Sex Discrimination and Rewards in a Public Comprehensive University

Abstract

Baldridge, Cutis, Ecker, and Riley (1978) posit that differences in academic rewards for men and women faculty are largely due to differences in the type of employing institution, with males being employed in more prestigious institutions than females. To examine their hypothesis that sex differences do not exist in a single type of institution, we construct four regression models, one each for the rewards of type of appointment, tenure, rank, and salary. Twenty-three background characteristics including sex, work activities, and productivity variables are used as predictors. Reward variables which theoretically precede in time the reward being analyzed are also included as predictors of that reward. Data were collected from personnel files, institutional records, interviews with administrators, and faculty questionnaires. The analyses produced four strong but heterogeneous models of faculty rewards. Thus, there is no single academic reward structure; rather, four different reward structures exist. The heterogeneity of variables within the models demonstrates the need to develop multi-level, multi-trait models of rewards drawing from social, psychological, group, and organizational characteristics. Of the four rewards, only salary differs by sex; thus, our findings partially support Baldridge and associates' hypothesis. Males are paid significantly more than their female counterparts. Male and female salary models differ, with males being more likely to receive rewards for achieved characteristics than females.