Neglected aspects and unsupported claims.

Comments on the article by M. E. Kite et al (see record 2001-10045-002), which summarized the findings and recommendations of the Task Force on the Status of Women in Academe. The present authors contend that while Kite et al documented the differences in the activities of men and women in academia, it is not clear that "inequalities persist." Kite et al interpreted the observed differences in outcomes between men and women as self-evident indicators of remaining bias and discrimination. The present authors warn of two problems with this interpretation. First, Kite et al neglected important variables that suggest alternative interpretations of these differences. Second, the authors made unsupported claims about the existence of bias and discrimination against women. Here the present authors document specific cases of these errors in reasoning. In conclusion, observed differences between men and women might be partly a reflection of other (neglected) personological variables on which the sexes overlap considerably but differ on average. Just as differential outcomes do not imply differential opportunities, equal opportunities do not necessarily produce equal outcomes. We resonate with Kite et al.'s (December 2001) concern for women in academe and applaud them for detailing women's many advances over the past quarter century. As they documented, differences in the activities of men and women in the academy persist. It is not clear, however, that “inequities persist” (p. 1080). Kite et al. interpreted the observed differences in outcomes between men and women as self-evident indicators of remaining bias and discrimination. There are two problems with this interpretation. First, the authors neglected important variables that suggest alternative interpretations of these differences. Second, the authors made unsupported claims about the existence of bias and discrimination against women. Below, we document specific cases of these errors in reasoning.