“Our sisterhood: The first nine Latina women at Tech”

“When groups of internationals tend to congregate together and speak their own language, this arouses suspicion on the part of Americans… Most people do not appreciate being around people who are speaking a language that they do not understand”.¹  This was part of the international student information packet that was given to all non-US citizens upon their arrival at Georgia Tech in the 1970s. Leaving the place you grew up behind, in search of better opportunities, getting into a great university, excited to learn and expand only to be shunned for speaking your own language before you even had the opportunity to.

One of my peers, when reviewing this article, read that first paragraph and said “The quote is quite honestly shocking. To suppress an individual’s culture and language in order to prevent suspicion in others is something we could not imagine today.” However I do not have to imagine it, I live it. One of my close friends on campus, a fellow international student from the Dominican Republic, is currently being investigated by the Office of Student Integrity for speaking Spanish with a friend right before an exam. An American thought that was “suspicious” enough to file a complaint against her, which might permanently affect her student record. 

In the same International student information packet of the 70s, along with information about visas, jobs, classes another section stood out to me. It said, “Of all the peoples in the world, probably the ones most concerned about personal cleanliness– believe it or not– are the Americans… most Americans bathe once a day and if this is not possible, at least once every two or three days”.1 My country has similar weather to that of the Atlanta summer, so when I first arrived here it was shocking to me that Americans only showered once a day, so when I read that sentence, I could not help but laugh. Keep in mind this document was given to every international student and so they could feel first-hand Americans’ sense of superiority, and ability to make every statement a condescending one. 

It’s always difficult to talk about Latinoamerica with those from first-world countries. If I speak about the struggles, the American’s view of poor Latin America, pitiful Latin America, and sad Latin America stays alive. If I speak about the good things, I am creating a narrative that may only be true to those privileged enough to enjoy it. American imperialism has caused my country and many others in Latin America great pain. Most Latin American international students here chose to come to either escape that or learn enough to go back and change it.  However, it is heartbreaking that the tools and the power to solve the world’s most pressing problems, like poverty and climate change, lie in the hands of those that most contribute to their causes. The truth is Latin America is a beautiful land, full of many countries and cultures. Centuries of imperialism and colonialism that continue today have hurt it so much, with women especially suffering the consequences.
At this college, women were first admitted to degree-awarding programs in the fall of 1952.² More than two decades later, in 1976, was the first time a Latin American woman came to Georgia Tech. Nine of them came to be exact.¹

These are their stories:

Betsy Ines Aquin was a History major from Panama.¹ She was a Zonian, which refers to those who lived or were associated with the Panama Canal Zone, which even though was in Panamanian land, was occupied by the United States. They were known to live a life of luxury in secluded tropical communities close to the Bay of Panama. Most Zonians were United States citizens. Betsy, however, was born in Panama City. In High School, she was part of the French, Latin, Math, Spanish, and Showcase club.⁵

Betsy had a sister who was a year younger called Maribel. Maribel Aquin was born in 1955 and majored in Industrial Engineering at Georgia Tech in 1976. In high school, Maribel followed her sister’s footprints and was a part of the French, Latin, Math (of which she was the president), and Showcase club along with the science club and the school chorus. 

                   

                                                                           

Maria Adel Canahuati came to Tech alongside her two brothers, both of whom were studying Industrial Engineering.¹ She, on the other hand, decided to study architecture. They all came from Honduras to Atlanta in the 70s. One of her brothers is now a small politician in Honduras.⁸ Her graduate thesis, which she presented in 1980, was titled “An analytical study of the architecture of Luis Barragan” who was a Mexican architect. In it she said, “I feel a need to develop a commitment to and a sense of compassion for the culture and the environment in which I perform. I want to express myself humanistically by respecting the environment and its cultural traits, I would like to express myself with a degree of flexibility without divorcing architecture from art”.⁹ For me, this quote represents the importance of involving people from different backgrounds in professional areas. The diversification of points of view, ideas, interpretations, and solutions can only benefit everyone around us.     

Maria F. Oporeza was an architecture major from Venezuela.¹ She was a senior in 1977 but was not part of the student records until 1976 which leads me to believe that she may have transferred to Georgia Tech.

Also from Venezuela, Thamara Rios and Maria Josefina Moros were graduate students studying industrial engineering and architecture respectively.¹ 

Maria Josefina Moros and Thamara Rios at Georgia Tech4     

                             

Angela Merici Chin was a Biology major from Jamaica. She and Cuban Math major Martha M Nunez were the first international female students from the Antilles.¹ Information about all of these women was hard to find. Foreign student records do not show the sex of each student, so while researching, one is forced to make assumptions based on names. A lot of names were put as a simple initial because they did not fit. Sometimes history, especially the history of minority groups like international students, is reduced just as their names were. Truthfully, one of those could have been a woman, and it is possible the first Latin American woman did come before 1976. For 1975, there were not even records available for international students. However, these nine women are sure to have been among the first group of Latin American women at Georgia Tech.

Foreign Student Records¹   

They would now be roughly the age of my grandmother. She was not allowed to go to college because to do so she would have to move to a different city. Her parents thought it would not be worth it. She was a woman, so there was no reason to go through all that trouble. It is astonishing how many prejudices and obstacles these women were able to overcome in order to move countries and attend Georgia Tech. They have created a precedent and paved the way for the next generations of Latin American women to come here and succeed.

 

Email about available scholarships for Georgia Tech students  

That does not mean however that walls that have prevented women from Latin America to come here have been broken down. Apart from the prejudices that prevent women and Hispanics from going to college and studying STEM-related majors, international students face an additional financial barrier. There are close to zero scholarships or loans available to us. Almost every international student that you meet has the privilege to be able to afford to be here.  

Being an international student from Latin America also has its blessings. We are all so different, in language, culture, and ideas, but so similar that we are able to connect with each other before we even meet. I know there are at least twenty girls from about eight countries in Latin America in my year alone. I know I can count on them as if they were my family. I shall remain endlessly thankful to the nine women named here, and the many that were left unnamed. I know many more will join our hermandad.

Sources:

• [1] Foreign Students, 1976. Office of the President: Arthur G. Hansen Records, SERIES 4. Archives and Special Collections, Library, Georgia Institute of Technology. 1976, https://finding-aids.library.gatech.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/61876 Finding Aid
• [2] “Women at Tech Timeline.” Georgia Tech College of Engineering,  2011, coe.gatech.edu/news/2015/02/women-tech-timeline. 
• [3] Cordova, Hugo M. DIARIO OFICIAL. Republica De El Salvador En La America Central, 15 May 2006, https://www.diariooficial.gob.sv/diarios/do-2006/05-mayo/15-05-2006.pdf. ‌
• [4] Georgia Tech Student Publications. BluePrint, 1977. Georgia Institute of Technology, 1977. 
• [5] Zonians 1972. Vol. 63, The Journalism Department of Balboa High School. 
• [6] Georgia Tech Student Publications. BluePrint, 1976. Georgia Institute of Technology, 1976.
• [7] Zonians 1973. Vol. 64, The Journalism Department of Balboa High School. 
• [8] Scott, Gale. “Honduran Ambassadorís Wife Balances Children, Charity, Husbandís Political Run.” The Washington Diplomat, 2005, https://web.archive.org/web/20111003011252/http://www.washingtondiplomat.com/Jan-05/b2_01_05.html. 
• [9] Canahuati, Maria Adel, and Architecture. An Analytical Study of the Architecture of Luis Barragʹan. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008.

Jacob Harris

Motivations and Concerns

Throughout the history of science, men have had the clear upper hand in terms of not only getting an education in the several arts and sciences but also the ability to advance their fields through research, and more specifically, lab work. When asking the general public to name famous and influential  scientists, a publication in “Psychology of Women Quarterly” shows that mostly men are identified (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0361684315622645). This result shows a stigma against women in science. In this article, we will dive into how this problem has reciprocated at Georgia Tech and the direction that Tech is taking regarding sexism in research. We will look at faculty stats, research done, the culture surrounding research, and how that culture has evolved since the first female students’ arrival in 1952.

