Study finds bias for women, against men, in hiring for science faculty positions

The Democrats’ War on Women™ just got a bit tougher to sell.  Supposedly, science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are hotbeds of anti-woman bias, which is why women account for fewer positions in those fields, including in academia.  So entrenched is this dogma that Lawrence Summers was forced out of his job as president of Harvard University for daring to suggest as one possible hypothesis for explaining the dearth of women at the highest levels of mathematics the possibility that talent is not distributed equally between the sexes.

Thus, the researchers who recently found that not only is there no bias against women, but there is actual bias in their favor have walked into a firestorm.  Sarah Kaplan reports in the Washington Post:

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci…. the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science… have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments. In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men.

“It is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science,” the researchers declared.

Why, that is outrageous!

Joan C. Williams (no relation to Wendy), a distinguished professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law and co-principal investigator for the Tools for Change project, which tries to level the playing field for women in STEM, told Inside Higher Ed that the Cornell study is “seriously flawed” in its conclusion that science is now a welcoming place for women. She argued that hiring has never really been the main source of discrimination against women.

I see.  So people who don’t get hired in their first academic position, and thus leave the field, are the real oppressors?  Consider also that if there is actual discrimination against males in hiring, only the very best males will get hired, and they will be better-qualified than the average of the favored group (in this case, females) who were hired.  So they might well be expected to be promoted.

The entire idea that women, who are considered victims in affirmative action programs even though they now outnumber males in university enrollments by about 50%, are the victims of a war in academia is ridiculous.

Hat tip: Richard Baehr

The Democrats’ War on Women™ just got a bit tougher to sell.  Supposedly, science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are hotbeds of anti-woman bias, which is why women account for fewer positions in those fields, including in academia.  So entrenched is this dogma that Lawrence Summers was forced out of his job as president of Harvard University for daring to suggest as one possible hypothesis for explaining the dearth of women at the highest levels of mathematics the possibility that talent is not distributed equally between the sexes.

Thus, the researchers who recently found that not only is there no bias against women, but there is actual bias in their favor have walked into a firestorm.  Sarah Kaplan reports in the Washington Post:

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci…. the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science… have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments. In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men.

“It is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science,” the researchers declared.

Why, that is outrageous!

Joan C. Williams (no relation to Wendy), a distinguished professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law and co-principal investigator for the Tools for Change project, which tries to level the playing field for women in STEM, told Inside Higher Ed that the Cornell study is “seriously flawed” in its conclusion that science is now a welcoming place for women. She argued that hiring has never really been the main source of discrimination against women.

I see.  So people who don’t get hired in their first academic position, and thus leave the field, are the real oppressors?  Consider also that if there is actual discrimination against males in hiring, only the very best males will get hired, and they will be better-qualified than the average of the favored group (in this case, females) who were hired.  So they might well be expected to be promoted.

The entire idea that women, who are considered victims in affirmative action programs even though they now outnumber males in university enrollments by about 50%, are the victims of a war in academia is ridiculous.

Hat tip: Richard Baehr