College and Research Libraries Pay Equity for Women in Academic Libraries: An Analysis of ARL Salary Surveys, 1976/77-1983/84 Jean Meyer Ray and Angela Battaglia Rubin In recent years pay equity has become an important employment issue in librarianship, as in other service fields where women predominate. Analysis of Association of Research Libraries Annual Salary Survey data from 1976/77 to 1983/84 reveals that a majority of women uni- versity librarians are still clustered at lower levels of status and pay. However, the percentage of women among all administrators has risen from 27.6 percent to 45 percent, and the propor- tion of all women who are in middle management now approaches one-third. With a 1983/84 sex salary differential of 13 percent, progress towards equity is nevertheless very slow. ay equity has been hailed as the employment issue of the 1980s. To achieve this goal requires overcoming formidable barriers to equality. It pits women, awakened to their financial plight, against tradition, custom, and the entrenched power of the institutions that have profited from the general low level of women's compensa- tion. The bottom line in equal rights is sal- ary. To what extent has sex equality been achieved in university library pay scales? Pay equity and its synonym, compara- ble wqrth, are both treated in this paper as abbreviated terms for the longer phrase, equal pay for work of comparable value. This concept calls for compensation to be determined by objective job evaluation techniques that analyze duties in terms of required knowledge, skill, effort, respon- sibility, and working conditions. It must be applied across all job families (not within just one closely related group) in a bias-free manner and without reliance on prevailing compensation levels. 1 It is thus a broadening of the earlier principle of equal pay for equal work, which could be enforced only when jobs could be proven exactly or substantially equal. Pay equity operates to protect women and minority persons from being compensated by a lower pay scale than that used for white males. WOMEN'S COMPENSATION- THEN AND NOW Pay equity is, of course, not a new issue. It came into prominence during World War I, when women entered the labor market because of the shortage of male workers. For example, an article appear- ing in Economic Journal in 1922 entitled ''Equal Pay to Men and Women for Equal Work,'' discusses the problem in Britain. 2 Jean Meyer Ray is Map and Assistant Science Librarian and Angela Battaglia Rubin is Assistant Catalog- ing/Humanities Librarian at Morris Library, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois 62901. 36 It contains two basic, but now archaic, as- sumptions: (1) all working men are mar- ried, with families to support, but all working women are single, with no depen- dents; and (2) women are inevitably less productive and are less useful in emergen- cies. Sixty years ago, with these convic- tions, even a liberal thinker could not come out more than slightly in favor of equal pay for women. Although there were efforts to achieve equal pay for women through the Na- tional War Labor Board and during the era of Rosie the Riveter in World War II, the old problem of differing pay scales for men and women surfaced in the United States as something remediable with the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This law required that an employer must provide the same compensation to both sexes for positions that are substantially similar with regard to skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, unless the pay differential- is based on a factor other than sex. Other actions have followed: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 again forbade discrimi- nation in employment, as did two presi- dential executive orders (11246 and 11478), the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and several court decisions (notably CountyofWashington, Oregon, v. Gunther). 3 Yet, twenty years after the Equal Pay Act, the average woman who works full time year-round is paid only 59 cents for every dollar earned by a male worker. How can this be? Great strides have been made in achiev- ing equal pay for equal work, and in achieving an acceptance of this principle as fair. However, the major cause for the continuing wage gap between the pay of men and women is the concentration of women workers in a few low-paying occu- pations that are sex-segregated and where positions are dead-end. Approximately 80 percent of working females are in clerical, sales, service, and factory jobs. 4 Of there- maining 20 percent who are professional and technical workers, a large share are found in lower-paid, female-dominated service ("helping") fields of nursing, school teaching, social work, and of course, librarianship. Even within these professions, moreover, although almost Pay Equity 37 all salaries are low compared to those in male-dominated fields, there is frequently further sex segregation in that the female majority remains in lower-paying posi- tions, while men tend to rise to the top. 5 Major forces in opposition to pay equity are firms that employ many women in low-paid slots. It would not be expedient nor even permissible to lower men's pay, so employers fear the cost of raising wom- en's pay, as would be necessary to achieve an across-the-board application of compa- rable worth. 6 In times of economic stress this is a particularly strong argument. However, a voluntary plan to inaugurate pay equity after appropriate job evalua- tion might be less expensive than years of back pay awarded as a result of litigation. FEMINIZATION OF LIBRARIANSHIP As in most professional fields, librarians of a century ago were mostly male. How- ever, according to the 1870 U.S. Census, 20 percent of the 213librarians polled were female. 