Stories of sexism in science: 'sorry about all the women in this laboratory'

Discrimination against females in science continues. 

An in-house probe at UCLA concluded in 2015 that women face "demeaning" treatment at the Medical School, however, the person responsible, John Mazziotta, was promoted in March to vice-chancellor!!!

 See article below showing UCLA Medical School refused to address problems even when a female instructor won a $2.95 million discrimination case in 2004.  UCLA didn't mince words at the time:

"The university respectfully disagrees with the verdict, and we do not believe it was supported by the evidence," said James E. Holst, UC's general counsel.


Stories of sexism in science: 'sorry about all the women in this laboratory'

The Guardian
June 12, 2015

Tim Hunt provoked outrage when he said that female scientists cause trouble in science labs. We speak to women in the field to find out about attitudes they’ve encountered
#Distractinglysexy Twitter campaign mocks Tim Hunt’s sexist comments

Microbiologist Steve Diggle’s contribution to the #distractinglysexy hashtag used to mock Tim Hunt’s comments about women in science. Photograph: Steve Diggle/Twitter

Claire Shaw

‘There should be a rule against women having children in science’

“Following the recent comments made by Tim Hunt, I spent a little time reminiscing about my experiences as a postdoctoral researcher at a London University. I started this position full of enthusiasm but it ended quite swiftly following comments from my principal investigator (PI), such as:

• ‘There really should be a rule against women having children in science.’
• ‘I’m not going to teach you how to do it because you’re probably going to leave for marriage and children anyway so why waste my time?’
• ‘Sorry about all the women in this laboratory, but at least they’re good to look at.’
• ...
  
  

  UCLA female faculty faced 'demeaning' mistreatment, probe finds

  LA Times

  April 18, 2015

  By Larry Gordon 

"The former neurology chairman, John Mazziotta, was promoted in March to vice chancellor of UCLA’s health sciences and dean of the medical school. Hiatt’s letter did not mention him and did not say what role Mazziotta may have had in previous handling of the women’s complaints."

 

Women faculty at UCLA's Alzheimer's disease research center faced "a climate of conflict, tension, hostility and mistrust" for about a decade and were treated in an "unprofessional, demeaning manner," an investigation at the campus medical school has found.

The probe upheld long-pressed complaints from three women faculty that they were discriminated against by some men in the department and faced retaliation for reporting breaches in research protocol, Jonathan Hiatt, the vice dean for faculty, said in a letter sent to staff.
The result was a significantly negative effect on the center and a working environment that "compromises our research, teaching and patient care," Hiatt wrote.
The March letter, which was obtained by The Times, did not identify the women who say they were discriminated against nor the people who they say violated campus rules. Hiatt could not be reached for comment Friday night.
Dale Tate, a spokeswoman for the David Geffen School of Medicine, confirmed the authenticity of the letter but said she could not offer any more details about the situation.

Comments

• @grammymb They are not "liberal." Faculties are three quarters white and male. The gap between tenured males and tenured females HAS NOT CHANGED in 30 years. It is despicable.
  PeterLawrence
  at 11:22 PM April 19, 2015

"While we cannot comment beyond the contents of the letter since it involves confidential personnel matters, leadership within the university and the health system is committed to a work environment that is welcoming and free from discrimination of any kind. The letter was intended as an internal communication to describe the measures taken by the university in response to serious concerns brought forward in good faith by female members of the faculty," she said in a statement.
In the letter, Hiatt wrote that he brought in an external investigator to look into the complaints, interview current and former faculty and review documents. The resulting report was finished in October and declared that the women faculty "had correctly identified and documented the unprofessional behavior to which they had been subjected" and had brought their complaints to the attention of administrators numerous times without a proper response, he said.
Hiatt said he has made some changes in the department of neurology in response to the complaints. Without saying that anyone had been directly disciplined, he noted that the department of neurology has a new interim chair, professor Marie-Francoise Chesselet, and that another professor has been appointed as a monitor for issues of gender and equity. He said he is committed to a fair and "welcoming" school workplace.
The former neurology chairman, John Mazziotta, was promoted in March to vice chancellor of UCLA’s health sciences and dean of the medical school. Hiatt’s letter did not mention him and did not say what role Mazziotta may have had in previous handling of the women’s complaints.
The Alzheimer's research center has about 10 professors working there, according to its website, and is devoted to improving the quality of life for patients and caregivers, to develop new medications, treatments and improved and earlier diagnoses.