Where We Came From

As society has become more accepting of women in science, it would make sense for Georgia Tech to at least somewhat follow the norm. In today’s Georgia Tech, as will be discussed later, women are working hard to have equal opportunity in the lab. However, it was not always this way (just as it was not always this way in the rest of the world). The first thing we’ll look at is this image from the early days of Georgia Tech’s labs:

Although the image is not dated in the Georgia Tech Archive, it is clear that it is an “older” picture. This image is captioned “Harrison M. Wadsworth, Jr., graduate assistant in the School of Industrial Engineering, uses the Georgia Tech Auto-Graphic Time Study Machine to time movements in the assembly of air conditioner grills. (Model is Mrs. Wadsworth).” The caption seems to add a lot of impact to the picture regarding how it portrays sexism and women’s relationship to science. First off, looking at the image it is clear that both the man and the women are working on whatever they are doing at the “engineering experiment station”. The women, Mrs. Wadsworth, is actually slightly in the forefront, drawing my attention to her first. After getting my hopes up, I realized the caption strongly downplayed any message of women getting involved in science. It indicates that Harrison M. Wadsworth Jr. is the one doing the work, not his wife that is not even given a first name. Not only this, but she is labeled as a model. She is being used to make science more “attractive” as opposed to encouraging women to participate in research. This also potentially explains why she is in the forefront as opposed to her husband, who might not be as conventionally attractive to the target audience (which is likely men). 

If the last example was any indication where the Georgia Tech research community was concerning gender equality, it was clear that change was needed. Thankfully, this was either recognized or gender equality naturally progressed, as is shown in the 1984 edition of “The Blueprint”. On page 64 of this magazine, there is an article discussing PhD work in architecture with accompanying pictures. The pictures here are what grabbed my attention. Not only are there multiple photographs of women, but there is a picture of a woman of color. This shows significant growth when it comes to inclusion in the scientific community at Georgia Tech. Also, this could still be considered the “then” of Georgia Tech, which shines light on a promising future for inclusion considering the progression from the first example to 1984. 

Although the progress is apparent in this edition of The Blueprint, there was still progress to be made. 

Women appear and/or talked about in the context of architecture, computer science, an unidentified lab, ROTC, and industrial engineering. There are still many sections of this edition that are completely composed of men, generally white men. 

In some kind of contradiction to the first example, there might be some hope that Georgia Tech’s gender inclusion started ahead of the curve. By that I mean Tech might’ve been relatively inclusive for the time when the photo in the first example was taken. I say this under the assumption that this photo was taken at a similar time:

This image appears to be from in a similar time frame as the first example, giving us an interesting counter to the negative implications that we initially saw. This image is uncaptioned and undated, so we must make some assumptions. We see a female scientist or possibly a student, standing in front of what looks like what would be a now antiquated and bulky computer. Not only is she standing in front of it, but she looks like she is showing it off. This negates the possibility of her just being a model; she looks proud to be there. 

From these three examples, we see that while the research opportunities for men and women might not have been equal in the beginning, significant progress was made in a relatively short time. In a magazine issue that we might now consider “old”, there are many examples of women working in science and research. Furthermore, we saw that even if the playing field was not even, Tech had women doing something they could be proud of at a time when that was very rare.

What About Today?

As the previous section and the intro discussed, getting involved in research has been a historical challenge for women. As we progress as a society, however, this problem is slowly being alleviated. Implicit and explicit biases towards women and other groups are still apparent in academia, but the culture around research is slowly evolving to be more inclusive. 

This recent push for inclusivity has become more and more widespread in recent years, and looking at the case of Georgia Tech is a good way to measure this call for action. The first analysis of Georgia Tech we can do comes from the Georgia Tech Fact Book that is published every year. Because this book is published every year, we can inspect the evolution of certain statistics regarding Georgia Tech. The specific statistic we will be looking at is the number of male faculty compared to the number of female faculty. In the 1979-1980 school year Fact Book, the numbers are shocking.  In the College of Engineering, there were 237 male faculty members and 5 female faculty members. If this statistic doesn’t speak for itself, you can compare it against the fact that in the same College of Engineering, there were 3 male clerical/secretarial employees as opposed to 92 female clerical/secretarial employees. This statistic shows that women were not really afforded many opportunities to work in research or in labs, but in positions that required much less specialization. This statistic did not just apply to the College of Engineering, this graph shows the generalization to all departments:

This graph highlights the inequity of job distribution in every single category. Furthermore, the point I made earlier about clerical/secretarial work stands because those bars are the only bars in the graph that show women holding more jobs than men (by a very notable amount too). These conclusions about the job distribution in 1979 set the bar pretty low in terms of how diverse the workforce in science was. If you want to look at this with a glass half full mentality, it’s a horrible statistic but at least that leaves a lot of room for improvement. 

The evolution from 1979 is clear after observing the difference in the 2020 edition of the Georgia Tech Fact Book. The total faculty ratio is 888 men to 393 women. This does show improvement, but it also emphasizes that it has been a slow evolution, especially in the School of Engineering, where there are 383 men and only 97 women. This brings us back to the “why?” question. That is a discussion for another blog, but you can check out this interesting paper: Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists – Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, Elaine Kim, 2016. 

The room for improvement has definitely been noticed at Georgia Tech; not only awareness of the issue but also that the process of change has been too slow. This has been recognized with the foundation of organizations such as the Georgia Tech Society of Women Engineers. This society has done alot for women, including contributing to the fact that “GT is the leading producer of female engineers in the country.” (georgia-tech-swe). They do this through programs that reach out to both the youth and ethnically diverse groups.

Another source that GT has produced is the GT ADVANCE program (overview). This program serves women in science by doing things such as providing seminars on microaggressions. While the need for these programs is sad, it is a good sign of initiative that they exist.

Sources

“Engineering Experiment Station.” Georgia Tech History Digital Portal, https://history.library.gatech.edu/items/show/8272. 

“Engineering Experiment Station.” Georgia Tech History Digital Portal, https://history.library.gatech.edu/items/show/8377. 

“Fact Book.” Fact Book | Institutional Research & Planning, https://irp.gatech.edu/fact-book. 

Georgia Tech SWE, http://www.swe.gtorg.gatech.edu/about/georgia-tech-swe/. 

History.library.gatech.edu. http://history.library.gatech.edu/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=48&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2014.003&output=omeka-xml. 

(https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/42070 if the citation didn’t work)

Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa. “Stereotypes about Gender and SCIENCE: WOMEN ≠ Scientists – Linda L. CARLI, LAILA Alawa, Yoonah Lee, Bei Zhao, Elaine Kim, 2016.” SAGE Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0361684315622645. “Overview.” Georgia Institute of Technology, http://www.advance.gatech.edu/overview.

When you think of technology and engineering, what’s the first person that comes to mind? For me, it’s always some man(probably Elon Musk or Bill Gates). Shockingly, the male sex is considerably more likely to venture into the technology field than the female sex. Deep-rooted gender stereotypes, disadvantaged opportunity, and representation are the source of this. According to a study, .005% of kids drew a woman when asked to draw a scientist. In reality, 43% of US scientists under the age of 75 are women. The misrepresentation is apparent. But because of the molded gender roles women had to take in the 1900s, this figure comes with little surprise. 

However, Georgia Tech has been fighting these standards by building a reputation for launching many women’s careers in technology. Georgia Tech boasts the title of No. 1 for Women in Engineering. But just like many other colleges, Georgia Tech started with only men and had to build a reputation for women to trust their now incredible system.

The makeup of students in the 1940s was all men. It wasn’t until 1952 that the Boards of Regents voted to admit women full time. By 1970, women made up a whopping 1.6% of Georgia Tech’s spring graduates. For 70 years, men were the only ones allowed so it only makes sense that women’s integration into Tech would take time, but to me, the main question was how their integration came across.

