Gender Inequality in Academia: Women are undercited and plagiarized
By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS
“I have never heard of you or your book. Nobody stole anything.” This was the response I had on Facebook from a male author, journalist, and lecturer to my calling him out for liberally borrowing from my published research without any citations or attributions. My essay on Confederate cabinet secretary Judah P. Benjamin is a top ten Google search result that any high school student could find, never mind a veteran journalist; I am sure he came across it. I found his thesis, phrases, and ideas similar to my essay and my master’s thesis. We also have some common professional acquaintances, including a mentor and former editor of mine at a high-profile online history publication. I highly doubt he never heard of my name either. Considering he is a white male writer who, in the course of an entire book, only cited four living female scholars or writers.
James Traub’s avoidance of female writers represents the epitome of the sexism or lack of citations women scholars experience despite representing over 50 percent of non-tenured college faculty. The male hierarchy prevents women in academia from leadership positions, and male colleagues plagiarize women scholars more often, and women experience more undercitations than their male counterparts do. Among those most mistreated and disrespected are women. Especially in light of the Me Too Movement, gender inequality in academia is a hot topic, with many published studies. The literature is so vast it is difficult to sum them up. Women have increased access to university education, with enrollment tripling since 1995. However, “equal access” does not mean “equal outcome,” women are still finding it more challenging to break through and find academic career success than their male counterparts. 
This year’s International Women’s Day theme was #BreakTheBias; the bias against women is both “conscious and unconscious” and is at the core of discrimination and inequality towards women in business and especially academia.  In business, male leadership uses a few keywords in performance reviews to justify and prevent women from advancing to management and leadership positions. The men call women “Bossy, Abrasive, A ball-buster, Aggressive, Shrill, Bolshy, Intense, Stroppy, Forward, Mannish,” among others.  These words are a traditional means of gender bias, and these same qualities and derogatory terms are used as complimentary when describing men with the same behavior.
In 2014, CEO and former academic Kieran Snyder examined the language used in tech businesses’ performance reviews. In the reviews, women were disproportionately called “abrasive, bossy, aggressive, strident, emotional and irrational.”  Where men were never criticized in the same way; instead, only twice were they reviewed about the need to be more aggressive. While the business world punishes women and prevents their advancement because they find women workers to be outspoken, in the academic world, men silence women to prevent advancement by ignoring their scholarship and voice.
On International Women’s Day on March 8, 2022, The World Economic Forum (WEF) published a new report, “Gender equality: How global universities are performing,” looking at how 776 universities are performing when it comes to achieving gender equality. The study uses Times Higher Education’s (THE) impact indicators against “17 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” The study finds that although women represent a majority of university and college students, they face barriers to moving beyond higher education. The study finds women earned 54 percent of all university diplomas, but fewer of them are in STEM degrees. Women usually take the “arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS)” and medicine, but less so “science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).” 
Universities claim they want women to succeed by providing policies that are supposed to help, with 89 percent having “policies of non-discrimination against women” and 81 percent having “mentoring or scholarships” programs. Still, they are not allowing women to advance and reach the upper level of university leadership. The study found a “policy-practice gap” where the universities have the policies on paper to look good, but they are not “implementing” them. Additionally, WEF finds that the universities are not making the policies well known to female students and faculty, and they cannot take advantage of these “gender-equal policies.”  Most universities do not provide evidence that their programs are working to help women.
Universities are far more interested in getting females to apply and enroll, but their long-term success is not that important to follow and maybe encourage. The report determined that “four in five universities track male and female application rates separately,” but only “two-thirds of them track women’s graduation rates and have plans aimed at closing the gap.” Additionally, the survey found that women are squeezed out of advancement in academia; they face a more difficult time reaching senior academic teaching positions, and only “less than two-fifths of senior academics are women globally.” Women also have more trouble publishing their research, authoring only “less than a third” of research papers. 
The WEF believes universities are the place to be at the forefront of gender equality to “set an example” to other industries.
“Universities are also large organisations with thousands of staff, students and academics, and they should be setting a leading example for other industries by not only creating policies and services that support women’s advancement, but ensuring these measures are properly documented, promoted and implemented. They must ensure that female staff have equality when it comes to recruitment, promotion, pay, funding and workload and that women have mentors and role models.” 
