Journal of Controversial Ideas
Organized Dogmatism Controls the Message about Gender Bias in the Academy
Stephen J. Ceci * and Wendy M. Williams
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA; wmw5@cornell.edu
* Corresponding author: sjc9@cornell.edu
Submitted: 15 August 2025, accepted: 25 February 2026, published: 10 May 2026
The “dominant gender narrative” in science holds that bias
against women is pervasive and occurs in every domain, including tenuretrack
hiring, letters of recommendation, awards, grants, journal publications,
authorship assignment, citations, salaries, promotions, and teaching
evaluations. Many of these claims are repeatedly broadcast despite their
nullification by larger, stronger studies and metaanalyses that do not find
gender bias. Because these stronger studies are cited less often, there exists a
false belief among many faculty that gender bias is omnipresent in the
tenuretrack academy. As an example of this false belief, 248 U.S. faculty were
surveyed about their beliefs regarding gender bias. They overestimated the
extent of such bias in every domain. We illustrate this misalignment of beliefs
by focusing on just one of the many domains in which bias against women is
alleged but has been nullified by stronger studies: tenuretrack hiring. We
show that the dominant narrative of pervasive bias in favor of hiring men is
not supported by the evidence. The reality is the opposite of what is believed,
with women preferred over comparable men: multiple sources of evidence
demonstrate that in tenuretrack hiring in the United States and many European
countries, women have an advantage over equallyaccomplished men. Yet, the
claim of bias against hiring women faculty continues to be widely cited in the
premier science media. Challenging the gender narrative should be part of
normal scientific discourse; however, doing so often evokes a backlash—as
documented in testimonials by researchers who have been attacked/
No comments:
Post a Comment