7 The next two censuses lumped li- brarians with authors and other literary persons, but by 1900, when they were again a separate category, the number of librarians had become twenty times greater (4, 184), and women constituted 75 percent of those listed! It was during this period that Melvil Dewey launched his library school at Co- lumbia University. The program attracted mostly female students and was therefore rejected by the board of trustees (although the president approved). Dewey took the school with him when he moved to Al- bany.8 The feminization of librarianship pro- ceeded apace. Important causative factors were limited budgets for hiring staff and the paucity of other vocations for edu- cated women. Working in the genteel at- mosphere of the library was a respectable occupation for ~he young woman college graduate, but she was too "ladylike" and had too few other options to demand more than a pittance as compensation for this exposure to culture and the opportu- nity to be of service. The 1930 census re- corded 29,613 librarians, with women's participation climbing to a peak of 91 per- cent. From there it slowly receded to 82 38 College & Research Libraries percent by 1970, but has risen again slightly, to 83 percent in 1980. 9 This drop in the female proportion coin- cides, of course, with the increased en- trance of men into the profession, begin- ning slowly about the time of World War II and mounting faster in the 1950s and 1960s. It was hoped that this trend would improve the status of librarianship and raise depressed salaries. However, there is little evidence that it has assisted the dis- advantaged female majority, because men were hired for most high-level positions and the salary gap between the sexes has widened. It is now clear that the increased en- trance of men has actually reinforced and expanded a dual career pattern in librari- anship according to gender. Academic li- brarianship has the highest percentage of men and is the most prestigious. Library work with children, and in primary and secondary schools, attracts few men and is less valued. 10 Moreover, men in whatever field are expected to climb quickly to ad- ministrative roles and high salaries-and a substantial number of them do. The self- fulfilling prophecy for women is that they will be content with subsidiary roles and low salaries, and any upward mobility for them will usually be painfully slow and reach _only middle management . . Two outstanding women have con- ducted extensive research on the status of women librarians. Anita Schiller's pio- neering study, Characteristics of Professional Personnel in College and University Libraries (1969) was the first published report on comparative attributes, status, and com- pensation of male and female academic li- brarians.11 This work showed irrefutably that the wide gap between average sala- ries of men and women, which increased with added experience, could not be en- tirely explained by greater educational at- tainments, more research and publica- tion, more professional activity, or greater mobility on the part of men but included a strong component of sex discrimination. This has been followed by other impor- tant contributions on the issue of the dis- advantaged majority .12 Kathleen Heim has been the author or editor of equally significant works issued recently. Espe- January 1987 dally noteworthy is her part in the com- prehensive study on women librarians' roles, sponsored by the American Library Association Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship, that resulted in Career Profiles and Sex Discrimination in the Library Profession. 13 SALARY POLICY Following decades in which there was a general reluctance to face the twin issues of sex equality in the library and a widely disparate pay scale, the American Library Association began to address some as- pects of the pay equity problem in the 1970s. 14 After years of committee activity, the February 1979 issue of American Li- braries, in a summary of activities at the Midwinter Meeting, reported that ALA Council Adopted as ALA policy an OLPR (Office for Li- brary Personnel Resources) statement on corn- parable rewards .... ALA supports salary ad- ministration which gives reasonable and comparable recognition to positions having ad- ministrative, technical, subject, and linguistic requirements. Whenever possible there should be as many at the top rank with less than 30 per- cent administrative load as there are at the high- est rank carrying over 70 percent administrative load.15 Although some of the wording is ambigu- ous, this statement appears to be a call from a high policy-making body for the application of pay equity within individ- ual libraries. Was it heeded? The absence of response in the library press suggests that it was not even heard in the furor of the debate over maintaining the ERA boy- cott of Chicago. Nevertheless, in academic libraries per- sonnel administration has usually at- tempted to steer a middle course between the industrial model of a rigid hierarchy of positions and the academic model of rec- ognizing individual merit. To what extent is the professional librarian to be re- warded for excellence in the performance of the daily requirements of the position description, and how much consideration should be given to professional develop- ment and merit? Especially where librari- ans have achieved faculty status, it be- comes necessary to reduce the emphasis on administrative responsibilities and to examine scholarship, research, and publi- cation in making promotion and tenure decisions as well as in recommendations for salary increases. An examination of the salary policies of ten representative libraries in the ARL, as detailed in a 1981 report, reveals great di- versity in systems and procedures but lit- tle specific recognition of the need to im- prove financial rewards for the deserving nonadministrators beyond those small amounts normally accruing from longev- ity and acceptable performance .16 An ear- lier ARL study of classification schemes revised in 1978 includes material from four university libraries (Cornell, Duke, Stan- ford, and Yale). The study indicates clearly that promotion in status and salary may result not only from advancement in administration but equally through excel- lence in performance, scholarship, and professional achievement. 