A Canary for a Toxic Workplace in the Coal Mine of Swiss Academia

In the early days of coal mining, canaries were used to detect toxic gases. If the birds became sick or died, it signaled danger, prompting miners to evacuate.

I might be that canary to detect a toxic workplace in Swiss academia.

Women, especially those who excel in their research, are often the first to be affected by poor governance and toxic environments, signaling deeper systemic issues that need urgent attention.

On August 1st—Switzerland’s national holiday—I retired from the Physics Department of ETH and joined the Electrical Engineering Department for my final year before fully retiring. After 31 years, I can confidently say I was scientifically and academically successful. However, I cannot say the same about being supported or celebrated as a member of the department. This disparity troubled me, particularly in my final years.

This Sunday, while drinking coffee and reading the news, I came across an article titled "Leistung statt Quote"—Performance instead of Quotas—in one of Switzerland’s leading newspapers. It rekindled my dissatisfaction with my experiences at the Physics Department.

You see, I was a quota hire.

Thirty-one years ago, when ETH invited me to become a professor, I knew it was a “quota position.” At the time, there were no tenured women professors in the Physics Department. As a young scientist, I had an impressive resume—top grades from ETH, a PhD from Stanford, and an independent research position at Bell Labs in New Jersey. But was that enough?

Uncertain, I sought advice from a respected Bell Labs colleague, an established African-American scientist—himself a rarity in science. When I asked whether I should accept the position, he said, “Don’t worry about how you got the job. Just show them you can do it.”

And that is what I did.

So, did ETH sacrifice performance to hire me as a woman? Let’s look at the results after 31 years.

• I will soon have graduated 101 PhDs.
• I have received top honors from relevant professional societies.
• I continue to receive many invited and plenary talks at international conferences on a regular basis.
• I recently won the Marcel Benoist Prize, often referred to as the Swiss Nobel Prize.
• The European Patent Office awarded me the “Lifetime Achievement” award.
• This year, I was ranked by research.com as the third-most cited woman scientist in Switzerland (Download download (PDF, 331 KB))
• And in my institute within the Physics Department, as the current highest-cited researcher (Download download (PDF, 278 KB))
• In addition to academic success, I have supported multiple start-ups in Switzerland and abroad, based on research from my group at ETH.

So, let me make an important statement: Stop debating performance versus quotas. We can—and must—focus on both. I am living proof of that.

Then why am I not satisfied with my experience in recent years?

My experience at ETH Zurich has been tarnished by the lack of good governance. ETH has a policy of mandatory retirement at age 65. One can ask for an extension of up to five years in “exceptional” circumstances. After multiple fruitless efforts I finally asked for only a one-year extension, justified by my strong positive track record and ongoing projects. However, the laissez-faire governance at ETH Zurich—“autonomy”—means that such extensions require a positive majority vote from the institute and the department, with no clear criteria (except being popular enough to get a majority vote) and no substantial checks and balances from outside the institute.

I was denied this extension twice. First, in December 2021 Link, and again in May 2023 – this time after winning the Swiss Benoist Prize Link. Both times, my institute Link rejected my extension request without justification, by simple majority vote. The department leadership didn’t even consider holding a broader departmental vote. This second vote came at the request of the ETH president, who was finally willing to support and finance a one-year extension at no cost to the department. By that time, lab space for my group had already been arranged under the department’s new guidelines. I had to quickly adapt to the new "space-time integral" rule on short notice, which resulted in me losing my office and having to destroy the attoclock before my official retirement date to ensure my PhD students had adequate lab space (i.e. explained in other ULP News posts here and here).

After a long and painful three-year grievance process, with support from my Electrical Engineering colleagues and the ETH president, we managed to secure a one-year extension. I retired from the Physics Department at age 65 and joined another department for my extension. This allows me to continue supporting my research group and overseeing the completion of my second prestigious ERC Advanced Grant and an SNF Excellence Grant, ensuring these projects conclude successfully.

After my extension was denied the second time, I noticed that three of my male colleagues—two from my institute and another one from the Physics Department—were granted extensions by majority vote, one for up to three years. Their extensions were handled quickly and smoothly, even when deadlines were missed, with rules either adapted or bypassed. None of these professors were female.

Despite my strong performance, the ETH president denied my request for a performance-based extension. An ETH professor may request extension of their professorship beyond the mandatory retirement (at 65) based on the federal bylaws of ETH (see Art. 14a and 14b external page Link). This bylaw also states the ETH president may make justified requests for this to the ETH Supervisory board (ETH Rat). The current ETH-internal guideline explicitly considers the option of an extension based on outstanding performance and excellence in science according to Art. 14b (e.g., Nobel prize or similarly renowned international awards). Yet there are no clear criteria at ETH Zurich, and decisions lack transparency and accountability.

The benefits of an extension are substantial. Professors who receive an extension based on performance under Art. 14b of the federal bylaws, (see external page Link), enjoy significantly higher salaries, with a five-year extension potentially adding over 1 million CHF to their income. Additionally, they retain their full professorial status and continue their work as before. It’s a special privilege for those popular enough to gain peer support and presidential backing. I suspect this system doesn’t always serve the best interests of public funding, especially given the limited transparency and accountability. On a positive note, EPFL reformed its rules in January 2024, prioritizing excellence by implementing an independent committee for evaluations. This approach is a model ETH Zurich should consider adopting.

I believe my transition into retirement reflects deeper governance issues at ETH Zurich and many other universities within Switzerland. Although I may have initially benefited from affirmative action, I remained an outsider, a "Quota Woman," hired for my gender rather than performance—or at least that’s how it seemed. Despite my stellar track record before and during my time at ETH, I was never part of the in-group.

