Poor, poor pitiful Tim Hunt. He’s now complaining about his treatment as a victim of the “savage power of Twitter”.
I am finished,he says.I had hoped to do a lot more to help promote science in this country and in Europe, but I cannot see how that can happen. I have become toxic. I have been hung to dry by academic institutes who have not even bothered to ask me for my side of affairs.
He does not make a convincing argument. His wife takes his side; he’s a good cook and has a nice garden; he was just being totally jocular, ironic
(which is an odd thing to claim when even in his apology he said he meant it). Oh, and of course, it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s
, because no one ever escapes the harm done to them in their childhood, unless it’s sexual abuse, in which case they should just grow up and get over it. It’s basically a cry that everyone is being so mean to him…which is a bit ironic, given that he’s relatively wealthy, has a nice home, has international prestige, and has a Nobel prize.
Some people seem to find these claims mildly persuasive.
Hunt’s comments were foolish and hurtful. I’m sure he regrets making them, but a smart man should know better. That said, I think this situation raises some interesting questions. I’d love to hear what you think too.
OK! I always wait for permission to express my opinions.
I thought Hunt’s plaintive whines were a big bowl of bollocks. Look, I know people are complex and more than just their one stupid off-the-cuff remark — Hunt’s work on cell cycle regulation was important, and I’ve heard from more than one person that he was not a raging misogynist in his lab, but actually did a reasonable job mentoring both men and women. I am not suggesting that he be taken out and flogged and then get damned to an eternity in Hell, or even that he deserves that. But it is precisely a problem when we are so dazzled by that shiny Nobel that we think someone ought to be given a pass for some odious and harmful attitudes.
I don’t even think the following are interesting questions.
Did we make matters worse?
Hunt’s comments were made in a non-public venue. They were brought to the public via Twitter. Blogs and traditional media extended the story’s reach. It’s safe to say that the average young female aspiring scientist would never have heard about his comments had it not been for the rest of us repeating what he said. …and I mean ‘us’ because I shared a number of those stories on social media too. Expressing displeasure and correcting mistakes is important – but did we (the online scientific and academic community & media) exacerbate the situation?
What exactly was done to Tim Hunt? His own words were made public. It is not an excuse to say that if there were no Twitter, no “young female aspiring scientist” would have actually heard those words. Do we argue that if we quit using those fancy diagnostic tools, we wouldn’t be diagnosing cancer as early, so people would have a few more months of blissful ignorance?
Exposing bias is essential to correcting it. What happened here is that a shameful bit of sexism was brought into the light, and the perpetrator was mocked and publicly scorned, but there were no “lynch mobs” or “witch hunts”, those favored phrases of the indignantly exposed — there was open discussion of what should be done. And UCL made their own decision that his views failed to appropriately represent the goals of that university.
Could Hunt come out a winner?
Unlike the time when Matt Taylor wore “That Shirt” – there seems to be much stronger pushback from Hunt’s defenders. They are painting him as a victim of overzealous ‘tweeters’ and institutions they say rushed to judgment. He and his wife have have also refused to remain silent, opting to defend themselves publicly. Is it possible that this strategy could turn things in their favor?
Tim Hunt did not receive a sentence of life in prison. There is no specific act that needs to be retracted or changed — he is who he is, warty exterior and all. What possible outcome are you talking about? That he didn’t say those stupid things, stereotyping women? That the public will change and say that it’s perfectly OK that he stereotyped women? I hope not.
Another point here is that people are already placing the blame on “overzealous tweeters” or people who went overboard in mocking his stupid remarks. What do you want, for everyone to shut up and be silent? It’s not a problem if no one talks about it? It’s not a problem for the privileged people who promote sexism, but it’s always a problem, silent or not, for the people who are targeted by sexism. The concern here is misplaced; it’s because open discussion of the problem flips the table and exposes the ideas of the perpetrators to criticism.
Somehow, when that happens, there’s always a group of people who are perturbed by the disruption of the status quo and think we need to do something to curb the critics. They don’t seem to consider that maybe the status quo sucks.
Will scientists be less likely to go-public?
