Workshop on Apr 26: How Are You Heard By Others? Aggressive, Assertive or Passive?

I like to keep most things on this website grounded in the research and data on gender issues in male dominated environments and less on the anecdotal side. Certainly the stories we could all tell are important – and most of us have more than a few doozies! But equally important is the dialogue that we can create in our communities by knowing the data, which is the main goal of my efforts here.

I’m going to make an exception to this rule with this post because I’m really excited about an upcoming workshop we’re having on perceptions of talk by women (more on that below).

I am direct. I didn’t understand this for a long time because I grew up in Texas, and people there are, well, direct. So I fit in.

Having a natural tendency to be direct has its advantages. It is important in the classroom to be clear and unambiguous in teaching, assignments and expectations. A straightforward prose in a grant application leaves nothing to the imagination of the reader, which is usually good. And directness on grant review meetings and in writing grant reviews provides the applicant with clear feedback so they are not wondering what the reviewer means when reading their comments. Program officers from national agencies have commended me for this skill. I can’t tell you how much this means to me, especially after a wrenching panel meeting.

Social norms are a little different on the east coast, where I’ve been for the past couple of decades. My impression is that people here are generally less direct in their communication and do not always value frank talk. I am older, too, and hopefully wiser and also now understand that being direct conflicts with my gender stereotype. People look to women to be kind and nice and nurturing. I think I am all those things, too, but my sugar-coating skills are a constant work in progress.

In a pedagogical setting, the perception of an assertive, direct woman can lead to disappointment in a student because said professor is not meeting the “nurturing” stereotypical expectations. This affects teaching evaluations. While comments on a male professor may include how brilliant he is, a different B-word definitely shows up on teaching evaluations for women professors. I am not making this up, and this bias makes it harder for WomenInSTEM to do their jobs.

So, are you perceived as aggressive, passive, or assertive? And does this perception match your desired image?

Illysa Izenberg is going to address this topic in a workshop on Thursday April 26, 2018 at 5 PM in the Mudd UTL. In this workshop, you’ll learn the difference between assertive and aggressive and practice declarative speech that fits your individual style without overcompensating or changing who you are.

In keeping with tradition, Pizza will be served. To make sure I order enough, please send me a quick email if you think you may come so I can get a head count. Karen dot Fleming at JHU dot edu.


The Power is in the Data

Wow! 60 Minutes tonight.Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 9.12.34 PM
I love data. And I agree with the sentiment of the story they ran tonight: the real power is in the data.

But so much of the data associated with unconscious bias in the workplace is – well – squishy.  Not so for salary data. Everyone knows how to count those green dollars.

Even so, there is a well known gender gap between the salaries of men and women: white women earn on average only 80 cents for every dollar that a man earns. This is even worse for women with intersectional identities. So, if you are interested in gender equity as it relates to your salary – and who wouldn’t be? – then you should definitely check out the 60 Minutes story that ran tonight about Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff.

First, Kudos goes out this CEO for using his privilege to bring more voice to this problem. And second, special Kudos goes out to him for putting his money where his mouth is. To the tune of millions of dollars. Yes, millions. That’s at least six $$$$$$.

This CEO learned that he had to pony up this money through a company-wide salary audit. In other words, they collected the data, then analyzed it, then acted on it. What they did not do is bury it or keep it a secret. All workplaces should adopt this practice. As Mr. Benioff learned, gender inequities in salary are endemic to our society, and we must all be vigilant about checking for these on a regular basis.

#WeMustDoBetter for our society, for our #WomenInSTEM, and for women in general.

Hopkins Faculty Promote Better Climate in Machine Learning

Reblogging this 30 March post from the Homewood Women’s Faculty Forum. It is so great to see so many of our colleagues support better climate.

On March 30, 122 Hopkins faculty, post-docs, and grad students make a call to promote welcoming environments for women at machine learning conferences. In recognition of egregious behavior at recent conferences, they urge the preeminent conference in the field–called NIPS–to create a stronger code of conduct and to change its name, symbolizing a new era of inclusiveness in the field. The letter is copied below.

