Women on Academic Boards: Sought after or Imposed? Higher Education (HE) institutions are the main source of knowledge because of the very essence of their existence; they are expected to set the path to exemplary practices, more specifically towards the endorsement of female talent across top decisional positions. In HE leadership, gender is not only about the under-representation of women, it affects the very nature of knowledge production itself. In this scope, several higher education institutions have been severely criticized for the lack of solid actions towards the endorsement of women across their boards, especially when they are the ones to present research outcomes about the needs and positive effects of gender diversity. In this perspective, governance is extremely important to ensure that the place and role of women are authentically provided and effective, away from the tokenism theory[1], where minorities and women are placed as a symbolic representation to please certain stakeholders. Board structure & Governance During the past few years, there has been an increase in the endeavors undertaken by several international public and private entities, to promote and support the participation of women across all fields of life, especially among large corporations. With globalization changing the rules of commerce, governance principles have become a cornerstone for sustainability and for building trust with the various stakeholders. When tackling governance, board of directors’ composition and gender diversity, appear as governance mechanisms intended to ensure that the interests of shareholders and managers are aligned and to correct ineffective management practices. However, the size, composition, and structure of these boards play a major role in dictating their efficiency. The optimal board of directors’ composition and size depend on the organization’s structure. According to Investopedia, the average board size is between 8 and 12 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members[2]. Another element widely regarded is the level of diversity across these boards, more specifically regarding the presence and role of women. Diversity is a healthy and necessary element because it leads to better overall decision-making. Particularly, women’s presence brings a noticeable edge; the latter has a more focused approach on the human element, adds new insights into strategy development, improves corporate social responsibility, and can lead to enhanced organizational performance[3]. The Higher Education Industry The Higher education industry is making steady progress when it comes to gender equality on the board. A recent analysis found that 32% of board members in the sector are female, compared with just 23.5% of those in Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 companies[4]. Governance in Higher Education has been subject to numerous transformations since 1990 to meet societal, economic, and demographic challenges, as well as to increase the social responsibilities of universities. While more women are making their way to the highest levels of academic leadership, the numbers are still shaky and many obstacles remain[5]. In a report about women’s representation in Higher Education published in 2021, 39 out of the top 200 institutions in the world (19.5 percent) are currently led by women, a slight increase from the 34 universities (17 percent) in 2019. In Europe, and according to the 2017 European University Association (EUA) data on leadership in European universities, which covers 720 universities in 46 countries, only 12% of all rectors are female. The differences between the various countries are also vast. As an example, one-third of rectors in Sweden, Norway, and Finland are women, while several countries have less than 10%. In the US and as of 2021, women represent around 30% of college presidents and 30% as well of the college board of directors, while more than 50% of heads of departments are women. Women are still paid less than men at every faculty rank and in most positions within institutional leadership[6]. In the Middle East, Women lead fewer than 7 percent of Arab higher-education institutions[7]. Board composition and accreditation – focus on Lebanon and the Middle East Because of the realities of globalization and the growing competitive environment, many academic institutions have made it necessary to have a board of directors to increase their governance practices and to be accredited. These endeavors are expected to help these institutions rank higher in the community of quality higher learning institutions worldwide, to improve the value of their degrees along with the quality of teaching, and to advance their overall competitive position.[8] In Lebanon, many privately owned universities are taking serious actions towards the endorsement of government practices, however, not all of them are internationally accredited and several ones have just recently created their own board of directors. Lebanon has been a leader of quality education in the region and Lebanese women continue to invest in their education and in earning higher-level degrees. According to their official websites viewed on November 12, 2021, hereunder is an overview of the composition of the boards of some of the top universities in Lebanon and the Arab World[9]. Lebanese American University (LAU): 23 members of the board of trustees with 6 women; Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK): 20 board members with 4 women; American University of Beirut (AUB): 37 members of the board of trustees with 12 women. In the Arab World: Dubai: American University of Dubai (AUD): 6 men part of the governing board with 3 others in the leadership team among which 1 is a woman; Egypt: American University of Cairo: 8 women are part of the 31-members board; Qatar: Qatar University: 6 women out of 21 members of the board of directors; Tunisia: Université de Carthage, that is headed by a woman president: 13 women out of the 56 members of the university council; Morocco: Mohammad V University in Rabat: 10 women out of the 57 board members. A final word Higher education institutions have an obligation to lead by example and to walk the talk; for centuries, women fought for access to higher education[10], let us hope to see more actions taken to further promote their role and involvement. In December 1993, Judith Rodin was the first woman appointed as President at the helm of an
Women on Academic Boards: Sought after or Imposed?
Cryptocurrencies: An Illusion or Reality?
