Published March 12, 2005, Saturday, 12:40am

More Academic Garbage from U-Michigan
Center for the Education of Women Associate Director Releases Paper, Attacking Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Read the footnotes and compare them to what the authors are claiming they support, or compare the footnotes against the original source (several truncated sentences taken out of context from the original source), and you'll understand why this report crosses the line of academic conduct. The report boldly makes a number of assertions that are outright fabrications, exaggerations, and miscontextualizations, to build a variety of strawmen which it then flagellates. I may post of list of all of the specific points later on, but for now I post both a .pdf and html copy of the report for you to judge on your own. Although some in the media have labelled this a "study," according to one observer it reads more like a glorifed "term paper with carefully chosen references."

The views expressed herein are solely those of the individual authors, not of the University of Michigan or any other entity.

The Gender Impact of the Proposed Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Susan W. Kaufmann
Associate Director, CEW

Anne K. Davis
Graduate Research Assistant, CEW

March 2005

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) is a proposed amendment to the state constitution, submitted to be on the ballot in November 2006, that would prohibit all state and local government entities, including schools, from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting1. Although described as a civil rights initiative, the MCRI appears to confer no additional civil rights on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin. With proper enforcement, existing state and federal laws are clear and adequate. Title IV of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in any program receiving federal funding2; Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin3; and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, passed in Michigan in 1976, protects against discrimination in employment, education, public services and public accommodations on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, age, height, weight, religion, familial status or marital status4. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in education5. The Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan State Constitution duplicates the federal equal protection clause, and guarantees the equal protection of the laws6. Executive Order 11246 also forbids discrimination and requires affirmative action for certain classes of workers at federal contractors and subcontractors7. Some municipalities protect additional groups against discrimination.

In California, Proposition 2098, a nearly identical initiative passed in 1996, has been used to erode legal court-sanctioned efforts by state and local governments to reach out to women and minorities in order to reverse historic discrimination and exclusion by providing fair and equal access to opportunity. Programs providing access and exposure to education, employment and business opportunity have been challenged, eliminated or amended. Affected programs include:

Following passage of Prop. 209, and subsequent interpretation by the California courts16, breast cancer screening, battered women’s shelters and other domestic violence services are some of the programs that faced legal challenges17 in suits filed by the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles Chapter. In Blumhorst v. Haven Hills, the NCFM directly sued battered women’s shelters for violating equal protection, and sought the elimination of state funding as a remedy18. Funding for battered women’s shelters was preserved by the courts19 and because of a California statute20 protecting programs that serve women and minorities in order to conform to state anti-discrimination law, but advocates and attorneys anticipate further challenges21 . Subsequently, in NCFM LA v. State of California, the coalition has challenged all programs providing services or funding for women in California. They have based their claim in Connerly v. State Personnel Board, which stemmed from Prop. 209. A decision is still pending in this case22. Michigan law offers no protection comparable to the California statute, so programs providing services for women such as breast cancer screening and domestic violence services and prevention could well be at risk here. The MCRI is intended to apply to “ all functions and all levels of state and local government in Michigan”23. It does not provide for exceptions for the health and well-being of affected populations, but instead seeks a blanket ban on targeted programs based in race, gender and ethnicity.

Immediately following the passage of Prop. 209, the state stopped collecting information about race, gender and ethnicity in employment and contracting24 at the behest of then Governor Pete Wilson. This resulted in a break in the availability of data that could be used to analyze the absence or presence of discrimination in state-funded and -administered programs25. The California State Colleges and Universities continued to collect data internally, however, and institutional analysis found that hiring of women faculty dropped immediately and dramatically on a number of campuses26. In addition, the number of women and minorities enrolled in and completing medical, computer science and technology programs and entering the workforce declined, probably because of the elimination of recruiting, admissions, outreach, counseling, tutoring and policies that take race and gender into accountin order to increase participation27. Across all affected fields and campuses, hiring and enrollment have only recently recovered to the levels of 10 years ago28. In 2001 the California Appellate Court and California State Legislature restored race and gender data collection, enabling the state to resume attention to equality of opportunity29.

Women-owned businesses in California reported an immediate decline, not only in the direct awarding of state government contracts after Prop. 209 passed, but also in the number of bid opportunities communicated30. Affirmative action programs are used to ensure transparency and openness in the bidding process, as well as to encourage outreach and participation. After Prop. 209 was implemented, subcontracting opportunities were no longer distributed to the directory of registered women- and -minority owned businesses, leading to a sharp decline in the opportunities available to disadvantaged business enterprises31. Prop. 209 has not only affected state- and local-level contracting, however. Despite language guaranteeing the protection of programs required to maintain compliance with Federal guidelines32, a recent California Supreme Court decision applied Prop. 209 and found that programs enacted to remedy past discrimination and maintain compliance with federal funding requirements were in violation33, which may further reduce contracting opportunities.

