (Campbell), 396 Levine, Margo, 594 Levy, Rachel, 417, 864 Lewis, Heather, vii, 253, 254, 257, 269 Lewis, Jennifer, 128, 184, 731, 732, 752, 760–762, 764, 765, 833, 837 Lewis, W. James, 682, 683 Li, Aihua, 310 Li, Jing Rebecca, 393 Li, Wen-Ching (Winnie), 830 Licata, Joan, 1037 Lien, Magnhild, 43, 44, 202, 230, 231, 521, 612, 760, 765, 767, 787, 788, 795–797, 801, 802, 806, 807, 811, 812, 815, 817–820, 823, 827, 829, 831–834, 836–841, 875, 884, 926, 1098, 1104 Lim, Clara, 588 Lindner, Charles, 462 Ling, Barbara, 703 Linke, Irina, 1106 Linn, Marcia, 748, 751 Lipponen, Marjo, 992 Lipsey, Sally, 93, 123, 571, 572, 576, 602, 575–604, 623 Liu, Daphne, 299 Lockhart, Deborah, 72, 74, 167, 172, 796 Lockwood, Elise, 620 Loepp, Susan, 269 Logsdon, Mayme, 345 Longyear, Judith, 90 Lorch, Lee, 18, 26–29, 84, 87, 114, 117, 130, 136, 137, 457, 643, 783, 784 Lord, Harriet, 59, 64 Lorenzen, Kate, 297, 299 Lott, Dawn, 167, 183 Lovin, LouAnn, 616 Loving, Marissa Kawehi, 241, 258–259, 264 Lowenstern, Edith Rita, 1030 Lozada, Maria, 254–255 Lozano, Maria, 96 Lu, Jiang-Hua, 72 Lucas, Harry, 479 Luce, Clare Booth, 401 Luitel, Kabita, 1068, 1074 Luitel, Sarala, 1076 Lukina, Olga, 998 Luse, Kerry, 859 Lyle, Thomas Ranken, 1044

Index M Ma, Liping, 748 Mac Lane, Saunders, 83, 449, 450 MacGillivray, Helen, 1045 Mackey, George, 560 Macki, Jack, 284 MacLachlan, Anne, 756 MacWilliams, F. Jessie, 86, 91, 136, 138 Madden, Kathleen, 310, 787 Maenhaut, Barbara, 1032, 1037, 1048 Magley, Vicki, 770 Mahoney, Carolyn, 344, 588 Mahoney, Mary, 134 Major, Diana, 72 Majumdar, Apala, 1024 Maki, Daniel, 617 Malagon, Audrey, 212 Malcom, Shirley, 508, 590, 796 Malek-Madini, Reza, 172 Mallion, Patricia, 136 Malmskog, Beth, 233, 808, 856, 859, 884, 885 Malone-Mayes, Vivienne, see Mayes, Vivienne Malone Mandiola, Marcela, 1085, 1086, 1090 Manes, Michelle, 197, 299, 490, 794, 798, 1125 Manning, Cammey Cole, 43, 765, 780 Manning, Kenneth, 454 Manuel, Mariam, 216 Marais, Simon, 1038 Marano, Lisa, 236 Marchand, Susan Gordon, 348 Markwig, Hannah, 1000 Marrongelle, Karen, 595, 611, 614 Marsden, Jerrold, 375, 727 Martínez, Salomé, 1087, 1103 Martelli, Mario, 642 Martin, Danny Bernard, 748 Martinez, Cleopatria, 183 Martinez, Emmanuel, 260 Massera, José Luis, 19 Mast, Maura, 187, 188, 201, 299, 313, 490, 619, 715, 732, 779, 907 Matchett, Margaret, 740 Matoff, Noel, 1086 Matomäki, Kaisa, 1004 Mattai, Nan, 252–253 Matthews, Chris, 1047 Mattison, Kate Gruher, 397 May, Elebeoba, 41–46 May, Jennifer, 944 Mayboroda, Svitlana, 797, 820 Mayer, Maria Goeppert, 441

