Affirmative Action for Females

The affirmative action policy to admit female applicants, particularly in the humanities, a grade-point lower than their male counterparts at UG actually commenced in 1999, and accounted for the enrolment of 1,002 women between 2003 and 2007. Women’s enrolment ratio subsequently rose from 25.9% in 1998 to 41.2% in the 2007/08 academic year (UG, 2007: 40).

During my interview with HOP2, he touched on how UG’s affirmative action for females is significantly shoring up the number of females in the institution;

…for females also, when the cut-off are say 15, they go a grade below to admit for the humanities; to admit the females because with that policy now, the proportion of female students has gone up quite a bit, it used to be about 20%, 30% but now it's 40 coming to almost 50% which is very good.

So I proceeded to ask about the fairness or otherwise of the policy, especially to the males.

He emphasised:

Oh why is not fair? We want to increase the number of females in the population and they all qualify so you need a 100 places and you got 80 males and females and you want 20, and you say the 20 I'm giving to females to make up; that's the rationale. (HOP2)

So obviously, UG’s principal rationale for instituting such a policy for female applicants was geared towards achieving gender parity. To be certain, I further asked HOP2 if the initiative is the University’s own solution to the problem of low female enrolment in Ghanaian universities. He confirmed:

Yeah that's it! And, but you know some of the problem also comes from lower levels because as they come to senior secondary school, enrolment in science for girls is quite low, and so with the science you can't even get them. In the science they normally tend to go the biological sciences. Medical School for example, some of the best students tend to be female. They go in their own merit; for them they don't have this one point below;

it is competed. (ibid)

His comments however bring to mind one of the major weaknesses associated with the implementation of affirmative action policies in HE; which is that the exclusion transcends the borders of HE. The roots of the problem can be found at the lower levels of education, and that it is only the symptoms that are manifest at the HE level (see Weisskopf, 2007; Fraser, 1995).

130 HOP2 further explained why the UG focuses its affirmative action policy for females on the humanities, alluding to the low enrolment of girls in the sciences at the lower levels as a contributing factor:

Because that's where the largest numbers are and that is where it can make a difference, you know; and like I said in the sciences we don't even have them so it's difficult to give that policy (HOP2).

The report of a panel of experts on the operations of UG had in fact recommended that additional methods be exploited to achieve gender parity; stressing that the policy should be uniformly implemented across the various fields and scrapped once parity of the genders has been achieved:

The University should actively identify additional policies and methods for moving towards gender parity. For instance, qualified female applicants, irrespective of their aggregates, could be offered admission into programmes where women are severely under-represented, such as the sciences, especially the earth, mathematical and physical sciences. When parity is attained, the lower aggregate admissions policy should be terminated. The policy of lower admissions aggregates for women students should be applied uniformly throughout the University…. (UG, 2007: 41)

My interview with the students and graduates surprisingly revealed that majority (from both institutions) of the female participants were not in favour of the affirmative action policy for females. They thought that such a policy reinforces the perceived inferiority of the female gender and also leads to the stigmatisation of same. I asked if the implementation of the policy should continue or females should be allowed to compete with their male counterparts equally for admission slots. While SP13 argues that the policy makes the females feel intimidated in the presence of their male counterparts, SP1 bluntly discourses that it treats the males unfairly:

I think so [competition], because once you start giving concessions to the females because you think they are underrepresented; fine, they are trying to be fair, but then it puts the point there that truly females and males are not the same, do you get my point?

But if we know that we are all / let's say if the cut-off point for males is maybe six, for females five, then you go to class like the guys can ask /but because we all know that we all equally got the same results, we all wrote the same exams, we went for the same interview and no concession or whatever was given, you know that, yeah, I'm on the same level with you but if concession is given, even though it will be fair to the general female thing, but doing something else, the girls may be intimidated. (SP13, female, Medicine)

Yes, they should allow everybody to compete at the same time. Let me put it this way, if maybe you are a lady and you want to offer Engineering, do they still give you the opportunity to offer it a lower grade or they will allow you to compete with the guys at the same level? So why should, in humanities, like the grade be cut down in humanities?

