Sure, given this one data point that's also a fair interpretation, although you'd be assuming a lot about the distribution of not-necessarily-comparable jobs ac

Sure, given this one data point that's also a fair interpretation, although you'd be assuming a lot about the distribution of not-necessarily-comparable jobs across industries. But this reasonable interpretation is also at odds with the author's disclaimer that 'The gap, however, is an artifact, a social construct that has no implications for "social justice"'. I presume the author doesn't actually believe that this gap definitively "an artifact" with "no implications". Rather, he probably believes something closer to "the fact that this gap is not caused by prejudice does not imply that the social justice movement is wrong". I presume he defensively overstated it in the way he did to reduce the chances of being attacked by an online mob. While it's understandable that he'd want to do avoid being attacked, I'd prefer if he could phrase his deflection in a way that is more strictly correct.