If some ill-advised comments at a conference can deep-6 the career of a Nobel Prize winner, will other researchers think twice before stepping up to a podium? How about doing media interviews? Aside from the obvious impact on women, will this incident serve as a setback for all of science communication?
Oh, please.
There was no career getting deep-sixed. We’re talking about a 72 year old man with a collection of honorary positions who lost one; a man who thought his past laurels put him beyond question, and is now shocked that having a Nobel does not mean that he can say stupid things and be instantly forgiven. Talk to me when his grants, awarded for promised competencies in the lab, are retracted because he demonstrated social incompetence. These honorary positions are awarded specifically because the recipient is thought to add luster to the granting university. When the recipient does the opposite, it’s only fair that they be removed.
Are there researchers who don’t think twice before doing public lectures or media interviews? Then they shouldn’t be doing them.
If you’re concerned about science communication, then the harm was done when a prominent scientist stepped up to a microphone and suggested that women are too emotional and ought to be segregated into women-only labs.
Will other universities and scientific societies respond differently?
If Hunt worked for a U.S. university, I’m fairly certain he would have retained his position. The school may have expressed disagreement, but it would likely have stood up for academic freedom. Remember when Columbia University stood up for Dr. Oz after a group of doctors from across the country tried to get him fired for things he said?
I have academic freedom, too, but that doesn’t mean I am free of all possible consequences. I have a contract. As long as I do my job in the lab and classroom, I won’t be fired for expressing controversial opinions. I was not hired in a public relations move, but instead because I was considered a good teacher. So, yeah, if I don’t do my job, I’m out.
Hunt’s appointment at UCL was an honorary position — it actually was a PR appointment. His job was to be an ambassador for science and higher education, and he failed. I also suspect that there wasn’t a contract, or much of one, that granted him tenure as an honorary professor.
So when I speak out against religion in my private life, my university would have a tough time trying to fire me for that — that’s what academic freedom is all about, protecting the right of professors to speak their mind. If I’d had an honorary appointment at Liberty University — they’d been really thrilled with my work on grasshopper embryos 20 years ago — it would not infringe on my academic freedom if they retracted my non-paying title.
I don’t buy any of these arguments. What I see is a guy who did great work, was a competent scientist, who was lucky, hardworking, and privileged enough to win one of the highest honors you can be granted in science, who is now complaining that he’s being abused because people don’t like his hopelessly outdated and harmful ideas about women, or more charitably, that he’s an idiot when he gets in front of a microphone.
He was wrong. He couldn’t possibly stack up enough Nobels to change that simple fact.
Deborah Blum, who was at the conference, summarizes her meeting with Hunt. Yeah, he meant it.
You know, I don’t have a reputation for diplomacy or tact, but even I would not attend a Women’s Science and Technology Association meeting and babble about how women are weepy and difficult in the lab.
Michael Eisen says a lot of the same things I did.
Whoa. What things specifically?
Because I’m pretty sure that, where I come from (not in the US), Mehmet Öz would lose his academic titles for selling untested substances on TV and claiming they have all those specific medical effects. And rightly so, too; you can’t be a scientist half of the time and flat-out lie to the public the other half.
Sigh. The “addressing the problem is the real problem” status quo defenders are a dime a dozen, it seems.
An example of how privilege damages the privileged. If he would just stop feeling sorry for himself and own what he said and make a full, sincere apology, and offer some restitution (maybe in the form of leading a dialogue on sexism in science), I think he would regain a lot of his public standing. But, childishly, he can’t see beyond his own sense of entitled outrage.
@1 this ^
I’m sure he does too, but his regret has to do with the backlash, not that he has sexist views.
Worse for whom? Why do these people always think that public outrage about sexism is worse than the sexism…for the victims of it? No. No. No. What we feel is not only discouragement that yet another asshat exposed their misogyny, but inspiration and encouragement and relief that finally, or at least this once, it’s not going unnoticed except by us. It’s an injection of hope that maybe, just maybe things might change.