For background, please see “Statistics, we have a problem” and Guardian article “Google AI researcher accused of harassment, female data scientists speak of ‘broken system,’” both from December 2017. Additionally, you can see faculty responses from U-Mass and Duke.

Dear NIPS board members,

As researchers in machine learning and data science at Johns Hop kins University, we write as advocates of a welcoming and diverse machine learning community. Recently, some disappointing behavior at NIPS 2017 has come to our attention, and has led one lab here to ban participation in NIPS 2018. We understand that steps are being taken to evaluate changes to the meeting in light of this behavior. In addition, the acronym of the conference is prone to unwelcome puns, such as the perhaps subversively named pre-conference “TITS” event and juvenile t-shirts such as “my NIPS are NP-hard”, that add to the hostile environment that many ML researchers have unfortunately been experiencing.

These incidents have brought up uncomfortable memories for some of us whose career paths have been affected by unwelcoming or harassing behavior. NIPS is at a time of significant expansion and change. We believe that serious actions are essential for the continuing health of the community.

We are aware that the NIPS board has appointed Diversity and Inclusion chairs and i s working towards a strengthened code of conduct to set behavioral expectations. As you know, templates for such codes of conduct are available from other conferences. We support this move, and further hope that conference attendees will be actively encouraged to speak up when they observe social behavior that may make other attendees uncomfortable. We also fully expect that this code of conduct will specify consequences for harassment and are in keeping with recent policy changes from NSF that mandate reporting of harassment.

We also recommend a more radical reform: rebranding of the meeting, including a change to the name of the conference. Certainly the NIPS name has a long and distinguished history, and it is an unfortunate coincidence that it is vulnerable to sexual puns. Changing the name at this time could serve as a powerful symbolic move which, in conjunction with other changes, would signal the Board’s commitment to improving the culture of the field and making the conference a leader in inclusion.

We appreciate that NIPS has hosted and prominently featured the Women in Machine Learning and Black in AI workshops, and we look forward to further efforts to welcome contributors to the field from a range of backgrounds. Our own ML community at Johns Hopkins includes and is taking active measures to welcome people with diverse gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, nationality and national origin, and religion. Locally, Johns Hopkins just announced its progress report on Diversity and Inclusion; we are taking steps to ensure harassment-free and equal inclusion within our data science community at JHU. We hope to eliminate disincentives to participation in ML research at our own university, and would be glad to help with efforts to do the same in the field at large.

Thank you for your concern and quick action.