17 Probably the best-known effort to im- prove the role of academic librarians is the two-track matrix structure of position cat- egories and professional ranks inaugu- rated at Columbia University a decade ago. 18 Each librarian holds not only a posi- tion, e.g., cataloger, bibliographer, or ref- erence librarian, whose level is deter- mined by administrative responsibility, but also a rank as Librarian I-IV based on peer evaluation of individual develop- ment and contribution to the profession. This plan provides a means to raise status even when no upward mobility position- wise is possible, but there is only brief al- lusion to financial rewards. STUDIES OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS' SALARIES Between 1970 and 1974 the Council on Library Resources demonstrated its con- cern with librarians' compensation by the publication of a series of three reports on salaries of academic librarians as com- pared with the teaching faculty .19 1t is clear that there is a pronounced pyramidal structure in academic li- braries, with a handful of more or less well-paid librarians at the top and a wide base of very low-paid positions at the bottom. Academic li- brarianship has seemed to be a profession in Pay Equity 39 which there are too few well-paying positions to attract and retain highly competent young people in sufficient number. 20 Unfortunately, the data were not ana- lyzed by sex. The only allusion to a sex problem is a statement in the 1969-70 re- port that the predominance of women in the profession has ''facilitated retention of salary structures which would be unac- ceptable to a largely male profession. " 21 The 1972-73 report concludes that: Fewer than 10 percent of the professional librar- ians are in positions in which the average com- pensation exceeds that of assistant professor in similar institutions. 22 In 1975/76, after a hiatus of three years, the CLR and the Association of College and Research Libraries conducted a joint sur- vey. 23 Coverage was expanded to include two-year colleges, and breakdowns by sex and race were incorporated at last. Of 13,057 librarians surveyed, 61.5 percent were female; women constituted a major- ity at almost every level (except administra- tive positions) and earned less in every ca- pacity, from 3 percent less for entering librarians to 23 percent less for directors. 24 One table compares librarians with the four ranks of teaching faculty in three types of institutions. The conclusion is in- escapable. Average salaries for librarians in the nondirector levels are equivalent to the average for assistant professor and never as h}ph as the average for associate professor. In addition, the Special Libraries Associ- ation has been conducting salary surveys at three-year intervals since 1967.26 Data compiled in 1979, for example, show me- dian salaries for academic librarians among. the lowest when members are grouped by type of institution. Women earn less than men at every salary level. This occurs even when the number of per- sons supervised and the years of experi- ence are equal. 27 The most important series of data on in- ternal pay equity in university libraries be- gan to appear in 1976/77 when the ARL ex- panded its Annual Salary Survey to include breakdowns by sex and position similar to those in the ACRL study previously dis- cussed. 28 Eight years of statistics are now 40 College & Research Libraries available as a source for average salaries paid to librarians in 90 large university li- braries in 1976/77. This was enlarged to 105 by 1984/85. Although the survey also gives information on (1) nonuniversity ARL member libraries; (2) minority librari- ans; (3) entry-level salaries; (4) relations between median salaries and the Con- sumer Price Index; and (5) regional varia- tions in salaries, this paper will be con- cerned only with issues related to the gender gap. It will focus mostly on changes between two extreme years, 1976/77 and 1983/84, with occasional men- tion of the intervening years. Each Annual Salary Survey from 1976/77 to 1982/83 contains a table entitled "Num- ber and Average Salaries of ARL Librari- ans." It divides librarians into nineteen categories: director, associate director, as- sistant director, medical/law head, branch head, subject specialist, functional spe- cialist (involved with media, personnel management, fiscal matters, or automa- tion and systems), eight types of depart- ment heads, and "other." "Other" is di- vided by years of experience into over 15, 10-15, 5-10, and under 5. Beginning in 1983/84, "other" has been split into refer- ence, catalog, and a further other. All are divided by years of experience. In 1984/85, data for law and medical li- brarians were moved into separate tables. Figures for these librarians are incom- plete. This change in the target population has made exact comparisons with earlier years impossible; thus, figures for 1984/85 generally will be omitted. There are some omissions from the pub- lished tabulations. A few universities did not supply detailed salary data in the early years. Moreover, some universities did not include salaries of directors in their salary rosters, and between 1976/77 and · 1983/84 the number of directors appeared to be from 5 to 19 fewer than the number of institutions tabulated. However, after a special appeal, more figures were made available, and the number of directors whose salaries were included rose from 81 in 1982/83 to 95 in 1983/84. Furthermore in some large systems . there may be someone, such as a dean, at a higher level who has the ultimate library . January 1987 authority, is probably male, and is omitted from the survey. These factors indicate that the real average salary for male librari- ans is higher