1137 Mayes, Vivienne Malone, 85, 87, 98–99, 135–136, 784 Mayfield, Betty, 230, 231, 233, 234, 859,906 Mazur, Barry, 392, 564 McBay, Shirley, 461, 464 McCarthy, Eugene, 22 McCarthy, Joseph, 19 McCarthy, Maeve, 123, 751, 752, 760, 763–766, 770–772, 777, 905, 926 McDaniel, Emily, 829 McDonald, Gerard, 120, 121, 124, 155, 588 McDougal, Jan, 264 McDuff, Dusa, 103, 153, 628, 673, 689, 926 McKee, Ruth Stauffer, 92–93, 140 McKellar, Marie, 477 McKinney, Alexandra, 242–244, 255, 258, 259, 268 McKinnie, Kelly, 269 McMahon, Elizabeth, 167, 269 McMullen, Curtis, 152 McNamara, Allason, 1045 McNulty, George, 745 Mead, Margaret, 368, 978 Medina, Herbert, 1117, 1124 Mehlberg, Henryk, 442 Mehlberg, Josephine, 442 Mehr, Ramit, 292 Melcher, Tai, 221, 783, 828 Mendelson, Dana, 412, 413 Mendez, Edith Prentice, 496 Menger-Anderson, Kirsten, 416 Mengersen, Kerrie, 1039, 1045, 1048 Merkel, Angela, 415 Merrill, Kathy, 677 Merrill, Winifred Edgerton, 99 Merritt, Adele, 796 Merzbach, Uta, 62, 93, 450 Mescon, Michael, 461 Mese, Chikako, 186 Meservey, Sabra Follett, 450 Mesirov, Jill, 5, 73, 74, 80, 102–104, 121, 141, 379, 391, 642, 643, 657–662, 667, 668, 670, 673, 781, 785 Metcalf, Heather, 913–914 Metcalf-Burton, Jesse, 864 Meza, Juan, 906 Mezzetti, Emilia, 1002 Miao, Pengzi, 190 Michalowicz, Karen Dee, 496, 609 Michelow, Jaime, 1080 Michler, Gerhard, 716, 734 Michler, Ruth, 8, 716, 731, 734, 818, 819, 821 Mientka, Walter, 698 Mihaljevic-Brandt, Helena, 995

1138 Mikenberg, Irene, 1080, 1091 Miller, Alison, 399 Miller, Judith, 310 Milnor, Tilla, 78, 94, 95, 135, 722 Min, Misun, 43 Minicozzi, Bill, 178 Minkoff, Sue, 43 Minot, Ariana, 797 Mirzakhani, Maryam, vii, 9, 107, 152, 272, 338, 339, 402, 718, 782, 826, 1018, 1037, 1061, 1072, 1090, 1095, 1097, 1103, 1108, 1111 Mishma, Yukio, 869 Mitrea, Irina, 220, 221, 783, 828, 926, 965 Mittag-Leffler, Gösta, 330 Moeglin, Colette, 103 Moffitt, Charles Andrew, 245–246 Moholy-Nagy, László, 441 Moir, Margaret Barr, 1030 Montee, MurphyKate, 401 Montgomery, Aaron, 312 Montgomery, Susan, 90, 104, 379, 794, 814, 878 Moore, Calvin, 743 Moore, Elizabeth, 255 Moore, Helen, 28, 146, 183, 721, 728 Moore, Nancy, 728 Moore, R.L., 462, 479 Moran, Judith, 312 Moran, Patrick Alfred Pierce, 1044 Morawetz, Cathleen, 78, 82–85, 91, 103, 137, 138, 142, 148, 153, 177, 189, 190, 279, 376, 379, 445, 446, 471, 689, 722, 725, 734–736, 851, 1096 Morey, Susan, 293 Morgan, Augustus De, 680 Morgan, Brennie, 400, 401, 404 Morgan, Frank, 400, 401, 404, 779, 906 Morgan, Katrina, 930, 931 Morley, Frank, 94 Morley, Mary, 580, 581 Morris, Caty, 1047 Morris, Kirsten, 807 Morris, Vernon, 890 Morrow, Charlene, 509, 521 Morrow, James, 509 Morse, Jennifer, 269 Mosharafa, Ali Mostafa, 1051 Moskol, Ann, 603 Moufang, Ruth, 86 Moyo, Sibusiso, 1056 Mrowka, Tomasz, 401 Muckenhoupt, Benjamin, 487 Mukherjee, Bhramar, 256

Index Munday, Sara, 1004 Munroe, Margaret, 104, 649 Murphy, Gail, 288 Murphy, Michael, 288 Murphy, Teri-Jo, 608 Murray, Margaret, 123, 129 Murray, Patty, 805 Musso, Monica, 1082 Mutuku, Winifred, 1056 Muyskens, Judy, 312 Myers, Anae, 933–935, 937–941 Myers, Perla, 753 Myerscough, Mary, 1044 Myung, Hyo Chul, 1008

N Näätänen, Marjatta, 991, 994 Nadella, Satya, 291 Nanayakkara, Priyanka, 263 Nance, Kara, 692, 693 Narayanaswamy, Indira, 1024 Nash, John, 409, 414 Nataraj, Neela, 1016, 1018, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1106 Ndiaye, Fagueye, 1056 Neˇcasová, Šárka, 1024 Nearey, Beatrice, 699 Negishi, Aiko, 96 Nelson, Bill, 850 Nelson, Donna, 717 Nelson, Robin, 175, 833 Nesbitt, Martha, 104 Neugebauer, Otto, 1004 Neumann, Hanna, 1030, 1032, 1042, 1048 Neumann, John von, 741 Nevanlinna, Rolf, 415 Newson, Mary Winston, 62 Newton, Isaac, 409 Ng, Michele, 288 Nguyen, Duong, 943, 944, 946 Nguyen, Giang, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1048 Nguyen, Hien, 297 Nguyen, Hoa, 43 Nguyen, Kate, 944 Nichols, Marianne, 97 Nickerson, Susan, 611, 613 Nightingale, Florence, 19, 571 Niles, Blair, 978 Nirenberg, Louis, 414 Niven, I., 277 Nobel, Alfred, 253, 409, 415, 441, 723, 1045 Nobel, Leigh, 184 Noether, Amalie Emmy, see Noether, Emmy

