OKAY.
SHALL WE START?
SO HELLO, WELCOME, EVERYONE.
TO THIS EXCITING EVENT.
A DISCUSSION OF THE BOOK, THE
EXCEPTIONS, NANCY HOPKINS AND
THE FIGHT FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE.
WITH KATE ZERNIKE, THE AUTHOR
AND NANCY HOPKINS HERSELF, WE
ARE SO PRIVILEGED.
I AM JUDY WALTERS AND I'VE BEEN
ASKED TO START US OFF BY GIVING
YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION
ABOUT THE GROUPS THAT HAVE
ORGANIZED AND SPONSORED THIS
IMPRESSIVE EVENT.
THEY INCLUDE THE PORTER BOOK
CLUB, THE WOMEN SCIENTISTS
ADVISORS AND THE WOMEN
SCIENTISTS FELLOWS COMMITTEE.
I'M DELIGHTED TO TALK ABOUT
THESE GROUPS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A
RESEARCHER AT NIH AND NINDS FOR
OVER 50 YEARS NOW, AND CURRENTLY
A SCIENTIST EMERITI, AND AS I GO
BACK TO A TIME AT NIH WELL
BEFORE WHEN THESE ORGANIZATIONS
CAME INTO BEING, I CAN REALLY
APPRECIATE AND VOUCH FOR WHAT
THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED AND
CONTRIBUTED TO LIFE AT NIH.
THE OLDEST OF THESE, THE WOMEN
SCIENTISTS ADVISORS, WAS FORMED
IN 1993 IN RESPONSE TO
RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TASK FORCE
ESTABLISHED BY DR. BERNADINE
HEALY, THE FIRST FEMALE DIRECTOR
OF NIH.
IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO EXAMINE
THE STATUS OF INTRAMURAL WOMEN
SCIENTISTS.
THE WOMEN SIGN TU SCIENTIST ADVS
COMMITTEE WAS FORMED BASED ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS TASK
FORCE, AND IT IS MADE UP OF
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF
TENURED WOMEN SCIENTISTS, ONE
ELECTED FROM EACH OF THE NIH 27
INSTITUTES OR CENTERS.
IT'S CURRENTLY CHAIRED BY DIDI
STORES, A RESEARCHER IN NICHD
AND THE FUNCTION IS TO REPRESENT
THE INTERESTS OF WOMEN
SCIENTISTS AT THE NIH TO RAISE
AWARENESS OF ISSUES FACING WOMEN
SCIENTISTS, TO WORK TOWARD
IMPROVING WOMEN REPRESENTATION
OF THE NIH FACULTY AT ALL LEVELS
AND I CAN TESTIFY THAT THE
ORGANIZATION HAS ADVOCATED
EFFECTIVELY FOR THE TENURED
WOMEN AT NIH SINCE ITS
BEGINNING.
AT THE SAME TIME, OR A LITTLE
BIT LATER, FELCOM, AN NIH
FELLOWS COMMITTEE WAS ORGANIZED
BY THE OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL
TRAINING AND EDUCATION TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE
INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
TRAINEES IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
AND VERY RECENTLY, A NEW YOUNG
SUBCOMMITTEE OF FELCOM HAS BEEN
FORMED IN LIAISON WITH THE WSA,
THE WOMEN SCIENTISTS FELLOWS
COMMITTEE, OR THE WSF.
AND THIS WAS OFFICIALLY
ESTABLISHED IN JUNE OF 2023, AND
THE WOMEN SCIENTISTS FELLOWS
COMMITTEE HAS PUT A LOT OF
EFFORT INTO ORGANIZING THE
EVENTS, THE TWO EVENTS TODAY.
EVA HELLSBERG IS CO-FOUNDER AND
CO-CHAIR OF WSF AND THE OTHER
CO-CHAIR IS CAROLYN PUH FROM
NICHD.
THEY ALSO -- THE COMMITTEES
LIAISON WITH WSA AND FELCOM.
THE WSF COMMITTEE FOCUSES ON
OUTREACH, SUPPORT, AND
EMPOWERMENT TO WOMEN AND GENDER
MINORITY FELLOWS WITHIN THE NIH
AT THE POSTBACCALAUREATE
GRADUATE POSTDOCTORAL CLINICAL
AND RESEARCH FELLOW STAGES.
IT AIMS TO PROVIDE A PLATFORM
FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION,
KNOWLEDGE-SHARING, RESOURCE
ACCESS AND FOSTERING A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY.
AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO A
LOT OF EFFORT GOING INTO THIS
EVENT, I WANT TO MAKE A BIG
SHOUT OUT TO THE PORTER BOOK
CLUB, WHO WITH THE WSF
COMMITTEE, HAS BEEN CRITICAL TO
GET THIS EVENT ROLLING AND WILL
BE MODERATING THE DISCUSSION IN
THE PORTER BUILDING THIS
AFTERNOON.
THE PORTER BOOK CLUB IS AN
INITIATIVE STEMMING FROM THE
PORTER NEUROSCIENCE CENTERS
USERS GROUP, WHOSE MANDATE, POST
COVID ESPECIALLY, HAS BEEN TO
CATALYZE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN
THOSE OF US WITHIN THE PORTER
NEUROSCIENCE BUILDING AND MORE
BROADLY IN THE NIH NEUROSCIENCE
COMMUNITY.
AND AS PART OF THESE ONGOING
EFFORTS, THE PORTER USERS GROUP
CHAIRED BY DR. ALEX WESLER,
STARTED THE PORTER BOOK CLUB TO
INVITE AUTHORS OF POPULAR
SCIENCE BOOKS TO COME TO THE NIH
AND DISCUSS THEIR WORK.
AND THE IDEA WAS THAT THIS WOULD
BE A TYPE OF EVENT OPEN TO
EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF TRAINING
OR SENIORITY, A NOVEL, PUN
INTENDED, WAY OF TALKING ABOUT
BIG PICTURE IDEAS THAT WE
SOMETIMES NEGLECT WHEN WE ARE
ALL OBSESSING OVER OUR
SPECIALIZED SCIENTIFIC NICHES.
SO LONG STORY SHORT, AFTER
READING THE EXEMPTI PRESREADINGE
KATE ZERNIKE AND NANCY HOPKINS
TO COME TO NIH AND WE ARE
DELIGHTED THAT THEY ACCEPTED.
AND SO I WILL NOW HAND OVER THIS
MEETING TO ISABELLA CERANOS, AN
NIDCR POSTDOC WHO
ENTHUSIASTICALLY TOOK UP HELPING
CO-ORGANIZE THIS EVENT FOR THE
WSF.
SHE HAD DESIGNED THE APPEALING
FLYER, AND PROVIDED THE
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE WITH ON
THE SPOT INPUT AND WILL
INTRODUCE NANCY HOPKINS HERE
TODAY.
THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS ISABELLA CISNEROS,
POSTBACCALAUREATE FELLOW IN THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD
HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
TODAY I HAVE THE HONOR OF
INTRODUCING DR. NANCY HOPKINS,
AN INCREDIBLE SCIENTIST AND
ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE.
DR. HOPKINS' SCIENTIFIC CAREER
BEGAN IN HER BIO 2 CLASSROOM
WHERE SHE RAPIDLY FELL IN LOVE
WITH DNA AND UD STANDING THE UNE
QUESTION OF HOW GENES ARE TURNED
ON OR OFF.
SHE GRADUATED IN 1964 WITH A
B.A. IN BIOLOGY AND WENT ON TO
PURSUE HER PH.D. AT HARVARD
UNIVERSITY.
TOGETHER, SHE DISCOVERED A
SEMINAL FINDING PUBLISHED IN
NATURE.
AFTER EARNING A PH.D. IN 1971
SHE RECEIVED A PRESTIGIOUS
FELLOWSHIP TO SUPPORT HER
POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING WHERE SHE
STUDIED DNA TUMOR VIRUSES WITH
DR. JAMES WATSON AND DR. ROBERT
POLLACK.
IN 1973 SHE JOINED THE CENTER
FOR CANCER RESEARCH AS ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR, WHERE SHE SET OUT TO
STUDY RNA TUMOR VIRUSES.
SHE IDENTIFIED VIRAL GENES
RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE
TYPE AND SEVERITY OF CANCER
CAUSED BY MASS RETROVIRUSES.
HOWEVER, AFTER 15 YEARS,
DR. HOPKINS DISCOVERED A NEW
INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENTAL
BIOLOGY, AND PIVOTED TO
DEVELOPING MOLECULAR TOOLS FOR
ZEBRAFISH RESEARCH.
USING LARGE SCALE INSERTIONAL
MUTAGENESIS, HER LAB IDENTIFIED
AND CLONED A QUARTER OF THE
GENES NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT.
FURTHER ESTABLISHING THE
ZEBRAFISH AS A MODEL FOR
VERTEBRATE DEVELOPMENT AND
CANCER BIOLOGY.
CURRENTLY SHE'S THE ANGEN
PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY EMERITI AT
M.I.T.
SHE'S ALSO BEEN A STEADFAST
ADVOCATE FOR GENDER EQUITY IN
SCIENCE.
WHILE AT M.I.T., DR. HOPKINS AND
OTHER WOMEN FACULTY STRUGGLED
WITH DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER
BEING REMOVED FROM TEACHING
COURSES OR NOT BEING GIVEN
ENOUGH LAB SPACE TO DO THEIR
RESEARCH.
IN 1994, TOGETHER WITH 15 WOMEN
FACULTY FROM THE SCHOOL OF
SCIENCE, DR. HOPKINS DOCUMENTED
THEIR EXPERIENCES AND PRESENTED
THEIR FINDINGS IN A LETTER TO
THE DEAN OF SCIENCE.
THEIR ACTIONS LED TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN FACULTY,
WHOSE 1999 REPORT LAUNCHED A
NATIONAL RECKONING WITH
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN
SCIENCE.
IN THE YEARS SINCE, DR. HOPKINS
HAS CONTINUED TO ADVOCATE FOR
EQUITY IN SCIENCE.
MOST RECENTLY IN 2019, SHE AND
HER COLLEAGUES FOUNDED THE
BOSTON BIOTECH WORKING GROUP, TO
INCREASE WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION
AS FOUNDERS AND BOARD MEMBERS OF
BIOTECH COMPANIES IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
AND IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH,
DR. HOPKINS HAS ALSO BEEN THE
RECIPIENT OF MANY AWARDS AND
HONORS THROUGHOUT HER CAREER.
SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES,
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES.
SHE HAS WON A NUMBER OF
ACCOLADES INCLUDING THE PUBLIC
WELFARE AWARD, WHICH SHE WAS
AWARDED THIS YEAR IN RECOGNITION
OF HER COURAGEOUS LEADERSHIP
OVER THREE DECADES TO CREATE AND
ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
WOMEN IN SCIENCE.
WITH THAT, PLEASE JOIN ME IN
GIVING A WARM WELCOME TO
DR. NANCY HOPKINS.
[APPLAUSE]
I'LL NOW PASS IT OFF TO REMA TO
INTRODUCE KATE ZERNIKE.
>> HELLO, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS REMA, A GRADUATE
STUDENT IN THE NIH JOHNS HOPKINS
GRADUATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AND
CO-FOUNDER OF THE WOMEN'S GENDER
MINORITY BOOK CLUB.
I ALONG WITH EVA HELLSBERG AND
JESSICA KEARNEY RECENTLY FOUNDED
THIS BOOK CLUB TO PROMOTE GENDER
EQUITY BY EXPLORING THE
CHALLENGES FACED BY ALL GENDERS
AND FOSTERING A SUPPORTIVE
COMMUNITY AT NIH.
WE COULDN'T HAVE CHOSEN A MORE
FITTING BOOK TO LAUNCH OUR BOOK
CLUB OTHER THAN KATE ZERNIKE'S
THE EXCEPTIONS.
IT IS MY HONOR TO INTRODUCE TO
YOU AN EXCEPTIONAL WOMAN
HERSELF, KATE ZERNIKE, WHO IS A
"NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTER AND
AUTHOR OF THE INSPIRING YET
INFURIATING STORY OF THE
MARGINALIZATION OF WOMEN IN
ACADEMIA, THE EXCEPTIONS.
ZERNIKE EARNED HER BACHELORS IN
ENGLISH AND HISTORY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND A
MASTER'S AT THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF JOURNALISM AT COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY.
SHE STARTED HER CAREER IN 1992
AS A GENERAL ASSIGNMENT AND
EDUCATION BEAT REPORTER FOR THE
PATRIOT LEDGER IN QUINCY,
MASSACHUSETTS.
NOT LONG AFTER, ZERNIKE ALSO
REPORTED FOR THE BOSTON CLOAB O"
ON K-12 EDUCATION, HIGHER
EDUCATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS.
IN 2000, ZERNIKE BEGAN WORKING
FOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES,"
REPORTING ON SUCH TOPICS SUCH AS
EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, AND THE
OLYMPICS.
DURING HER TIME HERE, ZERNIKE
WAS ALSO PART OF AN
INVESTIGATIONS TEAM WHICH WAS
AWARDED THE PULITZER PRIZE IN
2002 FOR EXPLANATORY REPORTING
ON STORIES ABOUT AL QAEDA BEFORE
AND AFTER THE 9/11 TERROR
ATTACKS.
SHE WOULD THEN GO ON TO WRITE
BOILING MAD, BEHIND THE LINES IN
TEA PARTY AMERICA, AN
EXAMINATION OF THE RISE OF
CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISM UNDER
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST TERM.
IN ADDITION TO BEING AN
ACCOMPLISHED POLITICAL
JOURNALIST, ZERNIKE IS ALSO NO
STRANGER TO SCIENCE.
ZERNIKE WAS RAISED IN A
HOUSEHOLD WHERE BOTH HER FATHER
AND GRANDFATHER ARE PHYSICISTS
AND, FUN FACT, HER GRANDFATHER
WON THE 1953 NOBEL PRIZE IN
PHYSICS FOR INVENTING THE PHASE
CONTRAST MICROSCOPE.
HER UNIQUE EXPOSURE TO SCIENCE
AS WELL AS HER JOURNALISTIC
EXPERTISE AND HIGHER EDUCATION
PROVIDES ZERNIKE THE IDEAL LENS
TO WRITE ABOUT NANCY HOPKINS AND
THE OTHER WOMEN SCIENTISTS AT
M.I.T.
THE EXCEPTIONS HAS BEEN NAMED
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
NOTABLE BOOK, "NEW YORK TIMES"
NOTABLE BOOK, AND SHORT-LISTED
FOR ROYAL SOCIETY SCIENCE BOOK
PRIZE TO NAME A FEW AWARDS.
ZERNIKE HERSELF WAS AWARDED A
PRIZE FROM THE EDUCATION WRITERS
ASSOCIATION FOR HER 1999
M.I.T. -- HER 1999 ARTICLE,
M.I.T. WOMEN FIGHT AGAINST BIAS
IN THE "BOSTON GLOBE."
HER JOURNALISM WHILE AT THE
"BOSTON GLOBE" LED HER TO EXPAND
HER WORK AND DETAIL THE ISSUES
AROUND M.I.T. AND DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WOMEN FACULTY IN THE
EXCEPTIONS.
ZERNIKE CONTINUES AS A REPORTER
ON THE NATIONAL DESK AT THE "NEW
YORK TIMES" REPORTING ON KEY
POLITICAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT
WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE
TO JOIN ME IN WELCOMING KATE
ZERNIKE TO THE STAGE.
[APPLAUSE]
>> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THOSE LOVELY INTRODUCTIONS.
I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY THE
NICEST INTRODUCTIONS WE'VE HAD,
SO THANK YOU.
THAT WAS REALLY GREAT.
I'M A BIG FAN OF THE NIH
ALREADY.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE
ACTUALLY BSH BECAUSE WE WERE
DOING THIS WITH THE BOOK CLUB
OVERLAPPING SO I DON'T KNOW HOW
MANY PEOPLE HAVE READ THE BOOK
AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING
TO THE STORY FRESH HERE, BUT I
WILL SAY THAT HAVING DONE A LOT
OF THESE EVENTS, SOME SOLO, SOME
WITH NANCY, IT IS ALWAYS BETTER
TO HEAR THE STORY STRAIGHT FROM
NANCY, SO I AM JUST GOING TO
SORT OF PROMPT HER, WE DID THIS
AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY IN APRIL
AND IT WAS ACTUALLY VERY FUN.
JUST TO SORT OF TELL US THE
STORY ABOUT HOW SHE WENT FROM
BEING THIS NEOPHYTE SORT OF
CONVERT TO BIOLOGY AS A 1
19-YEAR-OLD AT RADCLIFFE IN 1963
TO LEADING THIS GROUP OF WOMEN
IN 1999 AND ALL THE WORK SHE'S
DONE AFTER THAT.
SO NANCY, I THINK THIS IS THE
LAST SCHEDULED EVENT WE HAVE AND
NANCY HAS TOLD ME SHE'S NOT
DOING ANYMORE.
SOMETIMES SHE LIES BUT THIS TIME
SHE MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN IT.
