That would be the University of Texas at San Antonio, and they were released by their Provost, Kimberly Espy.
Here at UO, interim HR director Missy Matella spoke to the general membership meeting of the faculty union about UO’s pay equity study tonight. Several faculty asked about why the administration had not released the regression results from the consultant’s report, which they are now using to decide who gets how much in equity raises.
Matella’s response was that we could always make a request to Kevin Reed’s Public Records Office. I pointed out that this office does not have a good track record when it comes to transparency, and that this would hurt trust in the gender equity process. She then suggested that we talk more about this offline. I don’t like having conversations about transparency offline, so I’m posting this online.
Its stupid to analyze the sample on masse
the area between 100 and 150 on actual salary looks like
there are a lot more blue points above the line than orange points
sorry too fast
between 100 and 150 on the X-axis
the mean position for the blue points above the regression
line looks noticeably higher for blue than orange
Here’s the problem.. the salary equity study is having a hard time finding inequity.
Ihats mostly because UO doesn’t have a big equity problem usually created by large retention raises because the UO usually doesn’t offer large retention raises . People get small retention raises or they leave.
This is disturbing and depressing. Recent experience is suggesting that information is being selectively and improperly withheld in more than a few current cases. Matella and others need to think seriously about what they are doing.