Thursday, March 4, 2021

Think women discrimination is a thing of the past?


Think again. This story came from one of my friends, who teaches in a local community college. My friend's daughter is a sophomore at a research university. She came up with an idea for a project in one of her neuroscience classes, developed her idea with a female friend, and they spent hours explaining the idea to the guys in the group. 

When the time came to present the project to the class, the guys questioned their ability to present and asked her to present to them first so they could be assured she was prepared and knew what she was talking about. So they  basically questioned her understanding of her own idea.

This is 2021!


Sunday, February 21, 2021

Woohoo, you and the husband are invited to a prestigious research centre?

 This is one of the histories that has a kind of happy ending, but only kind of as it seems that the scientific research center policies are still in flux. Judge for yourself.  My job is just to collect the histories, with or without name, as  people prefer it.

This story is described by an open letter in Prof Agricola's website. Professor Agricola is now President of the German Mathematics Association (DMV) and her mathematical career is not in danger.  She has the following Open Letter on her website I will copy  it below, but you should read it in the link, where you can find this picture.

This is Prof Agricola's son, aged three months, sleeping in the desk, while she does maths with her students. Sweet! Now you may think 2014 in Prof Agricola's letter and think this is pre-historic (some people do!), but then you should check Viviane Pons blog post from 2019, which is again a similar story.

Just one extract from Pons' blog post, that again is better written than I can provide and very much worth your time reading:

"But things changed. They changed because women and allies did not give up. There were some open letters and petitions circulating. There were some pressure being made. At a time where supporting women in math was becoming “trendy”, the policy started to be bad publicity. When CIRM would brag about their actions for supporting women (like women speaker requirements, women events, etc), there would be people to remind them of their policy. I actually know one of these women. She is a senior researcher very much involved in defending women in mathematics globally. Once at a board meeting for conference centers, she did say to them: “these things are nice of course, but what about accepting children and nursing mothers inside your facility? This is your biggest issue!”. She told me the answer she got from the CIRM at the time was along the line of “What? This has nothing to do with that! This is a legal issue we cannot do anything about”. Well, they could, and at some point, they did."

For me, my first child also went to her first conference when she was three months old.  And we cooked dinner for something like fifteen people during the meeting together. We had babysitters that we took with us to funny places, we did the old routine of "I just talked, give me the baby so that you can go talk" (when both of us were teaching), I gave talks holding on to the baby and pacing up and down to make her go back to sleep, etc. I like what I do and I wasn't going to let my children stop me from doing it.

What makes me tired is that we write letters, complain, organize petitions and we win some. But then the next week, the month or the next year, we're back at square one. It can be really tiring sometimes.


Prof Ilka Agricola's letter

Dear Colleagues,

in October 2014, I was invited to attend a Meeting at CIRM in Marseille, the "Centre international de rencontres mathematiques", a conference center devoted to mathematics.

My first visit to the CIRM was as a Ph.D. student - I was single, no kids. I enjoyed my stay very much, the atmosphere for exchange and research, the beautiful surroundings. So I was looking forward for visiting the CIRM again.

However, this was not possible. My personal situation has since then changed: I am married, and we have an 11 year old son. My husband is a professor of mathematics as well, working in the same area. So in fact, I have to correct my statement: We were both invited by the organizers to be regular participants of this meeting. We therefore informed the organizers and the CIRM that we would like to bring our son. Of course, we would pay his expenses and organize a "baby sitter" for him, so that he would be occupied during the day.

Our son attended his first conference when he was 3 weeks old. Whenever possible, we leave him at home with suitable child care. But as most scientists, we do not have any relatives in the city where we were appointed professors, so it's not always possible. Our son has accompanied us to research stays all over Europe, South America and Asia. We're great at finding baby sitters wherever we go. We never had any problems, our son was welcome wherever we went. It's clear that we organized things always in such a way that he would not be a burden to organizers or other participants.

But at CIRM, all my past experience in organizing two professors and a kid was useless. I was informed sharp by the CIRM administration:

"For security reasons, children are not admitted at CIRM".

I first thought that this was a joke - our son is not dangerous, after all? But it became clear that this is dead serious. It is claimed that the insurance of CIRM "does not cover children", whatever it means. Now, being German, I have more insurances than I would ever need in my life: liability insurance, accident insurance... you name it. I offered to sign anything desired that I would cover all damages my son would cause. Nothing to do.

Instead, the CIRM administration started an outrageous game of shifting duties - weeks, almost months of e-mail exchanges followed. For example, we were told that we should try to find accomodation at the "Cite Universitaire" of the University of Marseille. Guess what they told us ? "We regret that our housing is not appropriate for families". More phone calls, more e-mails - to organizers, CIRM staff, CIRM director etc.

