Maki Naro has done something very clever: he has created a generic comic that we can use over and over again every time a Famous Scientist does something bad.
Read the whole thing. Every panel encapsulates perfectly the standard reaction we always get.
In other, related news, UC Berkeley announces that they did too do enough.
The university has imposed real consequences on Professor Geoff Marcy by establishing a zero-tolerance policy regarding future behavior and by stripping him of the procedural protections that all other faculty members enjoy before he can be subject to discipline up to and including termination,the university said in a statement Monday.
Right. Over a decade of bad behavior that affected multiple women and generated multiple complaints, and now their response is to say One more time, and you’re really gonna get it!
.
I am also unhappy that their solution is to strip him of “procedural protections that all other faculty members enjoy”. That’s not right. He should have a reasonable defense against future accusations; I also don’t believe the university, because from their current procedures, their default is always to doubt the accuser’s claim. They aren’t suddenly going to change their mode to disciplining a professor if a student says anything.
Besides, he was already wrung through their “procedures”, and found to be in the wrong. He ought to be disciplined for what he has done, and what has been determined by their process.
In slightly related news
HAPPY ADA LOVELACE DAY!!
http://findingada.com/
No, UC Berkeley didn’t do enough. Marcy still has a job there.
Richardelguru, nice counterpoint.
So, Joan Schmelz was right, not even a slap on the wrist.
I’d like to know why he wasn’t disciplined in the first place. I’m sure this is all manner of satisfying to all those he victimized, and wow, what a comfort to all those who get the honor of being under him in the future. Way to go, UC. Jesus.
At any other job, he would have been fired, no question. If he weren’t a tenured professor (yes, I know tenured profs can get fired because of misconduct) with rockstar status, he’d have gotten fired. UC Berkeley’s administration needs to seriously get their act together. The astronomy department has made it clear he needs to go. UC Berkeley’s system for dealing with sexual harassment clearly needs reform if Geoff Marcy is allowed to work for him. Plus, they concluded their investigation three months ago, and nobody knew the results until very recently. It’s unclear if the faculty that forwarded the complaints against Geoff Marcy to Title IX are ever going to be able to see a report from the investigation. Ugh…
Now, now, be fair. He’s been put on Double-Secret Probation. I’m sure that means he will never do a bad thing again.
The thing is, I DO assume all the people I’m close to of not being capable of evil acts, by default. How could I possibly live in a world where I have to say “I really can’t be sure that my own mother doesn’t chop people up when I’m not around”? I’d rather kill myself than live in that world. I mean, that’s inescapable human nature. When Zimmerman shot that kid to death, he was guilty of murder, but how can I possibly bring myself to condemn the family of the man for trusting in someone they love? That’s why we don’t try people using a jury of their loved ones though, because it’s impossible to be impartial.
I also believe it really is possible to know someone well enough to understand what they are and aren’t capable of though. To believe otherwise, that it’s an impossible fantasy to ever truly understand another human being, is basically like giving up on humanity entirely.
That said, if 17 people come out and say someone did something bad, the same bad thing, they’re the overwhelming majority. Probably best to investigate that (understatement). I’m just saying that it’s not unreasonable for someone to trust their own frickin’ husband.)
They should make a chart which relates accomplishments to exemptions from punishment.
E.g.
– always turn off the lights = one cat-call per month
– every paper published = 1st base with a student of your choosing
– every paper published as lead author = 2nd base with a student of your choosing
– every five TV interviews = 3rd base with a student of your choosing
– cure cancer = the Golden Ticket, unlimited sexual assaults!!!
And if someone goes over their quota, then they get “ordered to live a life of seclusion, prayer and penitence.”
The Popular Science site disavows all knowledge of that comic. This could be because it automatically redirects to the australian site for me with no apparent recourse.
Is there some other way to look at it?
Yes, it is unreasonable for someone to make excuses for their own frickin’ husband in the face of overwhelming evidence, including his own admission of fault.
To use your own example, what if several people independently came forward and said that your mother had attacked them with a machete; an investigation revealed that those reports were credible; and your mother in fact admitted publicly that she did swing a machete at those people, and apologized for any injury it might have caused? At that point, would you be defending your mother by claiming that people were too harsh on your mom, and her ‘victims’ misunderstood her well-meant attempts to engage in martial arts training for their benefit?
