The first woman president of Iowa State University could be appointed this year. Since 1868, ISU has named 23 presidents and acting presidents. None of them were female. Statistics taken from our university’s Fact Book show that less than a third of ISU faculty is female. When it comes to the category of academic/administrative personnel, the ratio of men to women increases with less than 16 percent females in these positions. No eyebrows should be raised at this point. A quick survey of human history shows that members from the dominated weaker sex have been subject to such varied treatments as religious adoration in some cultures and second-class citizenship in others. Justifying women’s current position leads to such picturesque rationalizations as the historically-conveyed belief that the emotional nature of women deprives them of the capacity to hold power. An incalculable number of written works have been dedicated to analyze, promote and criticize the absence of female representation on influential positions. The female struggle for equal opportunity may be thousands of years old, but the truth is women have only scratched the surface. Although contemporary culture has seen the beginning of change from the misconceptions of the past, gender is still an issue and will probably be one for many years to come. During this week, we will have the opportunity to become part of the vital process of discussing the criteria for the election of Iowa State’s next president. The three forums in the next couple of days could be the only means for ISU students to have their words heard before the 27-member search committee submerges in the core of the evaluation process. The information gathered through these open meetings, as well as the proposed criteria for evaluation drafted by a sub-committee, will be used during the next meeting of the Presidential Search and Screen Advisory Committee on Friday, Sept. 15. Technology has given ISU students another powerful tool for making suggestions: e-mail. Comments must be sent to David Hopper, Chair of the Subcommittee to Develop Criteria, [email protected], by Friday, Sept. 1. The confidentiality owed the participants of this process is a double-edged sword. It is needed to ensure the candidates willingness to endure the evaluation. At the same time, it deprives the interested parties of a complete participation in the process. In other words, the community won’t have the power to review the committee’s work in a step by step basis. At the end, experience has shown that rumors will become the only source of information, while the community will be silenced by the need for secrecy. Public opinion that has proven helpful in obtaining fair outcomes through continuous audit may prove powerless in this case. Gender may never be mentioned during the three forums scheduled in the Memorial Union. The taboo will remain unvisited, and we may never even know if a woman was considered for the job. We may have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. We are constructing our own paths. The ones standing in the front row will create a better future for our daughters. In greater measure, our offspring will take advantage of the small advancements we make everyday. The words we don’t stop saying and the battle we don’t stop fighting will undoubtedly make the difference.