Index Noether, Emiliana, 86, 93 Noether, Emmy, 4–6, 9, 20, 38, 72, 85, 86, 91–93, 102, 114, 134, 136, 138, 140, 147, 148, 150, 151, 166, 221, 227, 229, 242, 274, 331, 332, 347, 368, 455, 467, 576, 593, 627, 634, 638, 642, 651, 664, 665, 668, 690, 714, 753, 818, 819, 830, 878, 896, 1096, 1108, 1117 Noether, Gottfried, 93 Noh, Sunsook, 1098 Nordgren, Eric, 309 Nowalski, Mary Glazman, see Glazman, Mary

O Obama, Barack, 870 Obama, Michelle, 302, 811 Obi, Chike Edozien Umuezei, 1051 O’Brien, Tracy, 759 Ogbu, John, 748 Oh, Hee, 779 Oh, Minah, 234 O’Keefe, Christine, 1039, 1044 Okikiolu, Kate, 677 Olds, C.D., 277 O’Leary, Diane, 706 Oleinik, Olga, 145–146 Olsen, Cathy, 30 Omana, Rebecca Walo, 1056 O’Neil, Cathy, 392, 789 Ono, Ken, 396 Orellana, Rosa, 256–257 Ortega, Omayra, 503, 1116 Ortiz, Vanessa, 189 OShaughnessy, Jessica, 503 O’Shea, Donal, 519 Osofsky, Barbara, 84 Ott, Katharine, vii, 212, 219–225, 269, 783, 828, 963 Ouedraogo, Marie Françoise, 995, 1018, 1051–1052, 1056–1058, 1061, 1098 Ovando, Gabriela, 1089 Owen, David, 372 Owens, Kate, 212 Owens, Robyn, 1048 Ozman, Ekin, 1100, 1101

P Pacheco-Tallaj, Natalia, 403 Pacifico, Maria Jose, 96 Padmavati, B. Sri, 1023

1139 Page, Larry, 415 Palais, Eleanor, 79, 93 Palais, Richard, 95 Palmer, Alice Freeman, 647 Palomba, Rossella, 996 Palta, Mari, 906 Paolucci, Catherine, 770 Pappalardi, Francesco, 694, 695, 1070 Paris, Francesca, 255–256, 258, 260, 267 Paris, Lu, 241, 258–259, 264 Park, Geun-hye, 1108 Park, Hyungju, 1011 Park, Kyewon Koh, 779, 1008–1009, 1011, 1018 Parks, Rosa, 446 Pascovici, Dana, 392 Passananti, Josephine Lauter, 792 Passananti, Joyce Lauter, 792 Pathak, Sushmita, 1076 Paudel, Madhav, 1069 Paudel, Tara, 1076 Paycha, Sylvie, 992, 1000, 1002, 1018, 1086 Payne, Kevin, 189 Payne-Scott, Ruby, 1044 Pearson, Melinda, 1048 Pearson, Michael, 236, 831 Pecha, Amina, 1106 Peirce, Benjamin, 399 Pelloni, Beatrice, 1002, 1004, 1018 Peluse, Sarah, 402 Pendakur, Sumun, 188 Penington, Catherine, 1037 Perišiˇc, Dušanka, 995, 1002, 1099 Perl, Teri, 86 Perlman, Itzhak, 398 Perlstadt, Marci, 94 Perrin-Riou, Bernadette, 72 Perronnet, Clémence, 1082 Pershell, Karoline, 216, 223, 236, 760, 766–772, 829, 856, 859, 888–891, 926, 1117 Perso, Thelma, 1045 Petzold, Linda, 279, 797 Pevtsova, Julia, 1101 Piaget, Jean, 508 Piazza, Adriana, 1082, 1085, 1087, 1090 Piazza, Paolo, 190 Picarte, Ramón, 1087 Piehl, Natalie, 581 Piene, Ragni, 989 Pierce, Lillian, 124 Pignataro, Thea, 95 Pillis, Lisette de, 185 Pina, Penny, 131

