Second lesson: Do not apologize, resign, and so on because it only causes the public perception to damn you further.
James Watson has said some unambiguously politically incorrect, unkind, bad and mean things. With respect to the public face, he barely even flinches at backlash: no apology, no resignations, and no real personal consequences whatsoever for his statements.
In contrast, Hunt merely made a joke in poor taste. I wish he had stood his ground and denounced the accusers. Luckily other respected figures are coming to his aid, but that doesn’t always happen.
On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York’s Long Island and from its board of directors
Oh. good catch, didn’t read that far. Still though, that’s already the fifth political correctness controversy he was in (though one might argue the underlying factor is PC-ness increasing, or something)
The previous ones weren’t as bad as the Africans one, and I dunno if you appreciate just how big a punishment that is: Watson was not some honorary appointee of Cold Spring Harbor, he practically made that place. (I say practically because the place was around before Watson but he brought it into the modern genetic era.) He was deeply respected in the area. (I went to a genetics summer camp there; one of my other friends was babysat by Watson when she was kid.) To push him out so blatantly… I’d compare it to Sumner but Sumner apparently already had weakened his powerbase considerably and so his ouster wasn’t that impressive.
I chose a bad example to illustrate my point. What I wanted to say is that it seems there are plenty of people who say and do absolutely atrocious things and nothing ever happens to them… and then some random well intentioned person wears a t-shirt or makes a joke in poor taste and is eviscerated. My intuition says that it might be a bad strategy for these very minor offenders to back down and submit immediately (which they do presumably because they themselves agree with the steelman of the criticism) rather than going on the offence concerning how they are being treated for a relatively minor indiscretion.
If I were Hunt and a reporter had published a bad joke as though it were a serious comment, I’d be denouncing the reporter for libel. Whereas Hunt just kept digging himself deeper into a hole, apologizing for the comment, and even attempting to defend the comment, rather than attacking the premise of it even being news.
Sir Tim’s comments immediately after , previously unreported, read: “Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And woman scientists played, without doubt an important role in it.”
If his speech is really about making a joke of labeling himself as sexist and then saying that, I don’t see there any reason to speak up against Tim Hunt.
The remarks he got in trouble for were (I think obviously) not just “making a joke of labeling himself as sexist”.
Here is the totality of what that article says he said (note: I wouldn’t much trust the Daily Express to report anything accurately, but let’s assume they’ve got it right), in order:
It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked speak to women scientists.
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab:
you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.
Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?
Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea.
And woman scientists played, without doubt an important role in it.
Science needs women and you should do science despite all obstacles,
and despite monsters like me.
So, sure, there’s an element of self-deprecation there. But that’s not all there is, and he isn’t just making fun of himself, and I really don’t think it’s surprising or unreasonable that some people were upset or that he had to resign an honorary professorship in consequence. (The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do. If they become more famous for saying something stupid and/or unpleasant than for their impressive scientific work, they’re not doing that job.)
I do think some of the uproar about what he said was overheated, but I don’t think any of that would have been different if he’d had a recording of the whole of what he said. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious from the start that he was trying to be funny.
If the article is right then Connie St Louis says that if the words “Now seriously” would have been said, it would have created a different vibe. If someone would reveal a recording that contains those words her case would therefore fall apart.
The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do.
No, it’s also to provide advice and give occasional guest lectures. His involvement was likely more than just giving his name.
My solution: absolutely avoid saying anything about gender, race etc. in public with name and face, but really in that 100% literal sense that even avoid saying things that generally support feminism or LGBT rights because even then someone could take offense about one word in a sentence you totally did not mean offensively and then Twitter can blow it out of all proportions.
This is not necessarily a 100% safe strategy forever—things could get to the point where simply ignoring the issues and not commenting on them could get dangerous, kinda like how not applauding the speech of a dictator can get so.
But currently a strictly no-comment policy seems to be safe enough.
Besides it being safe, if a lot of people who would otherwise be supportive decide to keep silent, it may lead to the moderates throwing out the crazies so that they regain that support.