In Michigan there are no longer participation requirements for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in state contracting, nor is such participation tracked for exclusively state-funded programs34. Participation goals continue, however, and data collection is required for federally funded programs. In 2004 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises received 10.76% of Michigan Department of Transportation federally funded highway contracts, and women received 6.79% of these funds 35. According to the California Supreme Court, the federal government would have to threaten to revoke state funding for contracting in order for the state to be able to continue reaching out to women contractors. Should this standard be applied in Michigan, the impact on women-owned businesses could be severe36.

Another apparent consequence of Prop. 209 has been a steep and rapid decline in women employed in the skilled trades. “While the number of construction jobs [in California] have increased since 1996 …the percentage of women in the trades has dropped by a third37.” Nationally, however, the percentage of women in the trades has increased during those years.

Initially, Prop. 209 implementation efforts dealt with the elimination or amendment of state-level affirmative action programs, but subsequent legal challenges have targeted local and municipal programs as well. California courts have consistently construed the Proposition broadly, striking down not only those programs that were designed for women, or racial and ethnic minorities, or included participation goals, but also those that sought to remedy documented patterns of discrimination. In Michigan, the intended scope of the initiative is all functions and all levels of state and local government38. Should the initiative pass, and implementation proceed according to the intent of the amendment, the following kinds of programs could be vulnerable if the MCRI passes in Michigan:

Although the passage of Prop. 209 has not yet resulted in challenges to single-sex athletic teams, community and school-based programs, if publicly supported, could be subject to the MCRI, depending upon interpretation by the courts.

The kinds of programs that have been lost or altered in California are still very important to women and families. Women have made significant gains in employment and education during the last thirty years, helped along by civil rights laws that forbid discrimination and require efforts to promote equal opportunity. Nonetheless, there are still many fields, often the best paying, where women have made only small inroads. The average woman working full time still earns less than the average man, which results in the loss of much-needed income for women and their families40. Additionally, women’s life experiences can differ from men’s in ways that constrain their educational and employment opportunities and cause them to need particular services from government, employers, or educational institutions more often than men do. Some of the barriers women face more often than men include:

Women in Michigan who work full time, year round earn $.67 to every dollar earned by a comparably employed man, ranking Michigan 49 th among the states for inequality41. Because of the wage gap, higher education is particularly important for women. With only a high school diploma, a woman working full-time, year-round earns $25,400, while a man earns $38,700. A college degree improves income for both men and women, though women continue to lag. While a man with a four-year college degree earns $60,100, a woman earns $42,000, only slightly more than a man without a college degree42. National studies have found that even after adjusting for education, experience, job classification and union membership, there is a portion of the wage gap that can only be explained by sex discrimination43.

Women’s wages are critical not only for their own well-being, but for their families’. As men’s wages have failed to keep pace with inflation in the last 35 years44, families have come to rely on two incomes in order to reach or remain in the middle class45. In fact, increases in real income for families since 1979 are primarily the result of women entering the workforce46. In Michigan, the loss of manufacturing jobs is accelerating these trends.

Recent concern that women are out-stripping men in college enrollment “masks tremendous differences by academic level, age, race/ethnicity, and income47.” Among white, middle- or upper-class 18 to 24-year-olds, women and men are very close to parity; however, gender gaps among African-American, Native American and Hispanic students are large, particularly among low-income students48. This results in an overall difference between women and men, which is largely the result of two factors: a large number of women who are over 25 and have returned to school (often to improve their earning potential), and low enrollment levels by African American and Hispanic men, particularly men of low socio-economic status. Men continue to earn more with professional and doctoral degrees than women49. Women’s participation also varies greatly by field.

Despite advances in women’s enrollment over all, Michigan ranked 36 th in the nation in 2000 for the proportion of its female population with a four-year college degree or more50. While more Michigan women than the national average complete one to three years of college, fewer women than the national average complete four or more years. For many women, access to childcare and to services that take women’s experiences into account is crucial to their ability to complete a degree51.

Women still lag significantly behind men in physical sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics and business degrees, particularly at advanced levels, and therefore in the jobs for which those degrees are required, as well as in the skilled trades and other heavily “male” jobs. “By 2010, one in four new jobs will be ‘technically oriented,’ or involve computing, however women fall far behind in earning computer technology degrees and working in computer technology related professions52.” Not only does that shortfall keep women from well-paying, high-demand careers with which they can support themselves and their families, but it also deprives the state and the nation of the brainpower and training so necessary to drive an information-based economy53 and compete in the global marketplace. This difference in preparation for technology-based jobs between men and women is one cause of the large wage gap between men’s and women’s earnings in Michigan and a significant barrier to economic growth.

