PBM: When you think of women in STEM subjects, there has been a perception that they have not been socially encouraged to go into those fields. How do you think your interaction with liberal arts has helped change the ways in which the STEM disciplines think about empowering women?

PJ: I do think that when you become a living example, like many of my colleagues, that in itself opens doors. I’ll give you an example – one of our scientists focusses on how we think about certain aspects of depression and other psychological, psychiatric illnesses. For many years, the research has been purely focussed on male animals. And it didn’t even ask the question, what about the inclusion of female animals? This is true across many aspects. There are many disorders that equally impact women and yet the research is done in a male model. And we must ask, we must explore, and we have to be able to understand differences that we see and be able to understand they are also multi-dimensional. So even if you find a biological difference, biology intersects with the social environment. We began to train our scientists on how to ask those questions differently. And that ended up bringing a number of people into the field.

PBM: How do you see the role of all women’s colleges like Wellesley? And what is the learning that Ashoka needs to take on board from a pedagogical point of view, particularly in empowering women in STEM subjects?

PJ: For us, being in an all-women’s environment paired with faculty which is over 50 per cent women has had a powerful impact. Having the academic experience in an environment where in STEM fields for example, the faculty tend to be majority male, having both all-women, and male faculty who have been sensitised is a transformative experience. We work at this all the time.

Then the alumni play an important role. I want to focus on the science of this. There are many students who come to Wellesley because it’s an outstanding liberal arts college not because it’s a women’s college. Traditionally, by the time they leave, almost universally they are convinced that their all women’s education has been a powerful influence on their lives.

PBM: There is the idea of a liberal education in the 21st century. And there is a paradox that on the one hand prestigious colleges like Wellesley are much in demand. Yet when you look at broad political and social currents, there is also scepticism about the idea of liberal education and what it means today. Some think it has become too ideological, some think it’s a luxury that if you want to be prepared for the workplace you cannot afford (so the instrumental critique). To what extent does Wellesley feel the pressure of those currents?

PJ: There has been a movement in the United States against traditional liberal arts education and the sense of “lack of focus on preparation”. So where did we go wrong? I think we assumed that everyone would inherently understand our value. And I do think we’ve been too comfortable in that area. Now as we think about the argument that we are in an ivory tower, we’re getting out to tell our story.

Let’s talk about the outcomes. We know that students who have had a liberal arts education are better prepared for today’s economy. We know that they are better prepared to address complex issues; we know that they are better prepared to move forward as industries change rapidly. That they have the basic understanding of how to approach problem solving through a critical thinking lens that is uniquely provided by a liberal arts education.

But we have to now talk about how we have made ourselves more accessible. That this vision of an ivory tower only for an elite few is in fact not true. I think we need to talk about the fact that we have needs-blind admission, and what we are doing to bring students from a tremendous diversity of race, ethnicity, socio-economic class and international students. And what you are doing on campus so that they are equally included.

PBM: Universities across the world face the dilemmas around free speech. They are meant to be open forums for debate and discussion and have prided themselves on defending those liberties. And yet, from the United States to India, universities are being attacked as the sites that are proscribing free speech. How have you negotiated this dilemma?

PJ: It’s a hard one. There are ways in which today we have to work very hard at preserving our ability to have open dialogue, an open debate. That is not something which happens by chance – it is a fundamental of a liberal arts education. Academic freedom and free speech, active debate – are ways in which ideas are born. I think this is an area where we’ve come under attack. But prior to being under attack, we did not talk about the issue in a very active way.

Also, free speech in my mind does not mean actively inciting controversial and negative reactions. We are educational institutions. So when I say free speech it’s all in the spirit of education. A lot of what’s happened in the United States around very controversial fringe speakers, is not education to me. That is purely an invitation for provocation. And as leaders in education we have to fight against that.