No, this is just equivocation (in logic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) of 'science' with 'science departments and their management' (or mismanagement, in this case).
The two aren't the same at all. Science is blameless. Science is nothing more than scientific method and the application of scientific method and all the knowledge derived from it thus science is not the buildings/departments science is done/taught nor the people that manage those departments or teach in them or the culture in them.
science departments ≠ science
management of science departments ≠ science
people/scientists/professors ≠ science
culture of scientists/professors ≠ science
Harassment should NEVER be tolerated so Something needs to be done to put a stop to that harassment regardless of whether it is in a science department or not.
But harassment isn't caused by science so the issue is the same regardless of whether it is specifically in a science department or in some other kind department not science-related thus at least in that narrow sense science is totally irrelevant to the harassment issue even it coincidentally happened in a science-related department as opposed to elsewhere or in some other arbitrary non-science-associated context.
I see this OP link as implicitly assuming science guilty by association rather than by reason.
The post that was quoted here has been removedSexual harassment is a serious problem in the academic world, as it is outside of the academic world.
That few women choose academia as a career is primarily related to the way an academic career is structured, providing little job security for junior researchers, precisely at a point when women often choose to have children.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAside from the title, this article is about harassment, not sexism. Hard to take seriously if they can't get the title right. It seems counterproductive to refer to the very important issue of sexual harassment as sexism.
If we're talking about sexism and not harassment, KazetNagorra is spot on about why women are under-represented in academic science. The career track involves an unusual amount uncertainty for highly-trained professionals well into their late 30s. You often need to move jobs and cities, keep unpredictable hours, and rely to some degree on luck. When the tenure clock turns on, usually in your early- to mid-30's, you have 5 years to "make a name for yourself". You need to be in the lab a lot, travel to conferences, write papers and win grant dollars. Lots of women do it successfully, but others who are well-trained and competent will choose another track (particularly if they want to have or already have kids), such as teaching, biotech or science editing. These tracks typically come with more job security, good benefits and predictable hours. Is that sexist?
p.s. the numbers they give for % of women in STEM who have been harassed in this article is very similar to the norms across all areas of academia and life in general (Reference: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-11711-001)
. It's happening everywhere, so it cannot be "science" that's breeding harassment.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI personally doubt that is a real requirement.
The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word to turn a highly misleading statement (which is what I personally perceive to be so in this case) to one that is accurate, the benefit of adding just that one extra word outweighs the cost thus, regardless of whether it is accepted practice to so shorten it, it shouldn't be.
What is the cost of adding that extra word? Will people suddenly find the title so long and tiresome to read they won't? Will there be a flood of complaints by readers saying it should be shortened at the cost of not saying exactly what is meant by it? Somehow, I don't think so.
And I noticed they made one of the same kind of misleading statement in the article as in its title. Was that just to shave of just one word in the whole article? Is the word count constraints really that tight? Somehow, I don't think so.
The post that was quoted here has been removedDon't know what would work best but, perhaps with a title overhaul, this alternative would be better;
why-science-institution-culture-fosters-sexism
ANYONE;
Although I think this would be better, I think this is probably not the best alternative title (still possible to semantically read it the wrong way) and I welcome any suggestion from anyone here of what alternative they can think up and post it here.