Evidence from California suggests that Prop. 209 has eroded access to services, education, job training, and other opportunities for women. There is ample evidence to support expectations that passage of the MCRI in Michigan would result in a similar pattern of lost services and restricted opportunities. Redevelopment of the Michigan economy from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy will require a highly qualified and technologically educated workforce, in which women’s talents and skills will be indispensable. Full access to opportunity strengthens not only women, but also their families, communities, and the state.

FOOTNOTES

1 “ Mission Statement.” (n.d.). Retrieved June 2004, from Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Web site: www.michigancivilrights.org.

2 Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

4 Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Act 453 of 1976 MCLA 37.2101 et seq., M.S.A. 3.548(101) et seq.

5 Title IX of the Education Amendments Of 1972 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 – 1688. Title 20 – Education. CHAPTER 38 - Discrimination Based On Sex Or Blindness

6 State Constitution (Excerpt) Constitution Of Michigan Of 1963; Const. 1963, Art. I, § 2, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

7 Executive Order 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, appears at 30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp. p. 339

8 “Proposition 209,”passed November 5, 1996, enacted, now embodied in the California Constitution, Article I, Section 31 13.41. Hereafter Prop. 209.

9 Women are considered to be underrepresented in particular fields, not in education overall. Compounded effects of gender, race and income also affect eligibility for particular programs. California Education Code 69560 et. seq: The CAL-SOAP program was authorized to fund programs “designed to increase the accessibility of postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income and ethnic minority elementary and secondary school students”. These programs included reading, math, science, SAT preparation, academic preparation and college outreach and information. CAL-SOAP now specifies “low-income, elementary and secondary school students or geographic regions with documented low-eligibility or college participation rates, and who are first in their families to attend college.” California Education Code 8630 and 8631: The California Summer Science and Technology Academy was “developed and operated to identify public high school pupils with high academic potential in mathematics, science, and technology, with an emphasis on females and minority members, to participate in university-based research programs.” Post Prop. 209, reference to females and minority members was removed from programs.

10 Proposition 209 clearly states that “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” This includes outreach programs that specifically target race, gender and ethnicity. The Early Academic Outreach Program, which includes summer school, after school and weekend classes targeted low-income and ethnically underrepresented students pre-209. Now targets “under-resourced communities.”

11 Connerly v. State Personnel Board No. C032042, Cal. Ct. App., 3rd Dist., 9/4/2001

12 California Labor Code 1777.5 and 3075.1 governed affirmative action in apprenticeship programs. California Public Contract Code 10115-10115.15. Governor Wilson issued an executive order March 10, 1998 that ordered state agencies to "cease any enforcement of the minority and women business enterprise participation goals and the good faith effort requirements related thereto under Public Contract Code ¤10115 et seq.“ I n the absence of affirmative action programs and monitoring, employers have been left at best without direction or motivation to provide equal opportunity for tradeswomen. At worst, the vestiges of the male-dominated construction industry have returned. While federal affirmative action programs remain intact, some contractors returned to old practices of exclusion. Some employers believe and have told tradeswomen that because there is no more affirmative action, they no longer have to hire women.” “Proposition 209 and the Decline of Women in the Construction Trades.” The Discrimination Research Center and Equal Rights Advocates. June 2004.

13 California Health and Safety Code, Sections 128330-128370; 128375-128401; 128425-128450 now specify under-representation in profession as qualifying attribute. Formerly known as Minority Health Professionals Education Foundation, now Health Professions Education Foundation.

14 California Codes, Education Code Section 69640-69656. The Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) now specify “socioeconomic handicaps” and language, social, and economic disadvantages. Education Code §§ 87100, et seq. were found to violate Prop. 209 on 9/4/2001. This section governed the “steps that the district will take in eliminating improper discrimination or preferences in its hiring practices” (Section 87102. (a)).

15 Percentage goals and outreach, known as "good faith efforts," requirements in regard to women- and -minority owned businesses in the California Public Contract Code were found to violate the California Constitution, Article I, Section 31, known as Prop. 209: Connerly v. State Personnel Board No. C032042, Cal. Ct. App., 3rd Dist., 9/4/2001

16 After Prop. 209 passed, Governor Pete Wilson filed suit against five state agencies that maintained mandated affirmative action programs. Three were upheld, and two disallowed (women and minority owned business participation goals and bond service contracts). Ward Connerly filed an appeal (then Governor Gray Davis chose not to appeal), and in Connerly v. State Personnel Board the Court reversed the lower court decision, finding all five state agencies in violation of Prop. 209. The National Coalition of Free Men then filed suit against the State of California regarding more than 30 programs that target women based on this finding (NCFM LA v. State of California, pending hearing date).

