Hi NL Hafta cast and crew,

I’m a subscriber. I have some questions and responses for Anand Vardhan.

In Hafta 144, Anand mentioned that male scholars face a disadvantage in securing university teaching positions because of ‘reverse-sexism’, i.e. preferential consideration for those women scholars who “compromise very easily”. If I understand correctly this refers to women who acquiesce to sexual advances by male superiors or to women who proactively make such advances for professional gain. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

The data on representation of women in teaching positions in higher education published by the UGC in its annual report for 2015-16 doesn’t suggest the existence of ‘reverse sexism’. If anything, women are underrepresented. Women currently hold only 39 per cent of all teaching positions in universities and colleges recognised by the UGC. That’s roughly 64 women per 100 men.

Under-representation of women in professorships and associate professorships (25 per cent  and 35 per cent positions are held by women, respectively) probably reflects the fact that older cohorts of scholars had far fewer women than men. It may also suggest a ‘glass ceiling’ for women in academia. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t allow us to see if disproportionately more women applicants secure teaching positions than equally eligible male applicants (i.e. do women have a higher success rate than men?). But as far as I can see it doesn’t suggest a bias either. About 41 per cent of current Ph.D. researchers are women, which is roughly similar to women’s representation as assistant professors/ lecturers (41 per cent such positions held by women).

This number-crunching is not an attempt to dismiss the claim of ‘reverse-sexism’ in academia, but to understand it further. Discrimination of any kind is a serious matter that merits investigation. This investigation would be greatly aided if Anand provided more detail. Is ‘reverse-sexism’ more likely to be observed in elite institutions? Are certain disciplines more prone to privilege women (if at all this can be called privilege) than others? What other forms of advantage or disadvantage are worth examining? My analysis is not nearly as rigorous as it could be. I’d be happy to probe beyond these back-of-the-envelope calculations if you think it useful.

I do think it unfair to say that “some female research students compromise very easily” without also clearly spelling out all the ways in which women researchers are at a relative disadvantage to their male counterparts. Madhu attempted to do this by describing some ways in which the work culture in journalism excludes women. I would have appreciated a similar exercise for women scholars.

One more minor thing – technically I don’t think you need to call it ‘reverse-sexism’. Sexism is not something that disadvantages women only – it’s bad for everyone. So that makes the ‘reverse’ redundant, no? You might think I have a penchant for linguistic nitpicking and you wouldn’t be the first. My husband, for one, would feel vindicated.

Thanks and best wishes,

Swati