Despite the proliferation of measures designed to promote gender equality in academia, structural inequalities persist—particularly in senior positions of responsibility, such as professorships. In 2021, women held only 28% of professorships in higher education and research institutions, even though they comprised 48% of PhD students, according to data gathered from a sample of 900 EU (European Union) and non-EU institutions. Furthermore, the 2025 edition of the European Commission’s She Figures report confirms this trend—also regarding female authorship and funding success—while it observes that female representation among board members and leaders grew by a modest 7% compared to the 2021 edition.
Should those measures be reinforced, does their efficiency require simply more time, or do we need a shift in the current approach? The latter is, as I argue, the most viable option: gender equality policies cannot be fully effective without a change in academic culture regarding gender stereotypes and relationships. In particular, an academic culture that promotes female leadership and inclusive debate must be fostered at all levels, ensuring that senior-level female leadership is the result of a broader culture of gender equality, rather than amounting to fragile tokenism.
Two types of measures for promoting gender equality in academia have been implemented in the last decades. The first measure, already mentioned, consists in explicitly encouraging women to apply for academic positions—particularly professorships—by giving priority to female candidates with qualifications equal to those of male applicants. If we consider recent statistics, this measure doesn’t seem to be extremely operative as of today. A second measure consists in discouraging open gender violence, i.e., sexual misconduct and harassment. Aside from the fact that this measure is not fully effective—since academic silence on the issue continues to be encouraged and retaliation or simple dismissal remain real risks—it is also insufficient to establish a genuine academic culture of gender equality, even if this form of gender-based violence were completely eradicated.
As sociologist Johan Galtung argues, direct, manifest violence is possible only against the backdrop of the latent, structural violence of a community or society. Structural violence is legitimized in the collective consciousness by cultural violence, such as prejudices and stereotypes, which, as Miranda Fricker argues, may be deeply entrenched in collective habits and norms and contradict individual conscious beliefs. Contrary to direct violence, structural sexism is not fully manifest and is often perpetrated unconsciously. Nevertheless, to tackle direct violence, one must face its roots, namely, structural violence.
Focusing solely on manifest forms of sexism is insufficient to achieve full gender equality in academia, as it fails to address the root cause—namely, structural sexism—which remains persistent, at least in some academic communities. Structural sexism may be less visible and even appear benign, but it is nonetheless destructive, as it undermines full gender equality and the legitimacy of female leadership. Giving male colleagues more credit for academic achievements or activities, placing greater weight on their opinions, assigning them more responsibilities, or even making seemingly innocent jokes can all contribute to structural sexism.
In her recent book He Hasn’t Even Touched You Yet (published in 2024 in German), psychologist Franziska Saxler draws on multiple testimonies from women recounting their experiences in academia and, more broadly, in professional settings. She argues that oppressive structures targeting women should be understood beyond the scope of currently legally punishable actions, extending to include microaggressions. Despite their seemingly minor nature, microaggressions can make women feel unwelcome in professional environments or suggest that they should remain in subordinate roles. Such forms of aggression can be especially harmful because their transgressive nature is often subtle and easily denied. As a result, women may question the legitimacy of their feelings that something is wrong and may even blame themselves.
Moreover, as Saxler shows, microaggressions can be used as a form of retaliation against women who do not conform to traditional gender roles or who challenge gender hierarchies, for example, by showing them less appreciation. Microaggressions reveal the destructive impact of structural sexism on the well-being and professional development of women in academia. For this reason, it is imperative to address this issue within a framework that goes beyond the currently recognized forms of aggression. Developing such a framework is not an easy task, as it must avoid arbitrary penalizing of any form of interaction; however, listening to and taking seriously women’s experiences in academia is a foundational first step.
Raising awareness about structural sexism and addressing its manifestations—such as microaggressions—is a necessary condition for establishing gender equality in academia. However, to be truly effective, this must be accompanied by the promotion of an alternative academic culture that can replace the existing structures of sexism. Two measures, in particular, are essential.
First, gender equality—specifically adapted to the academic context—should be fostered as a core value. In addition to promoting the work of women authors, which is already being actively pursued in certain disciplines such as philosophy and the history of science, this should also involve encouraging a more inclusive and equitable debate culture. Based on my academic experience, as a lecturer, researcher, and former student, I have observed that female students are still less likely to participate in classroom discussions—even when they make up the majority of the group. I have also noticed that women tend to contribute less frequently to academic debates during seminars or conferences, at least in my field, or that their contributions receive less follow-ups or positive endorsement.
Second, female leadership should be actively promoted at all levels of academia—not only at the highest ranks, such as professorships. The presence of women in leadership roles, whether among students, postdocs, or senior staff members, should be seen as the norm rather than the exception, and rather than something that is only visible at the top. Focusing solely on women in top positions carries the risk of producing a truncated view of the academic landscape and failing to foster a broader shift in academic culture, which requires more than the presence of symbolic power figures.
These changes are pivotal for a more inclusive academic culture in which women can flourish and contribute fully. Structural sexism is epistemically unjust and harmful, if we apply Miranda Fricker’s notion of epistemic injustice. When women’s contributions are undervalued or discouraged, the status of women as epistemic subjects is undermined. But this also leads to a loss of plural perspectives that could significantly enrich collective inquiry.
Veronica Cibotaru
Veronica Cibotaru is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Tübingen (Germany), College of Fellows, Center for Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Studies. Her research focuses primarily on the philosophy of language and AI.