1. Joel S. Bader, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering
2. Brian Caffo, Professor, Department of Biostatistics
3. Jason Eisner, Professor, Computer Science
4. Michael L. Falk, Vice Dean for Undergraduate Education, Professor, Departments of
Materials Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Physics
5. Donald Geman, Professor, Applied Mathematics and Statistics
6. Jeffrey Gray, Professor, Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
7. Gregory D. Hager, Mandell Bellmore Professor of Computer Science and Director of the
Malone Center for Engineering in Healthcare
8. Philipp Koehn, Professor, Department of Computer Science
9. Jeffrey Leek, Professor, Departments of Biostatistics and Oncology
10. Daniel Q. Naiman, Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
11. Gary L. Rosner, Professor, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics, Chair of the
Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and Director of the Research Program of
Quantitative Sciences of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center
12. Alexander Szalay, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Physics and Computer Science
13. René Vidal, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Director of Johns Hopkins
Mathematical Institute for Data Science (MINDS)
14. Laurent Younes, Professor and Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
15. Alan Yuille, Bloomberg Professor, Cognitive Science and Computer Science
16. Mark Dredze, John C Malone Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science
17. Peng Huang, Associate Professor, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
18. Rachel Karchin, The William R. Brody Faculty Scholar, Associate Professor, Departments
of Biomedical Engineering and Oncology
19. Feilim Mac Gabhann, Associate Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering
20. Luigi Marchionni, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology
21. Michael C. Schatz, Bloomberg Distinguished Associate Professor of Computer Science
and Biology
22. Cristian Tomasetti, Associate Professor, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
23. Ravi Varadhan, Associate Professor of Biostatistics
24. Hao Wang, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology
25. Sarah J. Wheelan, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology
26. Raman Arora, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science
27. Alexis Battle, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering
28. Najim Dehak, Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
29. Elana J. Fertig, Assistant Professor of Oncology, Associate Director of the Research
Program in Quantitative Sciences of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center
30. Loyal A. Goff, Assistant Professor of Neuroscience & Genetic Medicine
31. Stephanie Hicks, Assistant Professor, Department of Biostatistics
32. Andrew Jaffe, Assistant Professor, Department of Mental Health
33. Kai Kammers, Assistant Professor, Department of Oncology
34. Emily Riehl, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics
35. Daniel P. Robinson, Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics and
36. Suchi Saria, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Statistics and Health Policy
37. Robert B. Scharpf, Assistant Professor, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
38. Ilya Shpitser, John C Malone Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Biostatistics
39. Benjamin Van Durme, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science
40. Zheyu Wang, Assistant Professor, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
41. Yanxun Xu, Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
42. William Gray-Roncal, Assistant Research Professor, Department of Computer Science
43. Bahman Afsari, Instructor, Department of Oncology
44. Narges Ahmidi, Assistant Research Scientist, Malone Center for Engineering in
45. Richard Brown, Associate Teaching Professor, Department of Mathematics
46. Benjamín Béjar, Associate Research Scientist, Department of Biomedical Engineering
47. Helen Cromwell, Administrative Manager, Department of Oncology, Biostatistics
48. Ludmila Danilova, Research Associate, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
49. Wei Fu, Senior Biostatistician, Department of Oncology and Biostatistics
50. Rumen Kostadinov, Research Associate, Department of Pediatric Oncology
51. Sean Kross, Associate Faculty, Department of Biostatistics
52. Anand Malpani, Assistant Research Scientist, Malone Center for Engineering in
53. Alisa Moore, Administrative Coordinator, Departments of Oncology and Biostatistics
54. Sara More, Associate Teaching Professor, Department of Computer Science
55. Bongsoo Park, Research Associate, Department of Environmental Health and
56. Christine Piatko, Assistant Research Professor, Department of Computer Science
57. Thomas Sherman, Biostatistician, Department of Oncology
58. James C. Spall, Research Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
59. Tamas Budavari, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
60. Wikum Dinalankara, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Oncology
61. Shannon E. Ellis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biostatistics
62. Guilherme Starvaggi Franca, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Imaging Science
63. Peter F. Hickey, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biostatistics
64. Jonathan P. Ling, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Neuroscience
65. Daniel Malinsky, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Computer Science
66. Daniel Mendat, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Electrical and Computer
67. Garrett Nicolai, Postdoctoral fellow, Department of Computer Science
68. Genevieve Stein-O’Brien, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Oncology Biostatistics and
Institute of Genomic Medicine
69. Luciane Tsukamoto Kagohara, Department of Oncology
70. Zhihui Zhu, Postdoctoral fellow, the Center for Imaging Science
71. Jonathan Andersen, Research Assistant & Student, Undergraduate Program in
72. Jonathan Augustin, PhD Candidate, Biochemistry, Cellular and Molecular Biology
Program; Neuroscience Department
73. Daniel N. Baker, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
74. Leandros Boukas, PhD Candidate, Institute of Genetic Medicine
75. Vikram Chandrashekhar, PhD Student, Department of Biomedical Engineering
76. Nanxin Chen, PhD Student, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
77. Emily Davis, PhD Student, Institute of Genetic Medicine
78. Kipper Fletez-Brant, PhD Candidate, Institute of Genetic Medicine
79. Yixin Gao, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
80. Yuan He, PhD candidate, Department of Biomedical Engineering
81. Rachel Hegeman, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
82. Katharine Henry, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
83. Jonathan D. Jones, Graduate Student, Department of Electrical and Computer
84. Gaurav Kumar, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
85. Connor Lane, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
86. Natalie Larsen, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
87. Adam Li, PhD Student, Department of Biomedical Engineering
88. Rebecca Marvin, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
89. Effrosyni Mavroudi, PhD Candidate, Department of Biomedical Engineering
90. Molly O’Brien, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
91. Princy Parsana, PhD candidate, Department of Computer Science
92. Nathan Roach, Graduate Student, Department of Biology
93. Ashis Saha, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
94. Evan Schwab, PhD Candidate, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
95. Benjamin D. Shapiro, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
96. Eli Sherman, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
97. Rachel Sherman, PhD Student, Department of Computer Science
98. Heather C. Wick, PhD Candidate, Institute of Genetic Medicine
99. Siddharth Mahendran, PhD Candidate, Department of Electrical and Computer
100. Sebastian J. Mielke, PhD Student, Department of Computer Science
101. Anirbit, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
102. Leslie Myint, PhD Candidate, Department of Biostatistics
103. Razieh Nabi, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
104. Arun Asokan Nair, Graduate Student, Department of Electrical and Computer
105. Carolina Pacheco, Graduate Student, Department of Biomedical Engineering
106. Srivathsa Pasumarthi, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
107. Chris Paxton, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
108. Adam Poliak, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
109. Sachi Sanghavi, Graduate Student, Department of Cognitive Science
110. Kayode Sanni, PhD Candidate, Department of Electrical and Computer
111. Peter Schulam, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
112. Ayushi Sinha, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
113. David Snyder, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
114. Aditya Upadhyayula, Graduate Student, Department of Psychological and Brain
115. Long Wang, PhD Candidate, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
116. Zach Wood-Doughty, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
117. Shijie Wu, Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science
118. Xiang Xiang, PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
119. Fangzheng Xie, PhD Candidate, Department of Applied Mathematics and
120. Florence Yellin, PhD Candidate, Department of Mechanical Engineering
121. Corby Rosset, Alumnus ‘17, M.S.E & B.S. Computer Science
122. Xiaoge Julia Zhang, Alumnus ‘17, PhD & MHS, Department of International
Health, Department of Biostatistics