1140 Pinker, Steven, 751 Pipher, Jill, 9, 72, 83, 106, 114, 153, 155, 184, 185, 187, 480, 718, 764, 778, 781, 782, 795, 796, 810, 813, 819, 820, 823, 828, 829, 841, 851, 870, 871, 965, 1115, 1125 Pippenger, Lynn, 252 Pippenger, Nicholas, 286, 289, 290 Pisanski, Tomaz, 996 Pistoia, Angela, 992 Plastiras, Joan, 81 Plato, 741 Platt, John Rader, 450 Pless, Vera, 85, 90, 135, 136, 246, 274, 641, 762 Poiani, Eileen, 74, 299, 485–491, 982 Pokharel, Anjana, 1074 Polini, Claudia, 293 Polito, Jessica, 390 Polking, John, 98 Pollak, Henry, 488 Pollatsek, Harriet, 518, 611–614, 616, 617, 619 Poltavchenko, George, 881 Pólya, George, 235, 236, 747, 902 Ponce-Dawson, Silvina, 1104 Popejoy, Alice, 907 Poplin, Mary, 367 Porter, Beth, 576, 577 Porter, Gerald, 392, 873 Porter, Judith, 392 Portnoy, Neil, 608, 609 Pour-El, Marian, 78, 80 Praeger, Cheryl, 1030–1037, 1044, 1045, 1048, 1100, 1105, 1108 Pramanik, Malabika, 1039 Pratt, Kenneth, 453 Previato, Emma, 95 Price, Candice, 202 Pries, Rachel, 792, 815, 824 Pugh, Mary, 172 Purcell, Jessica, 395, 1044, 1048 Purcell, Jessica Shepherd, 395 Putnam, Elizabeth, 392, 394, 399, 868–869 Putnam, William Lowell, 21, 248, 393, 394, 397, 399, 562, 868–869, 1039 Q Qian, Minping, 628 Quarteroni, Alfio, 736 Quine, Jack, 134, 141–142, 146 Quinn, Diane, 868

Index Quinn, Grace Shover, 92–93 Quinn, Jennifer, 153, 174, 751, 760–763, 771–772, 841 Quinones, Vanessa Rivera, 831, 832 R Radopadhyye, Shubbe, 172 Radunskaya, Ami, 10, 175, 184, 185, 197, 210, 214, 216, 480, 620, 644, 770, 771, 797, 807, 813, 815, 819, 837, 849, 856, 859, 881, 882, 888, 889, 891, 897, 926, 935, 965, 1039, 1040, 1116, 1117, 1123 Rainich, G.Y., 99 Ralston, James, 361 Ramadorai, Sujatha, 1024, 1098 Ramagge, Jacqui, 1044, 1048 Ramamurti, Sita, 859 Ramaswamy, Mythily, 253 Ramdorai, Sujatha, see Ramadorai, Sujatha Randol, Burton, 95 Rankin, Sam, 690 Rao, Asha, 1032, 1033, 1044, 1045, 1048 Raphael, Louise, 98 Rasmussen, Chris, 620 Ratcliff, Gail, 674, 683, 706 Ratner, Marina, 96, 360, 369, 371, 378, 380–382, 690, 744 Ratti, J.S., 349 Readdy, Margaret, 673, 966 Reed, Joylyn, 462 Reed, Michael, 663 Rees, Mary, 103 Rees, Mina, 78, 333–335 Rees, Sarah, 998 Rehmeyer, Julie, 869 Reid, Constance, 95, 123, 139–140, 674, 734 Reinhart, Carolyn, 297, 299 Reinhart, Ginny, 759 Resek, Diane, 91 Resmerita, Elena, 992 Rewerts, Sharon, 588 Reyes, Barbara, 613 Rezakhanlou, Fraydoun, 396 Rhodes, John, 80 Rice, Barbara, 377 Richards, Don, 644 Richardson, Alicia, 261, 268 Richardson, Pam, 528 Rickey, Fred, 311 Ride, Sally, 478 Riehm, Elaine, 735, 736

Index Río, M. Isabel del, 1087 Rippon, Gina, 995 Rivers, Jacqueline, 663 Roane, Evelyn, 87, 136 Robbins, David P., 115 Roberts, Catherine, 150, 167, 171–175, 480, 688, 715, 761 Robinson, Angela, 933, 934, 936–937, 939–941 Robinson, Ann Marsh, 368 Robinson, Julia, 3–5, 39, 78, 80, 83, 90, 91, 95–96, 103, 123, 133, 138–140, 144, 145, 152, 153, 178, 332, 369, 439, 467, 468, 473, 633, 673, 674, 683, 734, 744, 851 Robinson, Margaret, 268, 269 Roby, Thomas, 125, 614, 615, 617, 623 Rodríguez, Rubi, 1081 Rodriguez, Amanda, 189 Rodriguez-Villegas, Fernando, 398 Rogers, Diana, 717 Rogers, Pat, 663 Rohe, Ludwig Mies van der, 441 Roitman, Judith, vi, 3, 26, 37–40, 61, 62, 73, 74, 81, 82, 88–91, 103–104, 113–115, 117, 118, 133, 134, 136, 138, 273, 367, 368, 376, 377, 379, 590, 591, 605–608, 631, 744, 756 Rojas, Anita, 1083, 1085 Romano, Beth, 797 Romanowska, Anna, 989, 992, 994 Rosamond, Frances, 587–589, 709 Roshchina, Vera, 1044 Ross, Barney, 441 Rossi, Alice, 979 Rossi, Hugo, 72, 378 Rossiter, Margaret, 89, 129, 332, 350, 356, 452, 976, 982 Rothschild, Linda, 73, 79, 94, 271, 605, 618, 631–635, 637, 683 Rotman, Regina, 177 Rotthaus, Christel, 73, 103 Rousseau, Christiane, 1105, 1108 Roy, Marie-Françoise, 74, 707, 988, 992, 998, 1003, 1018, 1052, 1058, 1063, 1070, 1098–1101, 1104, 1105 Royal, Jennifer, 269 Rudin, Mary Ellen, 39, 78, 85, 91, 104, 135, 138, 310, 377 Ruskai, Mary Beth, 28, 97, 365–369, 377–379, 456, 659 Russell, Heather, 231, 1116 Ryan, Louise, 1044, 1045, 1048