Because we’re not talking about Marcy’s spouse standing by him during an investigation where he denied everything. We’re well past that point, and her response is to say that the mean ol’ victims misunderstood his genuine attempts to be a good guy. That’s well beyond trusting your husband, and into outright, flat-out denial, because apparently she’s more comfortable lashing out at the women he abused than to admit she’s married to a predator who couldn’t keep it in his pants around women half her age.
In other words, they do not normally have a zero-tolerance policy about their faculty sexually assaulting the students. Good to know.
@ Dark Jaguar #6
I don’t even exempt myself from being capable of “being capable of evil acts”. Every human is capable of doing horrible things and there are countless examples of “good” people doing bad things.
Relating to your example, I trust that my mother is not going around chopping people up, but it’s unrealistic to think she’s not capable of it. Plus, the chopping-up of people is a bit of an extreme example. The situations addressed by that cartoon are, unfortunately, quite commonplace. If even half of the charges against Marcy were brought against someone I knew (including my wife/family), damn straight I’d admit there was something going on. Depending on the situation, I might still stick by them but I would never complain publicly about people judging them harshly.
neverjaunty, I’m totally with you. I agree on all that. It is unreasonable, and there’s absolutely nothing someone who loves someone else can do about that. Parents of convicted murderers all too often go to their graves denying their child had anything to do with those horrible crimes, and spouses often do the same thing. Getting mad at them for that isn’t going to help though. The good news is, family sticking together accomplishes nothing anyway. In the modern world, it’s a token gesture that basically does nothing to sway anyone’s opinions. So, again, what’s the point in going after family defending each other? They aren’t going to accomplish anything anyway, so just keep looking at the person who’s actually been accused. They’re the ones responsible for all this, including putting their own family through the wringer by lying to them as well. Basically, I’m just making a call of “keep their family out of this”, well, unless the family is actually trying to cover things up and know full well what’s going on. Then go nuts.
Dark Jaguar @ 6:
That’s a bit silly. All humans are capable of evil acts, all the way along the scale. I don’t think or assume every man on the planet would be willing to rape or sexually assault someone, but it would be pretty damn stupid of me to abandon all caution, even among those I am acquainted with or know well. That goes for relatives, too. I was raped by a family member for a long time when I was young, which isn’t the best way to learn that anyone can commit evil acts.
Marcy’s wife said some very nasty shit, y’know.
This was said months after Marcy’s behaviour was reviewed, and there was zero question about the extent of his ongoing harassment and sexual assault of women. What you’re seeing isn’t trust, and it isn’t a default assumption that Marcy is a good guy, incapable of such actions. What you are seeing is internalized sexism, which teaches everyone to blame the woman/women in such cases, what with women being inherently untrustworthy (one of the main pillars of age old misogyny). This did come up in the first thread, (it might be a good idea to read the other threads and comments) how depressingly common it is for the “other woman” to be blamed in cases of infidelity or cases of harassment, rape, or sexual assault.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/10/10/everyone-has-these-sexist-jerks/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/10/12/how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/
So, again, what’s the point in going after family defending each other?
And by “family defending each other”, you mean “a predator’s spouse choosing to publicly attack his victims, and lie about his actions, well after an investigation uncovered wrongdoing to which he admitted.”
People are not ‘going after’ Dr. Kegley for remaining married to her husband or saying she believes he is a decent human being. People are ‘going after’ her for her voluntary, public defense of a predator because she’s married to him.
So why, exactly, should people ‘keep the family out of this’ when ‘the family’ has loudly and publicly inserted itself?
@ Caine, #
With respect, a minor quibble:
Well, no, not if you mean by “default” what we normally mean by “default” – “in the absence of reasons or instructions to the contrary”. I agree with the point you’re making in distinguishing acting in the absence of evidence and acting in the face of evidence, but I think you accidentally chose the wrong word to describe that when you said “default”.
I’d be more likely to say:
Once again, virtue ethics reduces to confirmation bias.
@Dark Jaguar, #6:
I think the problem here is that people are using “assume” in different ways. Some have used it to mean,
Others are using it to mean,
Presuming something on past evidence that is sometimes no better than tangential can be justified when there is a significant amount of such evidence and there is no evidence on point.
