I have deleted the word "good" and the parentheses, as indicated in the post, in an effort to clarify. I did NOT understand Professor Monopoli to say that good teaching is associated exclusively with women, or that women are better teachers than men. I understood her to say that traditional faculty performance evaluations tend to give less weight to teaching and service than to scholarship.

Orin, could you say a bit more about CVs used for a professional purpose (like a grant application, perhaps) and a CV generated because the school's website requires it? My initial thought was that the CVs should be the same; that misleading "the public" is no different than misleading a grant reviewer. Perhaps there is a difference between a CV that a professor prepares for himself or herself, and one that a school's marketing department prepares for the website. But in the latter case, I think the professor should be proactive in making sure that any marketing materials are accurate.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with including a presentation to a student group if indicated as such. Under a CV heading "Scholarly Presentations," I would interpret the text "Presentation at X Law School (March 18, 2011)" as tending to convey that the faculty member had presented at a faculty colloquium -- not to a student group -- at X Law School. "Presentation at X Law School (March 18, 2011) for the Y Law Students Association" would be more accurate, IMHO. I should have explained more in the initial post.