BUT ANYWAY, I WAS THINKING WHEN
WE MET IN 1999, YOU WERE YOUNGER
THAN I AM NOW.
AND I'M REALLY YOUNG.
ANYWAY, BUT SO AS I TELL THE
STORY, I GOT THIS TIP, I WAS
COVERING HIGHER EDUCATION, AND I
GOT THIS TIP THAT THERE WAS
SOMETHING GOING ON WITH WOMEN
AND DISCRIMINATION AT M.I.T. AND
I WAS LIKE, IT'S PROBABLY A
LAWSUIT AND IT'S PROBABLY, YOU
KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE
HE SAID, SHE SAID, IT WILL BE
VERY UNRESOLVED BUT I DECIDED I
WOULD CALL THIS WOMAN WHOSE NAME
I WAS GIVEN WAYS NANCY HOPKINS.
WHEN I CALLED NANCY, SHE TOLD
ME, IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT OF
M.I.T. WAS GOING TO ADMIT THAT
M.I.T. HAD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
THE WOMEN ON ITS SCIENCE
FACULTY.
SO THAT'S FIRST AMAZING FACT AS
NANCY LIKES TO HEAR ME SAY THIS,
BUT THAT IN MY BUSINESS IS
CALLED A MAN BITES DOG STORY.
IT WAS NOT WHAT WE EXPECTED.
SO -- AND THEN THE SECOND
INTERESTING THING SHE SAID WAS
THAT THIS HAD ALL COME ABOUT,
THE PRESIDENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGING
THIS BECAUSE THE WOMEN ON THE
SCIENCE FACULTY HAD GOTTEN
TOGETHER WITH SOME OF THEIR MALE
COLLEAGUES AND GATHERED ALL THIS
INFORMATION AND PUT IT IN A
REPORT THAT DOCUMENTED ALL THE
WAYS IN WHICH WOMEN WERE -- THE
CHRIS KEP SEETHEDISCREPANCIES TD
AT M.I.T.
I LOVED THAT BECAUSE JUST HAVING
A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF
SCIENCE, I THINK ANYONE WOULD
SEE THIS, THIS TO ME STRUCK ME
THAT THESE WERE FEMALE
SCIENTISTS LEANING INTO WHAT
THEY DID BEST, WHICH WAS TO TAKE
A HYPOTHESIS AND THEN GO LOOK
FOR THE DATA TO SEE IF THIS WAS
REALLY TRUE.
SO I WENT TO VISIT -- SO NANCY
TOLD ME THIS, I THOUGHT IT WAS
VERY INTERESTING, SHE WAS GOING
TO SEND ME THE REPORT AND I WENT
TO MEET HER IN HER LAB, AND THIS
BECAME SORT OF A FAMOUS MOMENT
BECAUSE I SAID TO NANCY, WELL,
HOW DID THIS ALL START?
AND SHE SAID, OH, WELL, I NEEDED
MORE SPACE IN MY LAB FOR MY FISH
TANKS AND I COULDN'T GET MORE
SPACE EVEN THOUGH ALL THE MEN
HAD MORE SPACE THAN I DID.
AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, HOW DID
YOU KNOW THE MEN HAD MORE SPACE
THAN YOU DID?
AND SHE SAID, WELL, I MEASURED.
[LAUGHTER]
AND I WAS LIKE, YOU MEASURED?
SHE LOOKED AT ME LIKE I WAS THE
DUMBEST PERSON ON EARTH, SHE
SAID, WITH A TAPE MEASURE.
AND AGAIN, NANCY, CAN YOU SEE
HER NOW, SHE WAS THIS
INCREDIBLY -- IS THIS INCREDIBLY
ELEGANT WOMAN, SHE HAS A SLIGHT
BRITISH ACCENT, AND I JUST
COULDN'T IMAGINE, I THINK YOU
WERE WEARING AT THE TIME -- I
THINK YOU WERE WEARING A SUIT
AND A SILK SCARF AND A BROACH
AND I WAS LIKE, REALLY, YOU WERE
CRAWLING AROUND THE FLOORS WITH
A TAPE MEASURE?
AND INDEED SHE HAD BEEN CRAWLING
AROUND THE FLOORS WITH A TAPE
MEASURE.
AND YOU WERE SURPRISED THAT I
FOUND THAT INTERESTING, THE TAPE
MEASURE.
IT HAD NOT OCCURRED TO YOU THAT
THAT WAS AN UNUSUAL THING TO DO.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S BECAUSE YOU
ARE A SCIENTIST?
>> WELL, YES, I MEAN, JUST TO
GET THE DATA WAS VERY
CONTROVERSIAL.
YOU KNOW, WOMEN ALLOWED TO HAVE
DATA, PEOPLE WERE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT WOMEN HAVING DATA.
THEY MIGHT FIND OUT WHAT WAS
ACTUALLY GOING ON, OH, MY GOSH.
ANYWAY, SO YEAH, IT WAS
CONTROVERSIAL AND I DID MY
MEASUREMENTS LATE AT NIGHT, WHEN
EVERYBODY HAD GONE HOME, I'D
CREEP AROUND DOING ALL THE SPACE
MEASUREMENTS.
SO, YEAH.
IT WAS A BIG DEAL.
IT'S HARD -- IT'S REALLY HARD TO
IMAGINE TODAY, I THINK, WHAT IT
WAS LIKE THEN ACTUALLY.
THAT IS A SIGN OF PROGRESS.
SO THERE'S HOPE.
OFTEN WE TALK TO YOUNG PEOPLE
AND THEY SAY, HOW MANY COME
NOTHING CHANGED?
AND I SAY, LITTLE DO YOU KNOW.
SO TALKING TO KATE WAS A VERY
SCARY THING, BECAUSE THE WOMEN
HAD OPERATED IN ABSOLUTE
SECRECY.
IN FACT, WE WERE AFRAID THAT
SOMEBODY AT M.I.T. WOULD SEE
THAT MANY WOMEN GET TOGETHER, SO
WE WERE AFRAID TO ACTUALLY MEET
TOGETHER AS A GROUP, BECAUSE
PEOPLE WOULD THINK SOMETHING ODD
WAS GOING ON TO SEE THAT MANY
WOMEN TOGETHER.
SO WE USED TO MOSTLY
COMMUNICATE, YOU KNOW, BY PHONE
ACTUALLY.
AND WE'D HAVE LITTLE
SUBMEETINGS, I'D GO TO PEOPLE'S
OFFICE TO TALK TO THEM.
SO IT WAS A BIG DEAL TO TALK TO
THE PRESS, AND IT WAS THE FIRST
THING WE EVER DID AS A GROUP
WHERE I DIDN'T GET THE
PERMISSION OF EVERY SINGLE ONE
OF THE WOMEN THAT I WAS GOING TO
TALK TO SOMEBODY FROM THE PRESS.
AND I WAS RACING AROUND TRYING
TO GET IN TIME BEFORE KATE CAME
GET EVERYBODY'S PERMISSION THAT
I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK WITH
HER AT ALL, AND I DIDN'T GET TO
EVERYBODY SO I FELT VERY NERVOUS
JUST SPEAKING TO HER BECAUSE WE
HAD OPERATED IN ABSOLUTE
SECRECY, AND SUDDENLY, OH, MY
GOODNESS, IT WAS GOING TO BE IN
THE NEWSPAPER?
THAT WAS GOING TO BE INTERESTING
TO SEE.
BUT I ACTUALLY AT THAT TIME
THOUGHT SO FEW PEOPLE IN THE
WORLD UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS
ABOUT, SO FEW PEOPLE KNOW WHAT
THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM IS THAT,
YOU KNOW, IS ANYBODY REALLY
GOING TO CARE?
WELL, SHE CHANGED EVERYTHING,
THIS LADY.
>> THE STORY VERY QUICKLY WENT
VIRAL.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT,
BUT I WANT TO GO WAY BACK --
WELL, A LITTLE BIT BACK, BECAUSE
YOU DID NOT START OUT, WHEN I
MET YOU, YOU WERE BECOMING A
FEMINIST, BUT YOU DID NOT START
OUT YOUR CAREER THINKING, I'M
GOING TO BE A FEMINIST.
YOU DID NOT START OUT YOUR
CAREER THINKING I'M GOING TO
CHANGE THE WORLD.
YOU JUST WANTED TO DO YOUR
SCIENSCIENCE.
I LOVE HEARING -- ONE OF MY
FAVORITE QUESTIONS WHEN I WAS
WRITING AND REPORTING THE BOOK
WAS TO ASK THE SCIENTISTS I MET,
HOW DID YOU GET INTO SCIENCE.
AND I PARTICULARLY LIKE NANCY'S
STORY.
CAN YOU TELL US, HOW DID YOU
BECOME A BIOLOGY STUDENT?
>> I WAS IN COLLEGE AND BLOOKING
FOR SOMETHING TO MAJOR IN.
I HAD TAKEN ALL THE SCIENCE
REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH EXCEPT
BIOLOGY, SO THE SPRING OF MY
JUNIOR YEAR, I SIGNED UP FOR
BIOLOGY THINKING MAYBE I'D GO TO
MEDICAL SCHOOL, I DON'T KNOW.
IN MY GENERATION, WOMEN GOT --
MY TYPE GOT A GREAT EDUCATION
AND THEN THEY WOULD WORK FOR A
WHILE, MAYBE THEY'D MARRY YOUNG,
HAVE CHILDREN IN THEIR 20s,
AND THAT WAS THE PATTERN
EXPECTED.
BUT I THOUGHT STILL YOU'RE ON
THE TRACK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GET ALL THIS EDUCATION, I'M A
LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT COMES LATER.
BUT I GO INTO THIS CLASSROOM AND
IT WAS A SPRING SEMESTER CLASS
AT HARVARD, INTRODUCTORY BIOLOGY
TAUGHT BY FOUR FACULTY.
THE SECOND WAS A MAN NAMED JIM
WATSON, I KNEW HE'D WON A NOBEL
PRIZE, I WASN'T EXACTLY SURE
WHAT A BIG DEAL IT WAS AT THAT
TIME BUT IT WAS A BIG DEAL, AND
HE GAVE THIS LECTURE ABOUT DNA
AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS
WAS A REVOLUTION THAT WAS GOING
TO REVEAL THE SECRET OF LIFE.
SO I WENT IN AS ONE PERSON AND
WALKED OUT AS A DIFFERENT
PERSON.
I WAS ON SOME CLOUD.
AND IT WAS LIFE CHANGING.
SO I WENT AND ASKED IF I COULD
WORK IN HIS LAB, HE SAID SURE.
SO I WORKED IN HIS LAB WHILE I
WAS IN COLLEGE.
HE ENCOURAGED ME TO BE A
SCIENTIST.
AND I LOOKED AROUND AND NOTICED
THERE WEREN'T ANY WOMEN FACULTY.
I MEAN, I HAD NONE, THERE WERE
NONE ESSENTIALLY.
>> THERE WERE LITERALLY NONE AT
HARVARD.
AT THIS POINT YOUR CLASS -- I
GUESS YOUR SISTER'S CLASS A YEAR
AHEAD OF YOU WAS THE FIRST TO
GRADUATE WITH THE MEN OF
HARVARD, AND THE CLASSES WERE
INTEGRATED --
>> ALL THE CLASSES WERE
TOGETHER, YEAH.
>> BUT THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE
WOMAN ON THE FACULTY AT HARVARD.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE WAS.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE
MEDICAL SCHOOL ONE OR TWO.
>> RIGHT.
>> ANYWAY, SO I JUST ASSUMED
THAT THE REASON WAS AFTER I
WORKED IN THE LAB AND SAW THESE
MEN WERE WORKING SIX AND SEVEN
DAYS A WEEK, THESE LONG HOURS,
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO THAT
JOB AND BE A MOTHER?
SO I JUST ASSUMED WOMEN CHOSE TO
BE MOTHERS AND THAT WAS WHY.
LITTLE DID I KNOW, THEY COULDN'T
GET JOBS ACTUALLY.
SO THERE WAS A MUCH MORE SERIOUS
PROBLEM THAN I REALIZED.
SO THAT'S ALL I THOUGHT IT WAS.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE WORLD
CHANGED WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
REGULATIONS, THE WOMEN'S
LIBERATION MOVEMENT.
THAT WAS THE ERA OF GREAT CHANGE
IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND I WAS JUST QUIETLY GOING
ALONG WITH -- MY GOAL WAS TO WIN
A NOBEL PRIZE AT A VERY EARLY
AGE AND THEN RETIRE FROM SCIENCE
IN TIME TO HAVE MY CHILDREN.
[LAUGHTER]
>> WHAT SHE MEANS BY THIS, SO AT
THIS POINT, WOMEN AT THIS AGE
HAD THREE CHILDREN ON AVERAGE
AND THEY HAD THE LAST OF THOSE
THREE CHILDREN BY AGE 30 SO SHE
WAS GOING TO WIN THE NOBLE BY
AGE 30.
>> BECAUSE WATSON DID HIS WORK
AT 25, I FIGURED WHY COULDN'T I.
SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS MY PLAN.
>> SO JIM ENCOURAGES YOU TO DO A
PH.D. AT YALE, AND YOU GO FOR A
YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, AND THEN
YOU DROP OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST
THINKING LIKE --
>> WELL, THERE WAS ONLY ONE
PROBLEM -- YOU COULD WIN A NOBEL
PRIZE IF YOU COULD SOLVE IT,
THERE WAS NOBODY THE A YALE
WORKING ON THAT PROBLEM BUT THE
PEOPLE BACK AT HARVARD WHO WERE
WORKING ON IT, I SAID I DON'T
HAVE TIME TO STAY HERE, I'VE GOT
TO GET MY PRIZE BEFORE 25, I'VE
GOT TO GET MOVING.
SO I WENT BACK TO HARVARD FIRST
AS A TECHNICIAN FOR A YEAR AND
THEN WHEN THE PROJECT WORKED,
JIM TOLD ME NOW YOU HAVE TO GO
TO GRADUATE SCHOOL.
OKAY, SO THEN I WENT TO GRADUATE
SCHOOL.
BUT THE PROJECT DID WORK, AND
THE PERSON -- I WAS IN MARK --
HE SHOULD HAVE WON THE NOBEL
PRIZE BUT HE WAS ONE OF THOSE
PEOPLE WHO WAS GYPPED, I'M
AFRAID.
>> SO THE REASON YOU LOOKED
AROUND AND SAW SO FEW WOMEN OR
NO WOMEN RUNNING LABS WAS
BECAUSE OF CHILDREN, BECAUSE
THEY COULDN'T HAVE CHILDREN.
>> WHO WOULD IMAGINE THEY
COULDN'T GET A JOB.
>> SO FOR A MOMENT YOU THINK
OKAY, IT'S TIME FOR ME TO HAVE
MY KIDS, I'VE GOT MY PH.D., ALL
VERY NICE, YOU HAVE JOB OFFERS
FROM HARVARD AND MILT M.I.T. BU
THINK NO I'VE GOT TO HAVE MY
KIDS NOW.
YOUR FIRST MARRIAGE FALLS APART,
SO NOW YOU HAVE TO WORK AND
LUCKILY YOU CAN GET A JOB.
AND YOU RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE
TREMENDOUSLY PRIVILEGED AND
AGAIN, YOU DON'T THINK THAT
GENDER IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE
FOR YOU.
>> I REALLY DIDN'T.
>> YEAH.
>> FOR WHICH I APOLOGIZE TO ALL
THOSE FEMINISTS, I DID NOT KNOW
WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
I LITERALLY DIDN'T.
THEY WERE VERY ANGRY AND
COMPLAINING BIT EARLY.
BITTERLY.
I THOUGHT WHAT ARE THEY
COMPLAINING ABOUT?
I WAS CALLED BY M.I.T. AND
HARVARD AND ASKED TO APPLY
BECAUSE SUDDENLY UNIVERSITIES
WERE BEING PRESSURED TO HIRE
WOMEN.
WITHOUT THAT PRESSURE, I DON'T
THINK THERE WOULD BE A WOMAN ON
THE FACULTY AT THESE
INSTITUTIONS FRANKLY UP UNTIL
TODAY, IF THEY HADN'T BEEN
THROUGH THE PRESSURE OF THOSE
GREAT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
ANYWAY.
>> BUT YOU DIDN'T FEAR -- YOU
DIDN'T WORRY THAT THIS WOULD
MARK YOU AS SORT OF SOME
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE BECAUSE
YOU THOUGHT I HAD GOT GREAT
TRAINING, I CAN DO THIS JOB --
YOU KNOW, I, TOO, CAN WIN THE
PRIZE.
>> I BELIEVED IN THE
MERITOCRACY.
DON'T WE ALL?
AMERICA IS A MERITOCRACY.
RIGHT?
>> YEAH, YEAH.
>I HEAR CRYING.
SO WHEN I -- WHENEVER I BRING UP
THAT YOU WERE A PROTEGE OF JIM,
JAMES WATSON, PEOPLE INSTANTLY
GO TO ROSALYN FRANKLIN, AND OH,
BUT HE WAS SUCH A SEXIST ABOUT
ROSALYN FRANKLY.
