Participating but not leading: women's under-representation in student government leadership positions

College Student Journal, Sept, 2004 by Carol D. Miller, Mindy Kraus

We explored whether women were equally represented in leadership roles in college student governance at 21 Midwestern comprehensive universities. We surveyed the college studdent governments and asked them to report how many women participated in governance, and how many had been president, vice president and more. Our analyses showed that, while women were elected as representatives to student government, they were under-represented in presidential or vice-presidential positions. Structural and/or institutional factors, such as having a female faculty advisor to student government, were correlated with a greater likelihood of having a female student government leaders.

INTRODUCTION

The authors of Gender Equity or Bust! On the Road to Campus Leadership with Women in Higher Education argue that, "Born of a patriarchal tradition, higher education continues to marginalize women at every turn as students, administrators, faculty, and athletic leaders. Whether the bias is conscious or unconscious, women are being penalized consistently for their gender" (Wenniger and Conroy, 2001: 7). Are women marginalized in university student governments? We administered a survey to campus student government associations in the Midwest, and asked student leaders to report their current and recent male to female ratios of student leaders and other campus characteristics. We tested whether women were underrepresented in student government leadership roles and explored possible explanations for inequality in student politics.

BACKGROUND: WOMEN AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Women's experiences in student government, theoretically, parallel women's participation in politics in general. Therefore, the explanations for women's under-representation in politics apply to campus governance. These explanations include arguments that women simply do not run for leadership roles or that women who do run do not win. We explored these explanations.

Women Don't Run

We hypothesized that women would not be equally represented in student government, much like they are not equally represented in the federal government, because they do not choose to run for office. One explanation is that women are not as interested in politics and government as men. The second explanation for not running for office could be that they do not believe they are qualified.

The first explanation for not running is that they are not interested in government or politics, but more interested in "female things." Sapiro and Farah (1980 cited in Conway, Steuernagel and Ahem, 1998:21) claim that "Women's family responsibilities have been found to affect their political ambition and the kinds of political activism they pursue." However, this particular explanation for women's lack of participation should not apply to most college-age females. It could be argued that past socialization, away from government and leadership interests, and toward more feminine interests like nurturing and caring types of activities could contribute to a lack of female political participation. It is possible that university women are involved in other student activities that better reflect women's interests, volunteer activities, for example. Also, women might not contemplate running for student government because they do not have career plans that involve politics. It is true that students are more likely to participate in student activities that are related to their academic major or future career plans (McCannon and Bennett, 1996). So having strong academic programs that women are most likely to major in might decrease the number of women participating in campus government because those programs have other student organizations in which women get involved.

However, participation in student government does not just offer important experience for students interested in political careers. "Participation in campus governance is linked to desirable outcomes for individual students as well as to positive contributions to the welfare of the campus community." (Kuh and Lund, 1994). Specifically, students gained organizational, planning, managing and decision-making skills from their experience in student government. They were able to put to use ideas and methods they learned in their classes. Women could be missing out on valuable experiences useful in any career.

Secondly, student government might not be addressing women's concerns. Lavant and Terrell (1994) claimed that the type of student organization students participate in depends on their ethnic backgrounds, and the same might be true for women. Women might be more involved in student organizations that address their concerns. It is possible that women are not interested in student governance because it rarely addresses issues of concern to women. Of course, one way to get government to address one's concerns is to participate in it.

A third explanation for women not running for office is that they do not believe they have the qualifications. This could be a result of a lack of leadership role models. If women do not see other women in such positions of power, they might not perceive themselves as having the necessary skills. So having more women in leadership roles should increase the likelihood of women running for office. Additionally, women might be more likely to encourage other women to run. Having a faculty advisor who goes out of her or his way to encourage women to run for office could reinforce the idea that women are qualified for leadership roles.