Engender equality

“Like hungry lions on a piece of meat” is how one professor at an event to discuss the report characterized males in precept discussions, according to a ‘Prince’ article. Even though this did not appear in the report, its inclusion in the campus discussion is unsettling. Similarly, the report suggests, “Men often seem to jump into class discussions, even if they do not have a very relevant or informed comment.” Comparing men to bloodthirsty beasts (why not tigers, by the way?) and drawing broad strokes based on anecdotes seem to make matters worse. Perhaps establishing generalizations is unavoidable when tackling gender issues, but the report frequently used insensitive ones about men and women to reach conclusions and make recommendations. Would these statements be acceptable if they were about a race or sexual orientation?

One of 10 themes agreed upon by the committee is that women are less likely to hold high-visibility posts but yet “do a large portion of the important work.” The report, via the words of female students interviewed, publicizes a perception that men pursue “resume-building,” high-visibility positions but that women usually take on positions where they can “actually get something done.” The contrapositive implication is that men seek high-profile positions but do a smaller portion of the important work. This stereotype trivializes the contributions of male leaders on campus and implicates them as poor leaders. Bringing forward insinuations such as this one without attempts to lay them to rest is a step backwards in achieving gender parity.

Although I am concerned about the negative impact of these stereotypes, I agree with many of the suggestions the report makes about the importance of leadership at Princeton. I would like to highlight the following ideas for cultivating leadership that I took away from the report.

First, we as a community ought to celebrate leadership, not promulgate stereotypes and mock those who step up to the plate as “tools.” We throw this derisive term around too liberally. As a result, the stigma associated with trying “too hard” may prevent women — and some men — from going out on a limb for fear of earning an undesirable label for just trying in the first place. We should investigate the source of this stigmatization before we figure out how to prevent it from being a barrier to leadership. As the report states, we also ought to demonstrate how we value diversity in leadership expression by recognizing those who do great work but are not in highly visible positions.

Next, as the Editorial Board suggested on Monday, we should encourage mentorship for younger students in general, not just for women. This suggestion is especially true at Princeton where it is easy to feel, as one student stated in the report, “mired in a swamp where everyone is seemingly much more talented than I am.” Being surrounded by such talented peers and held to extremely high standards can easily erode a Princetonian’s confidence. If we seek to build leaders, we must first build confidence, and do so regardless of gender.

To give students opportunities to build confidence as leaders, the University can integrate leadership opportunities into existing classes and add more group project-based courses. For example, current courses could include projects for four to six people in place of some assignments that students do mostly alone, such as essays. This change gives students opportunities to try basic leadership in these less socially risky settings and engage with class material in new ways. We should also add courses that give students the chance to work on major group projects over the course of the semester. Our COS 333: Advanced Programming Techniques class is one such current offering, and Wharton’s Management 100 class is also a good example. In this Wharton class, groups of 10 students organize major community service projects for local nonprofits from inception to completion. These curriculum improvements will allow students the chance to develop leadership skills even if they do not want to run for a high-profile position.

Last, when we discuss delicate gender issues, we ought to come closer to gender parity in the views that contribute to the discussion. The committee of 18 that authored the report had three males amid 15 of the University’s most distinguished female leaders. When we hope to achieve gender parity, we should start our discussion with it. To that end, I hope that our community will continue this conversation, as there is still much to be said and even more to be accomplished.

Michael Yaroshefsky is the USG president from Wayne, N.J. He can be reached at yaro@princeton.