YOU AMAZINGLY READ THE DOUBLE
HELIX, WATSON'S ACCOUNT OF
CODING DNA IN THE PASSENGER SEAT
OF HIS MG ON THE WAY TO CAPE
COD, I BELIEVE.
AS YOU'RE READING THESE PAGES
AND TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THE
BOOK, YOU HAD NEVER HEARD OF
ROSALYN FRANKLY AT THIS POINT
WHO HAD DIED AND WHAT WAS YOUR
IMPRESSION OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED
THERE?
>> THIS IS ALSO PAINFUL.
OH, DEAR, YOU KNOW, TO BE YOUNG
IS WONDERFUL IN SOME WAYS BUT IT
YOU CAN BE A LITTLE IGNORANT.
I READ THIS ACCOUNT, IT WAS THE
GRAFT OF THE DOUBLE HELIX, AND
IT WAS MUCH MORE OUTRAGEOUS THAN
THE FINAL VERSION, LET ME TELL
YOU.
THE LAWYERS GOT HOLD OF IT, A
LOT OF STUFF WAS REMOVED.
BUT ANYWAY, IN THERE WAS THIS
DESCRIPTION OF ROSALYN FRANKLIN,
AND I THOUGHT -- AND HE KIND OF
HAD THIS IDEA THAT SHE WAS THIS
TECHNICIAN, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY
WHO KIND OF -- IT KIND OF GOT IN
THE WAY OF THE GREAT GENIUSES
WHO WERE GOING TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM OF THE STRUCTURE OF DNA
AND HERE WAS THIS WOMAN
COLLECTING SOME DATA.
BUT I IT NOT UNDERSTAND AT THAT
TIME HOW HARD IT WAS TO COLLECT
DATA.
I DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW -- WHAT
DID I KNOW, JIM WAS A GENE JUSTE
WAS MR. SCIENCE, IF HE SAID IT,
IT WAS TRUE AND I JUST
INTERPRETED IT -- I MUST SAY,
JIM WAS A WONDERFUL FRIEND TO MY
FAMILY, TO MY MOTHER, TO MY
SISTER, TO MY BOYFRIEND, WE USED
TO GO TO THE MOVIES ALL
TOGETHER.
I MEAN, HE WAS A REAL FRIEND OF
THE FAMILY, SO I ADORE HIM FOR
THAT ERA, ALTHOUGH HE LATER
BECAME, I THINK, VERY DIFFERENT
FROM SORT OF THE PERSON I KNEW
EARLY ON.
WHAT SHOULD I SAY?
ANYWAY, BUT I THINK THAT HE HELD
THE VIEW OF WOMEN THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.
ALL OF SOCIETY HELD THAT VIEW.
SO ROSALYN FRANKLIN WAS BATTLING
THE PROBLEM, BUT I DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT THAT SO I JUST THOUGHT
THIS WAS THE CHARACTERS THERE,
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL ALL THOSE
YEARS LATER, AFTER I EXPERIENCED
IT, AND READ THE BOOK ABOUT
ROSALYN FRANKLIN BY -- THERE
WERE SEVERAL WRITTEN ABOUT HER.
>> ANNE SEHR.
>> OH, MY GOSH, YES, SHE WAS
LIVING THE LIFE THAT I CAME TO
LEAD AT M.I.T.
AND SO --
>> SO WHEN YOU STARTED AT
M.I.T., YOU STARTED IN THIS
BRAND NEW CANCER CENTER, AND
AGAIN, YOU THINK SCIENCE IS A
MERITOCRACY, AND AS YOU SAY,
WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE PROBLEMS,
THEY WERE SMALL ENOUGH THAT NONE
OF US WOULD REALLY RAISE OUR
HAND AND COMPLAIN, RIGHT?
BUT IT STRIKES ME AS I WAS
REPORTING THE BOOK THAT YOU
REALLY WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO
EXPLAIN THESE PROBLEMS AS
ANYTHING BUT GENDER
DISCRIMINATION.
SO FIRST YOU'RE ON THE FIFTH
FLOOR WHICH IS ENORMOUSLY
COMPETITIVE, AND YOU THINK OKAY,
IT'S JUST -- IT'S THE LAYOUT,
IT'S THE HUNGRY POSTDOCS WHO
WERE STEALING MY IDEAS.
SO YOU MOVED TO THE THIRD FLOOR,
AND THEN YOU HEAR THAT SOMEONE
ACTUALLY -- SOMEONE FROM NIH
COMES TO VISIT YOU AND TELLS YOU
THAT THERE'S A MAN FROM HARVARD
MEDICAL SCHOOL WHO'S TRAVELING
THE COUNTRY AND TAKING CREDIT
FOR ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST
DISCOVERIES.
WHEN I LATER TALKED TO THAT MAN,
HE SAID, WELL, SHE JUST WASN'T
ON MY RADAR SCREEN.
I HAD NO IDEA SHE WAS DOING
THIS.
I SAID, WELL, ISN'T THAT PART OF
THE PROBLEM?
>> THAT SAYS IT ALL.
>> SO YOU MOVE FROM THE FIFTH
FLOOR TO THE THIRD FLOOR AND THE
THIRD FLOOR YOU DISCOVER THIS
GUY IS TAKING CREDIT FOR YOUR
IDEAS.
THEN YOU DECIDE SOMETIME IN YOUR
40s THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
CHANGE FIELDS, WHICH IS VERY
RISKY.
BUT ALONG THIS -- AS THIS IS ALL
HAPPENING AND YOU'RE TRYING TO
SORT OF, YOU KNOW, DO THIS
EXPERIMENT, IS IT GOING TO BE
DIFFERENT FOR ME IN
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, WHICH IS
A FIELD LED BY WOMEN, YOU ARE
SEEING WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OTHER
WOMEN AND YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT IT
TOOK YOU 20 YEARS TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO YOU OR
UNDERSTAND GENDER
DISCRIMINATION, AND IT TOOK YOU
THE FIRST 15 TO SEE IT IN OTHER
WOMEN, AND THEN ANOTHER FIVE.
WHAT WERE YOU SEEING IN OTHER
WOMEN, WHAT WERE YOU SEEING IN
THE WAYS PEOPLE TREATED THEM?
>> IT VERY HARD TO JUDGE
YOURSELF SO I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE
REAP YOUREASON YOU'RE HAVING THE
PROBLEMS IS YOU'RE JUST NOT GOOD
ENOUGH.
IF YOU DID BETTER, THEN SURELY
YOU WOULDN'T BE TREATED THIS
WAY, YOU WOULD BE PART OF THE
GROUP AND EVERYBODY WOULD ACCEPT
YOU.
SO -- BUT IT'S HARD TO BE
OBJECTIVE ABOUT YOURSELF, SO I
STARTED TO WATCH HOW OTHER WOMEN
WERE TREATED TO SEE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE REALLY WAS A PROBLEM.
AND THERE WEREN'T VERY MANY
WOMEN, WHICH IS WHY IT TOOK SO
LONG.
AND IN MY FIELD, THEY WERE
SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY AND I
WAS LOOKING -- BECAUSE YOU COULD
JUDGE THE QUALITY OF THE WORK
THEY DID, RIGHT, IF A MAN OR
WOMAN DID EXPERIMENTS, MADE
DISCOVERIES OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE,
WERE THEY VALUED EQUALLY?
DID PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THEM IN
THE SAME TERMS, DID THEY WIN THE
SAME AWARDS, DID THEY GET THE
SAME RECOGNITION?
AND IT BECAME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
TO ME THAT NONE OF THEM WERE
EQUAL.
AND I DIDN'T THINK THEY KNEW.
I MEAN, I THINK THEY HAD NO CLUE
THEY WERE TREATED THAT WAY, THAT
THEY WERE CLUELESS AS I WAS,
THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T AWARE.
SO I DIDN'T GO UP TO THEM AND
SAY OH, BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW
YOU'RE UNDERVALUED, YOU'RE BADLY
TREATED, PEOPLE SPEAK THIS WAY
BEHIND YOUR BACK?
NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT
SO I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO
ANYBODY.
SO IT TOOK 15 YEARS AND I
REALIZED IT WAS EVERYBODY.
EXCEPT MYSELF, I THOUGHT I WAS
THE ONE EXCEPTION STILL.
THEN I WAS REMOVED FROM TEACHING
AT UNDERGRADUATE --
>> WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT.
>> FINALLY I COULDN'T DENY IT.
COULDN'T DENY IT ANY LONGER.
>> AND YOU START HEARING PEOPLE
SAY THINGS LIKE, LIKE ABOUT A
PARTICULARLY SUCCESSFUL JUNIOR
FACULTY, SHE'S VERY GREEDY ABOUT
HER GRANT, SHE'S GOT TOO MANY
GRANTS.
THE IDEA OF WOULD ANYONE EVER
SAY THAT KIND OF THING ABOUT A
MALE JUNIOR FACULTY MEMBER.
SO YOU SWITCH FIELDS, AND YOU'RE
GOING TO DO THIS EXPERIMENT
BECAUSE, AGAIN, DEVELOPMENTAL --
YOU GO TO -- YOU'RE ON
SABBATICAL WITH YANNI.
SHE LATER WINS THE NOBEL PRIZE
AND YOU COME BACK, YOU'RE ONE OF
THE FIRST RESEARCHERS IN THIS
COUNTRY TO WORK WITH ZEBRAFISH,
AND THE EXPERIMENTS ARE GOING
VERY WELL, BUT THAT'S WHEN SORT
OF, US A SAY, THE PENNY BEGINS
TO DROP.
YOU BEGIN TO SEE IT'S HAPPENING
TO YOU AS WELL.
>> WELL, YES, I COULDN'T GET
MINIMAL SPACE AND I HAD LESS
SPACE THAN STARTING ASSISTANT
PROFESSORS AND I WAS A TENURED
PROFESSOR BY THEN.
YES, IT WAS A VERY RISKY THING
TO DO.
I COULD UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE
WEREN'T SUPPORTING -- CHANGE
FIELDS AT MID LIFE, AGE 50 HAD
BEEN SOMETHING, SO IT WAS
UNDERSTANDABLE.
BUT I WAS ASKING FOR SO LITTLE
AND I'D NEVER ASKED FOR ANYTHING
BEFORE, SO YET I COULDN'T GET
IT.
SO THAT WAS A REAL EYE OPENER.
THAT LED TO THE MEASURING OF THE
LABS.
I SAID TO THE MAN IN CHARGE OF
SPACE, I SAID, I HAVE LESS SPACE
THAN EVERY -- HE SAID YOU KNOW
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I SAID IT TRUE.
HE SAID NO, IT'S NOT.
I SAID YES IT IS.
IT WAS RIDICULOUS, IT WAS SO
OBVIOUS.
I THOUGHT I'LL SHOW HIM, I'LL
GET THE DATA, I'LL MEASURE ALL
THESE LABS, SHOW HIM THE NUMBERS
AND HE WON'T BE ABLE TO ARGUE
WITH ME ANYMORE.
BUT OF COURSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO
LOOK HE IT NUMBERS.
>> SO YOU GO SEE A LAWYER AT
THIS POINT, AND ON THE ADVICE OF
A FRIEND, I THINK, RIGHT?
AND THE LAWYER SAYS TO YOU, TRY
TO WORK IT OUT WITHIN -- I HAVE
THE RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE AT
M.I.T., HE'D WORKED WITH THEM
BEFORE, TRY TO GO WORK IT OUT
WITH M.I.T. AND HE TELLS YOU TO
GO SEE THE PROVOST, AND YOU ARE
SO PLUGGED IN TO YOUR SCIENCE
AND SO NOT PLUGGED INTO
UNIVERSITY POLITICS THAT YOU
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE PROVOST
IS.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO WHEN YOU GO SEE HIM, HE IS
A LITTLE BEE BILL BEWILDERED, ?
HE'S NEVER SEEN ANYONE ASK FOR
SO LITTLE?
>> HE SAID 200 SQUARE FEET?
PEOPLE COME TO SEE ME ASKING FOR
WHOLE BUILDINGS.
YOU WANT 200 SQUARE FEET?
HE COULDN'T RELATE TO IT.
I MEAN, HE JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
EXPWR
>> AND THE LAWYER HAS TOLD YOU
THAT IF THINGS DON'T GO THE
RIGHT WAY, YOU HAVE TO USE A
PARTICULAR WORD, WHICH YOU ARE
UNCOMFORTABLE USING, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
SHE KNOWS MORE ABOUT MY LIFE
THAN I DO.
YES, HE SAID JUST USE THE WORD
"DISCRIMINATION."
IF THEY'RE NOT RESPONDING
POSITIVELY FAST ENOUGH, JUST SAY
DISCRIMINATION.
>> SO YOU SAY THIS TO THE
PROVOST, AND HE --
>> TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO DO
FOR YOU, LITTLE LADY.
I'M GOING TO FIX THIS RIGHT UP.
[LAUGHTER]
>> AND HE TELLS TO YOU GO TALK
TO THE DEAN OF SCIENCE, WHO ALSO
KIND OF BLOWS YOU OFF, UNTIL YOU
SAY THE D WORD.
>> DISCRIMINATION -- OH, HE
COMES RUNNING DOWN THE HALL
AFTER ME, I THINK WE CAN FIX
THIS PROBLEM.
>> AS SHE'S WALKING OUT THE
DOOR, SHE SAYS IS MIGHT BE
DISCRIMINATION, AND HE CHASES
HER OUT THE DOOR.
SO YOU HAD THIS SPACE PROBLEM
AND YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THE
SPACE PROBLEM AND AS YOU'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE THE SPACE
PROBLEM YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ALL
THESE DOCUMENTS, TRYING TO GET
INFORMATION AND YOU DISCOVER
THAT, IN FACT, YOU'RE ALSO
UNDERPAID.
YOU'RE PAYING MORE OF YOUR OWN
SALARY FROM GRANTS THAN OTHER
MEN IN THE DEPARTMENT.
SO YOU'RE NOW TRYING TO FIX
THOSE TWO PROBLEMS, AND AS THOSE
TWO PROBLEMS, WE'RE NOT SURE
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU
THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE
SPACE, I GUESS YOU DO GET THE
SPACE, AND -- WELL, ACTUALLY
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPACE, WHAT
DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE WAY MEN
COMPETE FOR SPACE AND IN
PARTICULAR, YOU HAD AN ALLY
EARLY ON, SUSUMO, WHO WAS TRYING
TO HELP YOU, AND WHAT WAS HIS
APPROACH TO GETTING MORE SPACE?
>> JUST OCCUPY IT.
JUST TAKE IT.
AND ONE VERY MUCH ADMIRED
EXAMPLE WAS IN THE SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING WHERE A MAN NEEDED
MORE SPACE, HE TOOK A
SLEDGEHAMMER AND JUST KNOCKED
THE WALL DOWN BETWEEN HIS LAB
AND THE ONE NEXT DOOR AND
OCCUPIED THE SPACE ADJACENT.
SO IT WAS A MORE AGGRESSIVE
APPROACH.
>> SO THEY WOULD SIT AROUND WITH
THESE -- HE WOULD HAVE LIKE
THESE LITTLE FLOOR PLANS AND
HE'D BE CUTTING OUT LITTLE
FURNITURE MOVING -- LIKE IMAGINE
A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER, THIS IS
HOW HE'S SPENDING HIS TIME,
LOOKING AT FLOOR PLANS.
>> MEASURING ALL COLORS AND
MOVING THE ROOMS -- IT WAS --
>> AND HE GOT A BUNCH OF DEAD
EQUIPMENT AND MOVED IT INTO THE
SPACE IN CASE HE MIGHT NEED IT
IN THE FUTURE.
AND AT THAT POINT, NANCY WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SPACE.
SO THOSE PROBLEMS, YOU'RE JUST
ABOUT TO GET THE SPACE, THINGS
ARE LOOKING A LITTLE BETTER THEN
SOMEBODY ELSE HAPPENS WHICH IS
THAT YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO
DEVELOP A COURSE FOR M.I.T.,
IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT M.I.T.
IS GOING TO REQUIRE
UNDERGRADUATES TO TAKE BIOLOGY,
PREVIOUSLY THE REQUIREMENTS
WERE, I BELIEVE, CALCULUS,
PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.
SO THIS IS GOING TO BE BIOLOGY
FOR ALL YO YO UNDERGRADUATES.
YOU'VE ALREADY TAUGHT A CLASS
FOR NON-BIOMAJORS THAT GOT THE
HIGHEST STUDENT RATINGS IN THE
ENTIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO YOU THINK GREAT, I'M
PERFECTLY POSITIONED TO TEACH
THIS CLASS.
ONCE AGAIN YOU THINK YOU ARE THE
EXCEPTION, THERE'S NOT GOING TO
BE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU.
SO TELL US WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THIS CLASS.
IS IT A HIT?
>> THE CLASS WORKS OUT VERY
WELL.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WAS
ASSIGNED TO TEACH IT WITH A
PERSON WHO IS ONE OF THE BEST
LECTURERS I THE DEPARTMENT EVER
HAD BUT THE CLASS STRUCTURE AND
EVERYTHING WE WORKED OUT
TOGETHER, THE CLASS WAS
SUCCESSFUL ALL THE WAY AND
SUDDENLY I WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY
DUMPED.
>> THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WHO SAID
TO YOU, GREAT JOB, WE LOVE THIS
CLASS, SAYS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
TEACH THE CLASS BECAUSE --
>> BECAUSE THE PERSON I
CO-DEVELOPED IT WITH DECIDED
THAT HE PREFERRED TO TEACH WITH
A MAN BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO
TURN THIS INTO A COMPANY.
THEY WERE GOING TO USE THE CLASS
AS A PLATFORM TO MAKE A COMPANY
AND SELL CD-ROMS, BOOKS AND SO
FORTH AND SO ON.
I SAID, WHAT?
HE SAID, WELL, ASK, YOU KNOW, MY
BUDDY, I'M GOING TO -- SO I
CALLED UP THE OTHER MAN, I SAID
I GATHER YOU'RE GOING TO TEACH
THIS CLASS?
AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A
COMPANY?
HE SAID, LET ME COME CLEAN WITH
YOU.
WE PLAN TO MAKE MILLIONS.
I SAID, OKAY, WELL, BUT WHAT
ABOUT ME?
I MEAN, I USED TO TEACH THIS
CLASS.
ANYWAY, SO --
>> YOU WEREN'T GOING TO GET THE
MILLIONS?
>> I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE
MILLIONS.
WHEN IT CAME TO MAKING MONEY,
WOMEN WERE SELDOM INVOLVED.
ANYWAY, I WAS REMOVED FROM
TEACHING THE CLASS AND THAT WAS
THE END.
THAT WAS IT FOR ME.
I SAID I'M DONE.
I GIVE UP.
I MEAN, NO MATTER WHAT I DID, I
FELT THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE GOOD
ENOUGH AT M.I.T.
AND I REALIZED BY THAT POINT,
THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION LEFT
EXCEPT YOU WERE A WOMAN.
I MEAN, I TRIED THEM ALL, I
CHANGED FIELDS, I DID THIS, I
DID THAT, AND I SAW ALL OTHER
WOMEN, I MUST ALSO BE VIEWED BY
MY COLLEAGUES THE WAY THESE
OTHER WOMEN WERE VIEWED.
AND THAT WAS THE LOW POINT OF
THE ENTIRE EXERCISE, I HAVE TO
SAY.
THE MOMENT WHEN YOU ACCEPT THE
FACT THAT YOU ARE NOT VIEWED AS
AN EQUAL BY YOUR COLLEAGUES,
THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY EITHER
INVISIBLE OR YOU'RE DISCOUNTED
IN SOME WAY THAT YOU NEVER --
IT'S HARD TO ACCEPT.
AND THAT WAS THE LOW POINT OF
THE WHOLE THING.
AT THAT POINT I REALIZED I
COULDN'T CONTINUE TO DO THE JOB
UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGED.
>> BUT THAT -- IT PAINFUL
ACTUALLY EVEN HAVING WRITTEN THE
BOOK AND HAVING HEARD THE STORY
SO MANY TIMES AND RETOLD THE
STORY, IT IS STILL PAINFUL TO
HEAR IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT
FEELING OF INVISIBILITY IS EUN
UNIVERSAL FOR A LOT OF WOMEN AT
A CERTAIN POINT IN THEIR CAREER.
BUT THERE WAS A PARTICULAR
THING, THIS WAS THE EPISODE THAT
REALLY SNAPPED YOUR FAITH IN THE
MERITOCRACY, AND IT REALLY WAS
BECAUSE YOU WERE LOOKING AT
THESE STUDENT EVALUATIONS.
>> YES, I HAVE THEM WITH ME IN
CASE ANYBODY -- I STILL CARRY
THEM AROUND, IN CASE ANYBODY
NEEDS TO SEE THAT IT WAS REALLY
NOT FAIR.
>> SO YOU -- AGAIN, LIKE YOU
REALLY -- YOU JUST -- YOU WERE
SO -- YOU STUCK BY YOUR
SCIENTIFIC INSTINCTS WHICH WERE,
WAIT, THIS IS ACTUALLY PROOF
THIS IS NOT THE SAME.
>> I THOUGHT DATA WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT, BUT IT'S NOT, EVEN
THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO
CONVINCE PEOPLE.
SO THERE YOU ARE.
SO THEN I KNEW I HAD TO FIGHT
AND I FIGURED I'M FIGHTING
ALONE, MY PLAN WAS TO GO UP
THROUGH THE LAYERS OF
ADMINISTRATION, TRYING TO FIND
SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN AND
UNDERSTAND, AND THAT FAILING, I
ASSUMED I WOULD GO ON AND SUE
M.I.T. AND I'D BE DOING THIS
ALONE, WHICH WAS NOT A HAPPY
PROSPECT, BUT THERE DIDN'T SEEM
TO BE ANY OTHER CHOICE EXCEPT
QUIT SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER, WHICH
I WAS TOO YOUNG.
IF I'D BEEN RICH, I PROBABLY
WOULD HAVE WALKED OUT THE DOOR
AND SAID THE HELL WITH THIS BUT
I REALLY NEEDED A JOB.
SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS THE PLAN.
AND THEN --
>> SO YOU CONSIDER SUING, BUT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUE ONE
OF YOUR OLDEST FRIENDS IN
SCIENCE, WHO IS THE DEPARTMENT
HEAD, LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE
VERY UNPLEASANT, YOU PROBABLY
WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE SCIENCE IF
ONLY FOR THAT REASON.
>> IT WOULD PROBABLY DESTROY
YOUR CAREER, PRETTY CERTAIN IT
WAS GOING TO BE THE END OF YOUR
CAREER IF YOU SUED.
>> SO INSTEAD YOU WRITE A LETTER
TO THE PRESIDENT, AGAIN, YOU
DON'T KNOW HIM.
>> LAST CHANCE.
THE PRESIDENT OF M.I.T.
A SITDOWN.
HERE, MR. VEST, PRESIDENT VEST.
>> I LOVE THIS LETTER BECAUSE IN
IT, AGAIN, SHE'S SO CUT OUT FROM
UNIVERSITY -- SEPARATE FROM
UNIVERSITY POLITICS, THAT YOU
ARE SO WORRIED HE WON'T EVEN
KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
I'M NANCY HOPKINS, I'M A BIOLOGY
PROFESSOR, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE
REALLY -- THIS IS REALLY A STAB
IN THE DAK FOR YOU.
DARK FOR YOU.>> I'M SURE YOU DT
BUT THERE'S TERRIBLE
DISCRIMINATION IN YOUR
DEPARTMENT AND YOU SHOULD KNOW
ABOUT IT.
I SHOWED TO A FRIEND, A MAN I
WAS DATING AND HE SAID YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO SEND THAT, ARE YOU?
I SAID I WAS PLANNING TO SEND
IT.
HE SAID OH, HE'LL THINK YOUR
CRAZY, HE WON'T KNOW YOU YOU
ARE, HE'LL THINK YOU'RE A
DIFFICULT PERSON AND DISCOUNT
YOU.
>> AGAIN -- A FAILURE OF YOUR
SCIENCE.
SO YOU DECIDE YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO SEND A LETTER TO THE
PRESIDENT YET, YOU'RE GOING TO
TAKE ONE LAST STEP WHICH IS TO
CONSULT ANOTHER WOMAN IN
BIOLOGY, AND FOR THAT, YOU
CHOOSE WHO AND WHY?
>> SO I SAID I BETTER GET AN
OFFICIAL OPINION FROM SOMEBODY
INSIDE THE SYSTEM AND THEY'LL
KNOW IF THIS IS A SERIOUS LETTER
THAT THE MAN WOULD READ
CAREFULLY AND TAKE SERIOUSLY OR
OFFEND HIM IN ANY WAY.
I PICK OUT THIS WOMAN I HAD
ADMIRED BEFORE I EVEN WENT TO
M.I.T., BEFORE I EVEN MET HER.
I HAPPENED TO READ A PAPER OF
HERS IN A JOURNAL WHEN I WAS A
STUDENT IN TRAINING AND SAID
WOW, SHE'S AMAZING.
AND THEN I, ORVETION OF COURSE,,
SHE WAS A PROFESSOR HIRED BY
M.I.T. SHORTLY BEFORE I WAS
HIRED.
AND HER NAME WAS MARY LOU PARDU,
A DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, WORKS
IN FRUIT FLIES.
SHE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I
HAD A HUGE ADMIRATION FOR, AND I
HAD SEEN HOW ALTHOUGH SHE WAS
RESPECTED, VERY MUCH LIKED, SHE
WAS VERY POPULAR AND SO FORTH,
HOW SHE WAS UNDERVALUED RELATIVE
TO HER STATUS OF HER SCIENCE AND
HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS.
SHE WAS THE FIRST WOMAN ON THE
FACULTY OFF M.I.T. TO BE ELECTED
TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES FOR EXAMPLE BUT SHE WAS
NOT TREATED --
>> MARY LOU DIED THIS YEAR, SHE
AND JOE GALL WHO ALSO DIED
RECENTLY TOGETHER DEVELOPED
IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION.
SO THAT WAS THE PAPER THAT NANCY
READ AS A STUDENT IN 1968, I
BELIEVE.
>> SO WE GO OFF TO THIS LITTLE
CAFE NEAR THE LAB IN KENDALL
SWEAR AND I HAVE MY LETTER TO
PRESIDENT VEST, I GIVE TO HER,
IT'S ABOUT THIS SIZE ON THE
TABLE, SHE'S READING THE LETTER,
I'M WATCHING HER READ THE LETTER
AND SHE PROBABLY THINKS OH, THAT
HOPKINS WOMAN, SHE WASN'T GOOD
ENOUGH, IF SHE WAS GOOD ENOUGH
SHE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLAIN
ABOUT DISCRIMINATION, BUT
INSTEAD OF THAT SHE PUT THE
LETTER BACK ON THE TABLE AND SHE
SAYS, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
YOU'VE SAID AND I'D LIKE TO SIEB
THE LESIGNTHE LETTER AND I THIND
GO TOGETHER TO SEE THE PRESIDENT
OF M.I.T. TO TELL HIM ABOUT THIS
PROBLEM AND THAT IS THE THING
THAT CHANGED THE WORLD FOR ME
AND CHANGED MY LIFE, LED TO KATE
ZERNIKE WRITING HER BOOK.
IT WAS THIS ALLIANCE WITH MARY
LOU -- SHE WAS SO RESPECTED,
NOBODY COULD DENY THIS WOMAN.
YOU COULDN'T.
>> IT WAS ALSO THE FEELING OF
YOU WERE NO LONGER ALONE, AND I
THINK THE REASON THAT THIS
STORY -- I JUST REMEMBER WHEN
THIS STORY -- WHEN THE STORY
FINALLY APPEARED AND DID GO
VIRAL, THE REACTION FROM SO MANY
WOMEN AND EMAIL FROM AROUND THE
COUNTRY AND THE WORLD WAS, THIS
IS MY STORY AND I THOUGHT I WAS
THE ONLY ONE.
WHICH ACTUALLY THAT HAD BEEN
YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU READ THE
BOOK ABOUT ROSALYN FRANKLIN.
SO I THINK THAT WAS THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT MOMENT WITH
MARY LOU, BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE
GREAT IDEA, OR THE -- YOU KNOW,
SOMEWHAT OF AN EPIPHANY TO SAY
TO MARY LOU, DO YOU THINK THERE
MIGHT BE OTHER WOMEN WHO FEEL
THIS WAY?
AND OF COURSE YOU'RE BOTH
THINKING WELL, SURELY, THERE ARE
FIVE SCHOOLS AT M.I.T., SCIENCE
IS JUST ONE OF THEM, SURELY
THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY WOMEN AT
M.I.T., WE CAN'T POSSIBLY ASK
ALL OF THEM.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AND WE'LL
JUST START WITH THE SCHOOL OF
SCIENCE.
SO YOU GO BACK AND GET LISA
STEINER AND THE THREE OF YOU
BEGIN TO WRITE A LIST, THEY
DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WOMEN ARE IN
THE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE --
>> WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE
CATALOG AND WE'RE WRITING DOWN
THE NAMES OF THE WOMEN, AND
THERE'S SIX DEPARTMENTS OF
SCIENCE, WE GET TO THE END AND
THERE ARE 15 WOMEN AND
197 TENURED MEN.
AND I SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE.
>> THIS IS 1994.
>> THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
I SAID, THEY MUST LIST THEM
SEPARATELY, MAYBE AT THE BACK OF
THE BOOK.
>> IN THE GIRLS' PART.
>> WE COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.
BUT IT MADE IT VERY EASY TO POLL
THEM.
WHAT WE DID THEN WAS WENT
THROUGH THE SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING LOOKING FOR WOMEN
WHO HAD JOINT APPOINTMENTS TO
SCIENCE, WHICH SOMETIMES
HAPPENS, AND WE FOUND TWO MORE.
SO WE GOT OUR NUMBER UP TO 17
WOMEN.
AND SO INCLUDING THREE OF US,
THERE WERE 14 PEOPLE TO GO AND
ASK, HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY
EXPERIENCES LIKE THIS?
>> AND SO AGAIN, AS YOU'RE
GOING -- YOU GO AND YOU'RE STILL
NERVOUS, SEEING THESE OTHER
WOMEN, IN PARTICULAR -- YOU TALK
ABOUT JOANNE AND SYLVIA, AND
WERE YOU A LITTLE NERVOUS THAT,
AGAIN, THEY WERE GOING TO THINK
IT WAS EXCEPTIONAL TO YOU, YOU
WERE LOSERS, RIGHT.
AND INSTEAD, WHAT HAPPENS?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
KNOW THESE WOMEN.
SO WE DIVIDED THE LIST IN HALF
AND MARY LOU AND LISA WENT OFF
TO ASK HALF OF THEM AND I WENT
OFF -- AND WHO DO I GO TO MEET,
JOANNE STUBBE, SHE'S SITTING ON
THE FLOOR OF HER OFFICE WITH BIG
MOLECULES ON A SUNDAY, I THINK
IT WAS, I CAN'T REMEMBER,
ANYWAY, SO I ASK SYLVIA, AND I
SAY HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY
EXPERIENCE LIKE THIS?
AND I DESCRIBED THE THING, DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING I COULD SIGN?
THAT WAS THE REACTION PRETTY
MUCH FROM ALL THESE WOMEN.
I MEAN, I JUST WAS IN SHOCK.
I MEAN, OF COURSE THEY'D SEEN
IT, THEY'D EXPERIENCED IT, THEY
KNEW ABOUT IT.
BUT IT WAS SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T
TALK ABOUT.
AND SO IN ABOUT A DAY, WE WERE A
GROUP -- AS SOON AS WE COULD
FIND EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY SIGNED
EXCEPT ONE OF THE 17 WOMEN DID
NOT SIGN.
SHE SAID SHE PERSONALLY HAD
NEVER EXPERIENCED IT.
>> OF COURSE SHE TURNED OUT TO
BE THE MOST UNDERPAID.
>> SHE DID.
>> SO PRETTY QUICKLY WITHIN A
WEEK OR SO, THESE WOMEN SIGN ON
AND YOU DRAFT A LETTER TO THE
DEAN OF SCIENCE.
YOU DECIDE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
GO TO THE PRESIDENT, YOU'LL
START WITH THE DEAN.
WON'T GO ABOVE HIS HEAD.
AND YOU WRITE THIS LETTER AND
YOU'RE VERY NERVOUS, AND I
REMEMBER COMING ACROSS AN EMAIL
THAT NANCY WRITES TO MARCIA
MANAUGHT, SHE SAYS BASICALLY
DON'T WORRY, I'M SHREDDING ALL
OF THESE DOCUMENTS, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE.
SO YOU WRITE THIS LETTER TO THE
DEAN, AND YOU GO MEET -- SIX OF
YOU GO MEET WITH HIM AND AS
YOU'RE ON YOUR WAY THERE, YOU
THINK SURELY HE'S TOLD THE
PRESIDENT, CALLED THE LAWYERS
FOR THE SCHOOL, WE'RE IN
TROUBLE, AND INSTEAD YOU GET
THERE AND HE HASN'T EVEN READ
YOUR LETTER, HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY
YOU'RE THERE, HE'S LIKE DIDN'T
SHE HAVE SOME ISSUE WITH SPACE
AND DISCRIMINATION MAYBE.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH BOB IN THAT
ROOM?
>> UM, WELL, YOU KNOW, HE COMES
IN AND SEES THESE PEOPLE SITTING
THERE, I THINK KATE KNOWS BETTER
THAN I, HE'S TALK TODAY KATE,
HE'S STILL A FRIND FR FRIEND O ,
EMAIL ON A REGULAR BASIS, I
TALKED TO HIM THIS WEEK.
SO HE HADN'T READ IT, SEEING
THESE PEOPLE THERE, HE CALLED IT
LIKE A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
SOMEHOW FOR HIM.
HE SUDDENLY GOT IT.
