When college was male: Higher education and the war against women

 

It should come as no surprise that as higher education in America has become more dominated by women it is facing more disparagement and less support since World War II.

Prior to World War II higher ed was male. Most professors were male, as were most students. Women were generally excluded from higher education, most of the schools in the United States were for men only, including the most elite Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale.  Yes, there were the Seven Sisters female-only colleges  for women, but for the most part, college could be defined as white male. And at the same time, the vast majority of university professors also were male.

As late as the early 1970s, barely a quarter of the college faculty in the United States were female. Among some of the most elite coed schools, there were no female professors. Women comprised about 40% of college students, but many schools still excluded women. But over the past 50 years, the composition of higher education, both in terms of faculty and in terms of percentage of students who are female, has dramatically changed.

For example, what we now know is that in the past few years, especially since 2009, college enrollment has dropped dramatically. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2020 the total number of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college was down by approximately 1.2 million from its peak in 2011.

THE DECLINE IS MOSTLY COLLEGE MALES. THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY 1 MILLION FEWER MALES IN COLLEGE NOW THAN THERE WERE BACK IN 2011. IN 2022 BARELY 42% OF COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE MALE — ALMOST A MIRROR REVERSAL OF MALE-FEMALE STUDENT ENROLLMENT RATIO COMPARED TO 1970. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS HOW THE FACULTY RATIO HAS CHANGED. AND THAT WHAT WE’RE NOW SEEING, DEPENDING ON WHAT STATISTICS YOU LOOK AT, IS A DRAMATIC SHIFT IN THE COMPOSITION OF COLLEGE FACULTY.

Remember again in 1970, approximately 24% were female. According to more recent statistics from Zippia, for example, we’re now looking at approximately 49.8% of faculty being female, 50.2% male, essentially parity on the surface. An AAUP 2020 survey found that 43% of full-time faculty who were in tenure-track positions were female, but 54% of the faculty who were full-time, non tenure-track were female.

Additionally, female faculty members make 94 cents on the dollar compared to males. Over time, as higher education has become more dominated by female students and faculty, what we’re seeing is a backlash. According to the AAUP  in 2022 only about 26.5% of all faculty are tenured, 10.5% are tenure track, annual contracts are 18%, and part time contingent 45%. The vast majority of individuals now who are teaching in America are what are part-time contingent, no protections with tenure. They are mostly women. The road to equity in higher education is characterized by overall falling salaries and less secure positions for women compared to when colleges and universities were dominated by men.

As higher education feminized, states cut funding, forcing increasing numbers of female students to borrow to finance their schooling. Student loan debt in 2023 is $1.8 trillion, with 67% of it owed by women.

The feminization of higher education has  been accompanied by the disparagement of higher education in America. As males exit higher America higher education, we see increasing attacks upon college and college degrees. No surprise that governors such as Gov. Ron DeSantis have attacked higher education as it has diversified. The same is true in Texas and across the country. Attacking and defunding higher education is part of the new war against women.

The Near Impossibility of Clinton Winning the First Debate

Before it even takes place the easiest prediction in the world to make regarding the first presidential

debate between Clinton and Trump is that it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to win it.  The reasons are simple–sexism and the expectations game.

There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton could or will lose the first debate.  She is not a strong  public speaker.   Or she might not provide good answers to tough questions.  Or she will continue to be dogged by issues surrounding her e-mails or even something substantive and real that matter, such as her policies toward ISIS, health care, or financial regulation.  All are possibilities.

But what will doom her first is sexism.  She is trapped by a double-standard that Trump will not face.  If on the one hand Clinton is too aggressive she will be saddled with the bitch word;   too passive and she will be perceived as too weak, too female, to be a commander-in-chief.  If she is too policy focused she risks turning off too many, further reinforcing the impression that she is too cold or ambitious.  If she getting into a yelling match or goes into the gutter against Trump she is just a nag. No matter what she says she will be criticized.

But presidential debates are more watched than heard.  Since the beginning of televised presidential debates in 1960 it is how one looks that is more important than what one says.  Radio listeners thought Richard Nixon beat John Kennedy in 1960 in terms of content while most who watched declared the latter the winner because he looked young, strong, and in command while the former sweated with a five-o-clock shadow.  The medium is the message as Marshal McLuhan famously declared and for television the medium is appearance.

Even before she utters a word Clinton will be judged by her appearance.  She will be poured over in terms of what she wore (another pantsuit!), how her hair looked, her make up, her weight, or whether she looked sick.  She will be judged by her body language.  Think back to the primaries when Sanders wore the same cheap $99 Woolworths suit everywhere he went.  No one criticized him on that.  But lest Clinton wear the same pantsuit as before or not have all her hairs in place she will be harshly criticized for that and the lead story come Tuesday will be about her fashion mistakes.

But the sexism is even deeper that how she looks.  She will also be Laurerized.  Laurerized is the new verb coined by Matt Laurer’s sexist treatment of Clinton a couple of weeks ago when he constantly interrupted her but not Trump in the Commander’s forum.    The media’s double-standard  will box her in.  Finally think even about this campaign and how the candidates are reverenced )and even self-referenced): Hillary v Trump.  The female is often referred to by her first name, the male  his last–a subtle but powerful form of sexism that treats women like children.

Clinton thus faces a difficult challenge.  She cannot be too aggressive or passive, too logical or emotive, or too strong or weak.  She has to look just right.  She needs to thread a nearly impossible  needle to be declared the winner–a task many women find everyday at work but not magnify that problem on a national stage and one will find it almost impossible to navigate.