Finally, we gave up and cancelled our participation. And I sent a complaint to the "conseil scientifique de l'Institut National de maths du CNRS", who is part of the scientific committees supervising the CIRM. And, all of a sudden, we were offered to live at CIRM in a separate building. However, our son was still not allowed to enter the CIRM or to have breakfast and dinner there. But then we didn't want to go anymore.

Now, I understand that in the past, people may have abused of the CIRM facilities to have a nice holiday with their families - allegedly, I would think that these would have been male participants bringing their wife and children.

But our situation was different. Being both scientists in the same area, our only option for participating was to travel with our son. It is to be expected that this constellation will be even more common in the future, with more and more women in mathematics. Other situations can easily be imagined where there is just no alternative to bringing a child - a baby being breast-fed, an ill child, a single parent...

So, for me the current CIRM policy means effectively that I am being hindered to "practise" my job as scientist. And this is something that we, female mathematicians, should not accept. It is not a solution that perhaps, once in a while, one of us is successful at making enough ruckus to get an exceptional permission to bring a child - a Ph.D. student or less pushy person would not have succeeded. The policy itself NEEDS to be changed!!!

I am full professor now, I do not need to attend some singular event - if I'm not wanted, I don't go, period. But if I had never been allowed to bring my son anywhere - I would probably not be full professor today!

I firmly describe myself as being "francophile" - I attended a French Lycée in Munich, I have a French Baccalauréat C (high school degree) and even was hounored by a second price at the Concours Général des Lycées. I have some experience with French administration. Hence, this experience really makes me very sad.

I believe that French women mathematicians should urgently advocate a change in policy at CIRM. I would consider it bad style to do this as a foreigner - so, I hereby would like to encourage YOU, mathématiciennes françaises, to fight for working conditions that respect the situation of women in science! Our daily juggling of different responsibilities is already difficult, there is no need to make it harder by rules that are not up to date.

In the meantime, we were both invited to another CIRM meeting. We declined immediatly, it doesn't make sense to repeat the same story over again. Again, I would very much have liked to attend this "rencontre" and meet my colleagues. This shows that the problem will stay if nothing is being changed!

With my warmest regards from Marburg,


Ilka Agricola

Thursday, February 18, 2021

You might think giving birth is a good reason for postponing a job interview...

 I would, really. Clearly not everyone!

Zoé Christoff had to take her case to the Netherlands Court of Human Rights! One wonders what these guys were thinking?? You can read it also on Zoe's own website

One would hope not to have to deal with this kind of hassle when becoming a mother!

Anyways CONGRATULATIONS to Z for the courage to take her case to court, for winning her case and,  for a lovely baby too!

(this post is another one on the series of big and not so big mistreatments of women in Academia! I am collecting the stories and sharing them here.)

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

A ton of feathers is still a ton


So I've decided to publish (anonymous) personal stories from women in our group.

 As I said on 22nd January:

I want to know about your personal stories of
discrimination/slights/sexual harassment/whatever you want to
describe. It can be anonymous (write to my gmail) or public. It can be
small or big--as the women in the documentary "Picture a Scientist" were saying, a ton of
feathers is still a ton. It can be about the work, the way you dress,
the way you smile or not. Feel free! We had an open conversation like this
in the Women in Logic meeting in Oxford 2018, but I was a bit too busy
then to do something about it. Now I can deal with it and I want to!
Help out with the stories, please--even if you told them in 2018
already. #MeToo #gendergapSTEM #willnevergetthere

Anonymous Reply

 There are dozens of things I could mention from my career
in engineering, mathematics, and logic/philosophy.  Even as I imagined
writing them down, the feeling of "Who's going to believe it" arises.
I have selected examples that are particularly objective.  Here are
the first two:

 Differential Treatment in Mathematics MA program

1. As a graduate student supported by a Teaching Assistantship in a
mathematics department:  our schedules were very tight, as we had
heavy teaching loads along with coursework.  Often the only time to
work on assignments was the weekend.  One professor set the due date
for Friday.  When I remarked to a male peer that the situation was
utterly impossible, he replied: "Oh, I got an extension until Monday.
Just ask for an extension."  So I did. To my surprise the professor
laughed at my request condescendingly, denying me any extension beyond
5pm Friday.  He found the situation I was in humorous.  I was stunned.
Weeks later, a woman officemate remarked to me that the professor gave
extensions to all the men who asked, but denied extensions to the
women who asked.