When better evidence comes along, it’s not “human nature” to deny the evidence. It’s a part of human fallibility that we sometimes do, but it’s not “in our nature” to deny evidence.
For those of us in Oz who can’t access the popsci article: https://node2.geopeeker.com/uploads/api/561d831831b3f_en_1280x800_2.png
Cheers, F.O. @17!
Very much appreciated!
If they’re enjoying it, it’s probably being done wrong.
I think the popsci.com website is really anti-science. Why is it famous scientist, not famous politician or corporate boss? And check out My Temple, My Mountain. It is not just religious woo, it’s science scapegoating, and really patronizing/racist towards native people. Yeah, it was astronomy that massacred and dispossessed Hawaiians. And why do we hear about Hawaiians’ “sacred places” instead of their need for jobs, medical care, education, opportunities, and civil rights? Its because some people care about “native people” woo, but not about people.
Ted Lawry @ 20:
Well, it is a science based site. Then, there’s the steady stream of well known scientists saying, and doing seriously wrong things, wallowing in cringe-inducing behaviour.
Wow. Let me guess, you know what constitutes being patronizing a/o racist towards Indigenous Peoples because…you’re white. Right? Am I right? Do I win a cookie here?
I’m one of those Native types, you fucking asshole. You didn’t understand one bloody thing about My Temple, My Mountain. Y’know, those of us whose ancestors survived the attempted, and largely successful genocide, we find ourselves in shitty situations because of that genocide. We find ourselves rounded up, stuck on plots of land, told “this bit is for you”, the rest for us, now shut up. We saw our sacred places stolen and denigrated. Now, maybe you don’t get any of that, and I don’t much care, but for Indigenous People who have been stripped of pretty much everything, those places matter. They matter a lot. And a whole bunch of people who care about those places, and the “native people woo” as you so charmingly call it, are the Indigenous People themselves.
Y’see, Indigenous Peoples, we’ve been tromped on enough. Relocated enough. Had our lands stolen enough. Had our children “re-educated” enough. Been told we couldn’t continue our own beliefs or practices. Enough. It’s all more than enough. It wouldn’t fucking kill white folks to think of something other than themselves now and then.
Ah, I think I get it. You actually do care about real issues, it’s just that the only way you can get any attention in the non-native press is with the sacred mountain protests. So it is a rational strategy based on the tragic fact that whites care about woo, but not about you. Don’t worry, I won’t tell them.
Caine
Aren’t you glad somebody finally explains your existence to you?
Wow, Ted Lawry. You are just a grade-A asshole.
Two things:
One, culture fucking matters.
Two, that you think the comic expresses contempt for science is your failure, no one else’s.
From the post under the comic:
Why talk about science and scientists specifically? Because of people like you. Because of people like you, using the holy name of Science to trample on native people and their culture. People like you, who lack the self-awareness of realizing, when linking to an “anti-science” comic to justify themselves, they are linking to a page that expressly calls out people mindlessly justifying everything they do because Science. Because you shouldn’t fucking kid yourself: People like you are a dime a dozen. And your support for Science, and dismissal of Woo, doesn’t mean that you are pure and objective and incapable of making mistakes and legitimately hurting people. Science is not a license to freely dismiss and subjugate, it is not the ultimate authority to dissolve all culture that contradicts it, and does not mean that acting according to its Truths suddenly makes everything you do right and harmless.
Get your shit together.
Giliell @ 23:
Sure. I mean, it’s not like that ever happened before. Nope.
Ted Lawry @ 22:
No, you don’t. I gave you the opportunity to think, you didn’t take advantage of it. I will ask you again, to think. Think outside your own experience, think outside your bigotry. You have a brain somewhere in your anatomy, so please try to locate it. If you are unable to find it and use it properly, you will be requested to take your idiocy and bigotry elsewhere, or perhaps, just told to shut the fuck up, whichever might be applicable. Might be both.
My thanks to Fred Vargas, who I happily paraphrased.