1141 S Sadosky, Cora, 6, 9, 18, 63, 64, 94, 114, 144, 155, 172, 309–310, 372, 374, 379, 668, 670, 671, 675, 684, 713, 781, 783, 797, 801, 813, 820 Sadosky, Corina Ratto de, 144 Sáez, Mariel, 1083, 1085–1087, 1090 Sagan, Carl, 415 Saha, Dipanwita, 945 Saint-Raymond, Laure, 718 Saks, Stanisław, 680 Salerno, Adriana, 807, 811, 879 Salleb-Aouissi, Ansaf, 264 Sally, Judith, 93, 145 Sally, Paul, 663 Salzberg, Pablo, 1080 Sami, Ruth, 104 Sample, Christine, 269 Samuelson, Stan, 523 Sánchez-Vinuet, Tonatiuh, 189 Sander, Evelyn, 856, 859 Sanders, Lucinda, 291 Sandler, Bernice, 436 Sanhueza, Nicolás, 1086 Sans-Solé, Marta, 1004 Santamaria, Lucia, 995 Santosa, Fadil, 794 Sarkar, Shahana, 255, 258, 265–267 Sarnak, Peter, 274 Sather-Wagstaff, Sean, 879 Satter, Ruth Lyttle, 103, 107, 274 Saunders, Bonita, 262 Saunders, Bonnie, 746 Sawer, Marian, 1048 Sawyer, W.W., 277 Saxe, Karen, 805–808, 845–853, 856, 877, 883–886, 888 Scanlon, Jane Cronin, 78, 91, 95 Scealy, Janice, 1044 Schafer, Alice, vii, 2, 5, 17, 18, 27, 61, 63, 72, 73, 79, 83–85, 87, 89, 93–95, 99, 102, 114, 117, 118, 129–130, 137, 140, 141, 145, 150, 171, 271, 310, 343–352, 362–364, 372, 379, 389–404, 459, 469, 473, 521, 527, 587–589, 591–592, 596, 604, 605, 627, 628, 631, 641–643,645, 658, 661, 664, 669, 674, 682, 683, 706, 709, 714, 780, 781, 813, 819, 821, 826 Schafer, Richard, 591, 597 Schattschneider, Doris, 852 Schaufele, Christopher, 470

1142 Scheidler, Renate, 792, 800, 815, 824 Schilke, Anna, 264 Schlözer, Dorothea, 679 Schlafly, Phyllis, 713 Schmelz, Joan T., 874, 875 Schmidt, Brian, 1045 Schnabel, Robert, 291 Schneider, Lisa, 234 Schoen, Richard, 190 Schoenfeld, Alan, 396, 747 Schot, Joanna Wood, 675, 676, 759 Schumacher, Carol, 207 Schumacher, Samantha, 262 Schumer, Charles, 850, 852 Schwartz, Susan, 72 Schwarzer, Theresa, 980 Sciriha, Irene, 992 Scott, Charlotte Angas, 94, 647 Scott, Dana, 449 Scott, Elizabeth, 80, 427, 436, 439, 444 Scott, Gwendolyn, 215 Scott, Sherry, 212 Scott, Susan, 1045, 1048 Seaton, Katherine, 1048 Seberry, Jennifer, 96 Seelbach, Marijean, 86, 136 Seely, Caroline, 335 Segal, Irving Ezra, 449 Segal, Rebecca, 261 Selden, Annie, 608 Sells, Lucy, 487 Selmane, Schehrazad, 1056 Selvin, Paul, 379, 381 Senechal, Marjorie, vi, 439–446 Sergel, Emily, 412 Series, Caroline, 79, 96, 988, 989, 1000, 1002, 1012, 1098, 1099, 1104, 1105 Serre, Jean-Pierre, 790, 791 Seshaiyer, Padhu, 711 Seymour, Dale, 585 Shah, Leena, 248 Shah, Riddhi, 1016, 1018 Shaheen, Jeanne, 850 Shakespeare, William, 546 Shakya, Bindra Devi, 1076 Shapiro, Helene, 279 Sharma, Divya, 861 Shaw, Mei-Chi, 72, 718 Shaw, Run Run, 718 Sheil, Margaret, 1048 Shelby, Gertrude, 978 Sherif, Soraya, 1052 Sherin, Miriam Gamoran, 748 Shetterly, Margot Lee, 332, 863, 864