While the numbers improve each year, the studies show that women still face an uphill battle, and gender equality is not yet a reality. According to Georgina Randsley de Moura in the THE, “Breaking the bias against women in academia is a long-term project Transparency, institutional accountability and continual change are all essential.” 
Last year for 2021 International Women’s Day, UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) published a report, “Women in Higher Education: Has the female advantage put an end to gender inequalities?” The report finds women lag behind men in the university regarding “leadership and academic positions, pay, research and publications.” The report documents that “there is a dearth of women at the top” and “among academic teachers and researchers.” 
Women are over-represented among teaching staff at lower educational levels, but their presence drops in tertiary education at colleges and universities. Still, even when they reach the college level of teaching, women find it harder to obtain tenure, especially in leadership positions. In 2018, 43% of teachers in tertiary education were women compared to 66% and 54% in primary and secondary education, respectively. In 2020, just 30% of the world’s university researchers were women.” 
The World Economic Forum’s report on women in academia in 2021 found that globally only 36 percent of women hold senior teaching positions in universities. At only “a sixth of institutions (138), women” held over “half” of all “senior” academic and teaching positions. The WEF explains, “This includes professors, deans, chairs, and senior university leaders; it does not include honorary positions.” The number of women holding senior positions depends on geographic locations. The WEF notes, “The distributions show that in at least half of the participating universities in all regions, there is a gender gap in academic leadership.”  The European and African continents were the only two where women academics held a more significant percentage of senior positions, with Russia having the most at 48 percent. Most of the country’s women represent “between 30 and 40 percent” of their senior teaching and leadership faculty. Asia has the least female senior faculty; Japan has just 15 percent, with some universities in Asia not having any female senior faculty.
Women represent over 50 percent of untenured college professors, lecturers, and instructors in the United States. The American Association of University Women AAUW notes, “Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. Women of color are especially underrepresented in college faculty and staffs — which contributes to lack of diversity, equity and inclusion in teaching practices and curriculum and role models and support systems for students.”  Only 30% of college presidents are women, while more than 50% of heads of departments are women. Women only make up around 30% of the college board of directors. Women are still paid less than men at every faculty rank and in most positions within institutional leadership, with higher education administrators experiencing around a 20% gender pay gap and college presidents having a pay gap under 10%.
In January 2020, another study published looked at the academic staff in Italy conducted by Gianluca De Angelis and Barbara Grüning entitled” Gender Inequality in Precarious Academic Work: Female Adjunct Professors in Italy.” They found that women held less tenured positions and took up more adjunct positions, but not attaining tenure posts allowed them to write more. They explain, “International research studies and national reports point out two specific aspects which characterize women’s academic careers (cf. Eagly, 2003; Glass and Cook, 2016). First, few women advance to senior academic roles. Second, although female academics progress in numbers equivalent to their male colleagues up to a certain point, in most cases, their academic career paths either stop before they arrive at tenured positions or they remain in the lower ranks of the hierarchical academic structure. Thus, while the numeric growth and temporal extension of fixed-term positions have, overall, increased women’s opportunities for researching and teaching at universities, on the other hand, it has impeded their access to tenured positions.” 
Despite the old myths that family responsibility and childrearing prevent women from advancement, recent scholarship proves that gender and gender alone is the only determining factor in whether someone reaches a senior position. In 2019, HEC Paris professor Shaheena Janjuha-Jivraj wrote in Forbes about women being left behind in academic positions. She quoted Dr. Georgina Santos of Cardiff University and her UK study of 2,000 academics at UK universities looking at gender advancement in teaching positions. Janjuha-Jivraj writes, “The research found that male academics reached more senior levels than their female counterparts, even when taking parenting responsibilities into account. When comparing individuals with identical or similar qualifications and credentials and family circumstances, the only factor influencing differing academic rankings was gender, with men holding higher positions than female academics. 
Women academics are passed over for promotions and advancement, and they are shut out of publishing their research. The World Economic Forum found that in 2021 women will write only 29 percent of the research at universities globally. Of the over 800 universities used in the report at 55 universities, just 7 percent of women represent over 50 percent of the research authors. However, this contrasts with the number of female students at the undergraduate level; women represent a majority of the students at 54 percent. According to the UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education, these numbers “demonstrates how much more work still needs to be done to encourage and support women to stay in academia and progress up the ranks.” 