Let’s see. I refer to “massacred and dispossessed Hawaiians” and “tragic fact that whites care about woo, but not about you,” but I’m a bigot. Apparently thinking that (your words) ” the attempted, and largely successful genocide, we find ourselves in shitty situations because of that genocide.” or “Indigenous Peoples, we’ve been tromped on enough. Relocated enough. Had our lands stolen enough. Had our children “re-educated” enough.” are far more important issues than a telescope on a mountain. Why is that so threatening to you that can’t refrain from ad hominem f-word attacks? Is it because protesting telescopes is the only fight you’ve got, and you are so fixated on that you can’t see the good will you are losing? As I. F. Stone said about the antics of the New Left in the 1960s, “It may be therapeutic, but is it politics?
Ted Lawry:
You referred to “massacred and dispossessed Hawaiians” specifically to poke fun at the idea, of your wry comedic invention, that astronomy is to blame.
The “tragic fact that whites care about woo, but not about you” sounds more like a smug mockery than a genuine expression of concern or sympathy.
But no, of course you could not be a bigot. Never.
What the f-word is wrong with you?
Surely you have considered the possibility that 1) you are poisoning the well by focusing on telescopes rather than other issues? 2) you are a gift to Rush Limbaugh and all the other privileged right wing whiners, 3) especially if you win? Since you have a brain and you care about these matter so deeply, you must have a reasoned answer. Could you perhaps share it? You can call me a fuckwit asshole a few times if that helps.
Ted Lawry:
I have no idea how “poisoning the well” applies here.
Elaborate, please. I would love to see your “reasoning” here. I’m in need of a good laugh, and it would be nice to see some of your inane dribblings that aren’t directly bigoted.
There are no reasoned answers possible to incoherent questions.
(Seriously, what the f-word are you asking?)
My Heavens, such salty language!
Bless your heart.
“poisoning the well” = squandering political capital. You understand that? If the politicians give you a win on the telescopes, they will be less willing to accommodate you on, let’s say, medical care. On the other hand, if you lose on the telescopes, perhaps you can parlay that into a win on some other issue. That would be a rational strategy, but it doesn’t exactly inspire sympathy for the depth of your feelings.
You really can’t imagine how Rush Limbaugh will mock you, or that his “white guys are the real victims” followers won’t agree with him?
Ted Lawry, that isn’t what poisoning the well usually means
Just saying.
Also, have you heard of the Foot in the Door effect? Because it would argue the exact opposite of what you trying to argue. (To make it explicit: You get one small concession, and you can use that precedent to get something larger)
And you certainly are giving a nice sneak preview of how Rush Limbaugh and his followers might take on this subject….
Marcy apparently has decided that being a tenured professor isn’t fun anymore if he has to keep his hands to himself:
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Embattled-astonomer-resigns-from-UC-Berkeley-post-6570702.php
Who am I kidding, he’s going to get a job in the private sector somewhere.
Cue people whining about the witch mob’s lynch hunt.
I just have to make this one point, to Ted Lawry:
Y’know, Ted, you should be at least a bit reluctant to appear so bloody stupid. I am an indigenous person, however, the situation with Mauna Loa is not my fight, not in the personal sense. I’m not Hawaiian, I don’t live in Hawaii, I’ve never been there. I’m Oglala Lakota, my personal fights are different ones. What I do understand is the desecration of sacred sites. What I do understand is how very little anyone cares about Indigenous peoples, what they think, what they care about, what they believe, what actually helps them. I do understand that at the very least, having the basic respect to allow people to speak and to listen to what they say, to allow them a voice – that matters more than you could ever know.
You have unexamined privilege, unthinking bigotry, and a universe of ignorance going for you, and you should be ashamed of that. You should try listening, instead of assuming, you should be learning, instead of being so righteously sure you could not possibly have it wrong.
You give yourself away in your inability to present an actual argument, so you go for the standard use of “fallacy!”, when you don’t even understand the fallacy you claim (pro-tip: you’re on the internet – look something up before you use incorrectly, saves embarrassment*), and when that doesn’t work, you holler “right wing”, apparently unaware of how disturbing right wing people find it that any Indigenous people are still alive, and when that doesn’t work, you go for the all too common, “oh gods, naughty words! You cussed, therefor you lost!”, probably the most feeble attempt at defense ever.
*I rather doubt you’re capable of embarrassment, though. Well, good luck to you, Ted, you’re going to need it.