• Woman Awarded $2.95 Million in UC Discrimination Case

  August 05, 2004|Rebecca Trounson | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
  
  
  A former clinical instructor at the UCLA School of Medicine has won a $2.95-million judgment against the University of California from a Superior Court jury in a sex discrimination and retaliation case.
  The jury, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, found that UCLA had discriminated against Janet Conney in her efforts to obtain a tenure-track position at the university, then retaliated against her when she complained.
  Conney, 40, had worked at UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute and Hospital from 1999 to 2002 after she completed a year of specialty training at the university in geriatric psychiatry. She filed suit against the institute and UC's governing board in 2003, claiming that her supervisors had discriminated against her on the basis of gender when they decided not to promote her from clinical instructor to assistant clinical professor...
   

Giving Up on 4-Year-Olds

Giving Up on 4-Year-Olds
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
New York Times
MARCH 26, 2014

A new report released by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, examining the disciplinary practices of the country’s 97,000 public schools, shows that excessively punitive policies are being used at every level of the public school system — even against 4-year-olds in preschool. This should shame the nation and force it to re-evaluate the destructive measures that schools are using against their most vulnerable children.

Black students, for example, are suspended at three times the rate of white students. Minority children with disabilities fare worst of all; the race effect is amplified when disability comes into the picture. More than one in four minority boys with a disability — and nearly one in five minority girls — receive an out-of-school suspension. Students with disabilities make up 12 percent of the student population, but 25 percent of those are either arrested or have their disciplinary cases referred to the police.

This is distressing enough when it happens to adolescents. But the new data show that disparate treatment of minority children begins early — in preschool. For example, black children represent 18 percent of preschool enrollment but nearly half of all children who receive more than one out-of-school suspension.

The fact that minority children at age 4 are already being disproportionately suspended or expelled is an outrage. The pattern of exclusion suggests that schools are giving up on these children when they are barely out of diapers. It runs counter to the very mission of early education, which is to promote school readiness. It harms children emotionally at an age when they are incapable of absorbing lessons from this form of punishment. And it places those children at greater risk of falling behind, dropping out or becoming permanently involved with the juvenile justice system. Federal civil rights officials do not explain why minority preschool students are being disproportionately singled out for suspension. Regardless of the causes, there are ways to combat this crisis. Walter Gilliam of Yale University, who has studied the expulsion problem extensively, has suggested several ways to minimize it. Among other things, Mr. Gilliam has called for: limiting enrollment to 10 students per preschool teacher (preferably less) so that teachers have adequate time with the students; making sure that those teachers work reasonable hours; and giving them access to children’s mental health consultants who can assist them with the occasional difficult case. Young children with challenging behaviors should not be thrown out but should be assessed to see if a more therapeutic environment might better suit their needs. The goal should be to do everything possible to bring them into the mainstream.

The Obama administration has taken some steps to end practices that disproportionately and unjustifiably subject minority students to suspension, expulsion or even arrest for behavior that should be dealt with by the principal. It has ramped up civil rights investigations and forced some districts to modify their policies.

Earlier this year, it issued extensive guidance to school districts on how to recognize and avoid discriminatory practices, and it called for more training for teachers in classroom management. School districts need to re-examine how they discipline students, especially the youngest and most fragile in their care.

Merrill Lynch settles discrimination lawsuit--but only after the suit was given class action status by a judge

Another story about Merrill Lynch's corporate culture was also in the news recently. The two stories seem to have a common element: people at Merrill Lynch tend to undermine each other.