During the Covid-19 crisis, gender inequality is becoming a bigger problem. The lockdown forced women to take on more domestic roles, taking them away from their academic careers. Professors Alesia Zuccala and Gemma Derrick recount, “Women are submitting fewer preprints, dropping enrolments in university programmes, missing from pandemic-related scientific committees, and experiencing pressure during lockdown periods to take on traditional caregiving and domestic responsibilities.” 
The number of women publishing research articles is less; according to UNESCO, “The average share across all institutions is just 29 per cent, while at only 55 universities (or 7 per cent of the total) are more than half of authors women. The averages by country range from 9 per cent in Iraq to 43 per cent in Portugal.” The number of women publishing and being productive decreased during the pandemic. With lockdowns, women had more domestic duties, while working at home helped increase male academic productivity. Two studies showed women researchers published less in the first months of the pandemic, but their levels rebounded in the second half of the year when the lockdowns eased. UNESCO indicates, “It remains to be seen whether these unproductive research periods for female academics will have an impact on the hiring, promotion and funding of women.” 
Women are also plagiarized more often than their male counterparts are. The scholarship of women and people of color is disrespected more than white male academics and by white male academics. Twelve white women academics in an environmental history-writing group studied the prevalence of white male scholars omitting to cite the scholarship of women and minority groups, but most still use their work. They documented and analyzed this problem in their Inside Higher Ed article, “‘A Disturbing Pattern’ Inadequately citing or entirely omitting the scholarship of women and people of color reflects the larger problem of entrenched marginalization in the academy.”  These women also recounted their experiences of being plagiarized, despite being senior professors at elite universities, including Ivy League and Top tier research and state universities. These historians have “published 34 books and 207 peer-reviewed articles and chapters.” 
The historians noted, “In just three months, published work by four of our members was inadequately cited or entirely omitted in other relevant publications.” The historians point out that almost all women in all academic fields have had their work undercited. They recount, “Those disturbing lapses reflect a larger pattern, in all disciplines, of undercitation of scholarship by women and people of color. This pattern plays out in books, articles, grant applications, and blogs and extends into applied fields of scholarship outside the academy.”  Unfortunately, if under citation happens to senior women scholars some in university leadership positions, then it is more prevalent among “junior colleagues — graduate students, postdocs, adjunct faculty, lecturers, and untenured faculty.”  Additionally, scholars of color and other minority groups risk being undercited.
These scholars looked at undercitations as just one result of systematic sexism and discrimination in the academe. These historians find citation policy and the omission of citing women and people of color a “powerful” example of sexism and racism in academia because it skews academic scholarship and viewpoints, preventing more varied and broader historiography. The historians claim, “Citations are powerful technologies of knowledge production, yet they may simultaneously produce ignorance. Failure to cite the work of particular groups of scholars, whether intentional or not, distorts our understandings of the past and of contemporary inequities.” 
Males in academia, particularly white males, are looking to make a particular view on history; they do not want the perspectives of others because it changes the tight, rigid, and “traditional” approaches to history. Male historians want to prevent women from historiography from having a voice and shaping the professions and analysis of the past. They are picking and choosing whose voices they want in the historical canon, and it is not women’s voices. In doing so, these male historians willingly plagiarized rather than cite female historians. The men want to serve as gatekeepers; if they refuse to cite women scholars, they shut women from moving up the ladder in the academic world in the university and publishing. Research is the game’s name, and citations are the currency to win. In refusing to cite women in their women, the men can keep their predominance and status within their fields.
In the article, the women historians explain, “Many professional decisions are tied to impact and influence. Undercited scholarship affects who gets hired, tenured, funded, published, and promoted. It undermines morale and well-being. Undercitation impedes participation in networks, communities, and decision-making bodies that are the locus of evaluation and power. Undercited scholarship trivializes the contributions of women and marginalized groups, making disciplines appear whiter and more male.” 