He’s already a winner. He’s got all the privilege of race, sex, gender, position, prestige, wealth. You honestly think he’s lost much because some of the public–most of whom probably had never heard of him before at all–are now aware that he’s a sexist just like so many other people? Excuse me while I snort with derision.
Uh. No. Sadly, since most misogynists don’t think their thinking is wrong and odious, they will continue to exhibit it for all to see and then be surprised if and when their audience doesn’t happen to laugh and agree with their “jokes”. We have yet to reach a tipping point when misogyny will be generally unsafe to express out loud. If that point does arrive, it will just mean that the communicators will have to keep whatever misogyny they actually feel quiet. They’re not going to take themselves out of the limelight. But I’m so happy that someone is showing such concern for their self-confidence. Please carry on.
Yes. Because women don’t matter as much as prestigious sexist douchebags,
I really hate that “grew up in different times” bullshit.
So they grew to age 12, hopped in a time-machine and arrived now with their childish, out-of-date attitudes intact?
@chigau #6
I hate it too. It’s not like my mother (turning 73 this year) has spent her life being quiet about the sexism she’s faced. Or her mother before her for that matter. There’s absolutely no excuse for someone the same generation as she is to be unaware or unrepentant.
Hunt could easily come out the winner if he acted like a researcher and learned a lesson from all of this. I’m sure he learned thousands of things in school 60 years ago that his later education and research taught him were untrue. If he saw this as one more instance of having to correct erroneous and outdated beliefs, then he’d be fine. If he offered a real apology that showed he really understood how misguided his statement was, then he could retain his position as an ambassador for science. It would really be a great story, if things had unfolded like that.
@6, chigau
Word. I went to Catholic school for 9 years, I still managed to figure out stuff like “sexism is bad,” “gay people are just like everyone else,” and “man, people really like to use this whole ‘religion’ thing to cover for a whole mess of terrible ideas” without much difficulty.
I get that upbringing can make certain things more difficult (and can even make a person sympathetic), but it’s not an excuse for bad behavior.
Hmmn. It’s almost like he’s a woman in a mixed-sex lab; a little criticism and the tears start flowing. /s of course.
@chigau #6
Yes, the different times argument is pathetic for exactly that reason – is it only obnoxious opinions which are insulated from the effects of living?
And to go back to that comparison I keep drawing, Paul Nurse is only six years younger and their professional (and to some extent, personal) lives are intertwined.
Generational differences perhaps only somewhat explain Hunt’s willingness to express his opinions and expectation that his views should be challenged only in the lightest terms.
Certainly, his contemporaries and peers do not all hold or support those same opinions.
“..no one ever escapes the harm done to them in their childhood, unless it’s sexual abuse, in which case they should just grow up and get over it.”
Excellent.
Very much this. He could reach out to (especially female) colleagues and spearhead an initiative to make sure that such antiquated notions are not passed on uncritically. If he really understood what was wrong with his comments, the solution would be pretty obvious.
David Marjanović on Mehmet Öz, M.D.:
He’s a surgeon with an M.D. and an M.B.A.; doctors (and surgeons) aren’t scientists by virtue of having those qualifications—they’re scientists if and only if they do science (with or without paper qualifications, of course; even a Ph.D. can be a Doctor of Phraud), which most of them don’t (including most of the ones who publish clinical studies, etc.).
Could Hunt come out a winner?
That seems like weird rhetoric. Who is supposed to be defeating him currently? Who would he be defeating as “the winner?” Is Tnuh Mit out there plotting the destruction of his nemesis? I suspect the answer is either “No one, I’m just using language imprecisely in a way that exacerbates conflict” or “the nameless faceless outrage machine that RUINS CAREERS of INNOCENT MEN.” Neither of which is particularly charming.
Tim Hunt is already a winner. He’s had a long, successful storied career and now, after overcoming meaningful obstacles that could have actually defeated him, he’s been presented with a challenge for which there are no meaningful stakes for him other than embarrassment. He’s Pele, putting on a show of kick ups at a post-retirement public appearance. No one can win in this situation. But depending on how he reacts to losing face from a mistake in that performance, he can definitely lose.
