Finally, some justice for Rosalind Franklin?

In an earlier post, I criticized my Biochemistry textbook for its failure to mention Rosalind Franklin as a key player in the discovery of the DNA double helix. My A&P textbook is Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function, by Saladin, Fifth edition, Copyright 2010. Maybe it is a sign of the times. I am including their section on Franklin below, as it is the first time I’ve seen a science textbook give credit where credit is due:

Discovery of the Double Helix

Credit for determining the double-helical structure of DNA has gone mainly to James Watson and Francis Crick. The events surrounding their discovery form one of the most dramatic stories of modern science—the subject of many books and at least one movie. When Watson and Crick came to share a laboratory at Cambridge University in 1951, both had barely begun their careers. Watson, age 23, had just completed his Ph.D. in the United States, and Crick, 11 years older, was a doctoral candidate in England. Yet the two were about to become the most famous molecular biologists of the twentieth century, and the discovery that won them such acclaim came without a single laboratory experiment of their own.

Others were fervently at work on DNA, including Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins at King’s College in London. Using a technique called X-ray diffraction, Franklin had determined that DNA had a repetitious helical structure with sugar and phosphate on the outside of the helix. Without her permission, Wilkins showed one of Franklin’s best X-ray photographs to Watson. Watson said, “The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race.” It provided a flash of insight that allowed the Watson and Crick team to beat Franklin to the goal. They were quickly able to piece together a scale model from cardboard and sheet metal that fully accounted for the known geometry of DNA. They rushed a paper into print in 1953 describing the double helix, barely mentioning the importance of Franklin’s 2 years of painstaking X-ray diffraction work in unlocking the mystery of life’s most important molecule. Franklin published her findings in a separate paper back to back with theirs.

For this discovery, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1962. Nobel Prizes are awarded only to the living, and in the final irony of her career, Rosalind Franklin had died in 1958, at the age of 37, of a cancer possibly induced by the X-rays that were her window on DNA architecture.

Also included are pictures of Rosalind Franklin, one of her X-ray photographs, and Watson and Crick with their model of the double helix.

Be an Advocate for Women’s Equity in Higher Education: Part 4

Part 4, with names changed...

The chair of the Status of Women says, “The Commission has historically been concerned with issues of fairness and giving a voice to those who don’t have one. I’m afraid that Limited Term Employees have no Norma Rae to rally them.”

In 2006, after scrutiny about its long term use of approximately 2,500 limited term employees, UW-Madison implemented an LTE reform plan: use LTE employment only for seasonal or irregular functions, set wages for LTE appointments at or above the living wage defined by the City of Madison as 110 percent of federal poverty rate for a family of four, and begin a five-year plan to convert existing LTE positions that are not seasonal or irregular to permanent status.

According to the Director of Classified Human Resources at UW-Madison, they currently have 1600 LTE appointments. According to the March 2009 report of the advisory committee, 288 of these positions are identified for conversion to permanent status (the rest are seasonal or irregular positions). Since the LTE reform plan was implemented in October of 2006, 50 LTE positions have been converted to permanent status, creating the equivalent of 36.4 new FTE positions. In addition, the committee reports that 89% of LTEs are now paid at or above the living wage of $10.92 per hour.

When asked whether LTEs have any rights, our HR representative says it depends on what you mean by rights. “In terms of progression and transfer, LTEs have no rights,” she says. But she cites a sexual harassment situation as an example where LTEs have the same rights any employee has. She adds that LTEs are told about their limited rights when they are hired. “When an LTE starts they sign documents saying they don’t have the rights or benefits that regular, permanent employees have,” she says.

For some, working as an LTE can be a stepping stone into permanent state employment, which guarantees higher wages, better benefits, and union representation. Karen is the advocacy model needed to promote “limited term” workers into permanent positions throughout the UW-System. Gaining equal rights for Wisconsin Women working in “limited term” positions in Higher Education is critical to women’s economic success in Wisconsin. We must be the ultimate model for our own liberal education learning goals –for students to “develop and use skills for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusivity in civic and professional contexts.”

Karen—who made so many changes for her limited term employees—currently serves on the Chancellor’s Diversity Committee and contends that we can all inspire positive change. “I look at my circle of influence and say ‘what can I do?’” she says. “When I became a manager—I could do something. That’s what we have to do with diversity. Look at ourselves as one person making a difference.”

Be an Advocate for Women’s Equity in Higher Education: Part 3

Part 3 with names changed...

My colleagues and I worked many years as LTEs before we were able to apply and compete for our own permanent positions. If not for our manager, Karen, who crusaded to get equal rights for her LTEs, I am confident that we would all still be “limited term.”