17 Blumhorst v. Haven Hills (challenging domestic violence shelters for women, suing shelters directly) and NCFM LA c. State of California (challenging all programs targeted to women).

18 Fukuroda, Marci. “Men’s Groups Threaten Women’s Shelters Through Litigation” UCLA Women’s Center Newsletter, Spring 2004. http://www.women.ucla.edu/Newsletter/Shelters.htm

19 The Court initially found that funding for battered women’s shelters was protected under California Government Code 11039, and that the claimants lacked proper standing to file the suit. (October 2003) The Appellate Court declined to find on the merits of the case, and upheld the lack of standing of the claimants (filed 2/14/05). The claimant has indicated intent to re-file, and to expand the challenge to other areas. Additionally, though the suit was filed against 9 individual shelters, the challenge was based on the funding, which was specifically authorized for the provision of services to women and children by the State of California. The Claimant has challenged the State to cease funding in a separate suit (NCFM vs. The State of California).

20 California Government Code 11039

21 Fukuroda, Marci. Telephone Interview. 2/16/05

22 Expected by Summer 2005: Oie, Susan, Telephone Interview. 2/16/05

23 “Mission Statement.” (n.d.). Retrieved June 2004, from Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Web site: www.michigancivilrights.org.

24 On March 10, 1998 the Governor issued executive order W-172-98 that ordered that state agencies cease “all actions, programs, and regulations which seek to monitor, promote or comply with the minority or women business enterprise goals or the good faith efforts related thereto.” This governed the collection of data on employment and contracting in regards to gender, race or ethnicity. The order was upheld in Barlow v. Davis, 6/11/1999: Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 796308-9

25 “Proposition 209 and the Decline of Women in the Construction Trades.” The Discrimination Research Center and Equal Rights Advocates. June 2004.

26 “New Appointments of Ladder Rank Faculty at the University of California, Pre and Post Proposition 209.” Office of Academic Advancement; Office of the Provost, The University of California. December 2000; Greenwood, M.R.C. “Testimony to Senate Select Committee on Government Oversight.” University of California, Santa Cruz. http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/testimony.html

27 Babco, Eleanor and Ellis, Richard. “Women in Science and Technology: the Sisyphean Challenge of Change” STEM Workforce Data Project: Report 2. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. 2004;Hudgings, Janice, Humphreys, Sheila and Hernan, Patrick. “A Six-Year Picture of Women Graduate Students in EECS,” unpublished paper, UC Berkeley and Mount Holyoke, 1999. http://mtholyoke.edu/~jhudging/eecswomen.html; American Association for University Women. “Tech Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age.” 2000; ; “ California’s Future: It Starts Here- UC’s Contributions to Economic Growth, Health, and Culture: An Impact Study for The University of California.” Prepared by ICF Consulting. March 2003. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/itstartshere/report/fullreport.pdf

28 ‘University of California, University-wide New Appointments of Ladder Rank Faculty: 1984-85 through 2002-2003.” Office of Academic Advancement; Office of the Provost, The University of California. November 2003; “ California’s Future: It Starts Here- UC’s Contributions to Economic Growth, Health, and Culture: An Impact Study for The University of California.” Prepared by ICF Consulting. March 2003. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/itstartshere/report/fullreport.pdf

29 In 2001 the California Assembly restored data collection after the Appellate Court found that all data collection did not violate either Prop. 209 or equal protection, (Connerly v. Personnel Board), a decision that was affirmed by Governor Schwarzenegger as recently as March 2004 in executive Order S-6-04. He stated that “under both state and federal law, state agencies have a responsibility to maintain statistical information on the composition of their workforce, and state agencies are required by federal law to identify racial, gender and ethnic under-representation in their workforce. I fully expect that all state agencies will comply with this responsibility and maintain meaningful information on the composition of the state workforce.” Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of AB 227 http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/ga/ vetoed2004.asp

30 “Contra Costa County, which kept collecting data after its minority business program was terminated, reported more than a three-fold drop in minority- and women-owned business with the county between 1997 and 1999.” Sun, Sep. 07, 2003, Barlow Guest Commentary. Leadership Council on Civil Rights. http://www.lccr.com/One%20race%20data% 20ban%20had%20 bad%20effects.htm; Katz, Nancie L. “How Prop 209 Affects Claudia Ramsey’s Shop” The Christian Science Monitor, Tue, Nov. 18, 97. http://www.search.csmonitor.com/durable/1007/11/18/ us/us.5.html