But add to that the expectations game.  Clinton I expected to mop the floor with Trump on substance.  If she does not dominate she is declared the loser.  Trump wins simply by showing up and not insulting anyone (too much), or he wins if he insults Clinton, or he wins if he just looks presidential (read as be male and looking like he is in control).  The expectations are so low for Trump that almost anything he will count as a victory.

This is especially the case in the polarized political and media environment we live in today.  Half the public has already declared Clinton will lose not matter what she says, and with that half the media and blogosphere has already rendered its judgment.  The post-debate pundits will issue the usual and predictable verdicts, make it difficult for a real consensus to emerge regarding who has won on merits.

Finally, this polarization and the politainment focus of the debates will render whatever substance there is superfluous, where neither truth will matter nor content seem important. Clinton cannot win on merits because merit does not matter. In so many ways, expect the debate to be cast as a great entertainment venture where all Trump needs to do is to call Clinton “an ignorant slut” and we have reality mocking the famous 1979 SNL Dan Aykroyd-Jane Curtin Point/Counterpoint skit.

It will be nearly impossible for Clinton to win the first debate.

A Close 2016 Presidential Election that Favors...

To the dismiss of many Democrats and political pundits, the presidential race is again tightening up.  For weeks Clinton enjoyed a near double-digit lead in national polls and solid leads in the critical swing states.  Yet recent polls suggest nationally the race is closer, with at least one poll–CNN putting Trump ahead (although with a margin of error that might question that)–and a recent NY Times article suggesting a closer race but one with Clinton still leading.  The Washington Post still sees a decisive lead for Clinton in the critical swing states, but again polling suggests even in the swings a tighter race.  The point is that for the last three or so weeks partisans and pundits have committed one if not many of the seven deadly sins of punditry that I recently described.
The point is that the presidential race is close and may be so right to the wire.  Nate Silver gives Clinton (as of September 9) a 69.5% chance to win, I place it closer to 60-65% chance.  Early voting will start soon, more FBI Clinton e-mails will be released, Wikileaks will release some, and then there are the debates.  Many variables can still affect the election and there is no guarantee that  Clinton can cinch an easy path to 270 electoral votes, especially when her disapprovals are as high  as Trump’s and this is an anti-establishment year and she is the face of the status quo.
Over the last few weeks I have given several talks to various groups about the election, with three questions or issues repeatedly surfacing.  Let’s consider these issues.

Popular Vote v Electoral Vote
Remember presidents are elected by the electoral vote which is a 51 state race (50 states plus District of Columbia) to reach 270 electoral votes.  One can win the popular vote as Al Gore did in 2000 yet lose in the electoral college.  I see this split again as a real possibility.  One scenario: Clinton racks up large popular vote majorities in Democratic-leaning states but loses in the swing states.  Alternatively, Clinton wins the swing states but huge anti-Clinton voters overall give Trump a popular (if we can say popular this year?) vote victory.

Sexism
Clinton has many self-inflicted wounds and is a flawed candidate but she is also a victim of horrible sexism.  I have been doing a quiz this year in my talks asking the audience what percentage of the voting population will not vote for a woman regardless of who it is?  I think it is approximately 30%.  This means Clinton starts off with nearly one-third of the voters who will not  vote for her.  What do you think?  Is the percentage higher or lower than 30%?

Turnout
Everyone wants to know what turnout will be this fall.  This is hard to predict.  I can see a scenario where turnout is depressed because no one likes the two major presidential candidates or a scenario where we see high turnout as voters come out to vote against Trump or Clinton.  Both are  plausible scenarios.  With that I am asked who is advantaged with high or low turnout?  Traditionally  I would argue Democrats would be favored with high turnout but this election high turnout could  favor Trump.

Third Parties
Since nearly 60% of voters say they do not like Trump or Clinton, will third parties benefit this year?  I am skeptical.  Partisan attitudes have hardened and it seems unlikely that many voters will beak to a third party, especially with a lingering but false belief that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.   Instead I see it more likely that some voters stay home or not vote for the presidential candidates.  This non-voting may not make a difference in many states but in some swing states it could tip a race.

How will voters break?
I was in graduate school at Rutgers University during the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan.  The race was very close until about 72 hours out.  Polling then indicated that the undecided  voters were breaking strongly for Reagan, deciding that they did not like the status quo.  I see a scenario like that repeating itself.  Yes early voting many complicate this but undecided voters will not vote until November 8.  I could see a close race until about November 5, and then a major shift in voting as undecideds make up their mind.  Whether those numbers will be enough to offset any candidate advantages from early voting is not clear but I could see one candidate winning the early  voting and another winning on election day.  Right now my guess is that a last minute break by voters favors Trump over Clinton in a year that favors the anti-establishment.

What happens after the election?
Stalemate.  See almost no scenario where the next to years produces a real break from the current deadlock we see.  No one party will win sufficiently commanding majorities in Congress plus the presidency to break current impasses and since neither Clinton nor Trump really are running with serious or significant narratives (they are arguing they should be elected because the other person is worse) their mandates will be weak.
But assume Clinton is elected, what then?  Two predictions.  First, Congress will do everything it can (the Republican-controlled House) to shut her agenda down.  Second, the House sometime before the 2018 elections will impeach Clinton in a straight party-line vote.  This will then  give the Republicans the bragging rights to claiming they impeached both Clintons.