In 1976, Karen took a job doing data entry for the Admissions office. “I spent eight hours a day typing in information off the application into a computer terminal,” she says. Less than four years later, she was promoted to the Registrar’s office. While working full-time, Karen earned a Bachelor’s degree in Management Information Systems and a Master’s of Business Administration. Today she is the Associate Director of the IT department.

Karen's department has successfully converted all of their long-term limited term employees to permanent state employees. Converting LTEs to full time equivalencies (FTEs), or permanent positions, is not impossible, but it does require challenging the status quo. Karen converted available FTEs, from retirements and position vacancies, into permanent positions that long term LTEs could interview and compete for. Karen found support from her department director. “He knows you have to treat people well, build up a staff that cares, to get good performance,” Karen says. Karen also gathered support from other department managers. “I just said we would make do with less people, or cut services. I had to convince the other managers that our group would take on more if we could have the FTE.”

Karen says the problem occurs when there is money available to fund a position, but no FTE, which is set by the state. For example, Student Senate wanted my position and funded it, and so it remained a limited term position.

Our Human Resources representative says this model would be different for other position classifications. For example, for a University Services Associate position to be converted to a permanent position, it would first have to be posted for any permanent employee in the UW System to transfer into. If no one transfers into the position, the interview process begins. The interview candidates are selected based on their Civil Service exam scores. So it’s possible that the LTE wouldn’t be selected to interview and compete for the permanent position. Once hired as an LTE, it is very hard to become a permanent worker.

Our University Equity, Diversity, and Inclusiveness (EDI) fellow says that to date, EDI has been focused on UW System student-centered equity initiatives (e.g., the Equity Scorecard), but he hopes there is a lot we can do with LTE equity at the campus level. “This is a flawed system that we have routinely supported,” he says. “The system has created, in some cases, second class citizens within their own departments.”

He adds that we have only just begun to have the necessary conversations about LTE equity issues, but that staff equity relates to student success, which we are all responsible for. “With the way we do business now, diversity, equity, and inclusiveness should be engaged in the service of student success at every level…everyone is responsible for student success.”

Be an Advocate for Women’s Equity in Higher Education: Part 2

Part 2 with names changed...

According to a University of Wisconsin Press Release, the definition of LTE appointments is for UW System campus units to carry out short term or seasonal work. One LTE position is limited to no more than 1,043 hours, or six months, of full-time work per year. However, an individual may hold one or two LTE positions, resulting in ongoing part-time or full-time work.

Our University currently has 144 limited term employees, according to our Human Resources representative, who also says that about fifty percent of these LTEs have two positions, meaning the number of LTE positions is likely around 200. This constitutes about 27 percent of all University staff (classified staff and LTEs), or 13 percent of all University employees.

Many in “limited term” positions are working long term without receiving the benefits that permanent state employees receive. In a May 2009 survey of xxxx’s LTEs, 24% reported working less than a year, 22% reported 1-2 years, 14% reported 3-4 years, 11% reported 5-6 years, and 29% reported six years or more. The average length of “limited term” employment was 11.6 years.

Survey respondents represented a variety of positions, such as custodial, clerical, police, early childhood education, marketing, communications, event planning, and technology support. In addition, 84% were female (72% of all current LTEs at our University are female), 26% reported they are the sole provider for their families, and 59% had a baccalaureate degree or higher.

LTEs qualify for minimal benefits, depending on how many positions they have and the number of hours they work. LTEs qualify for the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) when they are expected to work at least 600 hours within a 12-month period. Once eligible for WRS, LTEs become eligible for health insurance coverage, and have the option of paying the full premiums for a variety of other benefits, such as supplemental dental and income continuation insurance. Some of these benefits are explained below.

LTEs are paid a minimum of 20% less than permanent workers for doing the same work. According to the LTE Handbook, LTEs start at 20% less than the minimum rate for the Civil Service position classification, with wage increases up to the minimum rate for that Civil Service position classification. This minimum rate is the most an LTE can ever earn, while a permanent employee in the same position classification can earn up to the maximum rate plus receive wage increases as negotiated by union contracts.

To become a permanent state employee, I had to interview and compete with others, including permanent state employees, for the position I had worked in for three years. My wages increased $5.51 per hour—over $200 more per week—for doing the same work, along with annual wage increases as negotiated by union contracts, vacation, sick leave, personal and legal holidays. However, in some ways, my LTE service doesn’t count. An employee’s seniority date is the original date of employment as a permanent employee. Although I’ve worked for the University for five years (3 years LTE and 2 years permanent), I earn vacation benefits at the rate of a two year employee—a difference that amounts to 32 hours/year of vacation time.

