A conspiracy of women

I wrote up a number of these stories years ago. One reason I haven't shared them widely is that I tried to write them in an entertaining way, and I wasn't sure whether that would go over well, or turn people off. I would very much appreciate feedback on which approach will be more effective: the "dry" factual reporting in the versions I posted of the first three "adventures", or this piece, which attempts to be entertaining and has some "attitude". Thanks!

Paula Cohen [now Paula Tretkoff] and I stood underneath the lamplight on a street corner in Bonn late one night, discussing mathematics, the Arbeitstagung conference we were attending, and our peculiar place as women in a male-dominated field.

When he saw us, Serge Lang crossed the street and rushed over to us, exclaiming in delight "What's this? A conspiracy of women?" Paula and I looked around to see what other women he was talking about, but we were the only ones there. What made us a conspiracy?

I told Serge that his assignment for the next day at the Arbeitstagung was to go up to every group of two or more men and say "What's this? A conspiracy of men?"

During the breaks between talks the next day at the conference, I noticed male mathematicians standing around in groups of three, four, seven, ten,.... I saw Serge and reminded him of his assignment. He laughed it off, assuming I'd been joking. But I would have loved to have seen the faces of the men, if Serge had asked them if they were part of a conspiracy.

A flock of sheep, a herd of elephants, a pride of lions, a murder of crows, an exaltation of larks, a conspiracy of women.

At a conference at Johns Hopkins a few years later, two younger mathematicians and I waited together in the tea room for the others to return from the lunch break. Again, we discussed our peculiar situation as women in mathematics. I warned them that the next man to enter the room would comment on our being a conspiracy of women; it would probably happen if there were only two of us, but with three, it was nearly certain. They were astonished and disbelieving. Sure enough, the first person to walk in stopped, looked at us, and remarked on the conspiracy of women. The three of us burst out laughing. He asked why, and we explained. I'd like to say that he laughed too, but unfortunately he was very angry with us and stomped off in a huff.

Why is it that male mathematicians can rove in large packs with no one seeming surprised, but put two female mathematicians together and we're viewed as a threat worthy of comment?

Karen Holbrook, the only woman to serve as President of Ohio State University, told me that her advisors told her not to consider appointing two women as deans, since doing so would lead to charges of favoritism for her own sex. It didn't matter to them that all of her (male) predecessors hired male deans in great numbers.

Is there a double standard here? Sorry, can't answer that. A woman just walked in, and I have to leave if I don't want to face conspiracy charges.

"But is she on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal?"

 When we were trying to fill faculty positions in the Ohio State University math department, my colleagues usually put forward the names of male candidates. When women were proposed, they wouldn't make the cut for various reasons, such as that the university where she did her postdoc was less prestigious than that of another candidate, or another applicant published in a more prestigious journal.

After observing this for many years, I proposed an applicant who trumped all other candidates my colleagues had proposed that year, in all categories that my colleagues had stated were important to them.

Speaking against my candidate at the hiring meeting, a colleague asked "But is she on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal?"

My colleagues turned to me for a response. The question took me by surprise. If I said no, that would reduce the chances that she would get a job offer. But if I said yes, they wouldn't believe me. 

Instead, I pointed out that: 
1. the department had never before used such a criterion in our hiring deliberations, 
2. our mission was only to choose the best candidate among the applicants, and this candidate had the best file, 
3. no one who had ever gotten a Fields Medal had ever been a faculty member in the Ohio State math department, 
4. as far as I could tell, no one in the department had been on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal at the time they were hired, 
5. it isn't clear that being "on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal" is a meaningful concept.

Since then, I've seen variations of that line ("but is she on a trajectory to ...?") used against women, but I've never seen such a line used against men.

"She only got the job due to affirmative action"

Referring to the only female Professor in his (mathematics) department, a Professor I know told me "she only got the job due to affirmative action."

He seemed to be saying that she wasn't good enough to get the job on her own merits. The conversation could have ended there, but I persisted. 

"She's an excellent mathematician. I think she's better than almost all the Professors in your department," I said. He agreed with that.

"Then why did she only got the job through affirmative action?" I prodded.

"Well, one of my colleagues was prejudiced against women, so he fought against hiring her. Affirmative action was needed to overcome the prejudice of that colleague."

Whatever one's views on affirmative action, it seems to me that this was a case where it made the right thing happen.