Now is the time to speak your truth

In 2006, the Johns Hopkins University Committee on the Status of Women published a lengthy (163 page!) report outlining issues related to equity and climate. It is a formidable document and to summarize: Let’s just say, it wasn’t pretty.

The question for today is: Has anything improved?

The answer is: How will we know?

Among the recommendations included in the Vision2020 report was to “Create a Climate of Equity and Civility”. The mechanisms proposed to address progress in this area included charging an office with fostering change toward gender equity. Among a list of specific recommendations, this office would be responsible for

developing interventions and changes in policies and practices needed to alter Johns Hopkins‘ culture, establish accountability, and monitor progress, thus achieving gender equity.

But no office developed.

Exit interviews were recommended as another means to evaluate climate.

Have these been implemented? Have data and anecdotes in them been used to drive evidence based policies?

In the absence of these mechanisms, how will the university know if climate is improved or not? I will argue that it will be only if each of us tells them by speaking our truth.

Yes. Speaking truth to power is hard. It is simultaneously liberating and exhausting and not without risk. But I have come to realize over the years that not speaking up is just plain old exhausting.

We are going through a reckoning, and in many ways the momentum of the #MeToo movement gives us all permission to dish. Confessions are coming from all directions; in private conversations, on social media, and, of course, the New York Times.

But it’s complicated. I read these articles and so many deeply buried, raw emotions bubble up to the top. It’s kind of like living those experiences all over again. There is, literally, a physical adrenaline rush (not the good kind) when a writer’s words speak to me in a way that exactly captures how I felt but couldn’t articulate. #Exhausting.

Still, I recognize that these stories are a necessary part of moving forward. We as a community need to hear them so we can do better.

