Blair on Glass Ceiling

Anita K. Blair does a disservice to many struggling, educated, skilled women in “Shattering the Myth of the Glass Ceiling” (Commentary, May 7). Affirmative action should not be defined as merely opening doors of opportunity, nor should the glass ceiling be called a myth. Doors may be open wide or merely a crack, and of those who squeeze through the door, most remain below the glass ceiling. Much depends on the profession and whether it is predominantly male. Women represent a vast range of specialized skills, so why are some underpaid and thwarted in attempts to advance? Why should women only seek niches that are traditionally acceptable for women?

Affirmative action cannot be dismissed as having achieved its goal or not. It has been an arduous trek uphill. Goals have been achieved but the struggle persists. Women have gained, and broken barriers, in many fields of endeavor, but not all. Salary inequities have diminished, but not totally. Affirmative action is still necessary.

JOAN FORMAN

Redondo Beach

* Blair cites one study to argue that when you control for age, education, experience and history of childbirth, women make 98% of the earnings of their male counterparts. Therefore there is no wage gap, ergo there is no glass ceiling. Not only is the logic bad, so is the evidence.

What was the survey’s sample size? Did it include people employed in the public and private sectors? Did it control for industry? Region? Did it consider the differential impact of family or parental leave on men and women?

More important, why did the survey control for those women who have had a child? Simple. Take women who have had a child out of the sample because including them will make the wage gap greater. Women who work and have children continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burdens associated with balancing careers and families.

DENNIS FALCON

Research Associate Tomas Rivera Center

Scripps College, Claremont