In addition, under citation affects women’s further scholarship, ensuring what the women historians call “White supremacy.” The gatekeeping starts even before publication. Journals and book publishers make it difficult for women and people of color to be published from the start, refusing their journal and book proposals more often than white male scholars. The women historians recount, “Scholars of color, white women and LBGTQ+ scholars have lower rates of journal publication, receive less support and encouragement, and recount numerous experiences when they have pitched manuscripts and proposals only to be dismissed.”  Although I had already self-published my Benjamin essay and had it published on blogs, I could not get it published as a book because I was a woman, and on my second strike, I did not have a doctorate.
In 2020, a year after I published my essay, “The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of whiteness in the South,” Paul Finkelman, then President at Gratz College in Philadelphia, approached me to write a full biography on Benjamin for the series he edited at Routledge Press, “Routledge Historical Americans. First flattered me and wanted me to write a proposal, sending me samples and instructions.
Finkelman then looked to find any fault in my essay because, as he said, he wanted a Benjamin book. But he wanted a book written by a male elite, not a woman without a doctorate, which was the only reason Finkelman did not want me to write a Benjamin biography in his series. Finkelman wanted my ideas, my original essay, and a book proposal; like other white male scholars, women’s ideas are fine, but not citing them or giving them authorship. I feared he wanted to plagiarize my essay; I publicized that I authored the paper, my intention to elongate it to an entire book. At jobs I applied to in academia, I included my essay and plans; it was well circulated in the Jewish media, on the Times of Israel Blogs, and in academia.
Still, a year and a half later, James Traub, who only has a bachelor’s degree, but from Harvard University. Yale University Press published his biography on Benjamin, where he did not cite almost any female scholars or me, still borrowed from my thesis and even phrases from my text. Traub may be an excellent foreign policy journalist, but he barely has a background in history and has admitted he knows nothing about American Jewish history and knows nothing about Judah Benjamin when the Jewish Lives editor and personal friend, Ileene Smith, asked Traub to write the book on Benjamin. 
The twelve female historians believe that undercitation is a form of plagiarism. Male scholars use female scholars’ ideas but refuse to cite their writing. They are also whitewashing the historiography leaving out the important contributions of women and people of color. Historians point out, “Undercitation raises academic honesty and integrity questions. When authors do not consider the full diversity of research published in their fields, their neglect women and BIPOC scholars, wield professional power against others. When authors fail to cite authors whose works they relied upon, they are guilty of plagiarism. How can scholars ethically continue to erase others’ work?” 
Students are the worst plagiarism offenders, but they are the most overly punished by their professors, 25 percent of who, according to a recent study, plagiarize themselves. Students might not always know better; professors should. What universities overlook is the frequency their faculty plagiarizes. In research universities, the faculty is stressed; they must teach, participate in professional duties, and produce original research. In their 2012 study, Professors Benson Honig and Akanksha Bedi examined plagiarism among Management faculty in their article, “The Fox in the Hen House: A Critical Examination of Plagiarism Among Members of the Academy of Management,” finding a quarter of the academics plagiarized.  The women historians also pointed out this double-standard in universities, writing, “It is ironic that in a profession that requires our students to abide by principles of academic integrity, some scholars fail to do so.” 
The women historians also pointed out that “moreover, guilty parties regularly escape accountability.” I recently wrote an article about how professors and professional writers escape even from plagiarism scandals almost unscathed. The article was entitled, “An enduring problem in academia professors also plagiarize but get away with it.”  The article looked at plagiarism in academia, especially among historians. It was based on what I observed while working as an intern and then editor at the History News Network. At HNN, there was a walk of shame page, “Historians in the Hot Seat,” which kept track of any historian that faced any scandal.  Some lied about their credentials or past, most related to plagiarizing and the consequences. Some of history’s most prominent names made a list of plagiarism scandals, they almost always were not punished, and their careers rebounded.
The women historians also indicated that while white male scholars exclude citing women, they also overcite other male colleagues or scholars more influential than them. In doing so, they mutually build each other’s careers while leaving women out in the cold. James Traub was also guilty of overciting scholars. In his Benjamin biography, “Judah Benjamin: Counselor to the Confederacy,” he cited more than any other scholars Eli N. Evans’s Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate, the complete biography on Benjamin written, and the influential American Jewish historian, Jonathan Sarna.