Mislead Hesitations

Looking across many sources concerning the recruitment of women to Georgia Tech, I found this survey displaying the hesitations of women for joining. The biggest concern for freshman women was getting financial aid. Another interesting point was that a significantly higher percentage of women did not choose a major field(undecided). This is likely because the negative stigma towards women in technology was still very prevalent and it was safer to go undecided or consider a different area altogether. The ability to explore areas of technology was also less opportunistic for women, so by the time they attended college, it was more likely to not have chosen a major field yet. It also seemed like women felt less prepared for the work they would be doing at Tech. Because of this feeling, numerous women were intimidated into not joining college. 

Based on the data found here, it’s interesting how their performance did not reflect their hesitations for the future. In fact, they were having a better time with their work than men. This just goes to show that women had a societal learned mindset that they had inferior qualifications compared to men. This was quickly disproven with just a few examples. Women were, and still are, told that they are not as talented as men and they need to work harder, but this is completely false. The downplay of a women’s skill only led to more hesitations.

Implementations

Women were still doing something unusual and many backed out just to avoid the stares. There needed to be some kind of implementation for women to be better facilitated for their decision to join the sphere of technology. 

This was one of the proposed implementations for lessening the stress for women to join GT in the 1970s. The Decision Support Feedback Hypothesis was an approach I expected because, to me, one of the biggest stalls with women becoming integrated into technology as a whole was that they are fighting boundaries and standards by doing technology. For women to feel more accepted and involved, they would need more support via aid groups or women societies which is why The Positive Feedback Hypothesis was also proposed. Women faculty being a mode of trust and safety is important because it creates comfort and stability for easy integration. Part of giving support for their decision also includes giving financial aid. Creating organizations for women that would also give this aid would encourage more applications. 

These approaches are what lead to numerous organizations being created for the retention and recruitment of women to Tech. In 1994, the Women in Engineering (WIE) program was found and in 1998 the Center for the Study of Women, Science, and Technology (WST)​ was formed. 

Both of these focused heavily on the retention of women of female students to the technology fields. The Women in Engineering dedicated to this by fostering an environment that encourages curiosity, creativity, and intellectual and personal growth^. The programs have historically been driven by the belief that female students’ success will naturally improve with an improved climate which builds upon the positive feedback hypothesis. WST builds upon the idea of developing a faculty of women by creating partnerships with female research leaders. By facilitating connections for women, they can feel more in place and involved. They can also find like-minded individuals. 

WIE still awards numerous scholarships for outstanding women building upon the foundation created in the past. Today, there is a banquet for all of the women to be recognized in front of a big stage. Awarding financial aid is a great way to encourage women to enter and stay at their school. Georgia Tech properly places importance on it.

Girlbosses

One of the biggest progressions towards integration was adding more female faculty to make women feel more secure. Eventually, there was going to be women that would start taking big strides and becoming leaders and role models for these incoming women. One such woman is Dr. Jane Ammons. 

Dr. Ammons was named chair of the Stewart School of Industrial Engineering in 2011, becoming the first female chair of a College of Engineering school. Her areas of expertise include supply chain engineering with a special interest in developing closed loop, environmentally sustainable systems. Dr. Ammons has published numerous scholarly articles and book chapters, and she and her students have won several research awards.^ She has received eight teaching/faculty awards at the school and university levels. Her activity can be dated to 1987 when she started to serve as an advisor for the Tau Beta Pi student chapter. She has since been engaged in movements for developing Georgia Tech women, students, and faculty. As a true girlboss, she served as the NSF ADVANCE Professor of Engineering from 2002-2006 to advance the career success of women engineering faculty. Dr. Ammons can hundred percent be considered a role model to other women hope to achieve in the technology sphere. Her accolades and successes are a true boast for Georgia Tech. 

Here We Are

Looking at the progress Tech has made, the improved integration is very apparent. The opportunities for women have significantly increased. Before 1950, women weren’t even allowed to study at Tech, but even after, it took a while before women felt some sort of support for their decision to work within technology. The truth is that women were jumping into new territory with little to no support. For women to feel comfort and confidence, it took implementations by Tech to create a body of women faculty and societies(like WIE) so that women could feel involved. It took incredible women who desired real change to become role models. The result of these efforts was a huge step forward for women’s equality for opportunity and success. However, there are still many steps to take. In 2020, a study by AnitaB.org found that 28.8% of the tech force is women. This number can still be improved significantly. How can we improve that?

The Last 10%

Writing this blog post, I noticed that, as part of the male outgroup, I, and many other men, have not been doing my best to improve this problem in my community. So I want to at least share three things we can do to support women in technology. 

1. Respect: Women are oftentimes disrespected whether intentional or unintentional. Men should treat them as equals-women students as peers and women employees as co-workers. Also, valuing an idea or opinion as equal and valid. Respect can also mean little things like listening and not overpowering while a woman is speaking because it is likely for men to interrupt. 
2. Validate: Women going into technology is still not completely normal. Many girls are interested in math and technology when they are young, but steer away from middle school because of the associated stigma. As men, we should be supporting and validating them. For women who are making strides, we should be giving them their props and respect. 
3. Speak Up: One of the greatest challenges women face after sexism is silence from men who have a good conscience. Noticing the injustice and taking action is our biggest role in making women feel comfortable in the tech sphere.

Sources

“Academic Programs.” Academic Programs | Women’s Resource Center, https://womenscenter.gatech.edu/academic-programs.

“Chapter 3: Science and Engineering Labor Force.” NSF, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-engineering-labor-force/global-s-e-labor-force.

“Current Students.” Women in Engineering | Georgia Institute of Technology – Atlanta, GA, https://wie.gatech.edu/current-students.

“Georgia Tech ISYE Georgia Tech ISYE Georgia Tech ISyE.” ISyE, 1 Jan. 1982, https://www.isye.gatech.edu/users/jane-ammons.

“Georgia Tech ISYE Georgia Tech ISYE Georgia Tech ISyE.” ISyE, 21 Jan. 2014, https://www.isye.gatech.edu/news/isye-school-chair-jane-ammons-retire-end-academic-year.

History.library.gatech.edu. https://history.library.gatech.edu/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=48&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2014.003&output=omeka-xml.

Needle, David. “Women in Tech Statistics: The Latest Research and Trends.” WhatIs.com, TechTarget, 2 July 2021, https://whatis.techtarget.com/feature/Women-in-tech-statistics-The-latest-research-and-trends#:~:text=A%202020%20study%20by%20the,technologists%20at%2051%20participating%20companies.

“WIE Banquet and Scholarships.” Women in Engineering | Georgia Institute of Technology – Atlanta, GA, https://wie.gatech.edu/wie-banquet-and-scholarships.

“Women at Tech Timeline.” Georgia Tech College of Engineering, https://coe.gatech.edu/news/2015/02/women-tech-timeline.

“Women in Engineering Recognizes 155 Scholarship Recipients.” Georgia Tech College of Engineering, https://coe.gatech.edu/news/2019/04/women-engineering-recognizes-155-scholarship-recipients.

By Derek Coffsky

Women at Georgia Tech today are given equal leadership opportunities, however, that has not always been the case.  Historically, once women were allowed to attend Georgia Tech they were still not given even options in terms of leadership roles within organizations and groups on campus.  The effects of that unequal representation within the executive committees of organizations at the school were profound, ultimately limiting the future career prospects of women and giving men an unfair advantage.

Looking Back

The first female student was admitted to The Georgia Institute of Technology in 1952.  This great landmark in gender equality occurred only 70 years ago, but what has the university done since then?  In terms of student acceptance, the statistics have improved tremendously.  Currently, around half of all students admitted are women.  This is impressive for any STEM-based college, and especially one that only started accepting students in the 1950s.  So then, in theory, Georgia Tech should be commended for its post-gender-construct perspectives, and congratulated for all of the opportunities the school has given to women.  In reality, this is not the case.