2.  At the end of the MA degree in that same mathematics program,
there was an oral examination consisting of being asked to present,
without notes, any of the proofs or problems from a set of ten that
were mutually agreed upon ahead of the oral exam.  I thoroughly
prepared to be able to present any of the ten problems/proofs upon
request.  The exam began, and I launched into a reply to the first
proof requested.  I hadn't written three lines on the blackboard
before one of the professors interrupted and said, "Well, we know you
can do all those - you've prepared for them."  Then he asked me
questions about topics that I hadn't prepared for, and couldn't be
expected to know.  None of the other professors intervened to get the
oral exam back to the expected protocol.  After torturing me with
questions I hadn't prepared for for an hour, I was asked to leave the
room so the examiners could discuss my performance.  After waiting
some time in humiliation, my advisor came out and said  "They passed
you.  Your written work [over the course of the MA program] was much
better than your oral performance [on the MA oral examination that
day]."   There was never any recognition that the exam protocol had
been violated to practically guarantee that result.
    Later, I ran into a male MA candidate who had also recently had
his oral examination.  He commented about the experience, saying
something to the effect of "That was a joke."  "How do you mean?" I
asked, hoping to commiserate.  I was stunned by his answer.  "Well,
you must know.  They don't ask you any math questions, they just chat
with you, like, they asked me, 'How was your summer?  What are you
doing next year?' "



Saturday, January 23, 2021

``Picture a Scientist"

``Picture a Scientist" is a new documentary  about women scientists and how they just want to do their work and how people (mostly white old men) don't let them. The trailer is in there was an event to discuss the film where I learned about the reports

The links:

[1983 CSAIL Report] “Barriers to Equality in Academia: Women in Computer Science at MIT”:

[1999 MIT Report] “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT”:

[Fall 2019 CSAIL Report] Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the CSAIL Community:

The 2018 report by the National Sciences Foundation that Nancy Hopkins refers to: 2018 Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

I was very struck by something I think Karen Sollins (one of the 1983 original document proposers) said. Paraphrasing slightly "we were lucky that there were enough of  us  so that we could anonymize the cases and the people involved". She seemed to say that to describe issues of  race and sexual orientation would've been even harder to do, as the numbers are even smaller.

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Women in Logic 2021 in Rome, yay!

So the workshop Women in Logic is back to its original association with LiCS (Logic in Computer Science), which is happening in Rome this year. 

Sandra Alves has a very nice website up and running,  and for the first time I realized that our other efforts are not connected online to the workshop. So in case you're just discovering our work, we have a collection of loosely connected initiatives:

1. We have a Facebook group called Women in Logic with 541 members now. (Since the atrocities in Burma, people are leaving Facebook which means we have to decide what to do.)

I need to write a summary of the achievements of the group, but we have been going on since (I believe) 2015. Prof. Rineke Verbrugge and I are administrators. The reason I believe so is that FB tells me I've posted a spreadsheet called

Document in July 15, 2015 at 7:02 AM

2. We have two spreadsheets that I think are helpful. The first called simply Women in Logic lists women working in all manners of Logic(computing, philosophical, mathematical), using tabs for continents. Everyone (from students to retirees) are expected to add themselves there, please. This spreadsheet was  started by Prof Catarina Dutilh Novaes

The second is an attempt to list (female or mostly not)  invited speakers in conferences in Theoretical Computer Science where logic plays a major role. This was done mostly by  Prof. Brigitte Pientka and her collaborators.

3. Since the Association for Symbolic Logic is the logician's professional association, Prof Johanna Franklin did a very thorough job of trying to discover the names and numbers of female Invited Speakers and organizers of special sessions. This was described in a series of blog posts, starting at "Gender  Ratio of Speakers at ASL Meetings".

4. We have a mailing list Women in Logic and a Slack channel, that you need to ask to join.

5.  Sara Uckelman reminded me: don't forget the Women in Logic twitter! I am very thankful to Sara for doing this work!

The workshop Women in Logic is its 5th year and 2020 was the largest one so far with more than 90 people online, I believe. 

Given that all of us organizers, plus Invited Speakers, PC members, talk presenters and reviewers, and many others not mentioned by name above only work on this kind of outreach whenever possible, I think we're accomplishing a lot! 

More importantly, when in June 2020 there was a call for STEM to stop working and pay attention to its lack of inclusivity, it was very nice to have fellow logicians cite our work with women's rights as an example to be emulated.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Inclusive Logic Day by Nastassja Pugliese

This is an Invited Post by Nastassja Pugliese, Assistant Professor at UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The day of inclusive logic (#ShutDownLogic) was proposed in the context of the #ShutDownStem, #ShutDownAcademia, #Strike4BlackLives movement as a day to stop research and put together a plan of action to end systemic racism in academia. On June 10th, 2020, members of the Logic Supergroup, an international group of logicians belonging to different departments in different Universities, hosted a 24 hours long event to work together on academic accountability and on specific tasks to address racial inequality in logic. The day was divided into slots that specific researchers decided to use for different kinds of discussions.

