Women are up to 75% more likely to be hired in universities than men with identical merit, according to a new study

Rigorous research from Cornell University published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas dismantles the narrative of systemic gender bias on college campuses.

Empirical data show thatfemale applicants are heavily favoredover maleswith identical merit, while a network of "organized dogmatism" persecutes and silences scientists who spread these truths.

For years, Western public opinion and university administrations have operated under an immovable premise: academia is a hostile environment where women face pervasive gender bias. This idea, repeated in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies and replicated in global media, has just hit head-on against empirical evidence.

Comprehensive research, published in May 2026 and led by psychologists Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, of Cornell University, reveals that the reality is diametrically opposed to the official narrative.

The study, titled "Organized Dogmatism Controls the Message about Gender Bias in the Academy," concludes that women have an overwhelming statistical advantage over men with identical credentials in tenure-track faculty hiring.

The study exposes a serious ideological disconnect. By surveying 248 faculty in the U.S., the authors found that faculty systematically overestimate the level of discrimination across all academic sectors. This collective false belief is artificially shaped and sustained by activists with particular political interests within higher education.

Identical curricula, opposite results: The real female advantage

To test the absence of bias, the scientific communityresorts to "matched resume experiments" (matched-CV), where identical resumesare evaluated by modifying only the applicant's name (e.g., "John" versus "Jennifer").

The Cornell study reviewed seven large experimentspublished between 1999 and 2025, covering thousands of teachers. The results are categorical: six of the seven studies demonstratedan explicit preference for female candidates, who are chosen over men between 56% and 75% of the time on identical merit.

Even in STEM disciplines, data from the National Research Council show an identical picture: although women apply in smaller numbers, their success rateonce they enter the processfar exceeds that of men:

Likewise, the researchers disproved the myth of the 18% annual campus pay gap. By isolating elementary scientific variables such as academic rank, experience and productivity, the real difference is reduced to 3.6%.

This variation responds to Simpson's paradox: men tend to choose disciplines with higher commercial pay (engineering or finance), while women concentrate in sectors with lower pay scales (education or social work). When comparing salaries within the same discipline, the gap disappears.

The Inquisition "woke" on campuses: Censorship of scientific data

Why is the idea of a pervasive university patriarchy still promoted if the data say otherwise? Ceci and Williams point to the collapse of classical values in science in favor of a militant agenda: "organized dogmatism." Challenging the official gender narrative has become a high-risk professional activity.

The study included a survey of 40 gender-difference researchers, revealing an alarming record of institutional harassment. Eighty-five percent of the scientists who responded suffered threats, harassment or editorial blocking for publishing data contradicting the narrative of female victimization.

Authors have been branded "right-wing misogynists," and several reported being formally reportedto DEI administrations on trumped-up charges or subjected to ethics audits (IRB) to cripple their projects.

"A group of female professors and students have targeted mefor teaching the biological basis of sex differences. I have been asked not to return to teaching a graduate coursethat I have taught for 35 years. I am isolated and treated like a pariah," one professor recounted anonymously.

Another senior researcher reported that a university withdrew a formal offer for the position of rectorafter a pressure campaign was unleashed by radical leftist groups.

This atmosphere of intimidation has permeated elite publications. The report notes that the prestigious journal Nature Communications caved in to activism to retract an unimpeachable statistical study showing that young scientistsobtained better citation metricswhen they had male rather than female mentors.

Following the capitulation, the journal implemented guidelines that made acceptance of an article contingent on considerations of "prevention of social harm," acting as an ideological filter.

Self-inflicted damage to the future of science.

The replacement of methodological skepticism by ideological dogmatism generates a direct harm on women themselves. By obsessively spreading the false idea that universities discriminate unfairly, academic institutions are scaring promising young women in science, causing them to exclude themselves from research careers out of unfounded fears.

The evidence exposed by Cornell demonstrates that male bias in personnel selection belongs to the past.

The real reasons for the lower female presence in certain areas lie in biological and family factors -such as reconciling the biological clock with postdoctoral demands before the age of 40—elements that require logistical solutions, not social engineering or fictitious discourses of oppression.

As long as universities continue to fund DEI bureaucracies dedicated to witch-hunting, science will continue to sacrifice the relentless pursuit of fact-based truth.