The COACHE survey that Hopkins is currently conducting with faculty is one way to assess the current climate. Although there is only one place for entering a narrative, the survey has many questions that speak to climate. If you are in this cohort, you should have received an email from both the Provost as well as the Collaborative on Academic Careers, and yet a third reminder from the provost’s office today. They state that all answers are anonymous and that data will be somewhat aggregated. Participation is voluntary. The results will be shared with the powers that be, and perhaps the responses will be heard. We have a new Chief Diversity Officer now, a seeming straight talker from New York City no less. I am hopeful.

And I urge you, if you have been silent and if you feel ready, now is the time to begin to speak your truth. Do the COACHE survey. Only then can it get better. #WeMustDoBetter

Happening Today: Women in Leadership Panel

The Career Center and Alpha Phi Omega are co-sponsoring a Women in Leadership panel from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 30, in Bloomberg 272. The panel features Jeannine Heynes, Hopkins’ director of women and gender resources at Johns Hopkins. Another panelist, Karen Fleming, is a biophysicist and advocated for the Women of Hopkins exhibit at the Mattin Center. The final panelist, Illysa Izenberg, has more than two decades of business experience and received the 2016 JHU Alumni Association Excellence in Teaching Award.

The Q&A discussion focuses on the gender climate of the professional workplace, from the point of view of the panelists, who work in business, STEM, and gender equity fields.

Where We Stand: Women at Hopkins 2017

Screen Shot 2017-11-13 at 8.32.57 AMThe Committee on the Status of Women will host their annual “Where We Stand: Women at Hopkins” event this Wednesday, November 15, at 5:30pm in the Mudd Atrium.

The goal is to bring together faculty, staff, and students who are concerned about gender equity at Hopkins.

There will be good food and good company, and you are welcome to bring children along (we’ll have toys and coloring pages there).

Dean Beverly Wendland will kick off the evening. This year, we are following up on the report card we wrote, at her request, last year on the Vision 2020 report (published in 2006).

At the event, we invite you to share ideas for concrete, incremental steps we can take along the way to meeting the goals summarized in the report card.

Bling for Women of Hopkins!

WoHGllitter02Dominic and I have received the awesome news that the Women of Hopkins project will be recognized by a 2017 Diversity Leadership Council Award. We are humbled and thrilled by this recognition because it shines light on the true heroines in our community: the Women of Hopkins.

This art exhibit created by three engineers and a biophysicist grew out of a desire to expand the images about who we are and who we can become. Pictures can be remarkably persuasive in challenging entrenched stereotypes and can expand the dreams we all carry for ourselves and others. The accomplishments of the Women of Hopkins are models for us all because the barriers faced by many of these women were huge and could easily have prevented their success.

Yet they persisted.

We hope this award will inspire similar persistence and confidence in women at all stages in the pursuits of their goals.  Our challenge to all the young women as they pass by the exhibit in the Mattin Courtyard: will you be among the next Women of Hopkins?

Now for some kudos! An effort like this takes a village of people to make it happen, and thanks goes out to everyone who contributed:

 Our team!  Special recognition goes out to Professor Jeff Gray and graduate student Anna Coughlin from the Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, who actively participated in assembling and culling the list of distinguished candidates for inclusion in the first exhibition.

The DLC: Johns Hopkins Diversity Leadership Council, who funded our Diversity Innovation Grant that made Women of Hopkins a reality.

The Prez: President Daniel’s office, who has been overwhelmingly supportive.

The folks at the Mattin Center, who host the actual exhibit.

Jeanine Heynes, Director of Gender Equity – Johns Hopkins is lucky to have such a thoughtful and proactive person in this role.

Valerie Hartman, JHMI instructional designer, who edited each and every biography.

Women of Hopkins biography writers. Thank you all!! We crowd sourced this part of our exhibit to facilitate greater inclusion in our project. Many of our biographers were extraordinarily passionate about their chosen heroine. We encourage you all to peruse their stories.

Jim Stimpert and Jenny Kinniff of the Sheridan Library Special Collections and Timothy Wisniewski of the Chesney Medial archives, who helped us research the Women of Hopkins.

