By Deanna Haunsperger

In 1994, I met NSF program officer Lloyd Douglas at a workshop organized by Mills College which had plans to write a large proposal to the NSF to fund women's summer math programs throughout the US in an effort to increase the number of women earning advanced degrees in mathematics. Stephen Kennedy and I were part of the effort: we proposed to run a summer program for undergraduate women, early in their careers, to help mentor them and guide them through undergraduate and beginning graduate school. Although the large multi-institution grant was not funded, Lloyd was able to offer our part of the proposal a small amount of funds, allowing us to run a summer program in 1995 on a shoestring budget. From that, the Carleton Summer Math Program for Women (SMP) was born. The NSF continued funding our program until 2014 (for many of those years, Lloyd was our program officer), at which time the AMS recognized it as a Program that Makes a Difference. The community of women who graduated from our program now includes 113 women PhDs in mathematics, 80 Master's degrees, and 38 still in graduate school. Although the opportunity given us in 1994 meant the world to us, it was just a small piece of what Lloyd was doing during his years at the NSF.

DH:  What were you responsible for during your time at NSF? 

LD:  The names of the programs and my responsibilities changed over the years, but eventually I was responsible for all of the non-disciplinary specific activities in the Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) as well as the math portion of NSF-wide programs. That included, among others, things like the Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research fellowship and the math sites for Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU). I was the liaison between DMS and NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate and jointly reviewed and funded projects with them involving mathematics. I represented the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, in which DMS resides, on NSF-wide programs like ADVANCE and CAREER. Then there were some programs like the Model Institutions for Excellence where I was the cognizant program officer for projects that included disciplines besides mathematics.

DH:  What sorts of things particularly interested you?  

LD:  Part of my problem, even in life, is that I'm interested in many things. As far as projects go, NSF has two review criteria for every proposal, and some programs have even more but my advice to panelists and reviewers was always to advise me on what the potential outcome of a project could be, even if it's risky and may not bear fruit at all. As program directors, NSF has always encouraged us to take risks, so the trick is to balance that risk with potential.

DH:  We give a great deal of credit to you personally for finding the funding to get the Carleton SMP started, then to continue supporting our program over the years. I know that there are other programs that felt similarly supported by you over the years; are there ones that you think have been particularly effective and that you're proud of having supported?  

LD:  There are many that I think have been effective but as far as being proud, I'm proud of the principal investigators who had the vision to see what was possible and who put in the hard work to actually be successful. I may be biased about what's been effective, but the following programs were ones that I recommended for funding during my time at NSF, and they all went on to be named among the AMS's Programs That Make a Difference:

• Universidad de Puerto Rico, Humacao, Summer Institute in Mathematics for Undergraduates (SIMU); 

• Bryn Mawr College and Spelman College Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education (EDGE); 

• Miami University (Ohio) Summer Undergraduate Mathematical Science Research Institute (SUMSRI); 

• Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics (NCUWM); 

• Carleton College Summer Math Program for Women (SMP); 

• National Alliance for Doctoral Studies in the Mathematical Studies; and 

• Women and Mathematics Program at the Institute for Advanced Study (WAM).

DH:  That’s amazing! Do you take any special pride in the work that you've done for marginalized communities?  

LD:  As I said, my pride is for the people who actually did the work, not in myself. I was just an enabler, in a good sense.

DH:  Do you think there were any particularly effective calls for proposals while you were at the NSF that helped strengthen the infrastructure or the future workforce of American Mathematics?

LD:  I can't overstate the effect that the REU program has had on the future workforce of American mathematics. I didn't start the program; it's NSF-wide, and I was just its champion in the mathematical sciences. It's an example I use when people are in despair and say that things never change in our discipline. There was a time when many (some still do) believed that research in math could only be done by graduate students who have passed their qualifying exams. We went from that to where it's hard to get into some graduate school programs if you haven't done research, and this has happened in a relatively short period of time. To balance the playing field there needed to be more research opportunities for undergraduates. While I don't think that everyone should have a math research experience, I think that everyone who wants one should be given that opportunity, and I challenged the discipline to make that happen.

DH:  What was your personal way of judging the success for one of these communities?

LD:  I've read a lot of final project reports in my time and things don't always go according to plan. Sometimes they turn out even better than expected, sometimes they fall short, and sometimes they are just different. Even the ones that fall short can be learning experiences for those involved, and I'm all for learning experiences. If I go back to my REU example, sometimes a student who attends an REU site will learn that they don't want to do math research. I'm OK with that. I think it's better to learn that as an undergraduate than to learn that after years of graduate school, but I think that it's important that they have a positive experience, even if they decide to do something else as a career. We just don't want them to run away screaming from mathematics. I think it does the discipline good to have people in other disciplines with an appreciation for math research. Good things can come from that. 

DH:  In our present day, people understand the importance of mentoring, supporting marginalized groups, and building communities, but I think it’s remarkable that thirty years ago you already saw the importance. Without all the research we have today, what made you think this was a good idea?  

LD:  It just made sense to me. Fortunately the people who proposed these projects made convincing cases to the panelists, the panelists convinced me and I had some very supportive division directors in DMS. Not everything got funded and not everything got funded its first time, but for me the issue was never if this was important but what proposed projects best supported the idea. Generally speaking, I think that fuller participation yields better results for everybody.

DH:  What do you think we as a mathematical community should be doing now?

LD:  Inclusivity is a big thing for me. I don't think we're where we should be yet. I know it's hard and I know there's still resistance, but I think we need to keep plugging away at it.