HE JUST -- HE SAID -- AND OF
COURSE, IT HAS TO BE, HE SAID --
I'M GOING TO SAY THIS AGAIN,
I'LL SAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, BUT
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, THESE 16
WOMEN, FOUR OF THEM HAVE WON THE
U.S. NATIONAL MEDAL OF SCIENCE.
11 OF THEM ARE MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
>> NOT LOSERS.
>> THESE WERE NOT LOSERS.
THESE WERE TOP SCIENTIST IS IN E
COUNTRY IN THEIR FIELDS.
THE FACT THAT THEY FELT THIS WAY
WAS THE POWER OF THIS GROUP.
>> WHAT I FIND SO INTERESTING
ABOUT BOB'S EXPERIENCE IS
THAT -- AND THIS AGAIN GOES TO
THE TITLE OF THE BOOK, THE
EXCEPTIONS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY
THINKS THEY'RE THE ONLY ONE,
INCLUDING YOU.
AND BOB THINKS HE'S GOT THIS
APPROACH OF HAD ANY OF THESE SIX
WOMEN COME TO ME INDIVIDUALLY, I
WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN
AWAY HER STORY.
THIS ONE HAD A GRANT THAT SHE
DIDN'T GET, THIS ONE -- SHE'S ON
THAT PROJECT WITH THAT GUY WHO'S
KIND OF DIFFICULT BUT, YOU KNOW,
WE PUT UP WITH HIM BECAUSE HE'S
A GENIUS.
BUT HEARING THEM ONE AFTER
ANOTHER, AGAIN, TO ME AS A
NON-SCIENTIST, THIS IS TO ME --
IT STRIKES ME AS A VERY
SCIENTIFIC INSTINCT, IT'S WHAT
JOURNALISTS DO.
YOU SEE A PATTERN, YOU THINK, O
GOD, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
HE ACTUALLY -- YES, HE DOES
DESCRIBE IT AS A RELIGIOUS
EPIPHANY BUT ALSO KIND OF A
EUREKA MOMENT.
HE WORKS AS A PHYSICIST,
DESCRIBES THIS ONE MOMENT WHEN
HE HAD ONE OF HIS BIGGEST BREAK
THROUGHS AND HE WAS SO EXCITED
ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT HE
WAS ON THE CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE
AND HE PULLED OFF, HE SUDDENLY
SAW THE PROBLEM IN HIS HEAD,
PULLED OFF AND GOT ON A PAYPHONE
TO TELL HIS COLLABORATOR,
EUREKA, I'VE GOT IT.
HE DESCRIBES THE MEETING WITH
THESE WOMEN LIKE THAT.
AND HE BECOMES YOUR BIGGEST
ALLY, BUT THE OTHER MEN ARE VERY
RELUCTANT, THEY THINK THAT YOU
WANT TO REPLACE ALL OF THEM
AND --
>> RIGHT, THE WOMEN HAVE DECIDED
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A
COMMITTEE WHICH WILL COLLECT
DATA AND AGAIN, WE FEEL IF WE
COLLECT ENOUGH DATA ACROSS THESE
DEPARTMENTS IT WILL BE SO
CONVINCING THAT M.I.T. WILL BE
ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, AND
THEN THEY CAN FIX IT.
BOB SAYS OKAY, CAN YOU HAVE YOUR
COMMITTEE, AND WE WALK OUT OF
THERE, WE THINK WE'VE GOT THIS
PROBLEM SOLVED.
OH, BOY.
WELL, ABOUT A WEEK LATER, I LOOK
UP AND BOB IS STANDING IN THE
KODOOR OF MY OFFICE.
DEANS DON'T COME TO YOUR
ORVETION YOOFFICE.OH, PROBLEMS,,
DEPARTMENT HEADS DON'T THINK
WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE
A COMMITTEE BECAUSE YOU'LL SEE
THE DATA AND THIS WILL BE VERY
DANGEROUS, AND SO ON.
ANYWAY, SO BOB HAS TO WORK -- HE
SAID WE'LL HAVE TO WORK -- WE
HAD TO HAVE A PRECOMMITTEE TO
CALM EVERYBODY DOWN.
>> A COMMITTEE TO FORM THE
COMMITTEE, LITERALLY.
>> A PRECOMMITTEE TO FORM THE
COMMITTEE, WHATEVER, SO FINALLY
WE GET THE COMMITTEE, AND -- OH,
I SHOULD SAY THAT -- YES, THEN
WE GET THE COMMITTEE, AND WE DO
COLLECT THE DATA AND WE WRITE
OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
AND --
>> AND HE DOES A VERY SMART
THING, WHICH IS THAT -- I THINK
THIS IS THE IDEA OF SOME OF THE
WOMEN IN YOUR GROUP, IS THAT HE
MAKES SURE TO INCLUDE MEN BUT
ALSO MEN WHO ARE VERY POWERFUL.
SO YOU HAD DEPARTMENT HEADS AND
A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER AND --
BECAUSE THE FEELING WAS, IF THE
WOMEN HAD DONE THIS ON THEIR
OWN, NOBODY WOULD HAVE PAID
ATTENTION TO THEM.
>> WOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED THEM.
YOU HAVE TO PUT MEN ON THE
COMMITTEE SO PEOPLE BELIEVE THE
COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
I SAID WE WANT POWERFUL MEN, HE
SAID YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE
THIS STORY, BOB, WAIT UNTIL YOU
HEAR THIS ONE.
SO THEY REALIZED THAT THESE
THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING -- SO
THEN WE INTERVIEWED THE WOMEN,
THE WOMEN WOULD COME TO THE
COMMITTEE AND TELL THEIR
STORIES.
AND THESE MEN KNEW HOW THE
SYSTEM WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK
BECAUSE THEY WERE RUNNING IT.
AND THEY WERE AMAZED BY WHAT
THEY WERE HEARING FROM THESE
WOMEN.
WHEN THEY HEARD THE STORIES,
THEY KNEW IT WAS NOT THE WAY IT
WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
THAT THESE WOMEN WERE NOT HAVING
A STANDARD LIFE.
IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM --
>> AND NO WOMAN HAD BEEN A
DEPARTMENT HEAD OR HEAD OF A
CENTER AT THIS POINT, RIGHT?
>> NO.
>> NO WOMAN HAD TAKEN MATERNITY
LEAVE BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A
STIGMA.
>> RIGHT.
?O WOMAN TOOK -- ONLY MEN TOOK
MATERNITY LEAVE, I GUESS YOU
CALL IT PATERNITY LEAVE IN THAT
CASE, BUT ONLY -- WE HAD FAMILY
LEAVE POLICY, BUT WOMEN WERE
AFRAID TO TAKE THEM BECAUSE OF
THE BELIEF THAT IF A WOMAN -- AA
WOMAN COULD NOT BE A GREAT
SCIENTIST AND ALSO HAVE
CHILDREN.
THEREFORE, IF YOU HAD CHILDREN,
HOW COULD SHE POSSIBLY GET
TENURED AT M.I.T.?
SO THEY HAD KEPT IT A SECRET
FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WAS
VOTING ON THE TENURE CASE THAT A
WOMAN HAD HAD CHILDREN, HELD IT
SECRET FROM THEM UNTIL AFTER THE
VOTE WAS TAKEN.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW
HARD IT IS IN A MERITOCRACY TO
REALLY MAKE FAIR JUDGMENTS.
>> SO THE DEAN BEGINS -- YOU
HAVE -- YOU IDENTIFY PROBLEMS,
THE DEAN BEGINS TO FIX THEM.
ONE THING -- WHEN I DID THIS
STORY, I WAS A YOUNG REPORTER AT
THE BOSTON GLOBE, AS WE SAY,
IT'S GREAT TO BE YOUNG BECAUSE
YOU'RE IGNORANT.
WHEN I CAME BACK TO THIS AS THE
IDEA FOR THE BOOK, ONLY THEN DID
I REALIZE THAT IT HAD TAKEN -- I
GUESS I KNEW AT THE TIME BUT I'D
FORGOTTEN THAT IT HAD TAKEN FIVE
YEARS FROM THE POINT WHEN THE
WOMEN GET TOGETHER TO WHEN THE
COMMITCOMMITTEE REPORT ACTUALLYS
OUT.
PART OF THE INITIAL RELUCTANCE
WAS FOR THE MEN TO ALLOW YOU TO
HAVE YOUR COMMITTEE, AND THEN
IT'S HARD TO GET THE DATA
BECAUSE --
>> YEAH, THE COMMITTEE MET FOR
TWO YEARS OR MORE, COLLECTING
DATA.
GET FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.
EVERYBODY CAME.
IT WAS HARD TO GET DATA, WE HAD
TO FIGHT TO GET DATA.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, BOB SILVER, HE WENT
BACK TO THE DEAN, GIVE THOSE
WOMEN SOME DATA, HE POUNDED ON
THE TABLE.
THEY WERE AFRAID THAT -- I THINK
THEY WERE AFRAID OF BEING SUED,
LET'S BE HONEST.
AND I DON'T BLAME THEM.
YOU KNOW, THEY WERE PROTECTING
M.I.T.
>> BUT IT'S SUCH A LESSON IN
HOW -- AS YOU SAY HOW LITTLE
INFORMATION, THE WOMEN JUST
DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION,
THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THINGS.
SO FOR INSTANCE IN THAT MEETING
WITH THE DEAN, YOU KNOW, SYLVIA
IS TALKING ABOUT HOW SHE -- ALL
HER LIFE IS SCIENCE, SHE HAS NO
PERSONAL LIFE, AND SHE'D BEEN
TRYING TO BUY A CONDO AND SHE
CAN'T, SHE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD IT,
AND BOB ALMOST LUNGS ACROSS THE
TABLE AND SAID, WHY DIDN'T YOU
COME SEE ME ABOUT THAT?
BECAUSE OF COURSE ALL THE MEN
KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET A LOAN
FROM M.I.T. TO BUY REAL ESTATE
AND THE WOMEN JUST HAD NO CLUE.
THERE'S THIS THING CALLED THE
BROWN BOOK THAT HAD ALL THE DATA
OF WHO WAS GETTING WHAT GRANTS.
THE WOMEN BECAUSE THEY'D NEVER
BEEN IN ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T
KNOW SUCH A THING EXISTED, THEY
HAD NO IDEA THEY KNEW HOW TO GET
THE INFORMATION.
SO IT REALLY WATION A MATTER OF
LETTING YOU IN ON THE SECRET.
PENNY TALKED ABOUT HAVING A
PLAYBOOK, LIKE IT WAS REALLY
GIVING THE WOMEN THE PLAYBOOK,
RIGHT?
>> RIGHT, THERE WERE ALL THESE
PERKS GIVEN OUT BY
ADMINISTRATORS, AND WOMEN JUST
DIDN'T GET THEM.
AND SO IT WASN'T DELIBERATE.
NONE OF IT'S DELIBERATE.
IT JUST HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE
BIAS AND THE FACT THAT THE WOMEN
WEREN'T -- WERE CLUELESS ABOUT
HOW THE SYSTEM WAS WORKING.
>> AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT
WAY.
>> IT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.
I THINK WE HAD ONE -- THEN WE
INTERVIEWED THE DEPARTMENT
CHAIRS AND THEY WOULD COME IN
AND SAID WELL, AT THE END OF THE
YEAR, IF I HAD EXTRA MONEY IN MY
BUDGET FOR SALARIES, I WOULD
GIVE TO A YOUNG MAN WHO JUST HAD
A BABY, WHOSE FAMILY HAD A BABY.
WELL, OKAY, I GET THAT.
THAT'S A VERY NICE IMPULSE.
I WOULD DO THAT TOO, BUT CAN YOU
SEE WHY THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT
WELL FOR WOMEN, BECAUSE THEY
WERE HIDING THE FACT THEY HAD
BABIES.
ANYWAY, SO YOU COULD SEE THAT IT
DIDN'T COME ABOUT BECAUSE PEOPLE
SAID LET'S TREAT THESE PEOPLE
BADLY.
IT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THAT WAS
THE WAY THE WORLD WAS.
>> SO YOU WRITE THIS REPORT AND
MANY THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN.
YOU WRITE YOUR FIRST REPORT IN
1996.
THE REPORT IS NOT MADE PUBLIC
UNTIL 1999.
>> IT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED, IT
WAS 150 PAGES LONG, DETAILED
THING OF ALL THE THINGS THAT
HAPPENED TO THE WOMEN IN THE
STORY, THE DATA, BLAH, BLAH,
BLAH.
>> SO YOU PRESENT THIS TO THE
FACULTY POLICY GROUP, WHICH IS
SORT OF THE EQUIVALENT OF A
FACULTY SENATE AT M.I.T., AND
THE FIRST TIME YOU PRESENT IT,
THERE'S A MALE CHAIR OF THE
FACULTY AND HE SAYS VERY, VERY
NICE, FINE, BUT THERE'S SOMEONE
WHO COMES IN THE NEXT YEAR TO
REPLACE HIM WHO HAPPENS TO BE A
M WOMAN WHO HAS SPENT HER CAREER
STUDYING WOMEN'S WORK -- WOMEN
IN THE WORKPLACE AND WORK-LIFE
BALANCE AND AND SHE RECOGNIZES
THAT WHAT THE WOMEN IN THE
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE HAVE DONE
COULD BE A MODEL FOR
ILLUMINATING DISCRIMINATION,
PERHAPS IN THE OTHER SCHOOLS AT
M.I.T., SO SHE HAS THIS IDEA
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE A
SORT OF SANITIZED VERSION OF
THAT REPORT AND YOU'RE GOING TO
DISTRIBUTE TO THE FACULTY, AND
OTHER SCHOOLS CAN LEARN FROM
THIS.
THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING TO A GROUP
OF SCIENTIST JOURNALIST FELLOWS,
AND ONE OF THEM ASKS YOU WHAT'S
THE -- TELL ME ABOUT WHAT IT
LIKE TO BE A WOMAN IN SCIENCE
AND YOU SAY OH VERY INTERESTING
YOU SHOULD ASK BECAUSE WE'VE
JUST GOT THIS LETTER, THEN THE
HEAD OF THAT PROGRAM SAYS OH, DO
YOU MIND IF I CALL SOME
REPORTERS?
YOUR FIRST INSTINCT WAS NO,
WHICH IS A GOOD INSTINCT, YOUR
SECOND INSTINCT WAS, WELL,
ACTUALLY, WOW, THE PRESIDENT HAS
DONE SOMETHING REALLY REMARKABLE
HERE IN ACKNOWLEDGING THIS
PROBLEM, SO THIS IS THE CLASSIC
M.I.T. STORY, CLASSIC STORY OF
SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC GOOD.
YEAH, WE'LL SHARE THIS STORY.
BUT YOU DID NOT EXPECT THIS
STORY TO RESONATE OUTSIDE M.I.T.
RIGHT?
>> NO, I THINK THIS WOMAN WHO
BECAME THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY,
LOTTI EBAYLAND, EXTRAORDINARY,
STILL GOING STRONG AT 94, HER
LIFE WOAS WORK IS TO HELP SOLVE
FAMILY WORK PROBLEMS.
SHE KNEW ONE OF THE WOMEN IN MY
GROUP SO SHE KNEW ABOUT THE WORK
WE'D DONE.
AND SHE ASKED TO WRITE -- ASKED
US TO WRITE A VERY SHORT VERSION
OF THIS 150-PAGE REPORT THAT
COULD BE SHARED WITH THE M.I.T.
FACULTY.
AND THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY
SITS ON THE HIGHEST LEVEL
COMMITTEE, SO SHE WAS MEETING
WEEKLY WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
OTHER DEANS OF M.I.T. SO SHE HAD
ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT AND I
SAID, WELL -- I WROTE THIS
THING, THEN I SAID PLEASE BE
SURE TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT
APPROVES IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T
WANT -- WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW
THAT WE DEPARTMENT WORK AGAINST
M.I.T.
WE WERE WORKING WITH M.I.T.
OUR WHOLE GOAL WAS TO HELP THEM
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM SO THEY
COULD FIX IT.
THAT WAS SO CRITICAL TO US THAT
THAT BE THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED
TO THE WORLD, NOT AS A CONFLICT,
BUT AS A COLLABORATION.
ANYWAY, LOTTIE, WHO IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY PERSON, SHE TALKED
TO THE PRESIDENT OF M.I.T. AND
SAID THAT THIS REPORT WAS GOING
TO COME OUT, ASKED HIM TO READ
IT, ASKED THE DEAN TO READ IT,
AND SHE GOT A COMMENT FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF M.I.T. APPROVING
THE PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT,
AND HE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT IT,
WHICH CAME OVER MY EMAIL.
I CAN STILL REMEMBER SITTING
THERE AND SEEING THIS COMMENT
AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS
BELIEVED THAT GENDER
DISCRIMINATION IS PART
PERCEPTION, PART REALITY, TRUE,
BUT I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT
REALITY IS THE GREATER PART OF
THE BALANCE.
AND THAT SENTENCE, I THOUGHT IN
MY LIFETIME, THE PRESIDENT OF A
UNIVERSITY WOULD SAY THAT, I
COULDN'T BELIEVE IT HAD
HAPPENED.