The Meritocracy

 On September 14, 2000 I had lunch at a restaurant in Silicon Valley as part of a group of people attending a lecture that day at HP Labs. At some point, I learned that I was sitting next to Dick Lampman, the Director of HP Labs. Lampman mentioned to me that he learned on his travels that America is superior to other countries in being a meritocracy, not an old boy network. He told me that elsewhere, it's who you know, while in America, it's what you know.

One reason I had gone to the lunch was that I wanted to get a job at HP Labs. At some point I asked Lampman how one gets a job in Silicon Valley. He replied that one needs to have a friend inside the company, and "it's all who you know." I asked "What happened to the meritocracy?" He looked sheepish, but didn't reply. I then asked "How do I get a job in your lab?" Lampman pointed out a manager who was sitting across the table, Abraham Lempel, and suggested I talk to him. The two letters I later sent Lampman (below) describe what happened next. I eventually sent a similar message to Carly Fiorina, then-CEO of Hewlett-Packard. I have not yet received replies from them.

Two letters I sent to: 
Richard H. (Dick) Lampman 
Director, HP Labs 
1501 Page Mill Road 
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1126

------------------

March 15, 2001

Dear Dick Lampman,

I'm writing to you concerning a policy of age, and possibly also gender, discrimination at your lab.

We met over lunch on Sept. 14, after Avi Wigderson's public lecture at HP Labs. You told me that in your travels you learned that the U.S. differs from other countries in that the U.S. is a meritocracy.

At that lunch I mentioned that I was looking for a job in Silicon Valley. I asked how I would go about getting a job at HP Labs, and you told me to talk to Abraham Lempel or Gadiel Seroussi. I therefore got a ride back to the lab, along with Hendrik Lenstra, from Lempel. Lempel asked Lenstra if there were any new or recent PhDs from Berkeley whom HP Labs should hire. I asked Lempel whether he only hires new or recent PhDs. His answer was yes. He said that his justification for this policy was G. H. Hardy's famous statement that "mathematics is a young man's game".

When we arrived at the lab I asked to speak with him privately. We went to Lempel's cubicle. I gave him my CV, and said that I was interested in a job at HP Labs. He looked at my CV and said that I was much better than the people they hire. The answer was basically no. I made further enquiries more recently, and was told that they would not hire me, and I was "too good for them".

My personal experience in asking for a job at HP Labs confirms the explicitly stated policy that Lempel told to me and Lenstra on Sept. 14, before he knew that I was looking for a job. I believe that policy constitutes age discrimination. Since Lempel said he based his policy on the Hardy quote, it also raises the question of gender discrimination. More importantly from your point of view, it means that your lab does not hire the best people, and that is bad for your company, for our country, and for our society.

Now that you have been informed of some hiring practices of your lab, I hope that you will take clear and swift corrective action.

If I can be helpful to you in any way, please let me know. I am willing to work with you positively and constructively towards improving your lab's hiring practices and its climate for employees, to allow a more diverse and inclusive workforce, so that a meritocracy can be realized in your own lab.

Yours sincerely,

Alice Silverberg 
Professor of Mathematics 
Ohio State University

------------------

May 21, 2001

Dear Mr. Lampman,

I am writing as a follow-up to my letter of March 15 concerning the hiring practices of HP Labs.

I recommend that you read the April 2001 issue of Working Woman magazine, especially the Editor's Note on p. 6, where a case is made for the importance to employers of understanding the necessity to broaden the pool of acceptable applicants. The articles in the magazine give a clear explanation for why a policy of hiring from a narrowly defined age, gender, ethnic, or racial group is bad for business.

I hope that the lack of response to my letter of March 15 does not signal a lack of concern for the problems inherent in hiring practices based on a belief that "mathematics is a young man's game".

Yours sincerely,

Alice Silverberg

------------------

Further information:

When I questioned Abraham Lempel in his car about hiring based on the belief that "mathematics is a young man's game", he said that they want young people since they (the managers) can mold them to do what they want them to do. He said that older people are fixed, and can't be changed. He added that scientists are more productive when they're young. Both Lenstra and I questioned this. Lempel gave Galois as an example. Lenstra gave Cartan, Serre, and Mazur as counterexamples. I pointed out that we don't know what Galois might have accomplished had he not died so young. I think I said something about female mathematicians doing better work the older they get.

My recollections are based on notes I wrote down soon afterwards, and emails and letters I sent at the time.