Searching for Scientific Womanpower: Technocratic Feminism and the Politics of National Security, 1940-1980

Epilogue

169 Epilogue In February 1982, the New England Chapter of AWIS hosted a wine and cheese reception to fete Edward Kennedy for his championing of the women in science legislation. The event, which was cosponsored by a number of women’s organizations such as the Boston section of the Society of Women Engineers, was attended by approximately 300 women and men, including the senator himself. Several women’s groups that had previously collaborated with Kennedy also sent representatives to participate in the ceremony . Nancy Russo of FOPW presented the senator with a framed poster from its “Woman Scholar Series.” Vera Kistiakowsky, the current president of the national AWIS, gave Kennedy a pin emblazoned with the association ’s name.1 The ceremony also provided a platform for criticizing the most recent attacks on the legislation, which had resulted in another round of budget cuts. With the exception of the visiting professorships, none of the programs contained in the act that Kistiakowsky, the FOPW, and other feminists had helped Kennedy to prepare received congressional funding for the coming year. In his remarks to the audience, Kennedy railed against the Reagan administration for “wasting the talents of the nation’s women” and neglecting “our greatest untapped natural resource.”2 The president of the New England chapter, Stephanie Bird, similarly charged, “It is not simply that we deserve equal rights and opportunities, rather it is to the advantage of all of us that such a valuable resource not be wasted.”3 Although Kennedy and women’s groups had previously invoked technocratic manpower concerns when advocating for the legislation, they did so here with even more vigor. The current social and political climate helps explain why. The so-called Reagan Revolution had resulted in significant setbacks for American women. The backlash against the gains of the women ’s movement curtailed public support for feminism and would result in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment that summer. At the same time, the Reagan administration worked to refortify the national security state by funneling monies into federal research and development. By 1986, federal R&D expenditures would account for roughly $57 billion, a 27 percent 170 | Epilogue increase over the pre-downturn peak levels in 1967 (in constant dollars). Much of this growth was in the defense sector, which by the end of the decade would command 70 percent of the federal research and development budget and approximate spending proportions from the 1950s.4 The Cold War, it seemed, was once again in full swing. As budgets swelled, so did concern with ensuring an adequate supply of scientific “manpower.” While fears of a scientific shortage turned out to be unjustified, the very prospect of such a crisis elicited significant attention from both the press and policymakers.5 Just weeks before the Kennedy reception , the Boston Globe carried a story reporting on projected trends in the field of engineering. Lieutenant General James W. Stansberry, who was in charge of developing electronic weaponry for the Air Force, was quoted as saying, “The problem is: There are not enough engineers. . . . We are at the stage now of recognizing the problem and beating the drum about it.”6 Earl S. King, the chief recruiter for Westinghouse’s Defense and Electronic Systems Center (where, incidentally, Naomi McAfee of the Society of Women Engineers worked), lamented the recent hiring difficulties he had faced that fall. Despite pouring nearly $30,000 into newspaper and radio advertisements, recruiter wages, and travel expenses, King only managed Nancy Russo of the Federation of Organizations for Professional Women with Edward Kennedy at a reception in his honor, February 1982. Photograph by Lilian A. Kemp. Courtesy of Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University. Epilogue | 171 to hire two people due to the fierce competition for available personnel. Lynne Brown, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, predicted that “when the new defense spending is felt . . . the manpower problems will be worse than ever.”7 The identification of female scientists as a valuable source of scientific manpower offered Kennedy and Bird a pragmatic and politically savvy defense of the women in science legislation. This strategy, as we have seen, had long aided reformers, especially in conservative times. During World War II, Virginia Gildersleeve persuaded Columbia’s School of Engineering to admit female students by citing the wartime demand for “trained brains.” Employing similar logic, she and Lillian Gilbreth collaborated with industry officials and government...