“Cryptocurrencies are the NEW Hedge against the DYING Dollar” – Robert Kiyosaki “It is not a durable means of exchange, it’s not a store value” – Warren Buffet Since its creation, cryptocurrency has caused a lot of controversy and disagreement. Financial firms, central banks, regulators, investors, and governments are all reconsidering how cryptocurrency technologies are changing the globe. Cryptocurrencies offer users a cheaper and faster way to conduct international transactions. Yet, the crypto sector is subject to criminal activity, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, a serious problem that is continuously increasing worldwide. To begin with, what is cryptocurrency? A cryptocurrency is a form of payment used to exchange goods and services online. Companies issue their currencies called tokens, and holders of these tokens can use them in exchange for goods or services that the company provides. Cryptocurrencies function through a technology called BlockChain, which is a decentralized technology installed on many computers that control and document all the transactions. What makes cryptocurrencies so much in demand? Cryptocurrencies can be very attractive because: Advocates of cryptocurrencies believe that these tools will become the currency of the future and are racing to buy them now before their prices increase; Some speculators prefer cryptocurrencies because of the increase in their value and are not interested in crypto as a way to transfer money; Other promoters have an interest in the blockchain – the technology behind cryptocurrencies – because it is a decentralized system and can be more secure than conventional payment systems. Subsequently, Cryptocurrencies offer many advantages, such as: User Autonomy and Absence of Intermediation: Users can control the way they spend their money, or send and receive payments, without dealing with an intermediary authority like a bank or a government, and without requiring approval from any external source of authority. Discretion: Crypto transactions can be anonymous and untraceable. Absence of Banking fees and Low Transaction Fees on International Payments: Since crypto transactions occur with no intermediary institutions or government involvement, the cost of a transaction is very low and crypto users do not have to pay banking fees. Swiftness in Transacting: Cryptocurrency transfers take place very quickly, which removes the hassle of authorization requirements and delays. Mobile Payments: Crypto users can pay anywhere they have Internet access. However, contrary to online payments or cards, personal information is not necessary to complete any transaction. Yet, Cryptocurrencies present many challenges to the government authorities, mainly because it is difficult to regulate them; criminals use them, and they can help nationals evade capital controls. Similar to any new financial product or technology, cryptocurrencies can present a lot of money-laundering risks. They are subject to fraudulent activity, and the way they operate lacks clarity. These risks are mainly due to: The anonymity of transactions; The vulnerability in the cryptosystems; Malicious software (ransomware); The source of cryptocurrency funds may be related to illegal activities, and customers are not very transparent about the source of their funds. So, what are regulators doing to eliminate all these risks? To stay ahead, regulatory bodies are introducing several legislations to prevent money laundering through cryptocurrency exchanges and custodians, and detect suspicious activities in the crypto sector. For example, The European Commission announced 3 months ago that it plans to end anonymity in cryptocurrencies and establish a new anti-money laundering (AML) agency to impose stricter rules on financial criminals. All cryptocurrency service providers will be obliged to verify the identity of persons sending and receiving transactions. In addition, anonymous crypto “asset wallets” will be prohibited, and cash payments of more than €10,000 will be forbidden. Similarly, The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is setting in place some recommendations to help the virtual currency industry in mitigating crypto risks. Members of the crypto industry are now obliged to ensure that they do not engage – directly or indirectly – in transactions banned by OFAC sanctions, such as dealings with blocked individuals, entities, or properties, or getting involved in prohibited trade or investment-related transactions. In addition, Jerome Powell, The Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, announced recently that he has no intention to ban cryptocurrencies. Chinese regulators, on the other hand, united their forces a couple of months ago to eliminate crypto by considering all cryptocurrency-related transactions in China illegal and by banning all crypto mining activities. Therefore, it looks like cryptocurrency is pressuring countries and regulators to choose between banning, tolerating, or cooperating with the crypto industry and the question remains as follows: “Why do different regulators have different approaches in regulating cryptocurrency?” Knowing the real reasons behind the different regulatory approaches and the effects on both the market and the investors will enable us to know how to solve the riddle of regulating efficiently the crypto market. Time is vitally important, and regulators should take immediate synchronized actions worldwide to benefit from the advantages offered by the crypto industry, while of course handling at the same time all the deficiencies in this industry. “I’ve always believed it’ll be made illegal someplace like China made it illegal, so I think it’s a little bit of fool’s gold; it’s got no intrinsic value. And regulators are going to regulate the hell out of it.” – Jamie Dimon By Nadine Ghosn Eid, Director – Head of Compliance at areeba, Anti-Money Laundering Specialist To know more about the author visit this link. For the full one-on-one interview with Nadine, click here.
English 
العربية