Gender gets raised (finally)
14/Feb/2007 12:47
I have been
disappointed by how little discussion there is of
gender in this program. A bit of attention has been
paid to race, including in an excellent lecture
delivered by Charles Hamilton of the Houston
Institute for Race and Justice. But there have been
only passing references to the particular issues or
challenges facing union women. But then yesterday, by
chance, the program offered an insight into the issue
of affirmative action for women. It was a great
example of an unexpected “teachable moment,” as we
union educators like to say.
HTUP program
director Elaine Bernard was reviewing the
arrangements for our graduation ceremony on Friday,
which turns out to be a better deal than I expected
(corsages for the women, boutonnieres for the men,
class photo at 10 a.m., distinguished guest speaker,
etc.). She explained that it was traditional for the
class to select a representative to address the
crowd. Given the size of our group, she invited us to
select two speakers.
Three women and three men agreed to stand for election. After some back and forth, a student moved a motion that we select at least one woman. The ballots were distributed to the class (of ten women and 30 men) and Elaine reminded us to vote for at least one female candidate. We voted, and guess what? Two women were selected as the speakers.
I was intrigued by the election process and result. When groups want to ensure the election of a woman, they often take the approach of designating the position as female. In this case, the positions were not designated but the voters were instructed to include at least one woman in their choice, with the option of casting votes for two women.
By structuring the electoral process this way, the three women candidates had access to a larger pool of potential votes, thereby increasing their chances of election. However, the voting arrangement did not guarantee the election of even one woman. For example, if the three women candidates had equally split the 40 ballots designated as “female,” each would have received either 13 or 14 votes. If the remaining 40 ballots had been equally split between two of the three male candidates, each would have received 20 votes, putting two men at the top of the list.
This morning I asked the student who had proposed the election system if he had considered that the result could have been the election of two men. He explained that his proposal was misinterpreted. He did not propose that we be required to vote for at least one woman; he had proposed that at least one of the speakers elected be a woman. In making the proposal he had assumed that voters would vote for any two candidates, male or female. If none of the woman candidates ended up in either of the top two places, the highest-ranking woman would be “bumped up” to replace the male candidate in second position. (This he explained to me is the system used by Britain's Labour Party to ensure women representation on executive bodies.)
What did I learn? There are a number of different ways to structure an election process depending on what you want to achieve. If the objective of the class was to elect one man and one woman, the system we used failed to achieve the desired result. If the objective was to increase the opportunities for women to get elected, it seems to have worked, and two women (not one) ended up as our representatives.
No doubt some would argue that putting in place a special voting system was not necessary; that the two women would have been elected (on their own merits) without the requirement to vote for at least one woman. At the same time, everyone in our class seemed to think it made sense to put in place some kind of measure to ensure female representation. It is interesting that no one objected to two women being elected. I’m not sure that I would have been able to keep quiet if two men had topped the polls.
Three women and three men agreed to stand for election. After some back and forth, a student moved a motion that we select at least one woman. The ballots were distributed to the class (of ten women and 30 men) and Elaine reminded us to vote for at least one female candidate. We voted, and guess what? Two women were selected as the speakers.
I was intrigued by the election process and result. When groups want to ensure the election of a woman, they often take the approach of designating the position as female. In this case, the positions were not designated but the voters were instructed to include at least one woman in their choice, with the option of casting votes for two women.
By structuring the electoral process this way, the three women candidates had access to a larger pool of potential votes, thereby increasing their chances of election. However, the voting arrangement did not guarantee the election of even one woman. For example, if the three women candidates had equally split the 40 ballots designated as “female,” each would have received either 13 or 14 votes. If the remaining 40 ballots had been equally split between two of the three male candidates, each would have received 20 votes, putting two men at the top of the list.
This morning I asked the student who had proposed the election system if he had considered that the result could have been the election of two men. He explained that his proposal was misinterpreted. He did not propose that we be required to vote for at least one woman; he had proposed that at least one of the speakers elected be a woman. In making the proposal he had assumed that voters would vote for any two candidates, male or female. If none of the woman candidates ended up in either of the top two places, the highest-ranking woman would be “bumped up” to replace the male candidate in second position. (This he explained to me is the system used by Britain's Labour Party to ensure women representation on executive bodies.)
What did I learn? There are a number of different ways to structure an election process depending on what you want to achieve. If the objective of the class was to elect one man and one woman, the system we used failed to achieve the desired result. If the objective was to increase the opportunities for women to get elected, it seems to have worked, and two women (not one) ended up as our representatives.
No doubt some would argue that putting in place a special voting system was not necessary; that the two women would have been elected (on their own merits) without the requirement to vote for at least one woman. At the same time, everyone in our class seemed to think it made sense to put in place some kind of measure to ensure female representation. It is interesting that no one objected to two women being elected. I’m not sure that I would have been able to keep quiet if two men had topped the polls.
|