Index Shinbrot, Marvin, 26 Shirai, Sora, 267–268 Shrestha, Goma, 1076 Shrestha, Ram Man, 1066, 1069, 1070 Shu, Chi-Wang, 565–568 Shub, Michael, 95 Shubin, Tatiana, 456 Shultz, Marjorie, 370, 750 Sia, Charmaine, 400 Sibner, Lesley, 78, 95, 657, 722 Siegel, Martha, 395, 475, 906 Siemon, Di, 1045 Silber, Mary, 634 Silverberg, Alice, 49–53, 123, 456 Silverman, Ruth, 77 Silvia, Evelyn, 93, 134, 348, 574, 602 Simens, Jackie, 956 Simmons, Ruth, 445 Simon, Barry, 98 Simper, Mackenzie, 402 Simpson, John, 450 Sims, Aidan, 1049 Sinaiko, Herman, 450 Singer, Isadore, 83, 414 Singer, Stephanie, 20 Singh, Ajaya, 694, 1070 Sklar, Abe, 442 Slaughter, Jacob, 256–257 Sliffe, Edyth May, 590 Smale, Stephen, 26, 80, 380 Small, Lynne, 98 Smith, Karen, 153 Smith, Kay, 606 Smith, Martha, 86, 104, 123, 155 Smith, Sophia, 10, 62 Smith-Miles, Kate, 1043, 1044, 1049 Snider, Michelle, 753, 768, 809, 829, 855–863, 880, 884, 886 Snyder, Virgil, 94 Soljanin, Emina, 546 Solow, Anita, 93 Somerville, Mary, 328, 996 Song, Minkyoung, 1010 Sormani, Christina, vi, 177–191, 715 Soto, Hortensia, 184, 616 Soundararajan, Kannan, 402 Souvaine, Diane, 490 Sowder, Judith, 605 Sowell, Katye Oliver, 588 Späth, Britta, 1000 Spears, Kimberly, 714 Specter, Arlen, 446 Speier, Jackie, 808, 863 Spencer, Steven, 868

Index Sperry, Pauline, 85 Spikes, Dolores, 87, 136 Spinadel, Vera, 1018 Sprakel, Janine McIntosh, 1049 Spruck, Joel, 178 Srinivasan, Bhama, 4, 73, 79, 82, 84, 86, 91–93, 104, 145, 302, 527, 599, 601–602, 606, 618, 627–629, 631, 641, 642, 657, 665, 778 Stacey, Kay, 1045 Staffilani, Gigliola, 42, 735, 996 Stage, Elizabeth, 363 Stakgold, Ivar, 659 Stange, Katherine, 794 Stanhope, Elizabeth, 183, 184, 250–251, 253, 254, 269, 715 Stankova, Zvezdelina, 390, 392 Stanley, Julian, 356, 361–367, 372, 382, 507, 648, 750 Stanley, Richard, 395 Stanton, Nancy, 351 Steele, Claude, 868 Steele, Leroy, 189, 415, 718 Stehney, Ann, 663 Stein, Marjorie, 77, 86, 136, 663 Stein, Melanie, 72 Steiner, Anne, 296 Steinwandt, Rainer, 936 Sternberg, Shlomo, 449 Stevens, Haley, 851 Stevens, T. Christine, 419 Stevenson, Adlai, 440 Stevenson, Kate, 256, 260, 267 Stewart, Martha, 478 Stierch, Sarah, 878 Stine, Deborah, 871 Stokes, Yvonne, 1044, 1049 Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 572 Straley, Jessica, 466 Straley, Tina, 166, 167, 459–482, 683 Straley, William, 461–462, 464–465 Strauss, Dona, 988 Street, Anne Penfold, 1036, 1037 Strickland, Elisabetta, 996 Striuli, Janet, 695 Struik, Dirk, 143, 451, 454, 456 Struik, Rebekka, 28, 59, 80, 90, 142–143, 587, 745 Stuart, Robyn, 1032, 1049 Sturmfels, Bernd, 398 Su, Francis, 228–230, 906 Subedi, Neelam, 1076 Subramanian, Jayasree, 1018 Sulem, Catherine, 149

1143 Sullivan, Dennis, 95 Sullivan, Kathleen, 500 Summers, Lawrence, 8, 20, 178, 364, 456, 717, 718, 729, 730, 751 Sunley, Judith, 94, 103, 379 Sutton, Julie, 807, 882 Swan, Richard, 93 Swanson, Irena, 269 Swanson, Laif, 81 Swanson, Rebecca, 807, 949 Sward, Marcia, 103, 468, 474, 475 Sweet, Georgina, 1042, 1043, 1048 Sweeting, Naomi, 403 Swift, Eleanor, 370, 375, 381, 750 Sylvester, James Joseph, 571, 680 Synge, John, 142, 735–736 Szekeres, George, 1044 Szeto, Mabel, 177