One benefit I never received, which I term “the affirmative action for the in-group,” was the preferential treatment often extended by colleagues who effectively controlled departmental decisions and resources and passed these benefits on to the next generation of insiders.

As an independent full professor, I was fortunate to focus on pioneering research and collaborate with colleagues who offered respect, energy, and encouragement. These positive partnerships allowed me to thrive and support my research group, making the role of professor my “dream job”—as long as I remained free from departmental in-group dependencies. In the case of my extension, however, I was affected by management decisions at the physics department level, where oversight and accountability are insufficient.

My goal is to continue empowering outstanding women in science, improving the efficient use of public funds, and advancing ETH’s and Switzerland’s performance in science, technology, engineering, and medicine. A key challenge lies in addressing governance and power dynamics within institutions. Improving governance is essential to progress, and it will help reduce wasteful spending of public funds.

Why does change take so long?

Women excel in school systems where criteria are well-defined. But progress slows in the professional workplace. One reason, according to recent studies, is that toxic workplaces contribute significantly to the “leaky pipeline.” Resistance to change is strong among in-groups that are reluctant to give up their privileges and resources (e.g., see O’Connor et al. below).

The metaphor of the “canary in the coal mine” resonates with me because I aim to shed light on the toxic environments that disproportionately impact outstanding women, driving them to leave at higher rates. Like me, women increasingly refuse to conform to the unspoken rules of the in-group, which can stifle diversity and innovation. Let’s work together to support more exceptional scientists based on merit, rather than allowing the in-group's informal networks to dictate success-networks that ultimately weaken overall performance.

Additional reading list:

• J. Hering (2022) “ETH professors over 65 – who and why?” Structurelle, external page https://www.strukturelle.ch/en/post/eth-professors-over-65-who-and-why
  Since the extension past retirement age is paid for by public funds, taxpayers should be informed of these appointments. There are several reasons why taxpayers might want to have this information.
• Linnes et al. (2024) “Framework for department-level accountability to diversify engineering,” Nat. Rev. Bioeng. vol. 2, 521 external page https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-024-00183-4
• Many universities have crafted strategic plans to increase diversity; however, university-wide policies often fail to result in notable changes in microcommunities, such as departments and undergraduate or graduate programs.
• Kozlowski et al. (2022) “Intersectional inequalities in science,” PNAS vol. 119, No. 2 external page https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119
  Barriers to entry and participation have been well-studied; however, few have examined the effect of these disparities on the advancement of science. Furthermore, most studies have looked at either race or gender, failing to account for the intersection of these variables. Our analysis utilizes millions of scientific papers to study the relationship between scientists and the science they produce. We find a strong relationship between the characteristics of scientists and their research topics, suggesting that diversity changes the scientific portfolio.
• Spoon et al. (2023) “Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty.,” Science Advances vol. 9 external page https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205
  Using a census of 245,270 tenure-track and tenured professors at United States–based PhD-granting departments, we show that women leave academia overall at higher rates than men at every career age … women leave or consider leaving because of workplace climate more often than work-life balance.
• Boivin et al. (2024) “Sexism in academia is bad for science and a waste of public funding, Nat. Rev. Mat. 9, 1-3 external page https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-023-00624-3
  As women progress to more advanced academic career stages, there is often an expectation of greater career stability. Yet the experience of hostile workplaces for academic women continues throughout their careers and can even intensify after they have achieved tenure and/or substantial grant success.
• O’Connor et al. (2021) “Naming it: the problem of male privileging in higher education,” Academia Letters, external page https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1653
  Positions of power in higher education institutions in Western society are overwhelmingly held by men. ….
  Attention has begun to be paid to discrimination against women in higher education but much less attention is being paid to men’s privileging by the structure and culture of those organisations which are designed by men for men.
  Until we begin to understand male privileging, attempts to challenge gender inequality in higher education will produce at best marginal change.
  At the very least it is time to name it.
• T. A. Stadnyk (2024) “Overstaying our welcome: On the rise of women’s seniority in the academy,” external page https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.15166
  See Section 2: Why women may feel unwelcomed? And then later discussing solutions …
• T. Vettese (2019) “Sexism in academy,” n+1 external page https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-34/essays/sexism-in-the-academy/
  The destruction of these informal networks is one of the most important reforms feminists can pursue in the academy, but likely the one to encounter the greatest resistance. Until such fights are brought into the open, the old boys’ club will be protected by a shroud of silence. As an anonymous historian told an interviewer for a study carried out by the American Historical Association, “a department culture that valued ‘civility’ was used as a way of silencing female professors with ideas about new ways of getting things done.” …
  But power seems to follow men, whose informal networks easily slink into the shadows. When women take over formal networks, they become vulnerable to misogynist reprisals and are burdened with increased workloads. “Women were delighted about the increase in female chairs, deans, or central administrators; some considered that these increases signaled genuine improvement,” noted the authors of a study on attitudes held by female faculty at the University of California, Irvine. “Too often, however, a woman’s holding of this position would devalue or minimize it somewhat, casting it into the service mode, not the power mode. We heard this comment so frequently across all disciplines that we finally named it gender devaluation.” Yet again, patriarchy places women in a bind: “Women take on these service tasks despite knowing the disadvantages of spending their time on duties for which they will not be rewarded because they also recognize that such positions enabled them to open things up for other women.”….
  For the women who finally reach the top, despite all the structural disadvantages, success often comes at a steep cost. At least at some universities, female full professors are even less content than female assistant professors. As Anne Fausto-Sterling, a pioneering biologist in the study of gender development, reflected on her life’s work: “The exhilaration of struggle and pride in social accomplishments is strong. But so too is the hurt of rejection and marginalization.