Sarna’s name and publications were included nine times in Traub’s book. Sarna, in turn, endorsed Traub’s book, calling it, “This is, by far, the best and most readable, short biography of Benjamin that exists.” Sarna knows better; Traub’s biography was full of historical errors, but Traub played up to Sarna, giving him the citations; he wanted to increase his ever-long lists of mentions. The women historians explained the phenomenon that kept men at the forefront of historiography, “Indeed, they often are rewarded by those canonical scholars they do amplify through citations. As a result, the field reproduces itself in exclusionary ways.” 
President Finkelman might have a hand in The Jewish Lives series by adding a biography on Judah Benjamin and their choice of Traub, a white male with a high profile. Almost confirming that Finkelman gave Traub a primarily favorable review in the Jewish Review of Books’ Winter 2022 issue. Besides Chancellor Finkelman approaching me to write a Benjamin book for his Routledge series, Finkelman has not written about Benjamin in his research. It is difficult not to see the coincidences and then Traub’s liberal usage of my thesis and some phrases from both my master’s thesis, “Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Jews, Whiteness, and Anti-Semitism in the Civil War South, 1840–1913” and my Benjamin essay, “The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of Whiteness in the South,” ties it all together. 
Finkelman summarized the Benjamin biography and the Confederate secretary’s life before critiquing and commending Traub’s take on Benjamin’s life. Finkelman wrote:
“Traub’s biography is lively, well written, and engaging. There are superb vignettes of political leaders and vivid descriptions of Benjamin’s oratorical and forensic skills. Unfortunately, it is also often inaccurate… Despite the many such errors, Traub has written a vivid portrait of Judah Benjamin, who led an utterly fascinating (and marginally Jewish) life. It is not always pretty, but history often isn’t.” 
Ironically, even when searching the title of Traub’s book on Google, my essay on Traub on Medium still comes out in the top ten searches, while my biography of Benjamin is still in the top 100 searches. So how is Traub completely ignored to cite and mention that my work exists? My essay is the most extended available biography on Benjamin since Southern historian Eli Evans’s monumental 1989 book “Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate.” While I primarily relied on secondary sources for convenience, I still included every study published on Benjamin.
Traub purposely forgot my top-ranking essay and everything published about Benjamin in the last fifteen years. Traub ignored the recent historiography, some seminal works on Jews during the Civil War, and Southern Jewish history, and his book and analysis are poorer for it. I am not the only woman academic Traub chose to dismiss. I am not the only woman academic Traub decided to ignore. Traub’s source notes avoid any writing about Benjamin written by women. Traub’s entire book attempts to prevent women scholars if they wrote about Benjamin, Southern history, Southern Jewish history, or the Civil War era.
Traub only cited four women scholars in his entire book. Duke University Librarian Jennie Holton Fant’s, “The Travelers’ Charleston: Accounts of Charleston and Lowcountry, South Carolina, 1666–1861” (2016), Stonybrook University President Maureen Dee McInnis, a cultural art historian’s award-winning book “The Politics of Taste in Antebellum Charleston” (2005). Shirley Elizabeth Thompson’s book, “Exiles at Home: The Struggle to Become American in Creole New Orleans.” (2009), Thompson is a minority in the historian’s Traub, an African American and a woman, which seems like an insult considering academics and historians of color are just as much undercited as white women scholars.
Additionally, Traub cited Yale University historian Joanne B. Freeman’s “The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War” (2018). Freeman is a leading historian in the field, but there are so many women studying the Civil War that Traub ignores, including one of the most influential. Former President of Harvard, Civil War historian Drew Gilpin Faust. Additionally, the American Jewish history and Southern Jewish field are filled with women historians, which Traub conveniently forgot.
One of the most glaring omissions and plagiarism is when Traub repeatedly emphasizes Benjamin’s ability to change and adapt. In 2015, Legal scholar Catharine MacMillan, the Chair in Private Law at the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, wrote the essay, “Judah Benjamin: marginalized outsider or admitted insider?.” MacMillian argued about Benjamin’s ability to adapt to different circumstances focusing on his years in England after escaping capture in the Confederacy.  In 2014, Professor MacMillan presented a paper entitled “Judah Benjamin: The Louisianan’s Influence on British Law” at Louisiana State University. 
