Newman is an associate professor of English at the University of Indianapolis and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.
It’s important to recognize the significant progress women have made toward greater equity across all sectors of American society in recent decades, particularly during the 42nd annual Women’s History Month.
Yet in academia — where the goal is to move beyond gender stereotypes, receive equal pay for equal work and engender equity in treatment by students — there still is far to go.
A new study from Nature Medicine shows that women in academia have been adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, falling behind in research publications and grant funding due in part to the additional burden of caregiving responsibilities in the home. As a result, some women are declining leadership opportunities or considering leaving academic research altogether.
Significantly, those identifying as women have much higher education rates than in generations past. Today women outnumber men on American college campuses, comprising nearly 60 percent of students. This is the largest male-female gender gap in the history of higher education — with women earning more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since the mid-1980s.
But the picture is more nuanced for women in the academic workforce. A 2020 report from the American Association of University Professors shows that women comprise 43 percent of full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty and 54 percent of full-time, non-tenure track professors. Among people working toward tenure, women account for 50 percent of assistant professors and 45 percent of associate professors, but only 33 percent of full professor s. According to that study, women faculty only earn 82 percent of what their male counterparts do.
The data on women in academic administration are similarly uneven. Although more than 50 percent of department heads are women, they comprise only 30 percent of college presidents. Of that share, in 2017, only 5 percent were racial or ethnic minority women.
At elite academic institutions, women represent only 22 percent of presidents. Adjunct instructors and women of color fare even worse in academia; the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that only 2.1 percent of tenured associate and full professors are Black women.
Even eminently qualified Black women face an uphill battle in academia. The Pulitzer Prize-winning author and creator of the “1619 Project,” Nikole Hannah-Jones, was initially denied tenure at the University of North Carolina. UNC’s walkback on its tenure denial was too little, too late; Hannah-Jones moved on to a fully tenured position at Howard University and recently received the Social Justice Impact Award at the 53rd NCAAP Image Awards.
To be sure, many women — myself included — have benefitted immensely from the doors that have been opened and the doors we opened for ourselves at universities. But sadly, one of the greatest negative biases that continues to exist for women faculty in higher education is not from the expected gatekeepers, but from students.
I have often witnessed and experienced students addressing their male professors with the titles “professor” and “doctor,” but their professors identifying as female by Ms. or Mrs., or even first name.
The end of the semester is always challenging for female faculty; course evaluations continue to indicate students’ negative bias towards women. PLOS One cites experimental research showing that gender bias accounts for up to a 0.5-point negative effect for women on a five-point scale. And yet, it says, “there are few effective evidence-based tools for mitigating these biases.”
In a study of online courses where students never had face-to-face interactions with their instructors — and even when the supposed male and female instructors were actually one and the same — females received lower ratings than males.
Studies suggest that female students also harbor implicit bias against female instructors on end-of-semester evaluations. In one study, 100 percent of male teaching assistants received positive evaluations from female students, whereas only 88 percent of female TAs received positive evaluations from female students.
The crowdsourced website RateMyProfessors, where students post anonymous, public ratings of faculty, harbors similar negative bias toward female faculty. A 2016 study published in PLOS One reported that students’ use of the words “brilliant” and “genius” to describe their professors was more common in fields with less female and African American representation. The tool that the study’s authors used to analyze the 14 million reviews shows that positive words are more likely to come up in reviews of men than women.
A few solutions are possible.
In first-year courses, where I experience the greatest pushback from students around my work and credibility, I offer an early-in-the semester assignment about what professors do. I require students to do brief research on each of their new instructors, listing their academic credentials, professional interests and expertise, and how they prefer to be addressed. The students who might benefit most from this get-to-know-your-instructors assignment are frequently the ones who skip completing it.
Ultimately, academia needs to encourage students, colleagues and administrators in the academic institutional culture to move beyond gender stereotypes, recognize women’s rank and authority at the university, and mitigate gender-biased behavior toward them.
If diligently making those efforts, those participating would earn far more than a passing grade. They would create a fair and equitable learning environment for everyone.



















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.