AND I KNEW IT WAS AMAZING BUT I
DIDN'T THINK ANYONE ELSE WHAT
WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW AMAZING IT
WAS.
NOBODY CARES ABOUT US, NOBODY
CARES
>> AND YOU THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS
ONLY WOMEN AT M.I.T. THAT WERE
BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
>> RIGHT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A
LITTLE M.I.T. PROBLEM.
LO TTI EBAYLAND KNEW THIS WAS A
BIG PROBLEM, I DID NOT.
>> SO MY STORY RUNS ON THE FRONT
PAGE OF THE BOSTON SUNDAY GLOBE,
AND THE NEXT MORNING, THERE'S A
CBS EVENING NEWS CREW OUTSIDE OF
BOB'S OFFICE.
YOUR PHONE IS RINGING.
I REMEMBER TRYING TO CALL NANCY
JUST TO CHECK IN AFTER THE STORY
RUNS, AND THESE ARE THE DAYS OF
THE BUSY SIGNAL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE --
I COULD NOT REACH NANCY FOR LIKE
TWO WEEKS, YOUR PHONE WAS BUSY.
AND SO I FINALLY EMAILED YOU.
ANYWAY, BUT SO WHAT WAS THE
REACTION, HOW DID YOU FEEL
READING THE EMAILS? WAS IT --
>> WELL, FIRST I GO OUT AND GET
"THE BOSTON GLOBE" AND I SEE
KATE'S STORY ON THE FRONT PAGE
AND I FIGURE MY CAREER AND LIFE
IS OVER AND FIGURE THIS IS NOT A
GOOD THING.
THEN I GET AN EMAIL FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF M.I.T. SAYING
CONGRATULATIONS, I THINK WHAT?
HE SAYS WELL, IT WAS A TOUGH
STORY BUT IT WAS FAIR, AND IT
GAVE CREDIT WHERE THE CREDIT WAS
DUE, WHICH WAS TO YOUR GROUP OF
WOMEN FACULTY, SO
CONGRATULATIONS.
AND -- BUT NONE NONE OF US
REALLY PREPARED FOR THE
MAGNITUDE OF WHAT HAPPENED.
I MEAN, WE WERE OVERWHELMED, THE
PRESIDENT WAS OVERWEMM OVERWHELE
DEAN WAS OVERWHELMED, THE
EMAILS, THE PHONE CALLS.
>> "THE NEW YORK TIMES" PUT IT
ON ITS FRONT PAGE TUESDAY.
>> I PICKED UP THE PHONE, CAME
IN AND IT WAS SOMEBODY SAYING
HELLO, YOU'RE ON THE AIR IN --
WHERE WAS IT, AUSTRALIA.
THAT'S RIGHT.
AND I SAID OH, MY GOD, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S SO BIZARRE.
ANYWAY, THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT IT WAS THE EMAIL FROM WOMEN
AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME, YOUR
STORY IS MY STORY.
AND SO IT WAS THIS UNIVERSAL
TRUTH IN SOME PROBLEM, WHICH HAD
BEEN SORT OF QUIET, AND WAS
DEFINED BY THESE WOMEN.
THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WELL,
THERE'S SO MANY QUESTIONS, BUT
LOOKING BACK, WHY WERE WE SO
SLOW TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROBLEM?
BECAUSE A FEMINISTS WERE OUT THE
TELLING US ALL ABOUT IT, WRITE?
, RIGHT?
WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR THEM
CORRECTLY?
I LOOK BACK ON THAT WITH GUILT
BECAUSE THOSE WOMEN TRIED TO
TELL US -- THEY WERE OLDER
GENERALLY, THE FIRST ONES, JUST
SLIGHTLY OLDER THAN ME.
WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN TO THEM?
I FEEL GREAT GUILT ABOUT THAT.
THEY TOLD US OR TRYING TO TELL
US HOW AWFUL IT WAS GOING TO BE.
BOB MCCLINTOCK TOLD ME DON'T
TAKE THAT JOB AT M.I.T., YOU
WON'T BE ABLE TO STAND THE
DISCRIMINATION.
I THOUGHT WHY IS THIS OLD WOMAN
TELLING ME THIS?
>> BUT THAT'S PART OF THE
PROBLEM, IT'S REFLECTIVE OF THE
INVISIBILITY THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT.
>> I THINK ALSO IF YOU'RE A
YOUNG PERSON AND YOU'RE IN LOVE
WITH SCIENCE, JIM WATSON IS
ENCOURAGING YOU TO BE A
SCIENTIST, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
YOU'RE NOT HAVING A PROBLEM.
YOU'RE A STUDENT, YOU DON'T HAVE
ANY POWER, SO IF YOU'RE LUCKY,
YOU FELL INTO THE RIGHT SPOT,
YOU HAD A GOOD MENTOR, YOU GET
OFFERED A JOB AT M.I.T., WHAT DO
YOU HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?
SO I JUST THOUGHT THOSE
FEMINISTS WERE A LITTLE OLDER
AND THEY HAD ENCOUNTERED THE
PROBLEM BUT IT HAD BEEN SOLVED
AS CIVIL RIGHTS, AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT.
MY GENERATION WAS NOT GOING TO
HAVE A PROBLEM.
BUT WE DISCOVERED THERE WERE
THESE TWO PROBLEMS, WOMEN
COULDN'T HAVE CHILDREN AND THEN
WE DISCOVERED THIS UNCONSCIOUS
BIAS THAT UNDERVALUED WOMEN AND
EXCLUDED WOMEN FROM FULL
PARTICIPATION.
>> ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT I
REMEMBER READING, I THINK IT WAS
PERHAPS A WOMAN IN ALASKA, BUT
FIRST SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
FELT THIS WAY FOR A LONG TIME
AND NOW THE POWER -- NOW THE
GREAT M.I.T. IS SAYING IT SO THE
WORLD WILL RECOGNIZE IT IS TRUE,
BUT SHE WAS ALSO SAYING, IMAGINE
WHAT IT LAKE TO BE AT A SMALLER
INSTITUTION THAT DOESN'T HAVE
THE RESOURCES THAT M.I.T. DOES,
IMAGINE HOW MUCH MORE
DISADVANTAGED WOMEN ARE BECAUSE
EVERYBODY IS MORE DISADVANTAGED
BY COMPARISON, RELATIVELY
SPEAKING.
SO I THINK ALSO, YOU KNOW, YOU
DIDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE ALL OF YOU
REALLY WERE SO INTENT ON BEING
SCIENTISTS, AND YOU DIDN'T WANT
TO GET OFF TRACK FROM ANYTHING,
EVEN WHEN YOU WENT AND YOU WERE
INVITED TO GIVE HOW MANY TALKS
AFTERWARD?
I MEAN, YOU GAVE 200 IS IT?
400?
>> I DON'T KNOW, BUT CERTAINLY
IN THE THOUSANDS.
I THINK IT JUST ASTONISHING.
AND IT CAME FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD.
IT WASN'T JUST THE UNITED
STATES.
IT WAS JUST REMARKABLE.
FIRST IT WAS WOMEN.
FIRST IT WAS WOMEN TRYING TO GET
THEIR SCHOOLS TO ASK -- HAVE YOU
COME AND SPEAK, THEN IT WAS
ADMINISTRATORS IN THOSE SCHOOLS
ASKING YOU TO COME AND TELL YOU
HOW M.I.T. HAD FIXED THE PROB
PROBLEM.
>> BUT YOU WOULD ALWAYS -- AGAIN
AS A REFLECTION OF HOW MUCH THE
SCIENCE MEANT TO YOU, YOU WOULD
ALWAYS GIVE TWO TALKS.
ONE TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU CALL
YOUR WOMEN'S WORK AND ONE TALK
ABOUT YOUR SCIENCE, BECAUSE YOU
REALLY WANTED TO LEAD WITH THE
SCIENCE, YOU WANTED TO BE KNOWN
AS A SCIENTIST.
>> I WASN'T A WAS ASKED TO GIVEI
WAS TRAVELING ANYWAY, THEY SAID
WELL WE'LL ASK HER TO GIVE THIS
WOMEN'S TALK TOO.
I DID A LOT OF THEM AND AGAIN
THE FASCINATING THING WAS
MEETING WOMEN AND HAVING THEM --
LET ME TELL YOU MY STORY.
THEY'D COME AND START TO TELL
YOU THE STORY, THEY'D TAKE JUST
THE FIRST SETUP, AND YOU'D KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
YOU KNEW THE ANSWER TO WHAT THEY
WERE GOING TO TELL YOU BEFORE
THEY TOLD YOU THE STORY BECAUSE
IT WAS JUST THE PROBLEMS WERE SO
UNIVERSAL.
IT WAS REALLY REMARKABLE.
>> SO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT M.I.T. DID IN RESPONSE.
SO YOU WERE -- THERE AGAIN,
THERE'D NEVER BEEN WOMEN IN THE
ADMINISTRATION, SO YOU WERE PUT
ON THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL?
>> SO -- I LOVE THIS BECAUSE
KATE'S BOOK, I THINK SHE DID AN
INCREDIBLE JOB BUT SHE DOESN'T
REALLY GET INTO HOW DID M.I.T.
FIX THE PROBLEM SO MUCH, AND I
ASKED HER WHY, AND SHE SAID,
BECAUSE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION
IS ABOUT AS EXCITING AS WATCHING
PAINT DRY.
[LAUGHTER
[LAUGHTER ?CHT
>> BUT THERE ARE LESSONS TO BE
BE LEARNED, THERE'S SOME LESSONS
IN THE BOOK.
>> BUT FOR THOSE OF US TRYING TO
FIX THESE PROBLEMS IN THESE
INSTITUTIONS, HOW DO YOU DO IT,
WHAT DO YOU DO?
SO I'VE BEEN DOING ALL THIS WORK
FROM MY OFFICE, OF COURSE, AND
HAD NO APPOINTMENT -- BOB WAS
GOING TO LEAVE M.I.T. AND I
SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT OF M.I.T.
AND THE PROVOST, THIS WONDERFUL
MAN, BOB BROWN.
THEY SPENT SOME MONTHS TRYING TO
DECIDE WHAT TO DO, AND SO THEY
DESAIDEDDECIDED TO APPOINT ME TE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION TO WORK
WITH THE PROVOST, I CO-CHAIR A
COMMITTEE WITH THE PROVOST.
HE HAS THE POWER AND THE MONEY
TO FIX THINGS.
AND I SERVE ON THE HIGHEST
COMMITTEE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
THESE DEANS, AND THIS COMMITTEE
WOULD HAVE ON IT THE DEANS OF
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, AND WE
ALSO TOOK ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH
AGAIN I ALSO FEEL, WHEN WE
STARTED OUT IT WAS 16 WOMEN.
THEY WERE ALL WHITE WOMEN, AND
WHEN WE WENT -- THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD
DEAL WITH WOMEN OR WOMEN AND
MINORITY AFFAIRS.
AND THIS WAS A VERY INTERESTING
THING, BECAUSE, WELL, IT ANOTHER
LONG STORY, BUT JUST VERY
BRIEFLY, WE WANTED TO DO BOTH,
AND THIS WAS WHERE WE LEARNED --
I HAD REALLY THOUGHT -- WELL
FIRST OF ALL I'D NEVER THOUGHT
OF DOING ANY OF THIS.
ALL I WANTED WAS 200 SQUARE FEET
OF SPACE, I WOULD HAVE BEEN
HAPPY, WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS,
BUT NOW HERE WE ARE TRYING TO
FIX THIS PROBLEM FOR THE WHOLE
UNIVERSITY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
DISCOVERED -- I ALWAYS THOUGHT
WOMEN WERE WOMEN.
IT WAS ONE BIG GROUP.
YOU SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, YOU'D
SOLVE IT FOR ALL GROUPS.
BUT OF COURSE IT TURNS OUT THAT,
NO.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY
SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS PROBLEM.
AND WE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY
WOMAN NAMED EVELYN HAMMONDS, AN
EXTRAORDINARY SCIENCE PERSON.
SHE WAS AT M.I.T. AT THE TIME,
SHE WAS BLACK, AND SHE WAS THE
PERSON THAT TAUGHT US ABOUT THE
DOUBLE BLIND FOR WOMEN OF COLOR.
SO SHE WAS A PART OF THIS --
>> AND THE DOUBLE BLIND IS THAT
PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN -- PROGRAMS
TO HELP WOMEN TENDED TO END UP
HELPING WHITE WOMEN, AND
PROGRAMS FOR UNDERREPRESENTED
MINORITIES, PARTICULARLY BLACK
PEOPLE, ENDED UP HELPING MEN IN
THOSE GROUPS.
SO WOMEN ARE IN THE NO WOMAN'S
LAND.
>> SO THE BIG DEAL OF WORK DONE
ON THAT.
THEN WE HAD ALSO ANOTHER WOMAN
WHO REALLY CHANGED THE SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING.
HER NAME IS LONA GIBSON.
SHE WORKED ON THE LGQT ISSUES,
BECAUSE SHE/HER SELF WAS GAY AND
SHE DID A SURVEY TO FIND OUT HOW
MANY GAY PEOPLE WERE IN THE
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, WHICH HAS
ABOUT 350 FACULTY, AND SHE
DISCOVERED THERE WERE ONLY TWO
AND SHE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS
REALLY POSSIBLE.
NO, SHE SAID, BECAUSE THEN SHE
REALIZED THAT OF COURSE THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO ADMIT THAT THEY
WERE GAY IN THAT ERA.
AND SO SHE BECAME AN ADVOCATE
FOR THAT WHOLE -- BEFORE IT
BECAME MUCH BROADER AT M.I.T.
AND SHE WORKED WITH THE DEAN OF
ENGINEERING TO DO -- FOR THAT
SCHOOL, WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN
SCIENCE AND THEY TRANSFORMED THE
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING.
I MEAN, THEY LITERALLY DID.
>> ONE OF THE LESSONS I THINK
FROM ENGINEERING IS THAT --
WELL, ONE OF THE LESSONS FROM
THE WHOLE STORY IS THAT TO GET
MORE WOMEN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
LOWER STANDARDS.
LIKE LET'S JUST --
>> THAT WAS THE CRITICAL,
CRITICAL -- THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT UP.
I HOPE EVERY ONE OF YOU BRINGS
THIS UP EVERY TIME YOU HEAR
ANYBODY TALK ABOUT THIS, WHICH
YOU FREQUENTLY DO.
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY -- AND
THE WOMEN -- THE MOST ADAMANT
ABOUT THIS, THOSE WOMEN WERE SO
AFRAID, OF COURSE THEY ALWAYS
ARE, THAT IF YOU HIRE SOMEBODY
WHO'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THAT WILL
LOWER ALL OF THEM.
AND SO YES.
>> SO ENGINEERING ENDED UP WITH
REALLY IMPROVING -- ENGINEERING
WHICH IS A VERY MALE FIELD
TRADITIONALLY --
>> HAD% OF
>> 4% OF THE FACULTY WERE WOMEN.
THE DEAN TOOK IT ON, HE READ THE
REPORT, READ LONA'S REPORT, WAS
BLOWN AWAY, SAID IT WAS
UNACCEPTABLE.
HE SET UP A THING, HE CALLED
IT -- INSTEAD OF JUST TAKING THE
APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN, YOU
ACTUALLY GO OUT AND SEARCH FOR
EXCEPTIONAL WOMEN THAT YOU CAN
HIRE.
THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
AND SUDDENLY THEY HIRED THESE
WOMEN.
SO PEOPLE SAID OH, THIS IS NOT
GOING TO WORK OUT.
AND THEY GOT THESE WOMEN, AND
THEY TURNED OUT TO BE
PHENOMENAL, AND MANY OF THEM ARE
NOW CHAIRMAN OF DEPARTMENTS AND
SO FORTH.
PEOPLE SAY WHERE WERE THOSE
WOMEN?
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW ABOUT THESE
WOMEN?
AND MANY OF THEM HAD NOT APPLIED
TO M.I.T. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
THINK THEY FIT THE SLOT OR THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE JOB OR
WHATEVER IT WAS.
SO THEY BROADENED THE FIELD,
REALLY.
I MEAN, YOU COULD DO IT AT
M.I.T.
IT'THEY WERE BIG ENOUGH
DEPARTMENTS.
YOU COULD BROADEN THE FIELD AND
HAVE SOMEBODY JUST STUDY GREEN
WIDGETS, YOU MIGHT GET BLUE
WIDGETS OR WHATEVER IT WAS, SO
THAT WAS HOW THEY DID IT, BUT
THEY NEVER CHANGED THE QUALITY.
YOU CANNOT DO THAT AT M.I.T.,
THAT'S JUST A DISASTER, YOU'RE
NOT HELPING ANYBODY.
SO THEY FOUND PHENOMENAL PEOPLE
AND THEY'VE THRIVED AND --
>> SO HALF THE DEPARTMENTS IN
ENGINEERING NOW ARE LED BY
WOMEN.
>> CHAIRS OF HALF THE
DEPARTMENTS LAST YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVEN'T
CHECKED AGAIN FOR THE LAST YEAR
OR TWO, BUT IT'S JUST AMAZING.