What a whiny hypocrite. He said those remarks to a roomful of women scientists and *reporters*. What did he think the reporters were there for?
As for his hoping to have promoted science, thanks so much, but you’ve done enough (damage) already and we really don’t need any more of that kind of promotion.
Doubly hypocritical because scientists work within a level of daily criticism of each other’s work that a lot of people aren’t used to, and find excessive. (I once was discussing research with another scientist within earshot of some lawyers, and, hearing how we criticized each other’s work, they remarked “Boy, you scientists sure do play hardball!”. A bunch of *lawyers* said that.) I am sure that Hunt is quite used to that, both taking it and dishing it out.
But I guess that any criticism of his attitudes is just too much for his feelings, because he is entitled to reverent acceptance of all his pronoucements. In fact, he’s “crying” when criticized, just like “girls” do.
He still has a research lab, I believe, and he’s going to what he wished for: it’s going to become a single-sex lab, as all women will now avoid it.
And note that he is not in jail. He also gets to keep his Nobel prize, so in that sense he comes out a winner, and nobody is stopping him from pursuing his work. I don’t really see how he comes out losing very much–his dignity is something he gave away voluntary.
I agree with Rowan #10 that he may be projecting a little when he says “when you criticize them, they cry.”
great comment from the Guardian article:
“Ah, nice to see the old cliche: the wife trotting out to stand by her man and insist he is not a sexist (there’s proof: he even cooks sometimes!). Let’s believe her for a second, which makes the next question: if this guy isn’t a sexist, who is? How bad do you have to be? Does one actually have to come out and say point blank “I hate women and don’t want to work alongside them”?”
What does he mean, “his side”? If he was speaking ironically, he should publish the script or the video or recording of his whole speech. Then people could decide from the context of the remarks. If it turned out he was saying; “I’ve known male scientists who were like; ‘you know what the trouble with girls in the lab is?…” and then deconstructed those statements, then that would be a different matter. Otherwise it just sounds like one more guy who should have kept his mouth shut, or at least asked for critique of his script before stepping in front of a microphone.
Why, to be dazzled by his wit and applaud his brilliant remarks (and possibly get him a sandwich), of course. Certainly they’re not because they work in a lab.
Another thing that occurred to me is that there is nothing specific about science in his remarks, unless there is something about pipettes and goggles that turns a “young man’s fancy” that way.
Take to its logical conclusion, every workplace would have to be replicated as single-sex units. Historically, this kind of segregation was carried out by identifying “men’s work” and “women’s work.” Hunt is kind of an old guy, yes, but not that old, no older than many attendees of Woodstock I’d imagine. Was he living under a rock?
In fact, adults are subject to sexual distraction for all kinds of reasons, and just have to learn to handle it. Hunt is not quite advocating burkas, but his reasoning is pointing in that direction. If his mind is still a little flexible, maybe he can figure this out and offer a genuine mea culpa. If not, it really doesn’t matter that much, though it’s important to make sure this is not perceived the official view of the scientific establishment. To the end, of course he should lose honorary positions. His remarks are personally embarrassing, are terrible PR, and convey the wrong message to women not only in science but in any male-dominated profession.
I think we need to remember that Hunt said, after this went public, that he meant it:
So that’s what he thinks when he knows he’s speaking to the whole world, on what is clearly a subject people disagree with him on, and he’s not being asked to be ‘witty’ or anything.
How the hell is the World Conference of Science Journalists a “non-public venue?” He was giving an address at a conference attended by several hundred strangers from around the world, most of whom inform the general public about scientific issues for a living. It couldn’t have been more public if he was standing on top of the Northeast Asia Trade Tower with a megaphone.
Maybe she wouldn’t. But the average young female aspiring scientist reads and watches science journalism. Y’know, the stuff created by Tim Hunt’s audience. And his remarks, if they had any effect at all (which they were supposed to, that’s kind of what an official address at a conference is for), might cause that journalism to be a little more hostile to the idea of women’s full integration into the scientific community. And our average young female aspiring scientist would still perceive that hostility, without ever knowing that it stemmed from stupid and highly-criticized remarks made by a famous elderly male scientist. How is that a better outcome for her?
