WISER festival (More Women in Science, Education and Research) - English version
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to begin with a quote: "There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."
Don't worry, those words are not mine, but rather they come from a controversial, former president of Harvard, Larry Summers. Controversial because, among other things, he argued that our society demands that scientists be completely dedicated to their work and especially because he asserted that women were under-represented in high-end positions in the exact sciences because they have less natural aptitude for such work.
You will understand that I consider Summers' statements to be nonsensical. Dedication and focus are extremely important in science but differences between the sexes have nothing to do with this. Women are as equally well suited to science and politics as men are. That they are under-represented in these areas or do not receive equal pay, is unacceptable and something that must be corrected.
Today has started well. We heard Mineke Bosch's inaugural address and I would like to congratulate her on her appointment which underscores the importance of her work at the Centre for Gender and Diversity at Maastricht University. My sincere congratulations also go to Dymph van der Boom, who was appointed this week as the first rector magnificus [chancellor] of the University of Amsterdam.
Ladies and gentlemen,
There is a political sense of urgency for taking a stand in support of more women in the sciences. We have just published the Gender Equality policy paper and presented the new budget for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The timing of this conference, therefore, is excellent!
The winding-up of the EQUAL II project also comes at just the right time. The EQUAL II posters played a significant role in the naming, faming and shaming of universities and the way in which they treat their female scientists. Naming, by making the problems transparent, bringing the facts and figures into the open and setting out the causes of the problems. Faming, by setting out best practices from which everyone can learn. And shaming, by saying out loud what is wrong. We badly needed these posters to keep the pressure on and I would dearly love it if we could somehow find a follow-up.
This is because, whatever it may take, I want to continue naming and shaming, hopefully with faming in the lead. I would like to use the outcomes of EQUAL II to enter into a dialogue with the universities about their appointment policies. These discussions will not be obligation free, because the cabinet and I mean business with the position of women in science and in the rest of society.
The subject of women in science intersects with two other important themes of this cabinet that are also in my portfolio: gender equality and science. This is a package I am proud of. What I am not proud of is the fact that our country, with ten percent of professors being female, is still languishing at the bottom of the European figures. Although this percentage represents just less than a doubling of the figures since the turn of the century, it still has to increase - and quickly. We cannot allow female talent to drop by the wayside in a country where more than half the students and over forty percent of research assistants are female.
The cabinet has set itself the target of women accounting for at least fifteen percent of professors by 2010. It is up to the universities to shape their own staff policy, but it is my job to assess whether or not the funds set aside for this purpose are being used properly and efficiently.
And it is precisely the institutions themselves who will benefit most from a staff policy that focuses on excellence and diversity. In practice, organisations with staff policies that faithfully reflect society - a mix of young and old, male and female, ethnic minorities and native Dutch - perform better than organisations that have no such policy: they are more profitable, respond more quickly to change and are more innovative. This applies not only to companies but to the public and semi-public sectors as well. I firmly believe that our institutions can learn quite a lot from the business community because in this respect, they have taken things much further.
We will be comparing and benchmarking the results of the institutions. Good and poor performances will be made public. As I already mentioned, we are aiming for at least fifteen percent of professors being female, preferably more. In concrete terms this means that in 2010 we should have, as the posters show us, at least 143 full time female professors. This is essential due to their role as example setters and to exert influence in the spheres of power in the academic world. So, those who think that talented women are not to be found, simply have to look harder. And of course, for their part, women can make it known that they wish to progress in their careers and use their networks to that end.
There is one other point: in science, women are often placed in lower salary scales. The difference is significant among professors. The majority of female professors are in scale 16, the percentage of male professors in scale 18 is three times as high. This amounts to a shocking difference in salary of euro1378 per month.
The administrations of the institutions and I clearly have more than enough to discuss. But let's not forget what is already underway. For example, the Aspasia programme of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, for which I have set aside an additional 1 million euros in the budget for 2008, the special women's component of the Veni-Vidi-Vici Research Scheme. And other individually oriented programmes like Mozaiek and TopTalent in which women score highly, as well as research into gender mechanisms in the scientific community, the support that we are giving to the national network of female professors and the efforts of the Seventh Framework Programme, Women in Science. The central issue in this is how we can encourage the best women - today's focus is, after all, on them - in their scientific careers.
In spite of this good news, gender equality is far from a reality. We need to do a great deal of catching up and increase our pace. This requires an active position on the part of the cabinet, new measures and additional investment. The cabinet will set a good example by appointing more women to management and supervisory boards.
Ladies and gentlemen,
EQUAL II has given us a good picture of the position of female scientists. Research provides scientific support for that picture. Above all, the project has provided us with several practical examples of how we can do things better. I would like to call on the institutions to start working on the initiatives provided by Equal II that can be applied immediately. And I believe that not only women themselves should be busy with career prospects but men in middle management too, as they are the ones who usually bear responsibility for appointing new staff. Personally, I promise you today that I will continue to take part in the debate on this topic and where necessary, to make hard agreements.
I hope this speech could be a contribution to the after lunch high level debate. I am looking forward to hearing the outcomes of today's and tomorrow's discussions.
Thank you for your attention.