Something that all students currently can relate to is the importance of extracurricular activities in future success.  In other words, you need to join a club or organization in order to attain a good job post-graduation.  It becomes clear at any career fair just how important these can be on a resume, but, the one thing that stands out even more than participation in an organization is a leadership position in said organization. Acquiring a position on the executive committee of your chess club could be the difference between a $50,000 a year job in Wisconsin and a $125,000 a year job at a Fortune 500 company here in Atlanta.  A recent study from Harvard¹ showed that children who were given leadership positions had higher grades, made more friends, and were overall more successful in and outside of school.  This fact is not something to be overlooked.  The bottom-line is: being a leader on campus is key.  And this fact is exactly who women have been at a disadvantage for the majority of their time at Georgia Tech.

Progression

The year is 1952.  Women are now allowed on campus, as per the Student Council.  Now what?  As a woman on campus, there were many restrictions and a noticeable lack of opportunities.  Just because someone was able to take classes at the school does not necessarily mean they can “succeed”, with the term “succeed” referring to prosperity both during and after college.  As discussed earlier, leadership roles can provide both better job opportunities and an abundance of perks dealing with day-to-day life in college, but women were almost entirely cut off from this.  The only female oriented organization that existed at Georgia Tech at that time was the Georgia Tech Faculty Women’s Club³.  This was an organization that was founded in order to improve relationships between the wives of faculty members.  Clearly this was not a club that could help someone’s resume.  It does not take long to look at the school’s yearbook from 1961² and clearly see the overwhelming male presence in comparison to the amount of females active in organizations or part of the Student Government Association.  This relic from the past is a great representation of the completely different culture that was present at Georgia Tech at the time, and does a good job of emphasizing the difference in gender roles then.  Simply graduating from college was not enough to ensure future success, and this was the central issue with Georgia Tech at that time. 

In 1958, the first advancements started occurring as far as giving opportunities to women.  This happened in the form of the founding of the GT Society of Women Engineers⁴.  The purpose of this group is to support the success of female engineers throughout campus.  This organization has clearly had a net-positive effect, giving way to a support-system for women engineers on campus.  In order to ensure prosperity, it is important for a group to stay together and promote self-serving actions and practices.  In other words, women sticking together and helping each other was an extremely valuable task.  

Over the course of the next 60-70 years, countless advancements were made in terms of gender equality and equal opportunities.  Today, women are given exactly the same amount of opportunities as men, if not more.  There are several female-only clubs on campus, such as CHAARG⁵ (Changing Health Attitudes and Actions to Recreate Girls), a group that promotes an increase in different exercising strategies for women.  Compared to before, Georgia Tech is an excellent place to be a female student.  The Student Government Association has now had several female presidents, and constantly has female members in any position within the government.  Even the RoboJackets, a club focused on robotics, a field completely dominated by men, has many female members and has even had women in leadership positions.  This change for the campus has been tremendous, with the leadership chances allowing women to pursue whatever career they want, and acquiring jobs with the same success rate as men.

Counter-Movements

Some could even argue that the change in position on a woman’s role on campus has gone too far.  People might say that a woman was elected to be the President of an organization only because she is a woman.  While this statement is certainly false, it does demonstrate the fact that this type of behavior is possible and shows the progress that women have made over time.  The situation has come to the point where people are suspicious that voters are becoming too nice to women.  This is the polar opposite of the sentiments of the past and represents a large perspective change in people.  Electing somebody just for the sake of electing their demographic is wrong, and people should be elected based more on their merits as a person and on how they fit within their role.  Claiming that a group is guilty of electing somebody because of their demographic and not because the person fits the role just because she is a woman is a clear example of sexism that is still present on campus today.  Luckily, such thoughts are mostly outweighed by the more rational thoughts of others.

One might then wonder: what was the cause of this improvement? The answer to this question is very simple: time, and external factors.  Something as drastic as changing the public’s sentiments about women’s role in technology and engineering, both in and out of college, is not something that can happen quickly.  This was a change that needed to occur over the course of decades, as sad as that is.  In addition to the seemingly inscribed gender roles being slowly overturned, women outside of Georgia Tech were actively working hard to give women more opportunities anywhere.  Women were taking bigger roles within the United States government, and the third wave of feminism was completely underway.  These external factors had extreme effects within the campus itself.  For example, once a woman was elected into the Supreme Court, or appointed to Secretary of State, it made more sense for a woman to be in the Student Government Association at Georgia Tech.  An early successful President of SGA was Susan Sutherland Pina in 1993, at a time when women were more comfortably fitting in within the executive positions at Georgia Tech.  While it is true that male SGA presidents vastly outnumber female presidents, the progress is important to note.  Simply having any female SGA presidents shows that the campus is not afraid of having a woman step up and take control of the internal working of the school, which is a very important quality. 

The Present

A perfect example of a modern trailblazer in terms of female leaders is Maria Warren⁶.  She is currently serving as the President of the Society of Women Engineers, and has been conducting research at the school as well.  This clearly shows an example of a leadership opportunity that did not exist right when women were allowed on campus.  And even once the Society of Women Engineering was founded in 1958, it had not yet grown to the size and prominence that it is today, and employers did not think that the organization held that much weight.  Over time, the role of President of this group became a prestigious one, and now, Maria Warren can likely get most jobs she wants in her field of engineering.  This demonstrates a stark difference between Georgia Tech’s current culture, and that of the past.  Women are finally treated with equal respect and are being given fair chances both inside of the school and after graduation.

Where Are We Now?

When taking a step back and looking at the progression of events from afar, it is evident that female-oriented opportunities have grown in number exponentially since the 1950s and before.  While women were not given many, if any, leadership opportunities when they were first allowed to attend Georgia Tech, they are certainly offered such chances now.  This is as a result of external effects as well as groups being chartered on campus by a series of trailblazing women who desired change.  The importance of leadership roles is apparent, and now anybody could confidently claim that this is something that all female students interested on campus are granted with ease.  It only took 70 years, but women are finally being given the proper and equal opportunities as men that can lead to future success.

Sources:

¹ https://hbr.org/2017/02/research-how-leadership-experience-affects-students

² https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/31238

³ https://finding-aids.library.gatech.edu/repositories/2/resources/25

⁴ https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/36681

⁵ https://chaarg.com/georgia-tech/

⁶ http://www.swe.gtorg.gatech.edu/gradswe/officers/

It’s 1956. Grinning from ear to ear, the charming Barbara Diane Michel goes on stage to receive her diploma as the first woman to graduate from Georgia Tech. To her left, Michel sees crowds on their feet fervently cheering for her; to her right, she sees her proud professors cordially applauding and politely smiling at her. At Tech, this day marked women’s unprecedented victory against the patriarchal system that has bound them with the shackles of gender inequality. From that day onwards, women at Tech were no longer treated with prejudice on the basis of gender and sexism nor were they ostracized on the basis of gender, but as valuable members of the Georgia Tech community.

In reality…

Though that moment was a turning point in the struggle for gender equity at Tech, the scenario I depicted was far from reality. In fact, Michel was not cheered on by anyone in that hall, but rather she was met with the crowd’s blank stares and the professors’ apathetic applause. As she embarked on her journey to attaining a degree at Tech, Michel was met with much disdain and ridicule as the only woman at Tech. For the most part, she was ostracized and ignored, as some professors were not even interested in having her in their classes. Until the 1950s, Georgia Tech was restrictively male only, and females were refused the choice to pursue higher education in the fields of STEM and engineering. Women were deemed less competent than men, and many considered their involvement a colossal mistake and step backwards. Far from being a Tech problem, the educational system in America freely allowed discrimination against females, raising white males from students to faculty on a pedestal of superiority and power. This fed their ego even further with a complete monopoly of all the resources, opportunities, and decision-making, as they felt obligated to have a say in who attends university and who doesn’t. If they don’t have their way – such was the case with Barbara Michel at Tech – they resort to intimidation and implicit abuse.