Does Hunt regret saying what he did? Sure he does; he said in his notpology that he regretted saying them in front of reporters.
In other words, “I’m really really sorry that I got caught”.
@24 anthrosciguy
More like “I’m really really sorry that some people won’t acknowledge that I’m right.”
paulbc @21 is correct: the love-disrupting-the-workplace issue began when single-sex jobs were eliminated, and is now in every workplace. Did it never once occur to Hunt that he’d have had that problem in any job he ever took? Does he advocate single-sex hospitals, courts of law, parliaments, universities? Just for efficiency, of course.
Don’t they have that single-sex job thing somewhere…..oh yes, Saudi Arabia, isn’t it? Obviously a great solution, as that country’s top ranking in science achievement demonstrates.
Of course, ever since The Gay appeared in the last couple of decades, even single-gender jobs aren’t safe from love disrupting the workplace any more.
Although, I hear that even people who are not romantically or sexually involved can form some sort of emotional connections, which may result in some tensions in the workplace if they turn sour.
/sarcasm not entirely directed at garnetstar and paulbc, but you are going along with heteronormativity inherent in Hunt’s comments
What a surprise, Dawkins is defending Hunt. The guy has the nerve to criticise others for not standing up for liberal principles. Can you imagine his reaction if a Muslim had made those remarks?
Beatrice #27: I had considered your point, but there is only so much to be covered. My general comment “adults are subject to sexual distraction for all kinds of reasons, and just have to learn to handle it” still stands. I fact the main thing that gets me is how someone reaches age 72 without this realization. Maybe he thought it would be endearing to sound like a pimply faced schoolboy.
The thoughtlessness of his comments astound me. If I had to articulate something about it, I might have said that of course humans working closely with other humans for long hours in a small space would certianly develop feelings for other humans. No shit, sherlock. However, this includes same sex attraction- which his little gender segregated labs would do nothing for. The answer isn’t to split up men and women, it is to expect them all to behave professionally towards their colleagues. Especially people in positions of authority, such as he was. This is much more of a ‘him’ problem, than a ‘women’ problem.
Beatrice #27
Right. In addition to other precautions, science labs should be fitted with highly visible “No Frenemy Zone” signs. And the giving and receiving of BFF bracelets must not be allowed under any circumstances.
paulbc,
Yes, I agree that he was probably going for endearing. It’s a certain kind of older man that thinks because of their age, they can make bold jokes about women that they might not have dared make outside a close male circle when they were younger. They are old so it should be obvious that they are not a threat to or competing for women so their jokes are supposed to be just a marking of a man past their prime being all whimsical as if they were younger.
.. at least that’s my impression.
I love how he talks to a room full of journalists and thinks his comments will stay private.
And the comparison with Matt Taylor is no comparison. Taylor did something offensive and apologised for it. Hunt said something offensive and apologised for it being publicised.
But seriously, he is right in some ways. It is not usually (never?) a good idea to become romantically and/or sexually involved with someone you work closely with. It causes all sorts of problems. I like the solution that has finally been settled on and the aged professor that can’t control himself has been removed from the situation. For future reference, I’d suggest better education and ethics – especially for aged professors.
Beatrice @27, not really. Although there was, of course, love in the workplace back in the days of single-sex jobs, which may have sometimes disrupted things for the people involved, the important public crisis of “OMG-Love-In-The-Workplace Will Ruin Everything!” wasn’t discovered until fomerly all-male jobs opened up to women. Then, it was quite clearly seen that any lovers at work would just destroy efficiency.
Before then (and really, for a long time after and still in some states), it was assumed that same-sex lovers at work a) didn’t exist, b) if they did, weren’t very numerous, or c) would have to keep any disruptions secret or to a minimum, because they’d be fired or arrested immediately if their romances, or even their sexual preferences, came to light. So, no problem! /s
Is it just my observation that the kind of people who complain about mixed sex workplaces are the kind of people neither sex wants to spend much time around if they can help it?
