New York Employment Attorneys Blog

If you frequently read the newspaper or if you follow the Silicon Valley's activities, then you have probably heard of Carol Bartz. Ms. Bartz was recently terminated from her position as CEO of Yahoo! over the phone.

Ms. Bartz was one of the only women to hold such a prestigious and high-level position in the Internet and Computer field. She is well know for her "salty language," and her fans were not disappointed when she called the board members that fired her over the phone a bunch of "doofuses" who "f---- me over."

If this kind of language is considered common for a man, it seems that people are shocked when a woman utilizes such language. Her comments were judged so unusual by the Wall Street Journal that the newspaper decided to publish an amusing compilation of "Carol Bartz's Best Quotes."

So, is a woman socially allowed to curse at work? According to Deborah Tanne, a linguistics Professor at Georgetown University, "it stands out because it is not expected." Ms. Bartz appears to be a forerunner, moving toward Gender Equality in the Workplace, specifically regarding the right to curse at work.

But this particular case asks a broader question of the women in the workplace. It is already shocking that women are generally paid less than men for the same position; but also that their work is not perceived in the same way in business and they are expected to have different behavior even more refined, than men at work. It seems that women are not socially allowed to show their anger as much as men in the workplace, as Ms. Bartz's case shows.

The road for women to achieve sex equality in the workplace seems to be still a long one.

The recent resignations of two high-ranking black administrators at Columbia have led some professors to question President Lee C. Bollinger's leadership. Last June, the University's provost, Claude M. Steele, resigned. His resignation was followed by the undergraduate dean, Michele M. Moody-Adams, last week. They were the first African-Americans to hold their respective positions at Columbia.

According to reporter Alan Schwarz from the New York Times, Fredrick C. Harris, a professor of political science, wrote to Mr. Bollinger explaining that these recent departures have "shaken (his) confidence - as well as the confidence of many others at Columbia - in the ability of Columbia to maintain diverse leadership at the top."

June Cross, an associate professor at the University's Graduate School of Journalism, was quoted as saying "I'm not saying race is the issue, but it is the subtext."

These criticisms almost seem inconsistent with Mr. Bollinger's reputation and background, considering he had been advocating for affirmative action while he was President of the University of Michigan. Mr. Bollinger was involved in two well known U.S. Supreme Court cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, where he defended - with success - affirmative action in the school's recruitment process.

These new problems bring back to the table some of Mr. Bollinger's old controversies. In particular, Mr. Bollinger was heavily criticized back in 2007 when he decided to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia. The New York Times also discusses that after interviewing more than a dozen Columbia faculty members, it was apparent that their dissatisfaction with Mr. Bollinger's policies was growing. Notably, Mr. Bollinger is criticized for shrinking the role of the undergraduate college to expand Columbia's research activities.

Mr. Bollinger acknowledged that there was criticism but denied that race was an issue at Columbia, expressing that he intends to meet with faculty members to address the issue. Many professors support President Bollinger nonetheless, saying that 15 percent of Columbia's freshmen last year were black, which is the largest percentage of any of the top 30 universities in the U.S. according to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.

Read more at the New York Times.