I think it's not fair to the guys anyway, it's like females are saying that what a guy can do they can also do better so if they can do better, then they should level the ground for everyone to compete, yes! (SP1, female, Sociology & Social Work)

131 SP1’s comment elicited a reaction and a follow-up question from me. Having early on mentioned some of the challenges females encounter with their education, I asked if she did not think that it is fair for such a policy to give females some consideration to compensate them for how some of the challenges they encountered have impacted their academic performance. She offered a rebuttal and indicated that if the root of the problem is dealt with there would be no need for such concessions:

[Chuckles] You know, that's why I'm saying that the whole thing can change from home.

If they stop this female, female thing, the ground can be levelled for everyone to compete, yes! So they should stop that female duties and chores from home so that they will give both the guys and girls equal opportunity to study and then when you don't make it as a female you know that you didn't try, not because there was a limitation, yeah. (ibid)

SP3’s comments smack of the remediation rationale for affirmative action in HE (see Moses, 2004), but in the same vein, she argues that females have had enough of such concessions so it’s about time they are allowed to compete equally with their male counterparts; and that the continuous use of affirmative action is an insult to female intelligence:

I think that it shouldn't continue. Yeah, because if you keep doing that men will keep looking down upon women. They will see us, like, we are not intelligent enough. Even though the University wants to increase… it should be an equal ground. I earlier talked about giving them [females] the chance to first make up for the past years and then come back and then, but I think they've made up enough. At least, we can't just find three women in like one class or something. To an extent, it's quite fair, so I think for now we should start looking at everybody as equal. So if we are saying we are equal then we should fight for the same this thing. (SP3, female, History)

She further objects to the University focusing attention on the humanities, arguing that such a policy would rather make a difference in the sciences. Her view is directly opposed to that of HOP2 who had argued that the affirmative action for females should focus on the humanities:

Yeah, for the humanities I don't think so, but maybe for the sciences that can be continued, but for the humanities there are a lot of women, females in the classrooms, you can see sometimes the females are even more than the males but in the sciences that's not the case. (ibid)

Her comments on intelligence resonate with SP15 who also regards the policy as patronising;

I don't see that as a competition, because if it's with the mind [intelligence] and IQ, I don't think guys have a higher IQ than ladies, so I don't see why you cut us down. Except, of course, they think they [females] shouldn't be in the university and then as way of getting them to the university they do that, but then if it's with the mind I don't think it's worth it. (SP15, female, Nursing)

She was also of the opinion that there should be equal competition for admission between the genders and further rejected concessions for females. She would only approve of

132 concessionary admission for females if it is based on other factors other than the fact that women are intellectually inferior:

No, I don't think it's necessary if it's based on IQ. If it's based on other, some other reason, then it might be necessary. Like I said, sometimes they think that you will get married so the guy is supposed to work so the guy is supposed to go university. If it's that then they could do that, but if it’s with the mind and learning then I don't think it's necessary.

(ibid)

The views of SP11 and GP1 are in direct conflict to that of SP3 and SP15. They argue that the males have superior intelligence and so the affirmative action admission policy for females is still warranted as a consequence of that:

Some scientific research prove that guys actually, they pick up faster than girls. Guys actually their brain is more; not that they are better than girls but they tend to pick up.

Girls are easily distracted; OK, one of my friends he keeps saying that it's very impossible finding a female surgeon because after like 26, after your get your doctorate degree [medical degree] nothing really pushes you to go on to be a surgeon. But guys, they want to, they just want to study so if you are put on the same, it won’t; OK it will be fair but until it gets to a point where we are more like co-equals then they should continue.

(SP11, female, Engineering)

So SP11 believes that affirmative action for females is justified because they are easily distracted and does not also see the genders as being equal, stopping short of providing the source of the scientific research she alludes to. When I asked about the fairness of the policy to the male gender she affirmed:

Yes, because we live in a gender-biased society. There is gender inequality and this is one of the ways to even-up; to make the scales even (ibid).

Understandably, like SP3, SP11 also attempts a legitimation of affirmative action by appealing to both the remediation and the social justice logics. She further argues that females are more disposed to dropping out as a result of the distractions they face on campus. Asked as to why the females would drop out she proceeded to give some details to back her claims;

…the girls, because a lot of distractions are around; a lot of things that will distract you from your studies like guys, like dressing, cooking. But me I'm not really bothered about my looks, like I have to fix my nails, I have to fix my hair. Meanwhile, the time I'm sitting in the saloon my friends are having group studies so I can't go and sit in the saloon and fix my hair, do you get me?... My Mum is always fighting with me. When I was coming this semester she said she was changing my wardrobe because of the way they look;

they look too boring because I have not been dressing. I'm not bothered but most girls are, so this is what is going to distract them, do you get me? Yes, the girls who are distracted; I have friends [males] who hardly study they always party but they still do well but if you are a girl and you go and follow him you just waste your life, do you get it? (SP11, female, Engineering)