In 2018, MacMillan presented a paper at the William & Mary Law School Marshall-Wythe Lecture in Legal History, “Personal Networks and the Transference of Legal Ideas: the Trans-Atlantic Career of Judah P. Benjamin,” and hosted a workshop, “A Political Exile’s Odyssey: The Strange Life of Judah P. Benjamin.”  McMillan was authoring a book about Benjamin’s legal career. MacMillan is the preeminent scholar examining Benjamin’s legal profession. However, Traub never mentions her, and none of her writings appear in his endnotes.
The bias extends to one of America’s most beloved figures, Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In February 2002, Ginsburg delivered an address to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs when they honored her with the Albert D. Chernin Award. Ginsburg’s speech discussed Benjamin being the first Jew nominated to the United States Supreme Court. While filed with the secondary source material, Ginsburg’s insights into Benjamin’s legal career are a welcome addition to a biography on Benjamin. Yet, Traub could cite a Tablet Magazine about Benjamin, of course, written by a man. 
Male writers, especially influential ones, seem like Teflon, untouchable whether they undercite or downright plagiarize; they get away without retribution. Despite calling out Traub on multi-platforms and readers seeing my articles, the mainstream media has not picked up on his plagiarism, undercitation, and ignoring female scholars. It is eight months since Yale University Press published Traub’s, and there have not been attempts to address, apologize, or rectify Traub’s errors, undercitations, and plagiarism.
The closest Traub got to any punishment or ridicule was in June when YUP put some volumes of the Jewish Lives series on sale. Traub had the distinct honor of having his Benjamin’s print, and digital version put down to the lowest markdown, a bargain price of six dollars. In the past, such price lowering was reserved for books that could not sell. At least the publisher and readers recognize the sexism and a plentitude of historical errors in his biography that ruins the integrity of the rest of the series, including some esteemed historians.
It is a travesty that in 2022, women’s rights are being trampled on by the male gatekeepers. Whether it be legal or academic, women’s rights are in jeopardy. After the #metoo movement, women believed the tide had turned, and they would no longer be taken advantage of by the male hierarchy, but this year proved to be the end of the progress. First, we saw actress Amber Heard not being believed in a defamation lawsuit brought on by her ex-husband mega actor Johnny Depp after she alluded to being abused in a Washington Post op-ed. This ended women’s ability to call out their abusers without consequences. Then the Supreme Court overturned the almost fifty-year-old precedent allowing abortions established by Roe vs. Wade in 1973, allowing the states to tell women what they can do to their bodies and possibly making a right to choose criminal. All the while, studies show how many male academics are keeping women scholars from succeeding. When will women gain and keep real equality, and when will men be accountable?
 Goodman, Bonnie K., “The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of Whiteness in the South,” https://www.academia.edu/38088923/The_Mysterious_Prince_of_the_Confederacy_Judah_P_Benjamin_and_the_Jewish_Goal_of_Whiteness_in_the_South ; Bonnie K. Goodman, “Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Jews, Whiteness, and Anti-Semitism in the Civil War South, 1840–1913,” 2020.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS, is a Professional Librarian (CBPQ) and historian. She is the author of “Silver Boom! The Rise and Decline of Leadville, Colorado as the United States Silver Capital, 1860–1896,” “The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish goal of whiteness in the South,” “We Used to be Friends? The Long Complicated History of Jews, Blacks, and Anti-Semitism,” and the viral article, “OTD in History… October 19, 1796, Alexander Hamilton accuses Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with his slave creating a 200-year-old controversy over Sally Hemings.”
Ms. Goodman has a BA in History and Art History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies, both from McGill University, and has done graduate work in Jewish history at Concordia University as part of the MA in Judaic Studies, where she focused on Medieval and Modern Judaism. Her research area is North American Jewish history, particularly American Jewish history, and her thesis was entitled, “Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Southern Whiteness, Jewish Women, and Antisemitism, 1860–1913.”
Ms. Goodman contributed the overviews and chronologies to the “History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2008,” edited by Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel (2012). She is the former Features Editor at the History News Network and reporter at Examiner.com, where she covered politics, universities, religion, and news. She currently blogs at Medium, where she was a top writer in history and regularly writes on “On This Day in History (#OTD in #History)” Feature and on the Times of Israel. Her scholarly articles can be found on Academia.edu. She has over fifteen years of experience in education and political journalism.