One lesson from the Tim Hunt affair: Always make a recording with your smart phone when you give a speech.
You want to be able to proof what you actually said.
Fat lot of good it did Larry Summers.
Second lesson: Do not apologize, resign, and so on because it only causes the public perception to damn you further.
James Watson has said some unambiguously politically incorrect, unkind, bad and mean things. With respect to the public face, he barely even flinches at backlash: no apology, no resignations, and no real personal consequences whatsoever for his statements.
In contrast, Hunt merely made a joke in poor taste. I wish he had stood his ground and denounced the accusers. Luckily other respected figures are coming to his aid, but that doesn’t always happen.
Oh. good catch, didn’t read that far. Still though, that’s already the fifth political correctness controversy he was in (though one might argue the underlying factor is PC-ness increasing, or something)
The previous ones weren’t as bad as the Africans one, and I dunno if you appreciate just how big a punishment that is: Watson was not some honorary appointee of Cold Spring Harbor, he practically made that place. (I say practically because the place was around before Watson but he brought it into the modern genetic era.) He was deeply respected in the area. (I went to a genetics summer camp there; one of my other friends was babysat by Watson when she was kid.) To push him out so blatantly… I’d compare it to Sumner but Sumner apparently already had weakened his powerbase considerably and so his ouster wasn’t that impressive.
I chose a bad example to illustrate my point. What I wanted to say is that it seems there are plenty of people who say and do absolutely atrocious things and nothing ever happens to them… and then some random well intentioned person wears a t-shirt or makes a joke in poor taste and is eviscerated. My intuition says that it might be a bad strategy for these very minor offenders to back down and submit immediately (which they do presumably because they themselves agree with the steelman of the criticism) rather than going on the offence concerning how they are being treated for a relatively minor indiscretion.
If I were Hunt and a reporter had published a bad joke as though it were a serious comment, I’d be denouncing the reporter for libel. Whereas Hunt just kept digging himself deeper into a hole, apologizing for the comment, and even attempting to defend the comment, rather than attacking the premise of it even being news.
Is there good reason to think that Tim Hunt’s woes have anything to do with inaccurate reporting of what he said?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/586554/Sir-Tim-Hunt-European-Union-report-backs-praised-women :
If his speech is really about making a joke of labeling himself as sexist and then saying that, I don’t see there any reason to speak up against Tim Hunt.
The remarks he got in trouble for were (I think obviously) not just “making a joke of labeling himself as sexist”.
Here is the totality of what that article says he said (note: I wouldn’t much trust the Daily Express to report anything accurately, but let’s assume they’ve got it right), in order:
So, sure, there’s an element of self-deprecation there. But that’s not all there is, and he isn’t just making fun of himself, and I really don’t think it’s surprising or unreasonable that some people were upset or that he had to resign an honorary professorship in consequence. (The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do. If they become more famous for saying something stupid and/or unpleasant than for their impressive scientific work, they’re not doing that job.)
I do think some of the uproar about what he said was overheated, but I don’t think any of that would have been different if he’d had a recording of the whole of what he said. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious from the start that he was trying to be funny.
If the article is right then Connie St Louis says that if the words “Now seriously” would have been said, it would have created a different vibe. If someone would reveal a recording that contains those words her case would therefore fall apart.
No, it’s also to provide advice and give occasional guest lectures. His involvement was likely more than just giving his name.
My solution: absolutely avoid saying anything about gender, race etc. in public with name and face, but really in that 100% literal sense that even avoid saying things that generally support feminism or LGBT rights because even then someone could take offense about one word in a sentence you totally did not mean offensively and then Twitter can blow it out of all proportions.
This is not necessarily a 100% safe strategy forever—things could get to the point where simply ignoring the issues and not commenting on them could get dangerous, kinda like how not applauding the speech of a dictator can get so.
But currently a strictly no-comment policy seems to be safe enough.
Besides it being safe, if a lot of people who would otherwise be supportive decide to keep silent, it may lead to the moderates throwing out the crazies so that they regain that support.