T Taiani, Geraldine, 603 Tamarkin, Jacob, 561 Tanbay, Betül, 1004, 1098, 1103 Tang, Yunqing, 412 Tanner, Rosalind Cecilia, 680 Tao, Terence, 189 Tapia, Richard, 797 Tardos, Éva, 103 Tarski, Alfred, 550, 744 Tascione, Carol, 606, 607, 759 Tate, Calandra, 213 Taussky, Olga, see Todd, Olga Taussky Taylor, Christine, 178 Taylor, Jean, vi, viii, 7, 28, 95, 151, 155, 293, 369, 446, 477, 521, 527, 590, 608, 615, 628, 681, 682, 691, 703–708, 715, 727, 728, 777, 778, 905 Taylor, Libby, 403 Taylor, Peter, 1032 Taylor, Richard, 399 Tchamga, Milaine Sergine Seuneu, 1056, 1058 Teles, Elizabeth, 472 Teneblat, Kati, 96 Tent, Katrin, 1031 Tepper Haimo, Deborah, 103, 153, 392, 471, 475, 667, 698 Tepper Haimo, Franklin, 392 Teppo, Anne, 609 Terng, Chuu-Lian, 7, 18, 80, 95, 393, 578, 604–606, 634, 673–676, 682, 713 Terracini, Susanna, 992, 1004

1144 Terras, Audrey, 753 Thacher, Meg, 446 Thamwattana, Ngamta (Natalie), 1044 Thapa, Dhana, 695, 1067–1071, 1073 Thiêm, Lê V˘an, 29 Thomas, Anne, 1032 Thomas, Clarence, 446 Thompson, Abigail, 128, 732 Thompson, John, 414 Thornsby, Gillian, 96 Thurman, Howard, 273 Tian, Gang, 178 Tidball, Elizabeth, 562 Tilghman, Shirley, 290 Tillmann, Ulrike, 998, 1000 Tits, Jacques, 414 Tobias, Sheila, 507 Todd, John, 146, 279 Todd, Olga Taussky, 7, 8, 78, 85, 91–93, 98–100, 132, 138, 140, 145, 146, 279, 293, 344, 439, 446, 628, 629, 706, 1042 Toland, John, 1098 Tomczak-Jaegermann, Nicole, 996 Tonko, Paul, 805 Tordesillas, Antoinette, 1044 Toro, Tatiana, 797 Torrance, Ellen, 588 Tracy, Denise Rangel, 879, 880 Translaviña, Cristian, 1086 Treisman, Uri, 746 Trenk, Ann, 128, 732 Trivisa, Konstantina, 796 Trnková, Vˇera, 989 Trump, Donald, 1115, 1116 Tsegaye, Yirgalem, 1056, 1061 Tuck, E.O., 1044 Tuckerman, Laurette, 72 Turing, Alan, 285 Turkle, Sherry, 367, 368 Tysse, Jill, 859

U Uhlenbeck, Karen, 10, 80, 85, 91, 93, 103, 104, 107, 114, 133, 138–139, 152, 155, 272, 275, 299, 377, 379, 456, 576, 651, 657, 673, 690, 693, 718, 905, 1115 Ullman, Dan, 868 Umland, Kristin, 616 Underwood, Caroline, 335 Urry, Meg, 730 Usherwood, Sophie, 256

Index V Vacher, Len, 312 Vakil, Ravi, 402, 403 Van Cott, Cornelia, 212 Vancliff, Michaela, 716 Vardarajan, Suneeta, 1019 Vares, Maria Eulália, 1103 Varga, Richard, 279 Varrichio, Francis, 487 Vasquez, Alphonse, 95 Vasquez, Monica, 536 Vaughan, Christine, 298 Vaughan, Mary, 297 Vazirani, Monica, 794 Vazquez, Mariel, 797 Vega, Julianne, vi, 967–971 Velasquez, Elinor, 172 Vélez, William Yslas, 531–544 Venkataraman, Geetha, 1015–1027 Vera, Andrea, 1083, 1086, 1087, 1090 Vergne, Michèle, 84, 93, 994 Vervoort, Gerardus, 295 Vese, Luminita, 794, 797 Viazovska, Maryna, 997, 1004 Vitulli, Marie, vi, 187, 188, 199, 684, 696, 756, 797, 811, 829, 841, 851, 852, 865, 867–880, 882, 887, 889, 895, 921, 926 Vogan, David, 392 Vogtmann, Karen, 995 Voisin, Claire, 718, 1031 Voolich, Erica, vii, 585–596, 608–612, 614, 709, 711, 750 Vu, An, 946, 947

W Wade, Aissa, 1063 Wadlow, Joan, 692 Wagman, Kelly, 251–252 Wagner, William, 752 Waidzunas, Tom, 1117 Wairimu, Josephine Kagunda, 1061, 1063 Waldschmidt, Michel, 694, 695, 1070 Walker, Erica, 573, 581, 612–615 Walker, Helen, 1 Walker, Judy, 168, 186, 477, 682 Walker, Shanise, 299 Wallace, Dorothy, 312 Wallach, Nolan, 412 Walorski, Jackie, 851 Walter, Marion, 851, 921 Walther, Andrea, 992 Walton, Chelsea, 794