AND THEY WENT FROM 4% WOMEN TO
22% WOMEN, FACULTY, AND THAT'S
REMARKABLE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP TO
QUESTIONS IN A FEW MINUTES IF
EVERYONE WANTS TO THINK ABOUT
WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO ASK BUT
NANCY JUST TO WRAP UP WITH YOU,
HOW DO YOU LOOK BACK ON ALL OF
THIS NOW?
I MEAN, FOR A LONG TIME, IT SORT
OF BROKE MY HEART BECAUSE WE
WOULD TALK AND YOU WOULD SAY OH,
BUT THINK OF ALL THE SCIENCE I
COULD HAVE DONE IF I HADN'T BEEN
MEASURING FLOORS AND RUNNING
AROUND GIVING TALKS ABOUT WOMEN
AND HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE
WHY THESE ARE STILL ISSUES.
>> AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT.
>> IT'S ALL MY FAULT.
RIGHT.
SO BECAUSE I RUINED YOUR LIFE,
NOW TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL.
>> OBVIOUSLY IT'S SO MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING I DID
MYSELF SCIENTIFICALLY.
>> THAT'S NOT TRUE, BUT ANYWAY.
>> BUT WHO COULD IMAGINE SUCH AN
OUTCOME?
IT NEVER EVEN CROSSED MY MIND.
I LOOKED BACK, HOW CLUELESS WERE
WE IN I'M ENORMOUSLY, YOU KNOW,
DELIGHTED THAT IT WORKED.
I FEEL, WHERE ARE WE TODAY,
THAT'S WHAT -- I'M ALWAYS
LOOKING FORWARD.
WHERE ARE WE TODAY?
WHY WASN'T IT ENOUGH?
WHY DO WOMEN STILL HAVE
PROBLEMS?
DO THEY HAVE PROBLEMS?
I MEAN, WHAT'S -- WHERE ARE WE?
WHY IS THIS COUNTRY NOT ABLE TO
ELECT A WOMAN PRESIDENT?
I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT POLITICS
AT NIH SO I'M NOT GOING TO.
BUT IT REMARKABLE, REALLY, ISN'T
IT?
EXTRAORDINARY.
SO I'LL SAY -- TWO COMMENTS.
ONE WAS PRESIDENT VEST, HE USED
TO COME TO OUR COMMITTEE
MEETINGS WITH BOB BROWN, THE
PROVOST, WHENEVER HE COULD.
IF HE WAS IN TOWN AND FREE,
WOULD HE COME TO THE COMMITTEE.
HE WAS JUST FASCINATED BY THE
PROBLEM, HE SAID ANYTHING I CAN
MEASURE, I'M GOING TO FIX, I
PROMISE YOU THAT, NANCY, BUT I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE THIS
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS.
AND I THINK THAT COMMENT IS
PROFOUND.
AND WE STILL DON'T.
BUT IF YOU ASK THE PSYCHOLOGIST
HOW DO YOU SOLVE IT, THEY'LL
TELL YOU, YOU CHANGE THE WORLD,
AND THE BIASES WILL CHANGE WITH
IT.
PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY SEE.
IF THEY SEE A WOMAN PRESIDENT,
HAVEN'T THEY ALWAYS BEEN
PRESIDENT?
IT'S NOT SEEING THEM IN THOSE
ROLES THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM,
RIGHT?
SO CHANGE THE WORLD.
SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO.
FINALLY, I'D SAY L.
OH TTI EBAYLAND, AGE 9 4-RBGS
WHERE DO YOU THINK WE ARE, WE
DID A SESSION WITH HER, SHE SAYS
WELL, WHAT THE M.I.T. REPORT
DID, IT PUT THE ISSUE ON THE
TABLE SO YOU COULD TALK ABOUT IT
OPENLY, AS WE ARE HERE.
WE TRIED TO SOLVE PROBLEMS SO IT
WOULD BE FAIR, WE'D COLLECT DATA
AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS FAIR,
WE'D MAKE SURE JOB SEARCHES WERE
FAIR, THAT THEY WERE NOT
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE.
BUT SHE SAID, AND THAT'S ALL
BECAUSE YOU CREATED SORT OF
FAIRNESS BY MEASURING ALL THE
TIME, BUT WHAT WOULD SCIENCE
LOOK LIKE, SHE SAYS, IF IT HAD
BEEN DESIGNED BY WOMEN, FOR
WOMEN?
WHAT WOULD THE WHOLE PROFESSION
LOOK LIKE?
WHAT WOULD IT BE?
AND SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIT
PEOPLE WHO WERE LEADING ONE KIND
OF LIFE IN MY GENERATION INTO AN
EXISTING SYSTEM WHERE MEN
SUPPORTED THE FAMILY AND WOMEN
STAYED AT THIS LEVEL.
SO THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING
QUESTION.
AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT IN
THE RECENT COUPLE OF WEEKS
BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
ELECTION, I THINK WHAT DO WOMEN
WANT?
WHERE ARE WE?
HOW SHOULD IT LOOK?
WHY ISN'T THERE DAYCARE
EVERYWHERE, WHY ISN'T IT
AUTOMATIC THAT WOMEN CAN WORK
AND WHY ARE THEY STILL FIGHTING,
SO WHERE ARE WE?
>> YEAH.
SO DOES SOMEONE WANT TO LEAD
QUESTIONS?
>> HELLO, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS JESSICA KEARNY.
I'M A POSTBAC AT NINDS,
CO-FOUNDER OF THE WOMEN AND
GENDER MINORITIES BOOK CLUB WITH
REMA.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH
TO KATE AND NANCY FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR
FOR QUESTIONS, BUT FIRST,
SELFISHLY I'M GOING TO ASK MY
OWN QUESTION.
>> YEAH, PLEASE.
>> SO I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE
ONE WOMAN THAT DEPARTMENT SIGN
THE LETTER, NANCY.
WHY -- FIRST OF ALL, DID SHE
EVER CHANGE HER MIND AND
RECOGNIZE THAT SHE HAD BEEN
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN YOU
CAME TO HER WITH THAT DATA,
TELLING HER THAT SHE HAD BEEN
WOEFULLY UNDERPAID?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE EVER
KNEW SHE WAS THE MOST UNDERPAID.
>> THIS IS A TOUGH PROBLEM
BECAUSE WE TRIED NOT TO EVER
IDENTIFY PEOPLE AND IF YOU WERE
TO GO BACK -- SO I FEEL FUNNY TO
TALK ABOUT IT.
IN GENERAL, LET ME SAY, OF
PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET IT, LIKE
ME, I THINK AS I WAS ONE OF THEM
FOR SO LONG MYSELF, I HAVE TO
SAY, THE MOMENT WHEN YOU REALIZE
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS THE MOST
PAINFUL MOMENT OF THE WHOLE
THING.
I THINK THAT'S A DENIAL
COMPONENT TO IT.
AS LONG AS YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU
WANT TO DO.
I DIDN'T CARE.
I THINK SOME PEOPLE DON'T FEEL
THAT THEY ARE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST.
EVEN WHEN THE DATA SHOW YOU THAT
THEY ARE.
IT'S JUST TOO HARD TO ACCEPT IT.
>> WHEN I INTERVIEWED HER, SHE
SAID -- IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE
IT'S ALL IN EMAIL, I DIDN'T TALK
TO HER ON THE PHONE BUT IN
EMAILS SHE WOULD SAY, YES, I
PROBABLY DID HAVE LESS THAN THE
MEN, BUT SHE WAS RELUCTANT --
AND SHE WOULD EVEN SAY LIKE I
WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BUT
SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO SORT OF TAG
IT, I THINK PARTLY FOR THAT
REASON BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO
GET THE LABEL OF BEING SOMEONE
WHO COMPLAINED, BUT I ALSO
THINK -- AND THIS WAS TRUE FOR
NANCY, THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE
WHO WERE TELLING NANCY, THIS IS
SEX DISCRIMINATION, AND THERE
WAS THIS FEELING THAT IT HAD TO
BE OBVIOUS, IT HAD TO BE
INTENTIONAL AND IN SOME CASE IT
IS HAD TO INVOLVE SEX, THAT
SOMEONE HAD TO LIKE HIT ON YOU,
YOU REBUFFED THEM AND THEN THEY
DIDN'T GIVE YOU A JOB.
IT HAD TO BE THAT CLEAR-CUT.
SO I THINK FOR HER, SHE FELT
THAT THESE MEN AROUND HER HAD
JUST BEEN, YOU KNOW, ACTING THE
WAY THEY ACT, AND THEY HADN'T
INTENDED TO TREAT HER THAT WAY,
THEREFORE, SHE COULDN'T CALL IT
DISCRIMINATION.
I THINK ALL THESE YEARS LATER,
SHE IS NOT QUITE RESOLVED ON
THAT QUESTION.
>> SO THE PROBLEM IS THE
DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION
ITSELF.
>> BUT I THINK THE REAL PROBLEM
IS THAT AS A PSYCHOLOGISTS ALSO
TELL US, PEOPLE WHO ARE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THEY
ABSORB THE SAME CULTURE SO THEY
REALLY FEEL THEY AREN'T GOOD
ENOUGH, SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM
REALLY.
AND THE WOMEN THEMSELVES BECOME
PART -- ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
THEY HAVE THE SAME VIEWS.
>> HELLO, DR. HOPKINS.
THIS IS FANTASTIC.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I DID A POSTDOC AT M.I.T. FOR A
BRIEF PERIOD, BUT I WAS ALSO A
NEW PROFESSOR WHEN YOU GAVE YOUR
2011 SPEECH THAT THEN WAS
EMAILED OUT AND RIPPLED
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR THAT ALSO.
SO EXCITED WI ABOUT THIS EVENT.
JUST ABOUT THE RE-THINKING
SCIENCE, THERE ACTUALLY IS AN
INTERESTING SHOW ON APPLE TV
CALLED FOR ALL MANKIND THAT NASA
HAD TO INTEGRATE AND BRING WOMEN
ON BOARD MUCH EARLIER AND IT
CHANGES THE WHOLE COURSE OF U.S.
HISTORY FOR THOSE THAT -- CHECK
IT OUT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU IF
YOU COULD TELL THIS GROUP TOO,
BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE THINK
THIS IS STILL FAR-OFF HISTORY,
AND EVEN SOME OF THE NAMES YOU
MENTIONED WERE THERE WHEN I WAS
A POSTDOC THERE IN 2006, 2008,
BEFORE M.I.T. WENT TO A RACIAL
RECKONING.
SO I'M CURIOUS IF YOU COULD JUST
LET THE AUDIENCE HEAR AND THOSE
WATCHING ONLINE.
SOME OF THOSE YEARS OF SOME OF
THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE MIGHT
THINK THIS IS IN THE 70s,
80s OR 90s.
IF YOU COULD GIVE SOME YEARS AND
DATES TO THESE PEOPLE ABOUT SOME
OF YOUR STORIES TO SEE THAT IT'S
RECENT HISTORY.
AND YOUR WORK IS VERY IMPORTANT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
IT MOST REREMINDS ME, M.I.T. WAS
FIXING ITSELF, IT REALLY WAS.
THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY WAS GROWING
UP AROUND US, AND WHEN YOU WENT
AND LOOKED AT THE DATA FOR THAT,
IT HADN'T CHANGED FROM THE
1950s.
IT HADN'T CHANGED FROM THE TIME
IT STARTED.
I MEAN, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY
SHOCKING.
SO THE MEN WHO WERE THE FACULTY,
WHO WERE ON THE FACULTY AT
M.I.T. WHO WERE OUT FOUNDING
THESE BIOTECH COMPANIES THAT
HAVE ADVISORY BOARDS AND --
BOARDS AND SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY
BOARDS, AND CO-FOUNDERS HAD
COMPLETELY EXCLUDED WOMEN.
SO THEY'RE SITTING IN THERE
TEACHING CLASSES WITH 60, 70%
WOMEN STUDENTS, AND THEY'RE
WORKING WITH ONLY MEN IN THE
COMPANIES THEY FOUNDED.
AND SO WAS IT FIVE YEARS AGO,
SUSAN HARTFIELD, WHO HAD BEEN
PRESIDENT OF THE M.I.T. AND
ANOTHER TOOK THIS ON AND FOUNDED
A BOSTON BIOTECH GROUP AND
BROUGHT IN VENTURE CAPITALISTS
AND SO FORTH, AND I HAD THE
WOMEN COME AND TELL THEIR
STORIES.
THEY WERE TOLD WHEN YOU GO TO
PITCH IN FRONT OF A VENTURE
CAPITALIST, DO NOT BRING ANOTHER
WOMAN WITH YOU BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T DEAL WITH TWO WOMEN IN THE
ROOM AT THE SAME TIME.
[LAUGHTER ?CHT THAT'S WHERE WE
ARE.
NOW WE'RE TALKING -- WE'RE
TALKING NOW.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ANCIENT
HISTORY.
WE'RE TALKING NOW.
>> BUT JUST TO PUT SOME DATES ON
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SO
NANCY GETS HER JOB AT M.I.T. IN
1973, WHICH IS THE YEAR THAT --
I GUESS EARLY ON IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAYS TO THE
UNIVERSITIES, YOU HAVE TO HIRE
MORE WOMEN OR WE'LL TAKE WAY
YOUR FUNDING, BUT WHEN THEY
DISCOVER THERE ARE -- SO 1994 IS
WHEN THEY DISCOVER THAT THERE
ARE 15 TENURED WOMEN IN THE
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND 197 MEN.
1994.
SO 1999 IS WHEN THIS REPORT
COMES OUT, I GUESS IT WAS 2001
THAT SUSAN BECOMES THE FIRST
FEMALE PRESIDENT OF M.I.T.
2002, THERE ARE IMOWN -- BY THAT
POINT I THINK THERE ARE THREE
FEMALE PRESIDENTS IN THE IVY
LEAGUE.
BUT YEAH, A LOT OF THIS IS
REALLY RECENT.
2010 WAS WHEN M.I.T., USING
NANCY'S REPORT ON WOMEN AS A
MODEL, DID THE HAMMIT REPORT ON
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES, BUT
STILL, AGAIN, I THINK -- 2% OF
SCIENTISTS ARE WOMEN OF COLOR?
I MEAN -- OR MAYBE IT'S BLACK
WOMEN EXCLUSIVELY, BUT THE
NUMBERS ARE SHOCKINGLY LOW.
AND I REALLY DO THINK IT'S
PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS
ALLOWED OR --
>> I THINK IT'S A HARD PROBLEM,
THEY REALLY ARE.
IF YOU TAKE WOMEN OF ANY COLOR,
WHAT PERCENT, IT'S ABOUT 21
OR-2%, WOMEN IN FACULTY IN
SCIENCE AT M.I.T.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HOW HIGH
COULD IT GET, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
PIPELINES COMING IN, IT NEVER
GOING TO BE 50%, NEVER.
I MEAN, THERE ARE CERTAIN FIELDS
THAT JUST DON'T HAVE WOMEN IN
THEM.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING WAY BACK,
YOU'RE GOING WAY BACK.
WHERE DO WOMEN DROP OUT?
IF YOU LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL
FIELDS, THEY DROP OUT AT
DIFFERENT POINTS FROM DIFFERENT
FIELDS.
IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.
>> HI.
I'M ROSIE KAPLAN.
I'M A SENIOR INVESTIGATOR IN THE
PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY BRANCH.
I'M A MOM OF 6 KIDS.
AND I RUN A LAB AND I TRY TO DO
CLINICAL TRIALS TOO.
AND I -- THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO,
SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
BECAUSE I THINK SEEING IS
BELIEVING.
I WAKE UP PRETTY MUCH I'D SAY
90% OF MY MORNINGS THINKING
ABOUT THAT I WANT TO EFFECT
CHANGE, THAT I STILL FEEL LIKE
SOCIETY IS NOT SET UP FOR
WORKING MOMS IN A WAY THAT'S
REALLY TENABLE FOR MOST PEOPLE.
I'M NEVER SURPRISED FOR MY
FEMALE TRAINEES, MINORITY
TRAINEES ARE STRESSED ABOUT HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT
NEXT LEVEL.
I JUST -- I HEAR IT SO MUCH AND
I BELIEVE IT.
BUT MY PROBLEM IS, I HATE THE
IDEA THAT I DON'T HAVE A PLAN TO
FIX IT, SO, THEREFORE, I SAY
NOTHING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I FEEL
ALL THESE YEARS, AND THROUGH
CHILD CARE, THROUGH WORKING, I
MEAN, MY SON IS 23.
I'VE BEEN 24 YEARS BETWEEN BEING
PREGNANT AND NOW.
AND I HAVE NO BETTER SOLUTION.
I THINK ABOUT SOLUTIONS BUT I
CAN'T ACTUALIZE THEM IN WAYS
THAT ARE MEANINGFUL AND DOES IT
MATTER TO -- IS IT IMPORTANT TO
POINT IT OUT OR SPEAK UP, IS
THAT SUFFICIENT, OR DO I REALLY
NEED TO COME WITH A PLAN BECAUSE
I FEEL REALLY INADEQUATE WITH
THE PLAN A LOT OF THE TIME.
