deletions | additions       diff --git a/surely not!.tex b/surely not!.tex  index 212cac3..4cc0ad5 100644  --- a/surely not!.tex  +++ b/surely not!.tex 
...
A handful of distributed scientists were able to challenge the key arguments of their paper, using their data and citations, in free time over the weekend. \\  Talk about peer-review.  Seriously though, what were they thinking? I would \textit{like to think} that this was actually a brilliantly orchestrated publicity stunt to get more attention on this critical issue. \textbf{After all, who is going to blog/tweet/counter-op-ed "Academic Science is Slightly Less Sexist than when Male Academics could still Smoke in Their Offices"?} Because when you look at the data, the background on this issue, and the immediate response from the community, it's obvious academic research isn't now some utopian meritocracy full of brimming with  equality. There is still institutional and systemic biases. Whether its gender, race, sexual-preference, or need related, or tied up in the archaic publishing system that is all too easily gamed, we have a long way to go before things can be considered "fair". What might a fair system even look like?