She believes that society expects too much from women and further attributes the distractions facing females to social engineering and construction:

133 It's normal because of the way society has made us, because if I come to class and I look /a guy comes to class and he hasn't combed his hair nobody is bothered. But if I come to class as a girl, I'm supposed to look neat, I'm supposed to be clean because much is expected of me by the society in that perspective. So if they want to even the scale, then they should treat all of us like guys too… if you like let me go and wear a shoe that is torn;

just because I'm a girl someone is going to talk about it. So that is why the girls are more likely to drop out along the line than the guys. (ibid)

As I mentioned earlier, the opinion of GP1 does not differ from that of SP11 on affirmative action for females. She affirms the superiority of male intelligence:

Although we have exceptional ladies, but I think in percentage wise males perform better than females (GP1, female, Publishing Studies Graduate).

To my question “so are you saying the men are more intelligent than the women?” She emphasised: “Men are; per circumstances and all that, men are at advantage”. The reason she offers for the men advantage does not diverge from that of SP11:

I think men per their make-up and all, don't/ even if the person goes and fools about he can still come and settle down and learn; but ladies, after all, you have to come and sit down again. And ladies will be thinking about what happened again till they settle and start learning, you see. (GP1, female, Publishing Studies Graduate)

As a follow-up, I asked if she thought that men are naturally made to excel to which she replied: “I think it can be, it can be” (ibid). Having graduated as the best student in her programme specialisation, I then questioned where she would put herself in her own argument, having regard to the excellent performance she put up. Her answer very much mirrors SP11’s argument on distractions females face on campus although the two individuals are from different institutions:

Yes, I think it's about disciplining yourself; and that too most ladies can't do, and how to schedule your time and all, when to do what? (GP1, female, Publishing Studies Graduate).

The results also revealed a dichotomy between the male student-participants who responded to UG’s female affirmative action admission policy. SP9 contends that the challenges females encounter in the course of their education merits the adoption of such a policy. He goes beyond the Ghanaian context to examine the issue from a continental African perspective:

I believe it's a good policy and the backdrop is also right because females face all sorts of social, economic challenges when it comes to getting admissions to tertiary institutions. Especially, based on the notion — the African notion —that one day she will get to her husband's house; and that is also a challenge. And other challenges might include using, so to say, the girl-child in the market to help, in the house to help, and any other activities available. And especially in Africa, the female child is deprived of most educational benefits and so northern parts of most African countries, they have children marrying at very early age. (SP9, male, Agriculture)

134 SP9 does not want female students to compete equally with their male counterparts for admission slots in the universities. I quizzed him about how he would have felt if his admission slot was taken up by a female with a grade-point lower than his; if he would still have seen that to be a fair deal. He still demonstrated his sympathies for the cause of women:

Well, it depends on what our definition of fairness means. If it's a general look of the whole process where female students struggle to get through the SHS, and getting monies to pay for fees would have to come by hawking in the streets, and going through that ordeal to pay for fees and still get that same academic grade to go to university, I think it's fair enough. It [losing admission] wouldn't be much of a problem. (ibid)

SP16 is not the least enthused, however, about the policy, and does not hide his antagonism:

I know this for UG that they have cut-off for females and cut-off for males, but KNUST I don't know something like that. Looking at that thing, let's say we are all students; those days they say ‘You are a lady, sit in the house, do some things in the house and let the gentlemen go to school’, it has become a (?), but that era is passed. So even now, we have a lot of women who are making more money or living good lives than men so that thing has to be eroded. We all have to compete for the same cut-off point; something like that!

Because if you do something like that, it's like they are considering[favouring] the female student, and it's not fair. (SP16, male, Political Studies)

Apparently, neither the remediation nor social justice rationales for affirmative action appeal to SP16, and unlike SP9, he does not see discrimination against girls as an issue in the contemporary Ghanaian society. He does seem to share the opinion of some scholars that affirmative action often results in reverse discrimination and arbitrary favouritism (Fraser, 1995; Weisskopf, 2007; Morley & Lugg, 2009; D’Souza, 1991; Glaser, 1988).