31 “Proposition 209 and the Decline of Women in the Construction Trades.” The Discrimination Research Center and Equal Rights Advocates. June 2004; Katz, Nancie L. “How Prop 209 Affects Claudia Ramsey’s Shop” The Christian Science Monitor, Tue, Nov. 18, 97. http://www.search. csmonitor.com/durable/1007/11/18/ us/us.5.html; Parker, Beth A. “ The Impact Of Proposition 209 On Education, Employment And Contracting Opportunities For Women In California”, Equal Rights Advocates.

32 Prop. 209 clause (Sec. 31(e))

33 Coral Construction, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 6
Feb. 24, 2004. No. A101842.

34 Affirmative action programs and data collection were discontinued under Governor John Engler. Core, Harold. Telephone Interview. June 2, 2004.

35 Day-La Bo, Jean. Telephone Interview. March 9, 2005; Previous data: “Transportation Facts and Figures, Finance.” Michigan Department of Transportation. 2001; US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Highway Statistics 2001, Obligation of Federal Funds Administered by the Federal Highway Administration During Fiscal Year 2001, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hso1/fa4b.htm

36 Sec 31(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state; Dahlberg, Carrie Peyton. “SMUD Forges Ahead in Minority-bid Appeal” The On-Line Division of the Sacramento Bee. 10/27/03. http://sacbee.com/content/news/story/11162478p-12078599c.html

37 “Proposition 209 and the Decline of Women in the Construction Trades.” The Discrimination Research Center and Equal Rights Advocates. June 2004; Stoops, Nicole. “Current Population Reports: Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003”. US Census Bureau

38 “Mission Statement.” (n.d.). Retrieved June 2004, from Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Web site: www.michigancivilrights.org.

39 Michigan. “State Programs Impacting Women.” Michigan Women’s Commission. 12/2004

40 “The Status of Women in the States: Politics, Economics, Health, Rights and Demographics.” November 2004. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

41 “The Status of Women in Michigan: Politics, Economics, Health, Rights and Demographics.” November 2004. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C., Table 4.3.

42 “Women’s Education and Earnings in Michigan.” Report of the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. January 2005, Figure 4.

43 A 1989 report by the national Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences confirmed earlier research by the National Academy of Sciences in 1981 that found that one-half to one-fourth of the earning differential between men and women could not be explained by legitimate difference in education, training, experience and characteristics of jobs. Fay C.H. 1; Risher H.W. 2 “Contractors, Comparable Worth and the New OFCCP: Déjà Vu and More” :Compensation & Benefits Review, October 2000, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 23-33(11); Levine, Linda. The Gender Wage Gap and Pay Equity: Is Comperable Worth the Next Step? Bethesda, MD: Congressional Research Service, 2003, Bernstein, Jared. “ Slowdown in male earnings leads to smaller gender wage gap ” Economic Snapshot: Economic Policy Institute. January 2005. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeaturessnapshots_20050105; “Explaining Trends in the Gender Wage Gap” Washington D.C: The Council of Economic Advisors, June 1998.

44 Contractors, Comparable Worth and the New OFCCP: Déjà Vu and More” :Compensation & Benefits Review, October 2000, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 23-33(11); Levine, Linda. The Gender Wage Gap and Pay Equity: Is Comperable Worth the Next Step? Bethesda, MD: Congressional Research Service, 2003

45 “The Status of Women in Michigan: Politics, Economics, Health, Rights and Demographics.” November 2004. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C., Table 4.3.

46 DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Proctor, Bernadette D., Mills, Robert J. US Census Bureau. “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.” Current Population Reports: Consumer Income. Published August 2004. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf ; “The Status of Women in Michigan: Politics, Economics, Health, Rights and Demographics.” November 2004. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

47 “Women’s Education and Earnings in Michigan.” Report of the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. January 2005

48 Freeman, Catherine E. “Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women: 2004.” National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. NCES 2005-016.

49 U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports P20-550, 2–3 ( Washington, D.C., 2004). Retrieved Nov. 8, 2004, from http://www/census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-500.pdf

50 “Women’s Education and Earnings in Michigan.” Report of the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. January 2005

51 Kaufmann, Susan W. et al. “ Michigan: a ‘ Smart State’ for Women?” University of Michigan, Center for Education of Women. January 2000.

52 American Association for University Women. “Tech Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age.” 2000.

53 “Newsletter: Gender and Technology” Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. 2004