​Mind the gap and reject subtle gender discrimination

Earlier this month, the Department of Education released a new College Scorecard website designed to centralize statistics ranging from a school’s most popular programs to the financial details of typical costs and earnings after graduation. But the data also revealed a more nefarious earnings gap between male and female graduates at Duke and peer institutions, valued at almost $30,000 for Duke graduates 10 years after graduation. At 24.3 percent, this gap just tops the national gap of 22 percent.

The gap’s causes have been fiercely debated for years. Countless factors influence its size, and given that all students at Duke are presented with the same costs, all of us should be prepared to reasonably explain what appears to be a systematic bias against women and other groups in paying back those costs through earnings.

First, it is important to acknowledge that the College Scorecard data have already been criticized by some here at Duke as documented this week in The Chronicle, but it is important to note the gendered wage gap exists in spite of these failings. The fact is that a discussion of the gap often begins with the argument that gap statistics are skewed or fail to control for a variety of reasonable confounding variables, halting conversations before they begin.

The reality is that an Academy of Management study published in 2007 cements the fact that even after controlling for major choice, industry field and factors like union membership and time taken off from work, about half of the earnings gap is still unexplained. While exploration of the causes therein are hindered by difficulties with making further controls, the qualitative work done on investigating the possibility of overt gender discrimination as the cause is well-documented.

Many suggest women lose momentum when they choose to start families, trading off time spent gaining experience, climbing corporate ladders or achieving tenure-track research needs. The implication is that starting families limits their earnings potential, and that is a cost they will have to bear. It is clear, however, in a meritocratic sense that in a world where home divisions of labor are growing more equally split between men and women, this kind of life choice should not preclude women from wage equality.

Even after controlling for work experience, the study raises the question of gender-based workplace discrimination. This factor in earnings is difficult to measure because it can only be controlled around and inferred through other variables. But the idea that an unquantifiable variable cannot be incorporated into arguments against the wage gap avoids the argument.

Indeed, it is fair to say nobody should assume the remainder of the gap is entirely based in sexism, but it is difficult to deny the existence of discrimination altogether. Especially among women of color, the expected value of productivity and the rare but real unofficial employment policies against women contribute to systemic barriers against parity. Even as egregious sexism is reduced, the subtlety of discrimination, which manifests even in the debate about wage gaps, brings new dangers.

The gap exists, and the onus for change lays largely with the employer-side institutions that set wages, and with female leaders in industry and academia who can serve as role models for equality. For students, the way we discuss issues of gender-based wage inequality must change as well. Unless consciously rejected, the two assumptions seen here that women ought to adjust their life choices or accept the status quo of their employment rights, the glass ceiling will remain unbroken.