In March of last year, renowned historian Amy Bix gave a lecture at Georgia Tech discussing the history of American engineering education for women. Bix noted that the strong correlation between engineering and masculinity in 19th and early 20th century America was for the most part a result of white males “ridiculing the whole idea of women engineering. So you get entire sets of technical traditions set in place over the years that link engineering to masculinity.” She further elaborated on her points regarding masculinity by providing some more context on the connection between engineering and the military. The military traditionally never allowed for women to get involved, as women were merely regarded as housekeepers that fed their children and kept the houses clean, while the men were out on the battlefield. At the time, women yearning to study engineering had to do so individually at public land-grant schools, which proved quite strenuous. That resulted in a lot of the press coverage of those few women engineers to be biased in its misogynistic undertone, referring to women as invaders to an unwelcoming field such as engineering intended solely for men.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures …

The turning point to true gender equity and equality of opportunity between the two sexes – according to Bix – was World War II, where a manpower shortage led women to working on assembly lines in manufacturing factories. Icons such as Rosie the Riveter further propelled the notion that women were capable enough of handling complex roles as men were, and that increased the demand for women to start working in place of the men who were on the battlefield.

Unexpectedly, employers were now imploring women to join the workforce, but there was such a shortage in women engineers. Thus, the government, industry, and universities initiated programs to quickly train women in engineering, so they could support the men on the battlefield and win the war. What ensued in the upcoming decades was revolutionary, as women were finally given the right to attend university to pursue their careers in the field of STEM. That, however, didn’t mitigate the social nonacceptance of women in the workplace by other employees until much further. Women seeking to pursue engineering or any field monopolized by men were considered outsiders and oddities.

Tech’s initial effort in making it work…

In 1958, the chapter of Society of Women Engineers (SWE) was founded at Georgia Tech with the mission of empowering women to achieve their full potential in STEM disciplines. For the longest time, women in Tech have been disregarded as engineers, since their male counterparts considered themselves superior in every way possible. Therefore, this step forward crushes all those cultural and societal constructs, exhibiting the level to which the female voice could truly reach. Not only did women fight for what was their right in pursuing higher education at Tech, but they proved themselves in leadership roles through the establishment of the SWE. 

Today, the SWE is a reflection of the continuous successes and exciting opportunities for women at Georgia Tech. With a unique place and voice of their own, these women have created an inclusive environment within such a cut-throat discipline such as STEM. GT-SWE is as active and diverse as you would expect, with approximately 500 undergraduate and graduate members reflecting the myriad engineering and applied science majors on campus. Further, the SWE encourages interest and active participation of women of under-represented ethnic groups, including but not limited to African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Across all socio-economic strata and occupational focus, the SWE is unwavering in its mission to promote inclusion within the organization.

Struggle for inclusivity continues…

In an interview with Dr. Tawana Miller, the first African-American woman to matriculate through the undergraduate program at Georgia Tech, she vividly highlights her struggle to fit in. She reminisces sadly, “When I came in, there were five African-American females. I was the only one that finished.” Miller goes on to expressing how she felt as the only African-American woman at Tech in the early 70s, “I was in there [Georgia Tech] on one mission – to get in and to get out.” This depicts the stress she underwent as the only African-American female to continue her degree, with the other four females leaving as a result of social pressures and expectations. In fact, she goes on to saying in a melancholic tone, “Tech was the worst experience in my life. I bleed gold now..” Despite Miller’s love for the institute, serving as the Steering Committee Co-Chair for the Georgia Tech Black Alumni Association, she makes it clear that her time at Tech – in a period when antiquated sexist and racist beliefs were still a thing – was quite literally the most pain-inducing experience in her life.

The agony Miller had felt in her being ostracized for most of her four years wasn’t an individual experience per se but a shared one amongst all women within the African American community, as they still seek to be accepting of their identities without being cast away.

The struggle towards acceptance at Tech is a journey that women have embarked on in 1952 to finally find a place that they can both learn and enjoy their intellectual freedom. As the struggle continues, so do the efforts to alleviate the emotional wounds inflicted upon women by society. Through the various organizations and initiatives including the Society of Women Engineers and Women of Color Initiative, diversity is finally appreciated and celebrated instead of derided and mocked!

The Growing Minority

What does the word “Minority” mean? A quick google search shows that it means “the smaller number or part” or “a relatively small group of people”. Therefore, when people hear the word “Minority” they think of a small group of people in a population– A group that may be easily overlooked or even forgotten. Thus, when thinking about Hispanics as a minority, it is easy to just explain away why Hispanics are under-represented in many aspects of society; They are a minority after all.

However, Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States. According to the 2019 census, Hispanics make up 18.5 % of the population. By 2060, this number is expected to increase to 27.5%. Hispanics will make up more than a quarter of the United States population.

By definition, these numbers mean that Hispanics are a minority, but these numbers are by no means small or insignificant; Hispanics are a growing minority that are consistently underrepresented, even at Georgia Tech, even though they make up such a large portion of the United States. Luckily, Tech has slowly realized the importance of diversity and has taken steps to address their lack of support and representation for minority students.

Sadly, these measures have been lackluster. Hispanic representation and support at Tech is present, but borderline abysmal. Tech says that diversity is an important aspect of the Institute, but it is evident that Hispanic support and representation has been largely overlooked from when the Institute was founded until the present day.

The Past

Where do we begin?

When I decided to research the change in the Hispanic demographic at Georgia Tech, I struggled immensely with trying to decide when my “then” would be. I conducted extensive research trying to find some type of information on past student life, whenever that past may be. However, when using the Georgia Tech Archives to try to find information on Hispanics at Tech, I found… none. Not a drop. I even tried all of the different words I could think of: Latino, Mexico, Mexican, Spanish, Spain; I tried to account for any word that may have been used throughout Tech’s history to refer to the Hispanic population. I even tried looking in The Blueprint and The Technique archives. No matter how hard I look or where I look, it seems that Tech just does not have many resources on the Hispanic experience on campus.

In and of itself, this lack of history and documentation is a clear indication of how Hispanic students have been largely overlooked by Tech throughout Tech’s history. The fact that there is no information present in the GT Archives about Hispanic students clearly shows that this group has historically not been significant enough to Tech to document– even in the 2000s.

This lack of documentation has led me to have to compare the Hispanic demographic at Tech using the only time periods that do have information: the early 2000s versus the late 2010s.

Hispanic Organizations

Office of Hispanic Initiatives

The early 2000s saw the founding of a couple of different Hispanic organizations on Tech campus. One such organization is the Office of Hispanic Initiatives. This department was created in 2002; The aim of this department is to find ways to recruit Hispanic students to Tech as well as provide support for the current Hispanic students. This department is integral to the success of Hispanic students at Tech— it has brought with it The Goizueta Foundation Scholarship and The Goizueta Foundation Fellowship. Both of these have been implemented with the goal of increasing and retaining the number of Hispanic students at Tech.

This department clearly shows how Georgia Tech started trying to rectify how Hispanics were supported on campus; Tech understood the importance of actual retention, not just admittance of Hispanic students, as shown by their offerings of funds for students. The founding of this organization exemplifies how Tech has understood the need for Hispanic support and started an organization to provide such support.

“In addition to scholarship and fellowship programs, which provide much-needed funding to our students, OHI provides mentoring and networking events that are key to the success of our students after graduation.”

—Rosario Gerhardt, School of Materials Science and Engineering Professor and The Goizueta Foundation Faculty Chair 

Lambda Theta Alpha

Another organization started on Tech campus in the early 2000s was the Latin Sorority, Lambda Theta Alpha.

In 2005, Judianne Medina brought Lambda Theta Alpha to Georgia Tech under the Gamma Omega chapter. Lambda Theta Alpha is a Latina sorority that first appeared in Georgia in 2003 at Emory University.

The foundation of this chapter at Tech was a clear feat for Hispanic students, especially women Hispanic students. This sorority gave a safe space for Latinas on campus to meet and feel empowered and participate in community activism.