than ARL statistics reveal. Fi- nally, the ARL surveys make no attempt to compare librarians' salaries with those of the teaching faculty. What significant trends can be derived from the ARL data? First, the proportion of women was 61.6 percent in 1976/77, fell to 61.4 percent in 1978/79, and grew to 63.9percentby1983/84. Women's average salaries were lower than men's every year in almost every category. Overall they gained only 2.5 percentage points during the seven-year period. Figure 1 shows that the difference between average salaries paid to men and women dropped from 15.5 percent in 1976/77 to 13 percent in 1983/84. Incidentally, these percentages are fairly close-though moving in the op- posite direction-to those issued by the Women's Equity Action League for sala- ries of women faculty members compared to those of men, i.e., a 15 percent disparit~ in 1982 widened to 19 percent in 1983/84. One may also compare the distribution patterns by sex when the nineteen catego- ries listed are grouped with changes noted through seven years. What is apparent in figure 2 is that the proportions of male and female librarians who are middle man- agers (branch and department heads) are almost the same each year (24.5 and 25.1 percent in 1976/77, increasing to 31.5 and 29.5 percent in 1983/84). But other per- centages are quite different for each sex. The proportion of women in high ad- ministrative roles is up (from 3.7 to 5.6 percent), and the proportion of men goes down from 15.5 to 12.2 percent. Special- ists, both subject and functional, comprise 21.3 percent of men in 1976/77. This is down to 19.4 percent in 1983/84. The num- ber of specialists who are female rose from 12.1 percent in 1976/77 to 14.9 percent in 1982/83, but dropped to 13.6 percent in 1983/84. Especially significant is the 59.1 percent of women who are in nonadminis- trative positions in 1976/77, as opposed to 38.7 percent of men. Both these percent- ages have grown smaller by 1983/84, down to 51.3 percent for women and 36.9 for men, largely, it may be presumed, be- c Q) (.) ..... Q) a.. ~ Q) ~ Q) a. Pay Equity 41 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 60 54 48 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 0 77 78 79 80 81 82 FIGURE 1 Percentage by which Men's Average Salaries Exceed Women's, ARL University Libraries, 1976/77-1983/84 Men 76 - Administrative c::J Specialists ~Middle Management mnm Other FIGURE2 Percentage of University Librarians by Sex and Rank Level, 1976/77 and 1983!84 83 42 College & Research Libraries cause the number of new recruits to librar- ianship has been reduced. Progress to- wards sex equality in status is neverthe- less slow. It is also revealing to observe sex ratios within each broad status group, as shown in table 1; in only two is there an important change. The administrative group shows a significant climb in the female percent- age (and a corresponding drop in the male element) from 27.6 percent in 1976/77 to 45 percent in 1983/84. There is a much smaller rise in the percentage that repre- sents women in the specialist group, from 47.8 percent in 1976/77 to 55.5 percent in 1982/83, with a dip to 55.4 percent in 1983/84. The change in sex ratio, however, is scarcely perceptible in middle manage- ment and among the nonadministrative generalists. When average salaries are tabulated for the four groups, women's disadvantage is plainly visible. Although the number of women administrators rose from 130 in 1976/77 to 253 in 1983/84, and average sal- aries paid to these women increased from $24,988 to $39,875, the percentage of dif- ference between average salaries of men January 1987 and women administrators actually rose from 11.5 percent in 1976/77 to 15 percent in 1981/82 and dipped to 14.3 percent in 1983/84. The change in the difference be- tween average salaries of men and women middle managers and specialists re- mained less than 1 percent, while at the bottom the sex difference changed only 1.3 percent. In contrast to the slight im- provement for women in the sex differen- tial percentages observed in the total group, the separate percentages for all four categories showed a small decline in women's relative economic condition through seven years. This seeming con- tradiction in what were essentially insig- nificant differences can be explained sta- tistically by reference to interaction effect. When individual categories are exam- ined starting at the top, an encouraging improvement is the increase in the num- ber and percentage of women directors, from 73 men, 8 women in 1976/77 to 76 men, 19 women in 1983/84, or from 9. 9 percent female to 20 percent female in seven years. This is shown in table 2. Un- fortunately, there is no corresponding proportional increase in salary level. TABLE 1 NUMBER AND AVERAGE SALARIES-OF ARL UNIVERSITY LlliRARIANS AT FOUR LEVELS, 1976/77 AND 1983/84 Number of Staff Average Salaries Rank Level Men % Women % Men Women Difference 1976/77* Administrative 341 72.4 130 27.6 $28,224 $24,988 $3,236 Middle management 537 37.8 883 62.2 18,268 16,932 1,336 Specialist 467 52.2 427 47.8 17,318 15,897 1,421 Other 848 29.0 2,081 71.0 14,450 13,937 513 Total 2,193 38.4 3,521 61.6 18,138 15,334 2,804 1983/84t Administrative 309 . 