Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

Herein, the socio-psychological narrative of sexual harassment (SH) is critically evaluated. The notion systemic SH in university departments science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) contradicted by overwhelming (>90%) career satisfaction among female STEM academics. Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), central to study SH, inheres nominalistic fallacy. SEQ usage deploys subjectivist methodologies, categorical ambiguity, post hoc ergo propter fallacy, treats respondents as cyphers. Intercorrelation factors reduces response statistics 42%, while phase-space vector geometry indicates does not measure SH. Personality analysis implies that serial abusers dominate incidence widespread 20–25% college students suffer violent assault rests on a misreading published work. 2016 Campus Climate Survey permits an upper limit estimate 3.2% rape at hands 4.3% male student perpetrators, largely accompanied drugs or alcohol. 2018 National Academy (NAS) Report exhibits negligent scholarship carelessly generalizing may itself promote violation EEOC legal definition Despite instances grievous sex-based abuse, there no evidence academics face harassment. Finally, evolutionary psychology social significance personality provide scientific understanding