However, this safe space was short lived. Although this organization is still shown on the OHI website as a campus organization, a quick look at the sororities social media shows that this sorority has been inactive since at least 2014. The loss of this sorority is a blow to Hispanic inclusion at Tech. It is a prime example of how Tech puts effort into fixing the issue of Hispanic representation on campus and yet lets it fizzle out with a lack of true support. Furthermore, the fact that this sorority has become inactive and yet is still shown as a campus organization for Hispanic students clearly shows how Georgia Tech is unable to perform simple updates and upkeep to inform Hispanic students of their choices of support around campus. In other words, Tech makes grand gestures of support, and yet fails to take care of the details of that support.

By the Numbers

The Georgia Tech Fact Book from 2005 breaks down the demographics at Georgia Tech. In terms of faculty, there were only 17 Hispanic faculty members. This number includes all faculty as shown in the image above. Of this number only 4 were women. Student wise, there was a total of 495 enrolled Hispanic undergraduates, of which 355 were male and 140 were female out of a total population of 11,841 undergraduate students. For graduate students, the numbers were 219 total Hispanic students, of which 173 were male and 46 were female out of a total population of 5,294 graduate students.

Keep in mind, these numbers were from 2005– only 16 years ago. At this time, the US population was 14% Hispanic, only a 4.5% difference from the current percentage. However, Tech still had a very low representation of Hispanics on campus. Only around 2% of the faculty was Hispanic, 4% of undergraduate students were Hispanic, and 4% of graduate students were Hispanic. Even then, most of these percentages were made up of male Hispanics, female Hispanics were even less so represented on campus. Therefore, these numbers are a concrete look at the low representation of Hispanics on campus in the early 2000s; However, in context, this was also around the time that the OHI was founded. When combined, these facts show how Tech realized at the time that they had a low representation and took steps to try to address it.

The Present

The Strategic Plan

A major step in the right direction for diversity was the Strategic Plan implemented by Tech in 2020:

We thrive on diversity. We see diversity of backgrounds and perspectives as essential to learning, discovery, and creation. We strive to remove barriers to access and success, and to build an inclusive community where people of all backgrounds have the opportunity to learn and contribute to our mission. 

– Georgia Tech Strategic Plan (2020)

However, this plan just seems like a continuation of a pattern by Tech; A pattern of recognizing an issue, making hollow promises, implementing some solutions, and then never upkeeping those solutions. The fact of the matter is that it is too soon to determine whether this Strategic Plan will lead to actual change. However, what it does show is why Hispanic representation is important. Hispanic representation and support is required for Georgia Tech to uphold their Strategic Plan; It is useless to say that Tech thrives on diversity and that Tech strives to remove barriers when a group like Hispanic students seem to be overlooked and not properly represented or included in the diversity at Tech.

The Office of Hispanic Initiatives

Furthermore, the actual OHI website is not kept up to date. Many of the facts and figures on the website are from 2017 and many links on the website do not work. The lack of growth in OHI shows again that although Tech seems to be trying, they could be doing so much better. When Hispanic retention is a goal for Tech, having only a little over 270 students receive funds over a span of 15 years is almost nothing. Furthermore, not even being able to maintain the main site for Hispanic outreach shows how this section of the Georgia Tech population is so easily overlooked.

By the Numbers

These numbers show a slight improvement from the numbers of 2005; There is more Hispanic representation, but this representation is still lacking for Hispanic women, especially for faculty and graduate students. Overall, these numbers are still not great; In 14 years, the percentages have only increased by around 2% in each department. When compared to similar universities, Tech’s shortcomings become more apparent. The figure above (from 2019) shows the breakdown of Georgia Tech’s main campus demographics and compares it to other general doctoral universities as well as doctoral universities with similar levels of research. As shown, Georgia Tech has half of the Hispanic representation as similar universities. Half. While other universities have increased the the number of Hispanic students enrolled over the past decade, Data USA shows that Georgia Tech has stayed at the same percentage. Therefore, this data goes to show that Tech’s efforts in trying to increase Hispanic representation have yielded measly results. While other schools have been steadily increasing representation, Tech stays stagnant. When has Tech ever taken pride in stagnant? Tech is about innovation and progression, not remaining the same. And yet, that is exactly what Tech has done for at least the last decade when it comes to Hispanic representation.

Conclusion

Georgia Tech clearly cares about Hispanics on campus, yet the efforts Tech has made to improve support and representation have been next to useless. The creation of organizations for Hispanic students is important and was a good start, but since then, these organizations have barely grown or have stopped completely. Tech makes promises, yet fails to follow through and fully put in the work needed to reach its goals of inclusivity and diversity. We have a Strategic Plan, yet its only words. The data shows how stagnant Tech has been over the past decade and words do not change that. Our motto is “Progress and Service”. This should apply to all things that Tech does, and yet here we are, stagnant. When the main website for Hispanic students cannot even be updated regularly or maintained, how can Tech not expect Hispanic students to feel overlooked? Therefore, Tech needs to change. OHI needs more than two events. Tech needs to improve its Hispanic outreach. When I was in high school, I did not even hear from the Hispanic Recruitment Team until well into my senior year. Outreach does not work when it comes too late. When Hispanics are on track to making up a quarter of the population in the US, Tech cannot just sit at a low enrollment and think that what it is doing is enough.

Abstract:

The student population in the College of Design at Georgia Tech is largely women, which is a large contrast to how the general field of design is a male-dominated industry. Since women were accepted as students in 1952, the demographic shift from all-male to female-dominant in the College of Design has gone unexplained. This paper aims to elaborate as to why Georgia Tech has fostered this change over time and give insight into how women in design at Tech have followed those alterations. 

History of the College of Design at Georgia Tech 

When Georgia Tech first opened its doors for the College of Architecture in 1908, women had not been officially allowed to enrol on campus as students. As such, the building of Architecture East had only one demographic: white male students and professors. From a photo taken around the time when only architecture degrees were being offered at Tech, such a statement is hardly refutable  (https://history). Even when Industrial Design courses in the college began in 1940, the demographic remained identical to all universities in the state at the time. Though it was also a period with fewer students involved in the program itself; all classes offered at the time were fully male spaces until 1968 when women were officially allowed to enrol in all programs at Georgia Tech. The records for the first female students within the College of Design are sparse, however, comparing original to updated facts enables us to track how women have influenced the demographics within the school.

 

Modern Effects in the College

Now, some fifty years later, if one were to take a photograph of the studio spaces now, the image would look much different.  From a snapshot taken of an on-campus Industrial Design event in recent years, the demographic follows a much different layout. Rather than a seemingly male-dominated field as it was in the past, it instead appears that female students make up the majority of the population. Looking through the overarching demographics, the imbalance is also true. Georgia Tech published data from their Fall of 2020 school demographics book that outlines the changes in greater detail. As of 2020, the number of female students enrolled at the College of Design overall outnumbers the male students by nearly 100, making the percentage of male students a total of a little less than 41%.

While that alone is not notable, female students outnumber males in every single ethnicity. 

For additional perspective, the College of Design in California boasts a 46% male student population (collegesimply), with other colleges that specialise in Design settling steadily around 44%. Additionally, even in my Industrial Design first-year studio now, there are only nine male students out of the forty-eight studio residents in my class block. 

The Prospective Career Ground for Students

Let us briefly consider the assumption that all universities in the United States have a fully female-dominated student population like Tech does. A logical conclusion would then be that within the field of Design, whether it be the career of Architecture or ID or UI/UX, women also outnumber men. Statistics instead say something very different. Career fields in Architecture have males outnumbering females at nearly a 3:1 ratio ( zippia). InVision, a platform dedicated to all things design, surveyed its professional users for additional information. From their reports, other fields related to Industrial Design fare only slightly better, but still the disparity is stark (invisionapp).