55.0 253 45.0 46,530 39,875 6,655 Middle management 799 37.6 1,326 62.4 29,491 27,263 2,228 Specialist 492 44.6 611 55.4 26,471 24,222 2,249 Other 939 28 .9 2,310 71.1 23,723 22,254 1,136 Total 2,539 36.1 4,500 63.9 28,723 24,988 3,735 *Excludes Chicago, Harvard, illinois, and Yale tExcludes Chicago Based on ARL Annual Salary Survey, 1976/77, table 1, p.31; 1983, table 13, p.26 Administrative includes : director, associate director, assistant director, medical/law head %of Difference 11.5 7.3 8.2 3.6 15.5 14.3 7.6 8.5 4.9 13.0 Middle Management includes: branch head, department head (reference, cataloging, acquisition, serials, document /maps, circulation, special collections, other) Specialist includes : subject, functional Other includes : all other nonadministrative positions Pay Equity 43 TABLE2 NUMBER AND AVERAGE SALARIES OF ADMINISTRATORS IN ARL UNIVERSITY LIDRARIES, 1976/77 AND 1983/84 Number of Staff Average Salary % of Position Men % Women % Men Women Difference Difference 1976/77* Director 73 90 .1 8 9.9 $36,191 $34,275 $1,916 5.3 Associate director 71 75 .5 23 24.5 28,192 27,263 929 3.3 Assistant director 144 68 .2 67 31.8 23,978 22,313 1,665 6.9 Medical/law head 53 62 .4 32 37.6 28,828 26,630 2,198 7.6 1983/84+ Director 76 80.0 19 20.0 59,701 56,953 2,748 4.6 Associate director 60 45 .5 72 54.5 43,146 39,774 3,372 7.8 Assistant director 121 50.8 117 49.2 38,119 36,229 1,890 5.0 Medical/law head 52 53.6 45 46.4 50,757 42,303 8,459 16.7 *Excludes Chicago, Harvard, illinois, and Yale +Excludes Chicago Based on ARL A nnual Salary Su rvey, 1976/77, table 1, p .31; 1983, table 13, p .26 The difference between the pay of women and men directors actually rose slightly from 5.3 percent in 1976/77 to 6.4 percent in 1982/83, but fell to 4.6 percent in 1983/84. There have also been substantial gains in the number and percentage of women moving into associate and assis- tant director positions. In 1983/84, the number of women associate directors even exceeded the number of men by 12 (or 8 percent), and the figures were 121 men, 117 women at the assistant director level. For salaries, however, percentages through the years hover at about 8 percent lower for female associate directors and 5 percent lower for female assistant direc- tors. Another prestigious function is being head of a law or medical library. Compen- sation for heads of law and medical li- braries is in fact higher on the average than for associate directors of general uni- versity libraries. Ratios here have changed from 53 men and 32 women in 1976/77 (62.4 percent male, 37.6 percent female) to 52 men and 45 women in 1983/84 (53.6 per- cent male, 46.4 percent female). At the same time, average salaries for women have been substantially lower than those for men, and the gap has widened from 7.6 percent in 1976/77 to 16.7 percent in 1983/84. Heads of special collections are also predominantly male, but the percent- age of women is rising here too, from 36.1 in 1976/77, changing to 34.3 percent in 1977/78, and up to 40 percent in 1983/84 (See table 3). The gender gap in salaries is larger in this category than in any other, moving erratically from 20.2 percent in 1976/77 to a low of 12 percent in 1977/78, then to a high of 20.5 percent in 1981/82, and ending with a 17.6 percent differential in 1983/84.1tappearsthatwheretheheads of special collections are female, their av- erage salaries are comparable to those of other department heads; if they are male their average salaries are higher than those of other department heads and may ap- proach those of female assistant directors. What of pay equity in middle manage- ment in general, i.e., compensation of- fered to heads of branches (except medi- cal/law) and departments (other than special collections)? Here, as shown in ta- ble 3, women hold substantial majorities, with the highest in cataloging and serials. In at least one category each year women have a slightly higher average salary than men. This is true for heads of serials five years out of seven, for circulation and doc- u~ents/maps four times, and for catalog- ing twice. In all other categories men's av- erage salaries are from 3.6 to 10.8 percent higher than women's in 1976/77 and from less than 1 percent to 9.4 percent higher in 1983/84, with sex differential for branch li- brarians highest each year. The compilers of the ARL statistics, pur- suing an issue first raised by the CLR stud- ies, also have investigated the possibility 44 College & Research Libraries January 1987 TABLE 3 NUMBER AND AVERAGE SALARIES OF MIDDLE MANAGEMENT LIBRARIANS IN ARL UNIVERSITY LffiRARIES, 1976/77 and 1983/84 Number of Staff Position Men % 1976/77* Branch Head 194 38.8 D~artment Head: eference 36 28 .8 Cataloging 24 20.0 Acquisition 43 44.8 Senals 20 26.0 Doc./Maps 31 40.8 Circulation 37 44.6 Spec . collection 62 63.9 Other 90 36.6 1983/84:j: Branch Head 217 37.3 D~artment Head: eference 50 32.5 Catalo&ing 40 25.6 Acquisition 39 35.1 Senals 17 21.8 Doc./Maps 42 36.2 Circulation 46 45.5 Spec. collection 60 60.0 Other 288 39.6 *Excludes Chicago, Harvard, illinois, and Yale tWomen's salaries higher :j:Excludes Chicago Women 306 89 96 53 57 45 46 35 156 365 104 116 72 61 74 55 40 439 Average Salary %of % Men Women Difference Difference 61.2 $18,924 $16,884 $2,040 10.8 71.2 18,222 17,558 664 3.6 80.0 18,983 18,208 775 4.1 55.2 18,546 16,972 1,574 8.5 74.0 16,331 16,734 403t 2.4 59.2 15,526 16,576 1,050t 6.3 55.4 15,466 16,811 1,345t 8.0 36.1 20,233 16,151 4,082 20 .2 63.4 17,725 16,258 1,467 8.3 62.7 $30,357 $27,496 $2,861 9.4 67.5 29,134 28,806 328 1.1 74.4 30,121 28,900 1,221 4.0 64.9 29,303 27,107 2,196 7.5 78.2 26,358 26,783 425t 1.6 63 .8 26,690 26,597 93 .003 54.5 25,404 24,852 552 2.2 40 .0 32,840 27,060 5,780 17.6 60.4 29,387 26,797 2,590 8.8 Based on ARL Annual Salary Survey, 1976/77, table 1, p.31; 1983, table 13, p.26 that specialists, either subject or func- tional, might be better paid than the ordi- · nary nonadministrative librarian. 