Treatment of LTEs, in terms of wages and performance, varies widely. Thirty-seven percent of survey respondents indicated they receive annual performance evaluations from their managers, and 41 percent indicated they do not; 21 percent indicated they receive annual wage increases, and 45 percent indicated they do not. In my three years as an LTE, I was given annual performance reviews and received two fifty cent raises.

In this difficult time of budget cuts, the workload only increases without any reward for limited term employees. One person wrote on the survey, “My boss has continued to give me more on my plate, and I have kept up with his demands. All the while staying at the same pay for 6 years.” Another wrote, “I've worked as an LTE for 9 years now. What does LTE stand for? Limited Term Employee. They are taking advantage of LTEs by not giving them vacation, sick days, paid holidays and personal days.”

One LTE wrote, “I think it's hard for a university to state it's concerned about equity when they essentially create second-class citizens within its own workforce…being an LTE can make you feel worthless; no matter what you do, or how well you do your job, there are no promotions or rewards…Your heart breaks when you resent your child for being sick, because it's another day without pay.”

Be an Advocate for Women’s Equity in Higher Education: Part 1

I am going to post in segments my article about higher education's use of “limited term” positions that keep women in low paying jobs with few benefits. Names are changed...


“Across Wisconsin, I see talented and tenacious women poised to lead this state's economic growth -- if only we clear obstacles from their path.”
-Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton

When Karen became the manager of a campus help desk and software training group, she quickly realized that her staff was comprised mostly of women who had worked five to ten years in “limited term” status with low wages, earning a minimum of 20% less than permanent workers in the same job classifications, with no vacation, sick time, personal or legal holidays, and in some cases, no health insurance.

I experienced these inequitable conditions. In 2003, with four years of professional work experience and a Master’s degree in progress, I was hired as the coordinator for Karen’s software training program—a position that had existed in limited term classification since 1995 and remained “limited term” for twelve years, until 2007. Almost three years into my employment, my mom suffered a massive stroke. As a limited term employee (LTE), I had no vacation, sick leave, personal or legal holidays. Fortunately, my co-workers showed their support by taking up a collection, which helped pay my bills while I took unpaid time off to be with my mom during her four-month hospital stay.

Karen became concerned about people she supervised working long term in “limited term” positions while studying the attributes of successful companies, as part of her MBA coursework. “Successful companies took care of their people, and then the people in turn worked hard,” Karen says.

Despite Karen’s concern, the status quo at this institution is to maintain “limited term” positions for many years. “I know people who worked here in various offices as LTEs for more than 20 years,” Karen says, now the Associate IT Director. “I do think this is a significant problem here and I believe it may even be worse statewide.”

While a common response among managers and administration is “this is the system we’re stuck with,” or “people have choices,” Karen challenged the status quo for her “limited term” employees...

My Problem with Science Education

And here is my fundamental problem with science education. As I’m reading my Biochemistry textbook (published in 2007) I notice that scientists who made (apparently) important discoveries are highlighted in the sidebar of the textbook, complete with their picture and a profile of their scientific accomplishments. It’s not long before I start to realize they’re all male, and this starts to bother me. So one afternoon I sit down and go through the entire book, scouring the sidebars for examples of female scientists. There are 14 scientists featured and only one female scientist, Marie Curie, who is labeled as a “pioneer in radioactivity.” This is the kind of thing that urks me. And it gets worse.

Let me reiterate that this textbook was published in 2007.

Chapter 22, on ribonucleotides, in its discussion of DNA and RNA, features Watson and Crick as the discoverers of DNA, for which they later shared a Nobel prize. There is, of course, no mention of chemist Rosalind Franklin, whose work was the basis for Watson and Crick’s discovery, which they never got her permission to use, nor did they ever give her any credit. Although this is a highly disputed and controversial topic (there are numerous books written about it, such as The Double Helix, by Watson and Crick), there is no mention of this in the textbook. Black and white. Definitively. Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Whatever.

And it’s not like there aren’t opportunities to feature female scientists. For example, there is an extended discussion of the polyamide Kevlar, used in place of steel in bulletproof vests, and how the uniform system of hydrogen bonds that holds the polymer chains together account for the “amazing” strength of Kevlar. There is a picture of the hydrogen bonding pattern, but no mention of the female chemist Stephanie Kwolek, who synthesized Kevlar while working as a chemist for DuPont.

Why does this matter? Because I’ve done research on the lack of women in science and engineering fields, and the research says that women need to see examples of positive, successful women in science and engineering. Textbooks like this inadvertently send the message that science is a male domain.