 

Reassuringly, Georgia Tech students do not follow the national trends of their majors. Regrettably, though, the professional data still comes into play with faculty ratios. From the Fall 2020 school demographics outline, College of Design male professors also greatly outpace female professors by the golden 3:1 ratio reflected in the professional world. The difficulties faced by women in Design may not just be attributed to biases during hiring, but it is also evident that such issues do not stem directly from their education. Contrasting the enrollment data at Georgia Tech with the general proportions of females and males in design titles, it seems that within the half-century since women were allowed to enrol onto campus, the school did not yield to the larger trends within the field. 

Setting Georgia Tech Apart

Considering the uniqueness of the College of Design at Georgia Tech in their natural push against the future of their students, there appear to be many things within the school that contribute to such a result that combines with the natural push from society for women to enter the field. In addition to the specific programs and distinctions that influence demographics within the College of Design, the general factors should also be addressed. 

Contributions towards Opposition 

There exist implications that would counter the tendency for more female student enrollments that do not apply to Georgia Tech. The established position as a leading STEM school would naturally draw fewer students who wish to study the Arts and Humanities, demonstrated by the relatively smaller populations within the College of Design and the Ivan Allen College on campus. Generally, STEM fields are advertised more to the male audience, which creates a demographic gap even in the other schools at Tech. With a dominant STEM culture at Tech, it is a logical assumption that fewer women would be present in most majors offered, but the College of Design instead has a female majority. 

Lack of Role Models 

When discussing the general field of design, there are not many female names involved in its mentions. Seeing as design fields are still largely dominated by men and first established by men, there exists a general lack of female figures and role models for the younger generation to learn about and see themselves in. For potential designers, then, it is less likely for girls and young women to pursue a field that they do not see themselves succeeding in without many figures to prove success. In a recent turn of events that may impact the coming female designers, the School of Industrial Design at Georgia Tech has elected a female product designer as the head chair in recognition of her efforts in the field. (design.gatech). As such, it is entirely possible that future generations will hear of the changes to Georgia Tech and naturally be more inclined towards choosing the school due to the sense of camaraderie with the director, which may push more female designers into the career field to alter the imbalance in the professional world. 

Existing Biases Prior to Enrollment

For the College of Design, and with all colleges, admissions are generally more likely to accept students with a general background or inclination towards their preferred major. Since a majority of art classes in lower education are taken by females, it stands as a possibility that more females better fit the qualifications for enrollment within the college in comparison to male students (bustle.com). Hence, the curriculums and the basics of design at Tech may have a natural bias towards female students simply based on the student population that they pull from. Hence, the number of female design majors may already be predicted to be higher before looking at existing data. 

Personal Experiences within Design

As a student at the College of Design, my personal reasons for majoring in Industrial Design are not new. There are few universities in the country that offer such a non-stem major at an engineering school, so the natural mesh between two different subjects drew my interest in Georgia Tech. Of those few universities, a degree under the Bachelor’s of Science from a College of Design is even more uncommon, and the focus that the school had on relating Industrial Design to elements outside its original scope most likely drew in other students interested in Design as well (id.gatech.edu/).  

Statistics may not also tell the full story of demographics. In my experience, the College of Design should also include the demographics of design minors as well in their data. Simply from observation in Studio classes, the minor students in Industrial Design specifically are also heavily female-dominated, posing the possibility that women in Design in fact hold a larger majority than expected. As such, the positive impact that Georgia Tech has is amplified through them as well. 

Pushes Towards Improvement

Despite the admirable traits from the College of Design at Georgia Tech, there still exist discrepancies between the first students at Georgia Tech and the other populations. Exempli Gratia, the undergraduate male-to-female distributions do not align with the graduate distributions from the same year. Evident from the number of entering students from undergraduate and graduate conditions, Georgia Tech once again leans towards a male-dominant field once more. Remediation, therefore, would need to be to work towards steering trends away from societal trends, and not just leaving the distinction of female dominance within the undergraduate community. 

Such trends, however, still represent an improvement from the past. The Georgia Tech Archives outline in particular the annual reports from the School of Architecture and their undergraduate students over the years. Their executive annual reports dictate an interesting trend. Based on their students, the total percentage of females at the school steadily increased over time; female undergraduate students constituted only 41.2% of the population in 2005 and increased near-linearly to 45% in 2009 (smartech, smartech). The data reflects a nearly 1% increase in the female undergraduate population every year in the span of a decade. 

What to Learn from the College of Design

Within its growth years, the Georgia Tech College of Design has shifted its student population from one end of the demographic to the other in career fields that have not made such changes, which calls to celebrate what exactly the school has been doing differently than the industry to attract women to turn it into a female-dominated major at Georgia Tech. I believe that Georgia Tech has specific qualities in its programs in the College of Design to cause such a shift, which when coupled with the natural divide of women in STEM fields, has made majors such as architecture and industrial design more attractive to female students. Georgia Tech’s College of Design student population has become women-dominated, and in consideration of how society has changed over time, is it possible that this change can be replicated not just reflected on other campuses, but in industries as well? Seeing how Georgia Tech has shifted its demographics over time is useful in encouraging more women into a male-dominated industry. As found before, the careers that a degree from the College of Design feeds into are largely still male, with women taking less than 50% of the total percentage (designmuseum.org). If Georgia Tech is able to counter the cultural norms within its college, then the same process may be applied to the industrial field so the same changes may happen. On another level, the attractions that Georgia Tech offers may also be implemented in other universities that offer the same majors. If all schools experienced the same trends as Georgia Tech has since its opening in 1908, then the industry will be positively impacted with each graduating class. Taking a turn for the better, the design industry may become less hostile towards women with the traditional biases against women in careers lessening in severity over time as we strive towards full equality.

The Pressure of Being a Female Student at Tech

 As an 18-year-old woman studying in the STEM field, anxiety is no stranger to me. I wake up exhausted to a 7:30am alarm and don’t get a break until 11pm, and at that point I have to sleep. While not everyone experiences this, a majority of Georgia Tech students can relate to the endless chase. Mental health should never be neglected or dismissed, and the stigma around women’s mental health needs to be eliminated. 

As students, we spend hours sitting in the CULC with our eyes sore from the artificial light. We spend nights terrified of the workload ahead or the assignments that we just can’t comprehend. We spend meals picking at our food because we are stressed about work, work, and work. Our grades define our intelligence and we are expected to juggle flaming rings without burning ourselves. 

And women! Already we are sometimes seen as weaker, duller beings than the opposite gender, so why would we express weaknesses and problems out loud? In an environment where students are held to such a high standard, are under constant pressure, and are expected to balance countless aspects of their lives, mental health needs to be the priority.   

How am I supposed to write a blog due the same day as my math midterm during my sorority’s initiation week, on top of club sports practice without missing any assignments for my other classes? And how do I know what to prioritize and what to cut out when everything is mandatory? 

After years of mental health awareness being a big issue, we still haven’t found the answer. Or maybe we found the answer, but haven’t taken action. 

It Should Not Take Suicide

In a 2012 edition of the Technique, Kamna Bohra wrote an article on the importance of mental health after losing a Georgia Tech student to suicide. 

“The solution is to make the improvement of mental health at Tech a goal of every member of the community and to eliminate the stigma associated with asking for help,” Bohra wrote^[1]. This was a major concern for students’ health nine years ago and still hasn’t been resolved.

Bohra addressed this tragic event that most others avoided talking about. She encouraged the community not to quiet themselves because it is more disrespectful to the student’s life not to advocate for more mental health support.

Nine years ago Bohra offered a solution to the problem: make the improvement of mental health at Tech every member’s goal and to eliminate the stigma surrounding it. Today, we still have not achieved these goals. Georgia Tech’s mental health resources have expanded, but not enough. 

Five years after Tech’s loss and Bohra’s expectation for better, Tech suffered two more suicides within 8 days of each other^[2]. One of those students being Scout Schultz (pictured above), a computer engineering major and president of Tech’s Pride Alliance. Maureen Downey from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution talked with a second-year student to reflect on the loss Tech experienced.