30 There is no evidence that this has happened, as table 4 demonstrates. The number of sub- ject specialists grew rapidly from 634 in 1976/77 to 981 in 1981/82, but dropped to 720 in 1983/84. This group was 57.6 per- cent female in 1982/83 but 55.4 percent fe- male in 1983/84. Meanwhile, the salaries of men subject specialists exceeded those of women by 7.1 percent in 1976/77, by only 3.6 percent in 1979/80, btit by 7.9 in 1983/84. Functional specialists, a smaller group, were also 55.4 percent female in 1983/84. Average salaries, usually higher than those for subject specialists, have . varied by sex differential from 9.5 percent for men in 1976/77 down to 8.3 percent in 1982/83 and then up to 9.7 percent in 1983/84. Moreover, the salaries of both va- rieties of specialists have been somewhat lower on the whole than those paid to branch and department heads. With aver- age salaries in 1983/84 of $26,471 for men and $24,222 for women, one must con- clude that the specialist route is not a promising avenue to high-level remunera- tion in the library! At the bottom of the pyramidal structure are the generalists-the nonadministra- tors and the nonspecialists. The propor- tion of librarians at this level has de- creased in seven years to 37 percent men and 51.3 percent women, but 3,249 out of a total of 7,039 librarians were still clus- tered there in 1983/84. One particularly significant factor is the shift in recent years between newcomers and old timers. The number of librarians with less than ten years' experience shrank from 2,000 in 1976/77 to 1,584 in 1983/84, a drop of 20.8 percent, while . those with more than ten years' experience-but who were not in an ad- ministrative or specialist role-grew from 929 to 1,665, an increase of 79.2 percent. Economic conditions throughout the na- tion may have restricted job mobility, thereby reducing the number of job Pay Equity 45 TABLE4 NUMBER AND AVERAGE SALARIES OF SPECIALSTS IN ARL UNIVERSITY LffiRARIES, 1976/77 and 1983/84 Position 1976/77* Subject Functional 1983/84t Subject Functional Men 318 149 321 171 Number of Staff % Women 50.2 316 57.3 111 44.6 399 44.6 212 *Excludes Chicago, Harvard, illinois, and Yale +Excludes Chicago % 49.8 42.7 55.4 55.4 Mel;\ $16,851 18,316 $26,258 26,871 Average Salary Women Difference $15,661 $1,190 16,568 1,748 $24,194 $2,064 24,274 2,597 %of Difference 7.1 9.5 7.9 9.7 Based on ARL Annual Salary Survey, 1976/77, table 1, p.31; 1983, table 13, p.26 changes. Another consideration is that fewer young women are leaving the pro- fession after becoming mothers. Many are continuing after a brief maternity leave. How are the salaries of the ''other'' group at the bottom of the pyramid? The categories of "under five years" and "five to ten years" (in table 5) show the closest equity between the sexes, with a 3.6 per- cent differential for men in 1976/77, down to2.7percentin 1982/83, butbackupto3.8 percent in 1983/84. Salaries for those with more than fifteen years' experience are slightly below the average for middle management. They exceed the salaries re- ceived by some department heads. Fur- thermore, the 621 women nonadministra- tors with more than fifteen years' experience constituted the largest single category of women librarians in 1982/83. They earned an average salary of $24,972. This is more than the salary of female spe- cialists or heads of circulation depart- ments. By 1983/84 the total of women non- administrators with more than fifteen years' experience had increased to 701, with an average salary of $25,944. This is still less than half the average salary of the nineteen women directors who succeeded in reaching the top of the pyramid. The 1983/84 ARL Salary Survey includes a new table presenting number and average salaries of men and women in ten four- year grougs according to total library ex- perience. Librarians have long careers. Twenty percent have more than twenty years of service. The female proportion falls from 71.7 percent with 0-3 years' ser- vice, to 64.7 percent for 4-19 years, and to 55 percent for 20-35 years. There are 101 TABLE 5 NUMBER AND AVERAGE SALARIES OF "OTHER" (NONADMINISTRATIVE) LIBRARIANS IN ARL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES, 1976/77 AND 1983/84 Number of Staff Average Salary Years of %of Experience Men % Women % Men Women Difference Difference 1976/77* Over 15 years 125 27.4 331 72.6 $17,662 $16,513 $1,149 6.5 10-15 years 136 28.8 337 71.2 15,920 15,571 349 2.2 5-10 years 266 29.8 628 70.2 14,497 14,064 433 3.0 Under 5 years 321 29 .0 785 71.0 12,538 12,048 490 3.9 1983/84t Over 15 years 300 30.0 701 70.0 $27,635 $25,944 $1,691 6.1 10-15 years 188 28.4 475 71.6 24,342 23,660 682 2.8 5-10 years 250 30.8 563 69.2 21,885 20,995 890 4.1 Under 5 years 201 26.1 570 73.9 18,037 17,828 209 1.2 *Excludes Chicago, Harvard, Illinois, and Yale +Excludes Chicago Based on ARL Annual Salary Survey, 1976/77, table 1, p.31; 1983, table 13, p .26 46 College & Research Libraries persons with more than 35 years (22 male, 79 female). The salary lines for men and women rise steeply during the first twenty years.~ Af- ter fifteen to twenty years the female line is almost flat and the disparity between salaries increases dramatically (see figure 3). Thus the differential for males rises from 2.8 percent for those in the 0-3 cate- gory to an appalling 30 percent after more than thirty-five years (male average $45,155, female $31,620). This salary fig- ure is somewhat suspect, along with the averages paid to all female categories over twenty years (ranging from $29,420 to $31,021), because they seem too high com- pared with the average salary ($27,263) paid in 1983/84 to female branch and de- partment heads. WOMEN'S SITUATION TODAY It is the almost forgotten generation of older women librarians who are affected most from past sex and present age dis- crimination. They entered librarianship when even the best-qualified female had almost no opportunity to climb to upper administrative levels. There was little en- January 1987 couragement for them to attain a doctor- ate, conduct research, seek an elected of- fice in professional organizations, or strive for promotion to middle management. They had no mentors grooming them for success, except perhaps as department heads where the proven route was by im- peccable on-the-job performance. More recently, management training programs have been aimed at the young and promising, not at those nearing retire- ment. Moreover, many who married and had children were confronted by pressure to make a career or family decision. Be- cause of personal choice or yielding to ex- isting prejudices, many left temporarily or compromised by working part-time. This practice was often cited as proof of a