Ugh, noticed there was a short article on the CBC about this, and made the mistake of looking at the comments. I knew they would be bad, and they were. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scientist-tim-hunt-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-over-sexist-comment-1.3112965
All the standard comments you would expect. Radical feminists have ruined his life! The commenters are so very ridiculous.
Some interesting comments on Hunt by Deborah Blum:
https://twitter.com/deborahblum/with_replies
To the outraged (none of whom are probably reading this): Lighten up, Murgatroyd. Hunt did something shameful and got shamed. PZ got it exactly right:
He didn’t lose his lab, he didn’t lose his livelihood, he didn’t get fined or incarcerated, he got embarrassed. Which seems about right to me. And the rest of you (again, not present company) have the chance to learn something. So does he.
The comparison with Matt Taylor is actually perfect. It shows with blistering clarity that the issue isn’t about the initial remarks (at least not anymore). Matt Taylor’s apology was up front and direct. And whether or not you believe he was sincere, he made it clear that his goal was to minimize harm. The result? He got a heartfelt thank-you from the online community and the issue was dropped. (Except by the MRAs, who began angrily yelling at him for caving in. But MRAs being angry at you is typically a sign that you’re doing something right.) Tim Hunt’s apology on the other hand was self-focused and the subtext was clearly an argument that he shouldn’t have to feel guilty for what he said. To accept his apology is to embrace the status quo.
Anyone who can’t see why the reaction to Hunt is different than Taylor’s is being bloody obtuse.
Does anyone know what Mr. Hunt’s preferred cheese is? He’s going to need a lot to go with all that whine……
Boy, aren’t girls in the lab sexy!
So I see both Dawkins and Nick Cohen are being defensive of Hunt on Twitter
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/610049504050565120 …
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/610091515642298368 …
Good to see people being consistent. Geez.
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/404304385171132417 …
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/12/the-segregation-of-women-and-the-appeasement-of-bigotry …
“He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s”
Speaking as someone who also went to a single-sex school in the 1960s I find that attempted justification offensive.
dereksmear @42: Nice catches.
graham @43: Me too (about 6 years behind Hunt, in similar institutions). No excuse.
Point taken; I should have added that academic titles can, where I come from (not so much in the US), more generally be revoked for behavior that throws too much of a bad light on the alma mater.
Eh, plenty of us do find those outfits sexy when they’re on the right person. (For that matter, doing good research is pretty sexy in itself.) But finding a labmate #distractinglysexy is your problem, not the labmate’s, and you’re supposed to have enough self-control to ignore the distraction and work with them like an adult. If you can’t do that, find another lab.
While I certainly do not agree with Hunt’s comments and think it’s a good thing that he was held to account for them, the mob mentality on display here (and in other discussion forums) makes me uneasy.
His comments were sexist and out of touch but to label him a misogynist, as at least one Guardian writer has done, is a tad hyperbolic when considering what he actually said. Nothing Hunt said indicates he *hates* women. Nothing Hunt said indicates he actively sought to keep women out of his classes or treated them with malice. If in fact he did do these things, and I haven’t read anything that suggests that he did, well, then it’s a different matter. But even this piece suggests that he was not known to be a toxic presence in the lab. Reading the many outraged comments, the Internet equivalent of a shouting and baying mob, seems an overreaction to say the least.
Anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of human psychology knows that when unexpectedly confronted with angry accusations a person’s first instinct is to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter how “right” or “wrong” the accusations are. If you are shouting someone down in anger it is unrealistic to expect them to remain reasonable and calm.
What troubles me the most is the laser-like focus, and subsequent over-reaction, to, in this case, relatively tame words that happened to make the rounds on social-media . I wonder how many of the righteous shouters put this much energy into taking a stand against everyday sexism and misogyny that is not broadcast via Twitter and involves taking action without the benefit of a group?Countering sexism and bigotry with calmly presented rebuttals is more effective, if not as smugly satisfying, than joining a bellowing mob.
