Previous attempts to hire more women had been weak and unsuccessful. Between 1975 and 1985, when the university had a stated but voluntary commitment to equity, the percentage of women in full-time faculty positions increased a mere 1 %, from 12.5 to 13.5%, though the pool of qualified women stood at about 36%. In 1985, the provincial government in Ontario offered grants to institutions like ours for hiring an employment equity officer and implementing related programs. To be eligible for the grant, the university had to adopt an official affirmative action policy. Between 1985 and 1988, with both a policy and an equity officer in place, our percentage of women faculty slowly, but steadily, declined.

Alarmed by the situation, the Status of Women Committee of the Faculty Association tried a different strategy. In 1987 it succeeded, with much difficulty, in having an employment equity clause negotiated into the collective agreement, and as a result, the new equity plan was developed and implemented in 1988. Over the initial three years the number of women in tenure-track positions almost doubled, while during the next two years the effectiveness of the plan began to decrease. As frustrated as I was by the behaviour of our senior administrators in the engineering appointment, I still felt that the efforts of equity assessors were worthwhile and productive. However, I felt it necessary to conclude my original article with a look ahead to what might happen if equity continued to slip down the administrative priorities list.

By 1994, our equity plan had been expanded to include initiatives for men in designated groups as well as for women. But nothing concrete was actually done to set goals or make equity gains for these other groups. The fact that the Ontario government was in the process of passing new employment equity legislation gave me some hope that our president would recognize the need to keep equity as an institutional priority (3). I was mistaken. During the past year our equity plan has moved into failure mode. The percentage of women hired has now dropped to the low 30s (from 69, 72 and 74% at its highest), and this is compounded by cuts to university funding which have meant that the total number of new hiring's has fallen to less than ten.

What changed? Senior administrators no longer seem to regard equity as an institutional responsibility. When the employment equity officer left nearly two years ago, her position remained vacant. Even with new employer obligations under the provincial legislation, the president has refused to fund the position. It appears that the institutional strategy is to off-load responsibility for equity once again to women faculty. But there has also been a change in the attitude of many equity assessors. As they have realized that, in return for all their hours of work and all the stress they endure, their institution gave them nothing, not even the satisfaction of seeing progress toward an equitable workplace, not even public credit for any equity successes, many withdrew their services, burned out and/or disillusioned.

Administrative pimping now seems characteristic of the entire equity effort at the University of Windsor, not just the appointment of one Dean. Even though the equity procedures are failing, it is in the interest of the administration to keep the facade in place. Having equity workers remains of significant benefit to the institution insofar as it can give the outward appearance of being an equity-seeking organization. There are public relations benefits, and legal and financial benefits under the Federal Contractors Program and the provincial legislation. Having earned the reputation of an "equity leader," the University of Windsor can now ride on past successes while it does little more than go through the equity motions.