[APPLAUSE]
>> HUGE APPLAUSE TO YOU, FIRST
OF ALL, FOR DOING THIS.
BUT I THINK WHY IS -- WELL,
THAT'S A LOT TO TAKE ON
YOURSELF.
>> WELL, I'M NOT -- CLEARLY I'M
NOT.
>> WELL, BUT I THINK THIS IS
PART OF THE -- AND I WANT NANCY
TO SPEAK ON THIS, BUT I WOULD
SAY JUST HAVING TALKED TO A LOT
OF WOMEN EITHER REPORTING THE
BOOK OR SPEAKING ABOUT THE BOOK,
I THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR A
LOT OF WOMEN.
AND HAVING HAD MY OWN CAREER, AS
I OFTEN SAY, WHEN I CAME BACK TO
WRITE THIS BOOK, I WAS THE AGE
THAT NANCY WAS WHEN SHE STARTED
MEASURING THOSE FLOORS.
I HAD A VERY DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS WHEN I WAS
A 30-YEAR-OLD WRITING THIS STORY
FOR "THE BOSTON GLOBE" BECAUSE I
HAD SEEN MORE.
I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS
THAT, YES, WE ARE SO STRESSED,
WE ARE THINKING THAT WE ARE
ALONE DOING THIS, WE'RE THINKING
THAT IT'S UP TO US TO SOLVE.
IT'S VERY HARD TO TALK ABOUT
BECAUSE YOU THINK -- YOU'RE SO
WORRIED ABOUT BEING TAGGED AT
"THE MOM."
FOR ME, I WOULD NEVER PUT MY
KIDS' ARTWORK, I WOULDN'T PUT UP
PICTURES OF MY KIDS, MEANWHILE
MY MALE COLLEAGUES, THEIR
CUBICLES WERE FESTOONED WITH
PICTURES OF THEIR KIDS, GREAT
DAD.
I THOUGHT THEY WOULD THINK LESS
OF ME.
THE ONE THAT REALLY GET ME AND
WHEN I TELL THE STORY, I HAVE
COLLEAGUES FROM WORK WHO COME TO
ME AND WHISPER, I'M SO GLAD YOU
SAID THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED.
BUT PEOPLE WOULD SAY TO ME, WHEN
I WOULD SAY WELL, THIS IS
HAPPENING TO ME, I DON'T THINK I
WAS -- I DON'T SEEM TO BE
GETTING TRACTION IN THIS AREA OF
MY STORY, PEOPLE WOULD SAY I
THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T TRAVEL,
BECAUSE I HAD KIDS, OR I THOUGHT
YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT JOB.
AND I THINK SO OFTEN, IT'S THAT
PEOPLE DON'T ASK.
THEY MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS
ABOUT WHAT WOMEN CAN AND CAN'T
DO, AND SO PART OF IT IS THAT WE
HAVE TO ALLOW WOMEN TO SAY WHAT
THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO.
OF COURSE WE ALSO HAVE TO --
HELPING WITH DAYCARE WOULD BE
GREAT.
NANCY TALKS ABOUT POLYBUNTING,
THE PRESIDENT OF RADCLIFFE WHEN
SHE WAS THERE, SHE HAD FOUR
KIDS, A MICRO BIOLOGIST.
SHE THOUGHT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE
A CAREER AND FAMILY BUT GAVE
THEM NO INDICATION OF HOW THEY
WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS.
WHEN YOU LOOK BACK, ONE OF THE
MOST STUNNING THINGS IN
REPORTING THIS BOOK WAS THERE
WAS A REPORT ON THE NATIONAL --
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S COMMISSION
ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN.
IT WAS A NATIONAL BEST SELLER.
IT WAS LIKE THE 9/11 REPORT OF
ITS TIME.
EVERYBODY BOUGHT THAT BOOK.
IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NEED
FOR UNIVERSAL DAYCARE, ALL THESE
PROPOSALS.
MATERNITY LEAVE, WE DIDN'T SEE
THAT FOR 30 YEARS, WE'RE STILL
TALKING ABOUT DAYCARE.
THAT WAS 1963, WE WERE
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM.
HERE WE ARE 2024, I MEAN,
WHAT'S -- LIKE WHY CAN'T WE FIX
THIS?
BUT I THINK PARTLY IT'S THAT WE
CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT.
I DON'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO RUN AROUND TALKING
ABOUT IT, BUT I WILL SAY,
OFTENTIMES AT ABOUT THIS POINT
IN THE CONVERSATION, I SAY TO
THE AUDIENCE, I HATE TALKING
ABOUT THIS STUFF BECAUSE I
ALWAYS THINK -- AND SOMETIMES I
SEE IT IN PEOPLE'S EYES, THEY'RE
THINKING OH, WELL, I BET THERE'S
ANOTHER REASON ARENA TO EXPLAINI
BET SHE'S REALLY NOT GOOD
ENOUGH.
I THINK THAT IS THE NATURAL
INSTINCT, THE DEFAULT POSITION
FOR ALL OF US.
CERTAINLY WAS FOR NANCY.
>> I THINK IT'S FASCINATING.
AS I SAY, I THINK THE THING
ABOUT THE UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, THE
DISCRIMINATION THAT PEOPLE WERE
EXPERIENCING WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
BE SPOKEN ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE
MERITOCRACY IDEA.
IF YOU WERE REALLY GOOD ENOUGH,
THIS WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING YOU.
SO THAT SILENCED PEOPLE ON THAT
ONE.
AND I THINK THIS IS VERY
SIMILAR.
I HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT
IT, THE WAY YOU PUT IT WAS VERY
HELPFUL.
I THINK, YES, WHERE ARE THE
WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS RECENT
ELECTION, WHY ARE WOMEN NOT
SUPPORTING OTHER WOMEN?
I DON'T GET IT.
I MEAN, IS THERE SOME FENCE IN
WHICH THE GROUP IS NOT A GROUP?
WE DON'T HAVE A COMMON PROBLEM,
WHAT'S GOING ON?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
I'M ASKING YOU.
I FEEL I'M TOO OLD TO SOLVE IT.
YOU'RE TO BUSY TO SOLVE IT.
[LAUGHTER]
>> WHERE IS THE SOLUTION?
>> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK PEOPLE DO -- WOMEN,
TOO, FEEL VERY -- YOU KNOW, YOU
HEAR BOTH SIDES OF IT ALL THE
TIME.
LIKE, WOW, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU
DO THAT JOB.
BUT ALMOST LIKE, HOW DO YOU DO
THAT JOB?
LIKE, DO YOU DO THAT JOB?
ARE YOU REALLY DOING THAT JOB?
AND THAT'S ALSO LOTS OF
IMPLICATIONS IN THAT.
AND ALSO YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING
THAT JOB.
I'VE HEARD IT A LOT.
I SHOULD BE HOME.
I HAD THESE CHILDREN, I SHOULD
BE WITH THEM.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE OFF IN SOME
DAYCARE OR AFTERCARE OR -- EVEN
WORSE, LIKE HOME AND MANAGING
THEIR INDEPENDENT LIVES AT 10 OR
WHATEVER, LIKE, THAT'S THE
WORST.
THEN I'M CLEARLY IN THE WORST.
I HEAR IT.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE
OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
>> LET'S DO THE PEOPLE --
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS.
I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT AND A
QUESTION.
THE COMMENT IS SORT OF ON THE
HISTORY TOPIC, LIKE, AS YOU WERE
SORT OF TALKING ABOUT THE -- I
KEPT THINKING, IT WAS ONLY IN
THE EARLY 70s THAT JULIE
RICHARDSON IS THE CASE THAT
FORCED NIH TO PUT WOMEN ON GRANT
REVIEW PANELS.
AND LIKE, I ONLY CAME ACROSS
THIS CASE RECENTLY, AND SHE IS
THE PREAFS GENER PREVIOUS GENERF
ACTIVISTS AND THAT GENERATION IS
JUST NOT TAUGHT AT ALL, AND WE
ARE FOR GETTING HOW RECENT THAT
IS.
THAT WAS YOUR FIRST GRANT.
THERE WERE NO WOMEN ON THOSE
PANELS.
AND I FEEL LIKE WE DO NEED TO
KNOW THAT HISTORY SO MUCH MORE.
AND AS FAR AS MY QUESTION, WE
CAN TALK ABOUT SORT OF LIKE HUGE
CHANGE EVERYWHERE, BUT JUST TO
FOCUS, YOU KNOW, JUT AT M.I.T.,
IF -- TODAY, IF YOU COULD
CHANGE -- WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE,
LIKE, RIGHT NOW IF YOU COULD
JUST SAY THIS SHOULD BE
DIFFERENT AT M.I.T. TO MAKE IT
BETTER?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'VE BEEN
RETIRED NOW FOR 11 YEARS.
AND SO I'M NOT REALLY THE PERSON
TO ASK.
TO ME, AGAIN, I LOOK AND I SAY
WE HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT --
>> AT M.I.T.
I MEAN -- OH, YEAH, M.I.T.
[LAUGHTER]
AND SHE'S JUST -- I LOVE HER.
I MEAN, FOR WOMEN OF MY
GENERATION, THE IDEA THERE COULD
EVER BE A WOMAN PRESIDENT OF
M.I.T., WE DIDN'T EVEN THINK
ABOUT IT, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT
IT.
WE WEREN'T CREATIVE ENOUGH TO
IMAGINE IT.
SO I THOUGHT -- I MEAN, WOMAN
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THERE'D BE A WOMAN
PRESIDENT OF HARVARD.
SO FOR US, THESE CHANGES WERE
EXTRAORDINARY IN THEMSELVES, BUT
I THINK THAT THE ONE THAT WE
JUST TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AND I
THINK THAT LOTTIE BAYLAND -- IF
MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER DESIGN
SOMEBODY THAT WORKED FOR
EVERYBODY OPTIMALLY, HOW DID WE
DO IT, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT
CHANGE AT THAT LEVEL.
I THINK TO THE EXTENT -- IN
FACT, M.I.T. JUST FINISHED, THEY
ON THEIR OWN DECIDED TO GO AND
DO AN UPDATE FOR THE WHOLE OF
M.I.T. FOR THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY,
I GUESS, THE M.I.T. REPORT THAT
WE DID MANY YEARS AGO, AND THEY
COLLECTED DATA ACROSS M.I.T. AND
SO THEY'RE STILL AT IT.
THEY'RE MAKING SURE EVERYTHING
IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
BUT IT'S THIS OTHER QUESTION.
>> OF BIAS, YEAH.
>> THANK YOU.
YEAH.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS GRETA FORBES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING TO
TALK TO US.
I'M ACTUALLY ONE OF ROSIE'S
TRAINEES, AND I'M IN AWE OF HER
KINDNESS EVERY INK SINGLE DAY O
EVEN THE SMALL CHANGES REALLY
IMPACT THE WHOLE FIELD OF
ACADEMIA.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, I'M
INTERESTED IN MOVING INTO THE
FIELD OF IMMUNOLOGY IN
GYNECOLOGICAL DISORDERS BUT THE
POLITICAL CLIMATE, THERE'S A LOT
OF RHETORIC ABOUT COLLAPSING THE
NIH AND DOING POLICIES THAT ARE
IMPACTING WOMEN'S HEALTH.
WHAT DO YOU -- WHAT WORDS DO YOU
HAVE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO
THE SCIENCE AND ALSO THE WORK TO
MAKE THINGS BETTER?
>> WHAT ADVICE DO I HAVE?
[LAUGHTER]
WHEN YOU'RE YOUNG, BE SELFISH.
YOU KNOW, ONE THING I SHOULD
SAY, IF THESE WOMEN HADN'T HAD
TENURE, THEY COULD NOT HAVE DONE
THIS.
THEY HAD THE SECURITY OF THAT.
BUT WHAT MADE THIS GROUP
SPECIAL, EVERY ONE OF THOSE
WOMEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO
THIS EFFORT THAT WAS ESSENTIAL.
WHAT MADE THEM SPECIAL WAS, THEY
WERE PEOPLE WHO I THINK COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN HAPPY WITHOUT
SCIENCE.
THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT
WHICH THEY WERE SO PASSIONATE,
THEY WOULD HAVE PUT UP WITH MUCH
WORSE THAN ANYTHING THEY EVER
EXPERIENCED AND STILL DONE IT.
AND THAT WAS CERTAINLY MY
FEELING.
I MEAN, I COULDN'T IMAGINE LIFE
WITHOUT SCIENCE.
SO I THINK IF YOU HAVE A PASSION
AND SO FORTH, THAT'S CRITICAL.
THEN IF YOU CAN GET -- YOU NEED
SOMEWHERE TO STAND, HAVE SOME
POWER.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE
SOMETHING, HOW DO YOU GET POWER?
I USED TO SAY HOW DO I GET SOME
POWER AROUND HERE?
AND OUR POWER CAME FROM THE
SOLIDARITY OF THOSE WOMEN.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE, BY
THE WAY, THAT DOES WORRY ME, WHY
DON'T WOMEN SUPPORT EACH OTHER
MORE THAN THEY DO?
BUT HOW DO YOU JUST KEEP GOING?
>> I THINK -- SO JUST HAVING
WRITTEN HER STORY, AND TALKING
TO ALL THESE OTHER WOMEN, THAT
WHAT KEPT PEOPLE GOING, IN SOME
WAYS YOU COULD SAY IS A BAD
THING BECAUSE THEY DID KIND OF
PUT BLINDERS ON TO ALL OF THE
THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING TO
THEM BECAUSE THAT WAS THE WAY
THEY COULD SURVIVE, BUT EVERYONE
WAS SO DRIVEN BY PASSION FOR
SCIENCE, AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE
IN IN FIELD, YOU HAVE TO
REMEMBER WHY YOU'RE DOING WHAT
YOU'RE DOING AND THAT WILL KEEP
YOU GOING.
THERE'S CERTAINLY LOTS OF
EFFORTS OUT THERE TO TRY TO PUT
MORE ATTENTION ON WOMEN'S
HEALTH, SO I THINK YOU WILL FIND
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
YOU JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER WHY
YOU'RE DOING IT.
ONE THING I WOULD SAY JUST TO
CLOSE IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN
TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN CHANGE, A
LOT OF THIS COMES DOWN TO SMALL
CHANGES IN OUR ATTITUDE.
I WAS -- AND THIS IS TRUE FOR ME
TOO, SO EVEN AFTER DOING ALL
THIS WORK, I SPOKE TO THE WOMEN
IN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
CONFERENCE WHICH I DID NOT EVER
EXPECT TO SPEAK TO IN NEW
ORLEANS THIS SPRING, AND I DID A
PODCAST WHILE I WAS THERE WITH
THE HEAD OF A MAJOR RAPID AREA
TRANSIT SYSTEM, A WOMAN, AND SHE
SAID WELL, IT'S LIKE RUTH BADER
GINSBURG SAID THERE WILL BE
ENOUGH WOMEN ON THE COURT WHEN
THERE WERE NINE.
I WAS LIKE, WAIT, NO, NO, NOT
NINE.
AND SHE COULD SEE THAT I WAS
RECOILING BECAUSE I'M THE MOTHER
OF BOYS, RIGHT?
SOY WAS LIKE WAIT, WE CAN'T JUST
REPLACE ALL THE BOYS WITH GIRLS
WHICH IS WHAT I THINK PEOPLE
WORRY WOMEN ARE TRYING TO DO.
SHE SAW WHAT I WAS DOING, LIKE,
MY SHOCK, AND SHE SAID NO, NO,
NO, WE HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT
WHERE THE IDEA OF NINE WOMEN ON
THE COURT, THAT THERE ARE NINE
WOMEN QUALIFIED ENOUGH TO BE ON
THE COURT AND THAT IS NOT
EXCEPTIONAL, WE HAVE TO GET TO
THAT POINT BECAUSE FOR SO LONG,
WE DID NOT THINK IT UNUSUAL OR
ODD THAT THERE WERE NINE MEN ON
THE COURT.
SO IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF
UNDERSTANDING THE POTENTIAL OF
WOMEN.
[APPLAUSE]
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY
FOR YOUR FANTASTIC QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO KATE ZERNIKE
AND NANCY HOPKINS.
WE WILL BE HAVING A RECEPTION
THAT IS HOSTED BY FAES RIGHT
OUTSIDE WITH COFFEE AND TREATS,
SO MAKE SURE TO CHECK THAT OUT,
AND WE WILL HAVE A PART 2 FOR
THIS EVENT IN PORTER THAT IS
BUILDING 35, ROOM 610, WHERE
KATE WILL BE TALKING AND WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A FIRESIDE CHAT
WITH BOTH OF THEM FOR ANY MORE
BURNING QUESTIONS THAT EVERYBODY
MAY HAVE.
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU TO WOMEN
SCIENTISTS ADVISORS, WOMEN
SCIENTISTS FELLOWS, AND THE
PORTER BOOK CLUB FOR SPONSORING
THIS EVENT.
[APPLAUSE]