Merrill Lynch settles discrimination lawsuit
Wall Street brokerage to pay $160 million to hundreds of black financial advisers.
Shelley DuBois
The (Nashville) Tennessean
August 29, 2013

For eight years, Nashville executive George McReynolds has been the face of a fight against racial bias at Merrill Lynch. On Wednesday, the company announced it would pay $160 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that was filed in 2005.

If approved by a federal judge in Chicago as expected, the payout by Merrill Lynch to around 1,200 plaintiffs would be one of the largest ever in a racial discrimination case, Chicago-based attorney Suzanne E. Bish said.

Bank of America-owned Merrill Lynch — one of the world's largest brokerages with more than 15,000 financial advisers — issued a statement Wednesday saying only, "We're not at this point commenting on the existence of the settlement nor the status of a settlement."

McReynolds, 68, has worked for Merrill Lynch's Nashville office since 1983. He still works there, even after filing the lawsuit in 2005.

According to his lawsuit, the company culture was "toxic" for African Americans. In 2005, only 700 out of its 14,000 financial advisers were African Americans. McReynolds was one of only two black brokers in Tennessee when he was hired in 1983. The Nashville branch didn't hire a second black employee until 1987.

Beyond its lack of diversity, Merrill Lynch would impede the careers of African-American employees it hired, the lawsuit claimed.

McReynolds' attorney, Suzanne Bish, noted that the settlement coincides with the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech."

"(McReynolds) and his wife are really amazing people who acknowledge that they are where they are because there was a struggle before them, and (they) think it's incumbent upon them to make things better for the next generation," Bish said.

Bish said the settlement should force changes beyond the company being singled out as the defendant in the eight-year-old lawsuit.

"They are leaders on Wall Street," she said. "And increasing opportunities for African-Americans at Merrill Lynch should spill over to the rest of Wall Street."

Plaintiffs claimed discrimination pervaded Merrill Lynch, at least partly because the company employed relatively few African-Americans overall. In a 2009 plaintiffs' filing, they contended that fewer than 2% of the brokers at Merrill Lynch were black.

"Far from being a colorblind meritocracy, race permeates policy and practice in a way that creates substantial obstacles to equal employment opportunity for Merrill Lynch's African-American employees," William T. Bielby, a professor of sociology, said in the filing.

Merrill Lynch sometimes relied on stereotypes, the filing also asserted, once allegedly suggesting managers encourage black brokers to "learn to play golf or other activities designed to learn how business gets done in manners (they) might not be familiar with."

Merrill Lynch prevented black brokers from working with high-profile clients, the suit alleged. It also promoted a companywide policy that encouraged associates to work together on certain cases, and blacks were generally excluded from these beneficial partnerships, the lawsuit said. Finally, after creating an atmosphere that prevented the success of African-American financial advisers, executives at Merrill Lynch would allegedly publicly badmouth the performance of minority employees, the suit alleged.

Robert Gettleman, the U.S. district judge overseeing the case in Chicago, had denied the suit class-action status. But the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago granted the status in 2012 — reviving the case and vastly extending its reach.

Gettleman must formally approve the deal, a process that could take months. A status hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 3.

Contributing: The Associated Press

Discriminating against winning football team because of their race?

We finally have two sides to this story, thanks to a commenter (see below). Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that everything the commenter says is true. (I must admit that I, too, was wondering how a team in lily-white Calabasas managed to have so many players of color.) It seems to me that we have a bit of a problem here with the white majority accusing the minority team of poor sportsmanship. Even if the allegations of "loud and outspoken" parents and coaches are true, and even if there were penalties for "poor sportsmanship," it seems to be poor sportsmanship not to let the number one team into the playoffs. Obviously, the violations must not have been too serious, or there would have been penalties that would have caused games to be lost.

It seems that the real objection is that the minority players are simply better players, and that they don't match the demographic of the area. Apparently, if the players in question were white, the PYFL and Calabasas Raiders would have no argument at all. A white player could have been imported illegally, but no one has bothered to investigate the actual facts of the situation for either white or minority players.

It is obviously racist to refuse to allow a winning team into the playoffs based entirely on race.

