In this article:The legal case | A study commissioned | Conducting the study | Study published | ICRC | Strategic initiatives| Faculty retreat| Current opinion
Editor's note: This is the main piece in an in-depth project on gender at Whitworth. View the full project for more articles and features: The Women
In an academic year where a woman got farther in the United States political structure than ever before, Washington's governor and Spokane's mayor are women, and Whitworth, as well as other higher education institutions, continually see higher populations of women than men, it would be easy to assume gender issues are no longer relevant.
However, as indicated by student, faculty and staff experiences along with a 2005 study on gender at Whitworth, gender still matters.
"Whitworth has not always had a history of equality and fairness. I think that's true of virtually every other educational institution in America," said Dale Soden, vice president for planning and professor of history.
The legal case
Janet Yoder, former director of international student academic programs, filed a lawsuit against the college on Feb. 24, 1998, alleging breach of contract and sex discrimination, a month after her contract was not renewed.
There were two parts of the lawsuit. The first dealt with whether she had the same rights to appeal that a tenured faculty member would. The claim of breach of contract came from an interpretation of the faculty handbook over whether nontenured faculty members have a right to the formal grievance procedure, according to a March 10, 1998, article in The Whitworthian.
Although this is not necessarily a gender issue, more female faculty at the time were nontenured and therefore in a more vulnerable position, said John Yoder, professor of political science.
The second issue was whether a male faculty member would have been criticized for the same style and approach to communication and management style and whether there was a different standard for men and women,Yoder said.
"What would be perfectly acceptable and even exemplary in a male would not be allowed or valued in a female," Yoder said.
Janet Yoder's attorney, Laurie Siddoway, said the case falls into a subcategory of sexual stereotyping under the sex discrimination category, according to the May 10, 1998, article. Sexual stereotyping occurs when an employer has expectations for female employees and does not uphold the same expectations or standards of conduct for male employees, Siddoway said in the article.
Yoder said she did not want to get into litigation and did not think it was a Christian way to solve differences, according to a Nov. 16, 1999, article in The Whitworthian.
"I know Janet hoped all along to avoid litigation," John Yoder said.
The college denied the allegations, according to a Dec. 8, 1998 article.
"I don't feel the college has intentional polices that discriminate," former professor Pat MacDonald said in the March 10, 1998, article. "Women who are assertive, and confront and don't back down are viewed negatively. That does not seem to be true of men."
Janet Yoder was hired as a full-time faculty member in 1983. She headed the Women's Task Force for a number of years. Under her leadership, the task force worked to increase the number of women faculty, implement a women's awareness week, create discussion groups and address standards and policies in an effort to eliminate discrimination, MacDonald said in the March 10, 1998, article.
Court documents showed that the Faculty Affairs Committee stated that Yoder was guilty of "problematic interpersonal communication behavior" which had continued through several presidential administrations, according to the Dec. 8, 1998, article.
Yoder filed the lawsuit at the advice of her lawyer, she said in a Nov. 16, 1999, article. Yoder based her claim on the fact that she was not granted a formal hearing nor was she given any specifics on the misconduct that might have led to her loss of her job, according to the Nov. 16, 1999, article.
The suit was originally scheduled for trial in August 1999 and was then postponed for additional time for discovery.
A settlement was reached in April 2000. Both parties stated that the settlement would remain confidential, according to an April 4, 2000, article.
Be the first to comment on this article!