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