Emails Reveal Grassley Opposition To Promoting Women In Science

By Rick Smith

September 9, 2016

Senator Chuck Grassley didn’t want to encourage specifically young women in pursuing careers in science, the Iowa Daily Democrat discovered through an open records request of email correspondence between Kim Reynold’s office, Grassley’s office and the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce. The emails cover a two day period in February 2016 as Reynolds’ office tries to get Grassley to join an op-ed on the issue.

Robert Haus, Chief Advisor to Reynolds, and Beth Levine, Grassley’s Press Secretary, were emailing back and forth with Vasu Abhiraman, a representative to the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce. Michelle Lee, the Undersecretary of Commerce, had been to Iowa and was preparing a draft for an op-ed promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in Iowa newspapers. One of the goals of the op-ed was to inspire young women to consider careers in the STEM field.

National data show women are employed in about half of all jobs in the U.S., but they hold less than 25% of STEM jobs. Women working in STEM fields earned 33% more than comparable women in other fields, and STEM jobs have a lower gender pay gap.

The Commerce representative in the email below asks Haus to assist in getting Grassley to join the op-ed. The focus of the op-ed was to highlight the gender-gap in STEM education.

From: Abhiraman, Vasu [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Haus, Bob [IGOV]
Subject: RE: Op ed draft

Hi Bob,

I left you a VM, covering two things:

We would love to explore having Sen Grassley on the byline for the joint op-ed, and I realized that sooner is better for that. If you could contact Grassley’s team about it, that would be wonderful. And please feel free to forward the meeting invite to someone from his shop. Would be great to have them on board.

Any update on the draft? It would help us a lot if we could read it prior to the call so that we can figure out next steps content wise.

Thanks for the help, sir!

Levine from Grassley’s office got involved. She began pushing back on the draft’s focus on young women. Below she sends an email to Haus noting Grassley’s objection to focus on women and girls (“LG” refers to Reynolds, “CEG” to Grassley).

From: Pellett Levine, Beth (Grassley) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:03 PM
To: Haus, Bob [IGOV]
Subject: RE: Op Ed submission

I’m running this around here, but I think we’re struggling with the sole focus on women/girls in STEM focus.  I know that’s a very big focus for the LG but CEG’s mantra is that we need more of every demographic.  Not sure if changing that focus is a deal breaker for you.

Haus sends a note to Grassley’s office and tells them he’s reworking the draft and asks for their opinion on his rewrite. Grassley’s office responds that they just need to take out female focus.

From: Pellett Levine, Beth (Grassley) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Haus, Bob [IGOV]
Subject: RE: Op Ed submission

Ha.  No question.  Just taking out a decent amount of the female focus. J

Haus follows up to ask if there’s anything specific that Grassley has done on STEM that they would like included. Levine responds:

From: Levine, Beth (Judiciary-Rep)
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:04 PM
To: ‘Haus, Bob [IGOV]’ <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Pellett Levine, Beth (Grassley) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: Op Ed submission

Thanks, Bob.  Whatever you guys want to do.  FWIW-I liked what you had written.

I’m attaching what I worked on last night.  One concern that Jill had with my draft was the undercurrent of federal involvement in education…which neither of us want to imply.  I hadn’t gotten around to modifying again, but this may be of help to you, too.

The thing about this event is that Grassley hasn’t done much on STEM.  His focus has been on Gifted and Talented, which tangentially relates to STEM.  I think it’s best to focus, from our perspective, is Grassley’s chairmanship bringing the PTO director to Iowa.  As you can see in the attached, there’s some argument about the constitutional provision as it relates to patents, so we just leave that out of our talkers.  J

The next day Haus sends the Commerce representative an email and breaks the news that the op-ed must be gender neutral to satisfy Grassley.

Abhiraman, the Commerce representative, responds and protests the gender neutral revision.

From: Abhiraman, Vasu [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Haus, Bob [IGOV]
Subject: RE: Op ed draft

I think we need to discuss a content change like that, esp since our teams are good with the language. I feel like making it gender neutral removes a ton of the language we like & what makes it compelling. Maybe it could be worth not putting the Senator on the byline then? That would remove the 15% of inventors line, the Grace Hopper reference…. Really a lot of the op-ed

Later that day Grassley’s office emailed Haus to inform him that they wouldn’t participate in the op-ed. An op-ed was published in the Des Moines Register on February 19th by Michelle Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce. Interestingly, the op-ed ended up not including any focus on gender or many of the specific references to female scientists that Abhiraman had wanted. It seems Grassley’s involvement in the matter may have ended up neutering the language of the op-ed even without his name on the byline, though Lee did talk about women in STEM in her remarks in Iowa.

 

 

by Rick Smith
Posted 9/9/16

CATEGORIES: IA-Senate

Politics

Local News

Related Stories
Share This