lack of professional zeal and aspiration. Upon reentry they were much less likely to achieve middle management status or to receive more than meager remuneration. A few outstanding women have moved up to the role of director or acting director at the end of their careers, but the average age of all women administrators in 1980 was forty-six. 32 It is the young, well- educated, highly mobile women, with 50r-------------------------------------------------------~ 45 40 IJl u 35 c co IJl :::J 0 .c 30 I- 25 20\ 15 3 + Men 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 Years of Experience X Women FIGURE 3 Average Salaries of ARL University Librarians by Sex and Years of Experience, 1983/84 35 + new skills, attitudes, and expectations who are chief beneficiaries of the current concern with sex equality. Recent studies have examined the ex- tent to which the status of women librari- ans has been affected by factors such as lower educational attainments, less expe- rience, limited mobility, more career inter- ruptions, less involvement with profes- sional associations, or fewer publications. Results are incomplete and not always consistent and comparable. They do indi- cate the importance of these factors and the myth that they account for all the dif- ferences. Clearly gender still plays a criti- cal part in career patterns. The need for more research and for remedial action re- mains. What gains have women made? Not many. Organized efforts by librarians at Stanford, University of California-Berke- ley, Temple and University of Minnesota have recently led to increases in women's salaries. 33 In contrast there is the attempt by the Office of Personnel Management to lower the standards for federal librarians and the uncertainty caused by the Merwine case as to whether the master's degree is a valid minimum requirement. 34 Any lowering of the entry-level standards could have a disastrous impact upon the profession. THE FUTURE There are some hopeful trends within the profession. Among the most encour- aging is the substantial increase in the number of women attaining a Ph.D. in li- brary science. At one time there were many more men in doctoral programs, but now the proportion of women has risen to 57 percent. Women constitute a similar percentage of assistant professors in li- Pay Equity 47 brary schools, even though men still dom- inate the upper ranks. Since the number of men entering librarianship dropped to 17 percent in 1981, many women should have more oprsortunities for advancement in the future. 5 Moreover, women are or- ganized in such groups as ALA's Feminist Task Force and Women Library Workers. Workshops and preconferences have been held. Networking efforts with out- side women's groups have also produced important results. These productive mani- festations of the women's movement should produce substantial changes in fe- male career patterns and remuneration in the university library. CONCLUSION Historically there have been three basic status and compensation problems in aca- demic libraries: (1) the level of most sala- ries is lower than that of the teaching fac- ulty; (2) compensation for administrative work is disproportionately higher than for service work; and (3) men in every cate- gory usually achieve higher status than women. Regarding status, the most encouraging finding is that the administrative group has changed in seven years from 27.6 per- cent female to 45 percent female. This elite is such a small proportion of all female li- brarians, however, that the percentage of all females who are administrators rises less than 2 percent between 1976/77 and 1983/84. Regarding salaries, the change in the sex differential has been minimal. The difference between the average salaries paid to all men and all women has dropped only 2.5 percent in seven years. Unless the pace accelerates, pay equity will not even be achieved by the year 2000. REFERENCES 1. Helen Remick, "Comparable Worth Definitions," in Pay Equity: Comparable Worth Action Guide, Topics in Personnel, no.2 (Chicago : American Library Assn., Office for Library Personnel Re- sources, 1982), Appendix A, p .1. 2. F. Y. Edgeworth, "Equal Pay to Men and Women for Equal Work," Economic Journal32:431-57 (Dec. 1922). 3. Robert Mitchell and Shelley Phipps, "The L~gal Basis for Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action," in Librarians ' Affirmative Action Handbook, ed . John H. Harvey and Elizabeth 48 College & Research Libraries _ January 1987 M. Dickinson (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1983), p.66-70, 83-84; Jane Williamson, "The Struggle Against Sex Discrimination," Wilson Library Bulletin 57:304-7 (Dec. 1982). 4. Carole W. Wilson, Breaching the Next Barricade: Pay Equity for Women (Washington, D. C.: Union for Democratic Action Educational Fund, 1981). 5. Donald J. Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann, eds ., Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for fobs of Equal Value (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Pr., 1981), p.52. 6. E. Robert Livernash, ed., Comparable Worth: Issues and Alternatives (Washington, D.C.: Equal Em- ployment Advisory Council, 1980), p.248-49. - 7. Anita R. Schiller, "Women in Librarianship," in Advances in Librarianship, V.4 (New York: Aca- demic, 1974), p.125. 8. Ibid., p.126. 9. Ibid., p.125; Betty M. Vetter, Eleanor L. Babco, and Susan Jensen-Fisher, Professional Women and Minorities: a Manpower Data Resource Service, 4th ed . (Washington, D.C.: Scientific Manpower Commission, 1983), p.70. 10. Kathleen M. Heim, "The Demographic and Economic Status of Librarians in the 1970s, with Spe- cial Reference to Women," in Advances in Librarianship, V.12 (New York: Academic, 1982), p.2. 11. Anita R. Schiller, Characteristics of Professional Personnel in College and University Libraries, Research Series, no.16 (Springfield, Ill.: Illinois State Library, 1969). 