Carolyn Shaw Bell, CSWEP Chair, 1973-76

I am reminded of a meeting of the Wellesley Economics faculty with an applicant for initial appointment: we very much needed his field of economic history and thought him a very strong candidate. At luncheon I asked dutifully "what exactly is your dissertation about?" and was told "the decline of share-cropping in the South and its economic impact on black migration North." "But, was my immediate unthinking retort, "that's not HISTORY. I remember that!" My colleagues roared with laughter, the young man of course knew better, until he joined me in laughing at my total oblivion to my age.

I do remember a lot, but have decided CSWEP is part of history, so I looked up primary data. The American Economic Review (May, 1972, pp 470-474) reports the business meeting in 1971, establishing CSWEP to investigate sex discrimination among professional economists in all lines of work and to recommend an affirmative action program. The Committee was charged to report, and the American Economic Association to publish, its "findings, conclusions, and recommendations."

The report was a session on the program at the 1973 annual meeting in New York; the panel discussion became a lively debate preserved on tape. Professor Milton Friedman was invited to join the panel but did not attend the meetings; five long and thoughtful letters between him and me exist with copies in the Wellesley College archives.

As for publication, the Committee opted for one of the quarterly issues of the AER to carry its formal findings. The then editor of the journal asked me repeatedly to forget the whole thing, not to write and publish a piece that could only be divisive, that should be tactfully ignored for the sake of professional collegiality, that would cause hard feelings among the men and not help women at all. I kept replying that I had no power, since I merely chaired the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, to ignore a Resolution passed by the American Economic Association, nor did I think, honestly, that it was in his power to do so. And so in the December 1973 issue of the AER, tucked away at the very end with "Announcements and Notes," appears the article "Combatting Role Prejudice and Sex Discrimination."

I've reread this report, and urge you all to look it up. The first part was drafted by member Ken Boulding, and although the ideas had been kicked around by us, the writing displays his inimitable imprint of style and felicitous language. It points out that insofar as women's abilities remain unused, getting rid of discrimination would increase the labor supply both quantitatively and qualitatively at very little cost. This itself was not an original idea; but Boulding's identification of role prejudice and the ensuing discrimination as a "false social learning process," and of the existence of a "betterment production function," were both enlightening. The article refused any discussion of quotas or goals, for when gross disproportionality between men and women exists in a given occupation or profession precise numbers are unnecessary: "where there is clearly not enough, the simplest and most necessary guideline is `more.'"(p. 1053.)

Four tools, he said, could help increase the blatantly low proportion of women in the economics profession. These were information, persuasion, rewards, and sanctions. Member Barbara Reagan, in the second part of the article, spelled out the Committee's ideas. We had struggled for almost two years about how to implement the Resolutions and we believed that all economists, not just CSWEP, should take the 1972 Association action extremely seriously. That's why I have been pushing for over ten years to get these resolutions reprinted, to inform everyone of the commitments made by the professional association for itself and for all economists, including specific methods of affirmative action.

During those early years, when the Committee was building up the roster, encouraging regional and local meetings, sponsoring newsletters and functions to inform people about CSWEP and gathering the first hard data about education and employment for women economists, we realized that these activities themselves helped dispel role prejudice. A male chairman commenting on his department's numbers of economics majors, enrollment in first and subsequent economics courses, faculty, promotion, tenure, alumnae experiences, and so on among men and women, commented that he had not at all realized the existing waste of resources. His colleagues agreed to deliberately encourage women students in the field and to use all their professional contacts to locate women candidates for the economics faculty. CSWEP informed women economists about each other, too. They rejoiced in finding a kindred soul in the same subspecialty, a reader of first drafts, members of a panel, and many friendships. A colleague leaving the first meeting of the New England Women's Economic Association exclaimed gleefully, "I've finally got my own club!"

My conclusion from this brief historical summary is that CSWEP accomplished highly useful "consciousness-raising." At the time I was totally unsympathetic to this notion; I refused to accept the premise of "the movement" that women were helpless, trapped by their husbands, their fathers, their male teachers and physicians and other men, and that women needed women's encouragement to understand their predicament in society. I also opposed most of the leaders in the women's movement for refusing to recognize economic facts - I suppose I have always found ideology unacceptable. But the examples above, echoed by other men with similar reactions, and the experience of women (including myself) who rejoiced at a newfound collegiality, made me accept that what Ken Boulding had called "information" and "persuasion" can also be called "consciousness-raising."

My conclusion today is that both information and persuasion are still badly needed. It may never be possible to raise children to be totally oblivious to stereotypes, particularly that women clearly destined for marriage and motherhood need not trouble their pretty heads about taxes and discount rates and statistical errors in measuring inflation. Despite sophisticated knowledge and liberal goodwill, the old-fashioned image of women remains powerful. A business reporter interviewing me about a woman CEO of a Fortune 500 firm observed that one particular industry, and even the entire region where it was located, were inhospitable to women in executive roles. He asked for my reaction. "Gracious!" I thought, but did not say say to him, "what makes you think there is any industry, or any region, which does accept women?" And he wrote a fine article, appreciative of his subject's abilities and accomplishments. Nonetheless, many of its observations would not have existed in the case of a man.

In the 1973 article, Ken Boulding pointed out that genetic differences, like hair color or gender or skin color or height, undoubtedly exist but have not proven impact on job or role performance, with the exception of reproduction. Over the past few years new research suggests other genetic differences in mental and psychological attributes between the sexes, with much to be explored; some genetic differences may in fact affect education and employment. But, CETERIS PARIBUS! the social environment remains overwhelming. It follows that social action can change any preconceived notion of social roles, and it is possible to enhance the "social betterment function" by new and striking information, convincing persuasion, and a sensible yet impassioned system of incentives and deterrents.

I would like to add a fifth tool for CSWEP and everyone else, namely boasting. Perhaps social conditioning makes women more modest about their own accomplishments, but that's not contributing to social learning. We need every day to herald some woman's achievements, to tout a woman's book or painting or scholarly article, to brag about a promotion or prize and to show admiration for the efforts and influence of women, in their professional and technical and social and human endeavors of all kinds. And if the women is your mother, or your sister, or your wife, or yourself, go ahead and boast! If we are part of the knowledge industry, then let us help our knowledge to be more