When & Where: The awards ceremony will take place Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:30 in the Glass Pavilion on the Homewood campus. It is open to the public. Come celebrate with us!

Why are NIH grant success rates lower for women?

It’s international women’s day, and I’m thinking a lot about my own grant renewal, which is coming due soon. And I ask myself (and you the reader):

Why are the NIH grant success rates consistently lower for women?

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 9.16.53 PM

Data from the NIH Data Book. Data by gender–>Success Rates

Seems like these lines should cross back and forth if there were random fluctuations. Yet, they don’t. All the data available online – almost 20 years worth! – show that women have experienced less success in obtaining the lifeblood of a scientific lab.

It’s no wonder the pipeline is leaky….

High Table Happenings & Hopes

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-11-36-53-amOur team members are busy getting some Women of Hopkins portraits ready for the Johns Hopkins High Table event. This is a first-year undergraduate experience in which the students join the deans and professors for a formal “Harry Potter” type dinner. Read about last year’s event here.

It’s cool. The Rec Center is transformed for an evening into a medieval-like banquet hall. Fancy gold plated dishes and flatware placed along long, stately tables are the settings for this sit down dinner. The walls are covered with formal curtains that give the feel of velvet drapes, and the faculty, deans and the JHU president march in all decked out in their academic robes. It doesn’t hurt that the president’s robe is a brilliant Hopkins gold. If you’ve ever been in any of the dining halls of Cambridge or Oxford, you’d have to agree that the organizers do a great job of capturing this ambiance.

I have been a participating professor at this dinner for several years. It has a super fun feel and comes at a good time when the semester is gaining full steam whilst the students are still somewhat rested. But one thing always bugged me about it. As a female faculty member marching in, I passed by numerous ornately framed portraits of (presumably) the luminaries of Hopkins past. Although I’m sure these past leaders were better than Moaning Myrtle, what struck me immediately is that there were no portraits of women. Only men.

Really? No women?

This realization was one of the motivators for our Women of Hopkins exhibit. And I’m pleased that our Diversity Innovation Grant funded not only the main art show but also enabled us to add women to the portraits that students and professors will pass by on the procession into this Hopkins Harry Potter banquet. After all, 49% of the undergraduate students at Hopkins are women. I’m hoping that these images will be noticed by the young women students. I’m hoping it will spark a recognition that female luminaries can lead the way. And I’m hoping that these heroines of Hopkins will inspire confidence in the students to become the next generation of scholars, doctors, business women, leaders, engineers, writers and scientists of prominence and brilliance.

Gender-Diversity Dividend of Discovery

screen-shot-2017-02-22-at-4-49-48-pmFrom Forbes to Scientific American, it is well known that being around people who are different from us makes us more creative and increases our personal investments. It should therefore come as no surprise that an opinion piece published in the current issue of PNAS draws the same conclusion: Gender diversity leads to better science.

Encouraging greater diversity is not only the right thing to do: it allows scientific organizations to derive an “innovation dividend” that leads to smarter, more creative teams, hence opening the door to new discoveries.

This opinion piece covers many ways that gender diversity paves the road to excellence and speaks to the importance of supportive institutional contexts. As universities strive to increase their diversity numbers, this article also recognizes the crucial aspects of inclusion in the scientific community. Make no mistake: numbers are still important. Achieving a critical mass of women (between 15% and 30%) will be required for women to flourish. Only then will they experience “less stereotyping, more involvement in decision making and teamwork and higher levels of support”.

Inclusion is a second key ingredient. No matter what the diversity numbers, an open and accepting work culture can accelerate this needed transformation. Putting aside the social justice motivations, the scientific enterprises of universities, medical schools and research institutes all seek the same things: a greater understanding of the world’s natural laws as well as novel cures for diseases.

Surely we can achieve this?

After all, the university setting strives to be the epicenter of open inquiry, the hotbed of newfangled ideas, and the center of excellence. If institutions invest in this stock, the gender-diversity dividend is guaranteed to pay well.

That’s a better promise than the stock market….