12. Anita R. Schiller, "The Widening Sex Gap," Library ]ournal94:1098-1100 (Mar. 15, 1969); "The Disadvantaged Majority: Women Employed in Libraries,'' American Libraries 1:345-49 (Apr. 1970); "Women in Librarianship, Status of," in ALA Yearbook 1976 (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1976), p.349-50. 13. Kathleen M. Heim and Leigh S. Estabrook, Career Profiles and Sex Discrimination in the Library Profes- sion (Chicago:, American Library Assn., 1983); Kathleen Weibel and Kathleen M. Heim, The Role of Women in Librarianship, 1876-1976 (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1979); KathleenM. Heim, ed., The Status of Women in Librarianship (New York: Neal-Schuman, 1983); Kathleen M. Heim, "Women in Li- brarianship," in ALA Yearbook(Chicago: American Library Assn.), 1979, p.294-99; 1980, p.317-22; 1981, p.299-303. 14. David C Weber and Tina Kass, "Comparable Rewards: The Case for Equal Compensation for Nonadministrative Expertise," Library ]ournal103:824-27 (Apr . 15, 1978). 15. "Midwinter Notebook," American Libraries 10:57 (Feb. 1979). 16. William G. Jones, Salary Compensation Systems for Librarians: a Study ofTen Members of the Association of Research Libraries, Occasional Paper, no.5 (Washington, D .C.: Office of Management Studies, Assn. of Research Libraries, 1981). 17. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, Classification Schemes, rev., SPEC Kit, no.7 (Washington, D.C. : Assn., of Research Libraries, 1978). 18. Frederick Duda, "Columbia's Two-Track System," College & Research Libraries 41:295-304 Guly 1980). 19. Donald R. Cameron and Peggy Heim, The Economics of Librarianship in College and University Li- braries, 1960-1970, a Sample Survey of Compensations (Washington, D.C. : Council on Library Re- sources, 1970); How Well Are They Paid? Compensation Structures of Professional Librarians in College and University Libraries, 1970-71, the Second Survey (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library Re- sources, 1972); Librarians in Higher Education, Their Compensation Structures for the Academic Year 1972-73, a'Third Survey (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library Resources, 1974). 20 . Cameron and Heim, Librarians in Higher Education, p.3. 21. Cameron and Heim, The Economics of Librarianship, p.2. 22. Cameron and Heim, Librarians in Higher Education, p.6 . 23. Richard J. Talbot and Ann von der Lippe, Salary Structures of Librarians in Higher Education for the Academic Year 1975-76 (Chicago: Assn. of College and Research Libraries, American Library Assn., 1976). 24. Ibid., p.6, 12. 25. Ibid., p.22. 26. Special Libraries Association, "A Study of the 1967 Annual Salaries of Members, Special Libraries 58:217-54 (Apr. 1967); "SLA Salary Survey 1970," Special Libraries 61:333-48 Guly/Aug. 1970); "SLA Salary Survey 1973," Special Libraries 64:594-628 (Dec. 1973); "SLA Salary Survey 1976," Special Libraries 67:597-624 (Dec. 1976); SLA Salary Survey 1979," Special Libraries 70:559-89 (Dec. 1979); SLA Triennial Salary Survey, 1982 (New York: Special Libraries Assn., 1983); "SLA 1983 Sal- ary Survey Update," Special Libraries 74:390-91 (Oct. 1983); "1984 Salary Survey Update," Special Libraries 75:338-40 (Oct. 1984). 27. "SLA Salary Survey 1979," Special Libraries 70:561-62,571,-580, 583 (Dec. 1979); "Errata," Special Pay Equity 49 Libraries 71:182 (Mar. 1980); "Errata," Special Libraries 71:542 (Dec. 1980). 28. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Annual Salary Survey, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, (Washington, D.C.: Assn. of Research Libraries, 1977-85). 29. "Women and Education," WEAL Washington Report 13, no.3:3 Oune/July 1984). 30. Cameron and Heirn, Librarians in Higher Education, p.ll-13. 31. Association of Research Libraries, ARLAnnual Salary Survey, 1983 (Washington, D.C., 1984), table 15: Number and Average Salaries of ARL University Librarians by Years of Experience, Fiscal Year 1984, p.28. 32. Barbara B. Moran, "Career Patterns of Academic Library Administrators," College & Research Li- braries 44:334-44 (Sept. 1983); Betty Jo Irvine, "ARL Academic Library Leaders of the 1980s: Men and Women of the Executive Suite,'' in Options for the 80s, ed. Michael D. Kathman and Virgil F. Massman, Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College andRe- search Libraries, Foundations of Library and Information Science, V.17 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Pr., 1982), Part B, p.423. 33. "California Librarians Tell Employers: 'Equal Pay for Equal Work!' " Wilson Library Bulletin 51:393 Oan. 1977); Sue Galloway, "Discrimination and Affirmative Action: Concerns for Women Librari- ans and Library Workers," in Librarians' Affinnative Action Handbook, ed. John H. Harvey and Eliza- beth M. Dickinson (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1983), p.lSS-58, 161; Helen Josephine, "All Things Being Equal: Pay Equity for Library Workers," Wilson Library Bulletin 57:301 (Dec. 1982); Helen Josephine, "Up Your Wages," WLW ]ournal8:14-15 (Apr./June 1983). 34. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Pay Equity: Equal Pay for Work of Comparable Value, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Human Resources, Civil Service, Compe!'l- sation and Employees Benefits, 97th Cong., 2d sess., 1982, Part 1, p.476, 487-89, 502-06, 575-96; Edward G. Holley, "The Merwine Case and the MLS: Where Was ALA?" American Libraries 15:327-30 (May 1984); Robert Wedgeworth "ALA and the Merwine Case: A Word as to the WHYS," American Libraries 15:561-62 (Sept. 1984); Pauline Wilson," ALA, the MLS, and Profes- sional Employment: An Observer's Field Guide to the Issues,'' American Libraries 15:563-66 (Sept. 1984); "Merwine Asks Supreme Court to Consider ALA/MLS Case," American Libraries 16:460 Ouly/Aug. 1985): "U.S. Supreme Court Decision Boosts ALA-MLS Requirement," American Li- braries 16:757-58 (Dec. 1985). 35. Kathleen Heirn, "Fighting for Social Change: Library Women Enter the Eighties," Wilson Library Bulletin 57:309 (Dec. 1982).