It says something about Western society in 2015 when the reaction this guy received treats his words as if he’d advocated throwing women out of universities or promoted some other vile and misogynistic viewpoint. Is there really no difference between Tim Hunt and, say, the *extremely* misogynist and delusional MRA types? Simply letting fly at every sexist utterance publicized on social media without taking into account the severity of the remarks, and the context in which they were delivered, is short-sighted and smacks of a vengeance mentality. If that is your goal, fine, but don’t expect much positive change to arise from it. (This is true in any situation that involves persuading a person or people to reconsider harmful or offensive viewpoints. Angry accusations promote a knee-jerk defensive reaction or even a defiant entrenchment of the attitudes one is questioning.)
May I make one observation about the “grew up in a sexist/racist/x-ist environment” defence? I’m all for it if it’s an explanation for how someone arrived into adulthood with certain attitudes, but it only works for me as a defence if the person has shown some major changes since. Otherwise we end up with the ridiculous defence of, say, Tim Hunt, that he should be forgiven for what believed when he was 15 (which is fine by me), and for believing the same things at 73 (which implies it’s OK to have no moral growth in nearly 60 years).
It’s still surprising that few outside the scientific community are aware that a Nobel is purely a technical award and scientists are as littered with assholes as the general population. Public mentoring by scientists is a rare privilege earned every day and can be as easily withdrawn by remarks far less vile and contemptuous as Sir Tim’s..
According to the Guardian, London’s mayor Boris Johnson thinks he should be reinstated. Mr Johnson is of course well- known as a feminist and is a leading scientist.
Honestly, I think that Hunt has been damaged less by his shitty, sexist remarks and more by his pisspoor response to being called out on his shitty, sexist remarks.
Saying something dreadful is not (or does not have to be) a red card. I can think of several people I respect who said stupid and horrible things and who are not pariahs. What makes them not pariahs is how they handled the outcry to saying something horrible. To pick one example: in his song “word crimes”, Weird Al Yankovich declares that someone “write(s) like a spastic”. There was some outcry after this from people who interpreted this as an ableist slur (spastic was formerly a common name for people with cerebral palsy in the UK, and became a common playground insult in the 70s-90s). Al’s response was to quickly apologise, say he wasn’t aware of its use as an insult, and display considerable contrition. The fuss about this went away very quickly thereafter.
The reason Al’s apology worked and Hunt’s didn’t is that Al’s apology was focused on addressing and reducing the harm of his remarks whereas Hunt’s was focused on defending himself and placing the blame elsewhere.
Imagine for a moment that Hunt’s apology had been something like this. “During a recent engagement I made several remarks about women in science. My comments were careless and thoughtless, an attempt to make a joke that demeaned women and their contribution to the sciences. I would like to apologise to those present, and to the wider scientific community who are justifiably insulted by what I said. Obviously such remarks are unacceptable at any venue and I hope that they do not serve to discourage women from joining the sciences, where their contributions are vital and valued.”
If he had made such an apology last week this wouldn’t be an issue right now. A shame he has decided to try and portray himself as the victim and shovel the blame elsewhere.
Oh no, the poor man is facing accountability for his odious, disgusting views…how utterly unfair! Witch huuuuunt!!!11!!11!1!!
Oh, you poor little flower….Actually, we have your side of affairs, it’s the whole fucking reason why this entire thing has happened at all.
For many of the most vocal defenders of Hunt and his stupidity, YES.
That is exactly what they want. It is why Rebecca Watson got dog piled on so ferociously for “guys don’t do that” and why the more odious elements of the gaming community see Anita Sarkeesian as evil incarnate. They mention that all is not well in their respective communities and challenge the privilege of bigots and bullies and that will not stand. So they harass. They minimise. They lie and make up shit to smear their reputations. And it is all to ensure that they shut up and not disturb that lovely status quo. And all this screeching about is pure projection as they behave far more like an angry mob when they harass anyone with a remotely feminist disposition.
dereksmear
Gender segregation is only bad when muslims* want it because their reasons are bad. When a venerable white male scientist says labs should be gender segregated it is reasonable and logic because we all know that those guys never have bad reasons, therefore gender segregation must be right. Or at least honestly mistaken. Never because of prejudice and bigotry.