Don't discriminate against winning football team because of their race
Pacific Youth Football League AND Calabasas Raiders: Let the Senior SIlver youth team play in their earned spot in the playoffs
Started by: Myla, Canoga Park, California
Change.org

Discrimination is unacceptable especially against children. This 13 year old predominantly African-American and Latino youth football team playing in a predominantly Caucasian league, has lost only one game in the season and is ranked #1 in their conference.

Playoffs start this Saturday and this team was told they are not welcome in the playoffs. Excuses such as poor sportsmanship, running up the score, etc. has been given, however, no coach or player has ever been suspended, ejected, or even verbally warned. There was no knowledge that there was even an issue, until the playoffs when they were told that their team is "SPOOKY" and too aggressive. This is TACKLE football and the word spooky is very insulting and ignorant and carries a racict connotation. These boys have played their hearts out all year and deserve to play. Please help us stand up for whats right and not allow money and power to be abused. Say no to racism and discrimination and let the Calabasas Raiders Senior Silver Team play in the playoffs where they belong.

Sign Myla's Petition

UPDATE OCT. 28, 2012

This comment was left by someone who seems to know something about the situation:

theothersideofthestory has left a new comment on your post "Discriminating against winning football team becau...":

Seriously...This team had many penalties for poor sportsmanship. Their coaches and parents, by there own admission, were loud and 'outspoken' on the sidelines, earning them many of those penalties while the boys supplied the rest. Another strange issue I find with this is; that the population of Calabasas is approximately about 1% African American, according to the sources I searched online. How is it possible for them to be able to field an almost entirely black team? There have been rumors floating around for years that they actually pull players in from LA all the way down to Orange County to stack their teams. The PYFL has specific territory rules, and my understanding is that they are not supposed to stack your teams even with what actually is your rightful pool of boys. The Playoffs are by invitation only, and if you don't play well with others, you don't get invited. Other teams from Lancaster, Palmdale other locations have, African American players in higher quantities (with their demographics backing it up-mind you) and they are in the playoffs. Cheaters and bad sports got caught at their game and now - guess what? They are being bad sports about it....shocking, don't you think???

Ex-EEOC Judge Sues the EEOC for Discrimination, Retaliation

July 31, 2012 Judge's Disability Case Against EEOC Revived
By TIM HULL
Courthouse News (CN)

The 9th Circuit revived a former administrative law judge's disability discrimination case against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Mary Bullock worked as an ALJ for the commission from 1999 to 2007. She has Multiple Sclerosis and Systemic Lupus.

She originally filed her complaint alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in 2003, to mixed results. A judge found that the EEOC had retaliated against her for making the charges, but that she was not qualified to bring them because she couldn't do her job with or without accommodation.

The judge awarded Bullock $25,000 in nonpecuniary damages, $108,680 in attorney's fees and $7,823.24 in costs.

Bullock then filed an optional administrative appeal with the EEOC, but soon withdrew it in favor of a federal lawsuit in San Diego. Presiding U.S. District Judge William Hayes dismissed the case, holding that Bullock had failed to wait the requisite 180 days to file her lawsuit after withdrawing her appeal, and thus had not yet exhausted her administrative remedies.

A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court reversed from Pasadena on Monday, clarifying the 180-day rule in cases where a plaintiff files suit after withdrawing an optional appeal with the EEOC.

"In sum, we hold that an aggrieved employee subject to the procedural rules of Title VII exhausts her administrative remedies by filing a formal complaint for adjudication by an ALJ," wrote Judge Judge William Fletcher for the unanimous, three-judge panel. "Once final agency action has been taken on her complaint, she has the option of either filing an administrative appeal or filing suit directly in federal district court within 90 days of receiving notice of the agency action. If the employee files an optional administrative appeal, she may withdraw that appeal and file suit in district court without waiting 180 days from the filing of the notice of appeal. The employee's lawsuit in district court may proceed even though the employee filed and then withdrew an administrative appeal. As Bullock filed suit within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action on her complaint, we have no occasion to decide whether an employee's lawsuit could proceed if the employee prematurely withdrew from an administrative appeal and filed suit more than 90 days after receiving notice of final agency action on her complaint."