During the meeting, there was a consensus that logic, as most of Academia, has a long history of inequalities that contributes to the view that it is an exclusionary discipline espousing racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression. Because the main historical figures, acting professionals and researchers that gain recognition are white and male, logic as a discipline and as a practice is a key academic space to be occupied with explicit anti-racist initiatives. 

The slot we occupied was hosted by Valeria de Paiva, Elaine Pimentel, Gisele Secco, and myself. We focused on making two points: raise geopolitical awareness for how racism expresses itself differently across cultures, and suggest that some practices put forward by the Women in Logic, such as collection and publication of demographic and diversity data, can also be undertaken for BIPOC in logic. 

I started by pointing out that the talk of race in Brazil is still taboo and racial self-identification is full of misunderstandings. Our history as a racial “melting pot” was used to espouse the wrong view that Brazil is a racial democracy, making it harder for a collective recognition of our share of systemic racism.

Given our history of miscegenation, racism operates together with colorism. Colorism tells that there is a direct relationship between the strength of the violence one suffers and the degree of darkness of one's skin tone: light-skin blacks/mestiços are more easily accepted and suffer less oppression than dark-skin blacks. This layering of skin-tones and the associated prejudices contributes to a massive problem in self-identification for there is a tendency of mestiços (“pardos”) to consider themselves (and be treated) as whites. This problem of racial self-identification is a result of structural racism, of taking advantage of the privilege of being of a lighter color, but also of misinformation about race and history. This self-identification problem, if not solved, will continue to feed racism because it is an underlying cause of its systematic nature. 

I illustrated the problem with the graph above representing the number of PhD students in Philosophy, in Brazil, in 2018 according to the markers of gender and race (source CAPES open data, open data made available by CAPES, the Brazilian governmental institution that keeps track of post-graduate students, online at 

The graphic tells us a lot, including that the demographic situation of black men (“homem negro”) is worse than that of white women (“mulher branca”) and of mixed-race men and women (“homem pardo” and “mulher parda”). This is a topic to be further investigated and discussed.  But the self-identification problem I pointed out before is evidenced in two categories in the graphic: “não dispõe de informação” (no information given) and “não declarado” (not declared). These categories represent the majority of the students. It is symptomatic, in my view, that around 56% of the totality of students (906 out of 1,598) either chose not to declare their race or the data gathering structure somehow could not inform their racial identification. Breaking the total of PhD students into a gendered analysis we have that 51% of the PhD male students (683 out of 1,338) chose either not to give their racial information or the system could not gather this information about them. In the group of women, the percentage is the same (51%), so out of 431 PhD students, we lack information for 223 of them. 

We think it is high time to further stimulate and consolidate the racial self-identification talk in Brazilian academia and the logic community. For a start, we have to recognize that the experience of race is different for each social group and assume that the racial experience of another might be incommensurable with your own racial experience. This also means not treating all BIPOC as if they were a homogeneous group with a single history of oppression. Hence, in discussing racial inequality we should be careful (1) not to appropriate a specific fight to promote another group’s agenda, and (2) not to add minority groups together to make a more palatable (and conservative) demand. Expressing solidarity and walking together is only a powerful political strategy when we recognize and continue to be aware that some minorities “pass” more easily than others, i.e., have privilege in relation to other minority groups. 

Finally, as part of this diverse group of Brazilian women logicians acting on distinct areas of logic, I would like to further engage in one more topic:

Curriculum development: What we do depends on how we learned to do it. It is high time we focus on logic education and the dynamics of the classroom space. Problems such as stereotype threat and the solo effect contribute to a climate in the classroom that is detrimental for the growth of BIPOC. We should look for an interdisciplinary approach to logic in courses where students can specifically learn the history and discuss diversity. Hence, it is important, as highlighted during the event, to have more scholars engaging in the history of logic in order to localize racist, sexist, and xenophobic claims in the given authors. The goal is to dissociate these arguments from the image of the field of logic so as to improve the structure and the professional experience for diverse students and professionals.

Finally, during our talk in the inclusive logic day, we recalled some practices put forward by the Women in Logic initiative and suggested that it would be important, for the sake of accountability, to collect and publish demographic and diversity data. We also talked about keeping track of BIPOC that have been invited for key conferences and that are part of societies and associations. The idea here is to build our collective memory and make sure we recognize their work properly.

This topic deserves another blog post, so I will end here. For now, if you got interested, you can read former posts on this blog to get informed on the initiatives that have been happening so far. And please share these initiatives with people that will benefit from knowing that they are not alone.