*Again giving the most right wing branch the legitimisation to speak for “muslims” as if…
One could also argue that his detractors are arrogantly pursuing a self-promoting moral victory against a man who, at least according to his supporters, has personally done more to advance the careers of women in science than any of his accusers. What is more important: the moral victory or the practical victory? Sometimes these two things are incompatible.
I personally don’t know enough about the situation to make to have an honest opinion. However, one should ask himself or herself who they are actually serving before throwing this man under the bus. His or her ego or those who he or she claims to represent?
Kevin Souza, how does one go about showing that blatent sexism will not be tolerated, not matter what the person has achieved in life? He forgot his sexual harassment training, and stepped over a line. He should have known better.
Hint, if nobody criticizes, and there are no consequences, nothing will change. Is that what you really want?
No one or almost no one that I have seen has defended Tim Hunt’s remarks. He said something stupid and he should have known better. Even his defenders acknowledge this. The question they seem to be struggling with is after having criticized the inappropriateness of his remarks, does removing him from his positions do more good or harm to science advocacy, including the advancement of women in science.
I don’t know enough about what he’s done to draw a conclusion but I do think it’s a reasonable question to ask.
chris61, he lost an honorary position at a university. How much harm to science advocacy does that cause?
Do you believe women are your equal, and should be treated with the same rights, privileges, and respect that you expect? Given a yes, what is the problem with public condemnation and loss of an honorary position. The only time you should have a problem is if you feel women aren’t your equal, the answer is no, and then expect some criticism from this group….
@59 Nerd,
The answer to your question is yes, I believe in gender equality. The problem that I see with what has happened to Tim Hunt is not his loss of an honorary position but the rifts his treatment appears to have created in the scientific community. Apart from that, I am uncomfortable with trial by social media.
As a scientist, there should be no rifts in the scientific community unless it is MRA versus equality of the sexes. It is similar to the MRA/SJA rift in atheism.
And I don’t want Hunt speaking for science if my name or chemistry as a field is attached in any way. Neither should you and biology, if your claims are sincere.
Hunt made sexist remarks, which he admits. He is being criticized for the remarks and for his notpology. University College London is condemning Hunt for his sexism and has taken back an honor they gave him.
Nerd
Although I think his comments about gender segregated labs were inappropriate and silly , there could well be things Tim Hunt might say about science or even women in science that I would agree with. So unlike yourself I’m not willing to say that Hunt shouldn’t be speaking for science.
@62 Al Dente
As I understand it, Hunt agreed that his comments were inappropriate. How is that a notpology?
@chris61
Hunt’s actions were a notpology because he first doubled down on how they were true, then when faced with further criticism he tried to claim that they were “just a joke” and that he’s not really at fault.
And sure, he might say something useful in the future. But he also might not. And in the meantime we already know what he did do and he really hasn’t expressed any sorrow or indication that he knows why he shouldn’t have done it. So many of us really don’t feel the need to keep hanging onto the possibility that he’ll become useful when he’s currently being odious.
@chris61:
“The problem that I see with what has happened to Tim Hunt is not his loss of an honorary position but the rifts his treatment appears to have created in the scientific community.”
I’m confused that you think these rifts were created by “his treatment” rather than “his awful, sexist comments”
It seems like you’re putting the blame on people for noticing what he said rather than on him for saying things.
@chris 61
Since he dismisses halve the population as being unworthy, why do you support that? I simply cannot or will not support anybody speaking for science who does that. Nobody who believes women are there equals and acts upon it should be doing anything other than telling Hunt to enjoy his retirement.
@67 Nerd
One of those trick questions – like when did you stop beating your wife?
If he dismissed half the population as being unworthy, I wouldn’t support that. But there is no evidence he does that and quite a lot of evidence that he doesn’t. His Nobel acceptance speech for example in which he mentioned contributions made by female scientists. The fact he is married to a female scientist. Statements from people who’ve worked with him that he supports young scientists regardless of gender. You can even add to that Deborah Blum’s report of the incident. She wrote “I talked about the importance and value of women in science. And Sir Tim also said something like that …”. I interpret that to mean that Hunt also talked about the importance and value of women in science.