“[W]hat many of us find even more disturbing is the lack of action on the part of the Georgia Tech administration. Even after public outcry from the student body, the school has consistently failed to fulfill their promises to allocate more resources to the overtaxed and underfunded counseling center,” the student said^[2]. 

Georgia Tech’s resources and mental health outreach have to do better. For every life that could have been helped before 2012, the two students Tech lost in 2017, and every human being struggling in the future, we cannot afford to allow this negative stigma around asking for help remain. If staying mentally healthy is such a challenge to all students, the burden on women must feel impossible.

The Counseling Center’s Overflow Demand

In September 2018, The Whistle interviewed the new Georgia Tech Counseling Director, Cara Bradley (pictured above), about their resources and supporting all students in need of support.

“We have a greater volume of students seeking services across the nation than we historically have, and this volume creates a difficulty with serving students as rapidly as they would like to be served and as rapidly as we would like to serve them,” Bradley said^[3]. 

From the Counseling Director herself, we see that the overwhelmed center doesn’t have enough resources to help students in a timely manner. Like the second year from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution interview mentioned after the two suicides in 2017, the counseling center is underfunded for what they’re expected to do.

The first step in fixing this process is acknowledging that mental health is just as important as physical health and that the counseling center should get the funding and staff they need just like any other valued program on campus. 

Better Resources, Better Outreach

In order to reach our goal of mental health awareness, every student, faculty, and community member needs to share the mentality that proper mental health awareness and aid are common goals to protect the Tech community. 

When Ellis Stevens, a first year neuroscience major, was interviewed about her own mental health, its stigmas, and the resources available to her, she admitted to a lack of knowledge and action when it came to the available mental health resources. 

“Yes, I should use those resources, but I don’t. I don’t really know much about the mental health resources on campus,” Stevens confessed^[4].

There are probably hundreds of other students, like Stevens, who just don’t know how to get help. Before researching for this blog, I didn’t know that the counseling center was in the Smithgall Student Services “Flag” Building (pictured below).

I walk past this building multiple times a day knowing it to be the home base of The Technique and flags representing all our international students, but not our counseling center. Not only is this a problem with the mental health stigmas but the center’s outreach.

Not only should every student understand where and how to take advantage of mental health aid, but should be comfortable doing so. 

So why don’t students ask for help and use resources? Kamna Bohra knew the solution in 2012 and expressed her own concerns and reasoning. Society needs to do a better job of eliminating the stigma keeping people away from the help they need.

Women!

It can’t be denied that stigma surrounds mental health in general, but different genders have to deal with their own set of obstacles. In the graph shown above, there are already significantly more men on campus than women. At Tech, women are the gender in minority. And women fight a different mental health battle than men.

“A lot of people tend to reduce women’s emotions, especially negative emotions, and blame it on your period,” Maura Murray, a first-year literature, media, and communications major, said^[5].

In a student interview, Kaira Franklin, a first year computer science major, reflects on experiencing the effect of mental health’s stigma as well as sexist views from her doctor.

“I wasn’t able to eat and lost a lot of weight due to stress. [My doctor] told me there’s no reason for me to be feeling like that. He said I was wrong and that food has nothing to do with how I was feeling,” Franklin said^[6]. 

This is a clear example of a woman’s mental health being ignored by a male and making her unable to receive proper care. This stigma against mental health and that it isn’t as serious or connected to physical health got in the way of a high school girl being treated correctly. Not only was she denied the aid needed, but this experience deterred her from speaking out in the future. 

“He dismissed my concerns. Now I don’t speak up about my mental health, because a medical professional told me I was wrong,” Franklin said. 

Situations like these are moving us in the wrong direction. Women should be taken seriously and never have their mental health concerns dismissed. 

Mental Health’s Representation

Women have been dismissed, stigmatized, and judged for many of their choices and what they speak out about. Mental health cannot be one of these things. 

In Georgia Tech student Elizabeth Marie Warden’s thesis on gendering health, a research study found that an entire household’s mental and physical health fell on the woman. 

“Only the magazines with predominantly female readership included mental health advertisements, which points towards the tendency of associating women with emotional problems,” Warden found^[7]. 

Evidence of this tendency is shown in the women’s magazine cover below:

Happiful is a women’s magazine devoted to mental health. This magazine is clearly for women with the pink color scheme and woman featured on the front cover. Through this magazine, mental health is being connected to women.

Mental health is something that every person has to deal with regardless or age, race, ethnicity, or gender.

It only puts more pressure and stress on women when they are seen as the only group struggling. Mental health advertisements should be everywhere, because as suicide rates have shown, this issue is more and more prevalent by the day and affects everybody.

When investigating student accounts of mental health, anxiety, depression, or stress in the Georgia Tech Archives, there was very little information available. While there are many dissertations on the subject, students’ accounts and firsthand opinions are almost completely absent. 

I found a few interviews, but only one mentioned the stress of being a student-athlete. This was H. H. “Bucky” Stith’s account of student life. Of the only student account of stress, it came from a man. Stith recounts the stress of balancing playing basketball and his academics^[8]. Women were only mentioned when Stith brought up his supportive wife.

There is a gap in our archives when it comes to students’ mental health in general, but even when it is mentioned, women are not in the picture.

The Solution Lies in the Community’s Efforts

Why does any of this matter? Why does the stigma around women’s mental health issues need to be eliminated so they can be taken seriously? It seems obvious doesn’t it?

Mental health is just as important as physical health, and we as a community need to treat it with the same gravity and importance. Women and men both struggle with mental health, and neither gender should face judgement for their emotions.

“The thing that ends up happening is that women internalize the perceptions of society, and the avoidance that is often a result.  This can deepen the effects of the symptomatology of mental illness that already exists,” Christie Hunter said from the Women’s Health Research Institute^[9].

When Georgia Tech doesn’t properly fund its counseling center to handle high volumes of students, when women’s mental health issues are dismissed or made out to be a joke, when the gravity of women’s mental health is underrepresented, and when students don’t know how to take advantage of resources, lives are lost. 

Mental health issues are just as important as physical health issues. When mental health isn’t treated correctly, it can both physically and mentally hurt a person. We cannot let students struggle alone. We cannot let women struggle alone. 

Works Cited

[1] Bohra, Kamna. “Mental health stability begins with us.” The Technique, 2 November 2012. Technique. Archives and Special Collections, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. 26 September 2021.

[2] Downey, Maureen. “Three Student DEATHS Devastate the Georgia Tech Community.” Ajc, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5 Dec. 2018, https://www.ajc.com/blog/get-schooled/three-student-deaths-devastate-the-georgia-tech-community/nMS4C4D4a232kTkjSKQVsK/.

[3] Hagearty, Michael. “New Counseling Director Talks Data, STEM Students, and Technology.” The Whistle, 4 September 2018. The Whistle. Archives and Special Collections, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. 26 September 2021.

[4] Stevens, Ellis. Personal Interview. 23 September 2021.

[5] Murray, Maura. Personal Interview. 23 September 2021.

[6]Franklin, Kaira. Personal Interview. 23 September 2021.

[7] Warden, Elizabeth. Gendering Health: The Reinforcement of Gender Stereotypes in Prescription Pharmaceutical Advertisements. 2016. Georgia Institute of Technology, Undergraduate Research Thesis. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Undergraduate Research Option Theses. Archives and Special Collections, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. 26 September 2021.

[8] Georgia Tech Alumni Association. Living History Program., “Henry “Buck” Stith, CE 1958,” Georgia Tech History Digital Portal, accessed September 27, 2021, https://history.library.gatech.edu/items/show/3711.

[9] Hunter, Christie. “Understanding and Reducing the Stigma of Mental Illness in Women.” Women’s Health Research Institute, 11 Feb. 2015, womenshealth.obgyn.msu.edu/blog/understanding-and-reducing-stigma-mental-illness-women.