Index Wang, Xiaoyun, 261 Wang, Yuan, 933–936, 938–941 Wangsness, Amy, 296 Ward, Lesley, 1030–1034, 1036, 1038, 1039 Wares, Joanna, 879 Warfield, Ginger, see Warfield, Virginia Warfield, Virginia, 123, 572, 579–580, 583, 590–592, 607, 608, 608–750 Warne, Debra Polignone, 710 Warren, Elizabeth, 850 Washington, Talitha, 796, 805, 808, 811, 884, 890, 896 Wason, Judy, 93 Wasserstein, Ron, 906 Watkins, Ann, 153, 475, 480 Watson, Ellen, 346 Wawro, Megan, 616 Weekes, Suzanne, 546 Weems, Kimberly, 212 Wehrheim, Katrin, 796, 876 Wei, Fan, 401 Wei, Guofang, 181, 184 Weierstrass, Karl, 454 Weiss, Asia, 96 Weiss, Marie, 92 Wenclawski, Stephanie, 252–253 Wendland, Katrin, 1000 Weyand, Ruth, 22 Weyand, Tracy, 297 Wheelan, Sarah, 251–252 Wheeler, Anna Pell, 4, 84, 94, 118, 140, 144, 152 Wheeler, Dawn, 675, 676, 704, 705, 709, 710, 759, 762 Wheeler, Mary, 86, 91, 104, 136, 379, 664, 665 Wheeler, Valentina, 1037 Whelan, Rose, 1125 Whitcher, Ursula, 212, 269, 797 White, Nina, 616 Whitehead, J.H.C., 399 Whitehead, Kay, 79 Whitman, Philip, 797 Whitney, Telle, 291 Wiegand, Roger, 681–683, 694, 695, 699, 1070 Wiegand, Sylvia, 7, 18, 86–87, 128, 144, 293, 330, 395, 579, 606–607, 628, 679–699, 703, 706, 710, 713, 732, 734, 753, 778, 813, 814, 816, 821–823, 1070, 1071, 1076 Wiener, Norbert, 115, 718 Wigderson, Avi, 401 Wikler, Norma Juliet, 445, 446 Wildstrom, Susan Schwartz, 611, 612, 616

1145 Wiles, Andrew, 399 Wilkerson, Isabel, 440, 446 Williams, Lauren, 782 Williams, Matthew, 319 Williams, Roselyn, 299, 490 Williams, Ruth, 72, 303 Williams, Sarah, 762 Williams, Talithia, 808, 884, 923 Williams, Wendy, 869, 870 Willigenburg, Stephanie van, 794 Willis, Cathy, 663 Willis, Paulette, 945 Wills, Sheryl, 310 Wilmer, Elizabeth, 72, 391, 658 Wilson, Alyson, 297 Wilson, Charles, 277, 278 Wilson, Melissa, 588 Wilson, Ulrica, 184, 185, 223, 926 Winkel, Brian, 472 Winslow, James, 29 Winston, Mary Frances, 62 Witten, Edward, 393 Wofsy, Carla, 1125 Wolf, Ricardo, 415 Wonenberger, Maria, 724 Wong, Helen, 207 Wood, Carol, 5, 23, 63, 64, 73, 81, 104, 114, 117, 302, 370, 379, 390, 471, 628, 639, 658, 661, 667–671, 674, 682, 715, 732, 777, 778, 782, 784, 874, 1018 Wood, Melanie Matchett, 53, 203–205, 248, 397, 489 Woodward, Carol, 797, 821 Woolf, Virginia, 101, 373 Wraga, Maryjane, 446 Wray, Naomi, 1048 Wright, Margaret, 7, 104, 150–151, 153, 663 Wu, Lani, 279 Wyels, Cindy, 231, 1125

X Xin, Guoce, 412

Y Yackel, Carolyn, 609, 610, 612, 751 Yackel, Erna, 605 Yacoubi, Amina, 686 Yacoubi, Nouzha El, 1059 Yagari, Yahaney, 254–255 Yamamoto, Kimiyo, 267–268 Yang, Jean Yee, 1044

1146 Yang, Julia, 72 Yang, Paul, 155 Yanik, Elizabeth, 495–500, 580, 608, 608–751 Yao, Andrew Chi-Chih, 285 Yarur, Cecilia, 1081 Yates, Rebekah, 264 Yau, Shing-Tung, 178 Yemelyanova, Inna, 628, 992 Yong, Darryl, 188 Yoshinobu, Stan, 207 Young, Elizabeth Dunnett, 681 Young, Grace Chisholm, 86–87, 144, 330, 679–680 Young, Lai-Sang, 149 Young, Laurence Chisholm, 680–681

Index Young, William, 87, 144, 679–680 Yunupingu, Mandawuy, 1047 Z Zandieh, Michelle, 620 Zassenhaus, Hans, 400 Zerbes, Sarah, 1000 Zhong, Peng, 780 Ziegler, Tamar, 995 Zipser, Nina, 178 Zorn, Max, 400 Zuev, Julia, 611, 612 Zumoff, Nancy, 470 Zygmund, Antoni, 449, 487