I have described the situation at the University of Windsor in some detail, but I doubt that administrative pimping is an activity confined to our campus (4). Committee work, or "service to the university," seems to provide many opportunities for pimping in virtually any university. Committee work, in general, is regarded as women's work, except of course for important decision-making committees. Not surprisingly, service - though nominally required of all - is of little value. Giving extraordinary service to your institution will not earn you promotion or tenure because what really counts is publication. Service work frequently impedes career advancement since heavy committee work tends to reduce the research time needed to publish.

A recent case at Wilfrid Laurier University illustrates the problem. The president of the university rejected Dr. Cheryl Harvey's application for tenure because, although she had a strong record of service and her teaching was good, her research activity was deemed insufficient. However, an arbitration board found Dr. Harvey's committee load to be above average. The university wanted to appoint more women to positions of responsibility and, although a junior faculty member, Dr. Harvey had been invited by her area head to fill that position when he stepped down. The board found that the university, therefore, had to take some responsibility for the consequences of encouraging an untenured faculty member to take on an administrative load which impeded her chances of meeting the standards set for tenure.

The Harvey case strikes me as a rather classic example of administrative pimping. The institution receives the benefit of having the administrative work done and of appearing to promote women to positions of authority, while the woman who actually does the work and makes the institution appear progressive is not rewarded for her efforts. Perhaps the arbitration decision is a sign that administrations will be held accountable for such exploitation. Kevin Banks, a professional officer with CAUT, observed that "One clear implication of this case is that university administrations wishing to improve the gender balance of administrative assignments will need to be attentive to the service workload of the women whose participation they encourage" (5).

As serious as these forms of administrative pimping have been, and continue : to be for women in universities, there is, in my view, the potential for even more damage in the severe financial cutbacks imposed by governments on universities across the country. This systemic disinvestment comes at a time when women (and other groups traditionally excluded from post-secondary institutions) have begun to claim their rightful place.

There is a danger that as universities seek to replace government funding by increasing enrolments and tuition fees, areas that have traditionally attracted women will be used as the cash cows to supplement the funding of traditionally male-dominated disciplines. Institutions do not have to account for funds raised through tuition fees in the same way as for operating grants received from government. When universities are publicly funded, there is at least the possibility of holding them socially accountable. But as public funding decreases, there could be an increased opportunity for university administrators (the majority of whom are still white, male, able-bodied and heterosexual) to direct discretionary funds toward perceived "prestige" areas where men predominate as faculty and students. As well, funding will be sought mostly from those who own big companies-white, able-bodied, heterosexual men-and this, too, will dictate how it can be spent (6).