Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Kathinka]

I don't want to live in a world where I have to walk on eggshells out of fear that I will be punished, either by a deranged mob or by actual institutions, that I hurt someones feelings with a harmless joke.

Well, you do.

In the real world, people have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not to embarrass the people who are decent enough to pay you a salary. You don't have a "right" to a salary or to limitless job security just because you work in academia. You have to earn it like the rest of us.

I have a friend, an early career researcher and university lecturer and quite typical of my friends in academia, also one of the best academics I know and whose work could have real impact. If she told a "joke" like that in front of her students (or if I, as a GTA, did in front of mine for that matter) it wouldn't even make it to tumblr, we'd simply vanish and replaced with someone else. My friend is not 72, she's 30, and that would probably be the end of her career because you genuinely can't afford a missing reference as an early career researcher. What I'm saying here is that this is something we all learn now because it's life and death, you don't embarrass your institution if you want to keep your job.

In the past, maybe you could slide through, get tenure and then sit there fucking your students and wanking off your ego for the rest of your life while your institution was powerless to curb you, and maybe in a way that was good for free speech, but those days are gone. Actually, I don't think I'm as sad as I should be about that, because why the fuck should someone get paid a salary to fly to Korea and tell women how they can't stop crying when the rest of us are begging for scraps and can't afford a train ticket to get to conferences?

Goddamn it, I sound really right-wing don't I? But seriously, answer me that question.. why should someone be paid an extremely comfortable salary on the basis of having "paid their dues" and then expect to be able to fly around the world making an ass of themselves when the next generation of researchers can't even find jobs?

I get what you are saying, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be able to do that. But one should be allowed to make some jokes that don't harm anyone without people losing their shit because TRIGGERED.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Goddamn it, I sound really right-wing don't I? But seriously, answer me that question.. why should someone be paid an extremely comfortable salary on the basis of having "paid their dues" and then expect to be able to fly around the world making an ass of themselves when the next generation of researchers can't even find jobs?

As someone else who works in STEM, you sir deserve a standing ovation.

I am really disappointed that a number of people who criticise others for "listening and believing" are completely ignoring some important facts in this situation:

Sir Tim Hunt, who is a Royal Society fellow, reportedly told a conference in South Korea women in labs "cry" when you criticise them and "fall in love" with their male counterparts.

He told the BBC he "did mean" the remarks but was "really sorry"....adding it was "a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists".

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," he said. "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.

"I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.

"I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually."

"It's terribly important that you can criticise people's ideas without criticising them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth.

"Science is about nothing but getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

It should be noted that it was not even a quick quip as some present it either:

Connie St Louis, a lecturer in science journalism at City University, was in the 100-strong audience in South Korea..."The Korean female scientists who hosted us looked aghast and he just ploughed on for about five to seven minutes."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

His defence that it was a joke simply cannot stand either, given that he stands by his comments.

The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously by my audience".

He went on to say he stood by some of the remarks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

The fact he is being supported by the likes of Brian Cox and Boris Johnson is a shame - particularly since the latter is not really making things any better:

But Mr Johnson said the response was an "overreaction" and it was not wrong to point out "gender differences"...said it was scientific fact that women cried more than men...did not deserve to be "pilloried" for pointing out "a natural phenomenon", he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33137497

That is not the context of the comments, Mr. Johnson.

It is unfortunate that he had to lose his job over this, but as a Noble Laureate you are essentially a scientific ambassador to the wider world (never mind your duties as a representative of your university as a professor; nor that whilst speaking in a professional capacity you are expected to be professional) and comments such as his can be argued to harm the perception of science and deter bright minds who would otherwise be interested in following scientific careers.

Also, thank you for this. Unfortunately, nobody outraged by his firing is going to read this. They've already confirmed their bias ("durn those Tumblr feminist SJWs, ruining science!"), said their piece, and will move on with their worldview unchallenged.

 

[Ariseishirou]

I don't want to live in a world where I have to walk on eggshells out of fear that I will be punished, either by a deranged mob or by actual institutions, that I hurt someones feelings with a harmless joke.

Well, you do.

In the real world, people have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not to embarrass the people who are decent enough to pay you a salary. You don't have a "right" to a salary or to limitless job security just because you work in academia. You have to earn it like the rest of us.

I have a friend, an early career researcher and university lecturer and quite typical of my friends in academia, also one of the best academics I know and whose work could have real impact. If she told a "joke" like that in front of her students (or if I, as a GTA, did in front of mine for that matter) it wouldn't even make it to tumblr, we'd simply vanish and replaced with someone else. My friend is not 72, she's 30, and that would probably be the end of her career because you genuinely can't afford a missing reference as an early career researcher. What I'm saying here is that this is something we all learn now because it's life and death, you don't embarrass your institution if you want to keep your job.

In the past, maybe you could slide through, get tenure and then sit there fucking your students and wanking off your ego for the rest of your life while your institution was powerless to curb you, and maybe in a way that was good for free speech, but those days are gone. Actually, I don't think I'm as sad as I should be about that, because why the fuck should someone get paid a salary to fly to Korea and tell women how they can't stop crying when the rest of us are begging for scraps and can't afford a train ticket to get to conferences?

Goddamn it, I sound really right-wing don't I? But seriously, answer me that question.. why should someone be paid an extremely comfortable salary on the basis of having "paid their dues" and then expect to be able to fly around the world making an ass of themselves when the next generation of researchers can't even find jobs?

I get what you are saying, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be able to do that. But one should be allowed to make some jokes that don't harm anyone without people losing their shit because TRIGGERED.

1. They weren't jokes. He meant them, and even doubled down on them later. The "joke" line didn't come out until much later when the backlash started. Read his actual statements, as linked by Superbeast above.

2. Speaking as a woman in a scientific profession, these (not at all) "jokes" do _tremendous_ harm when they perpetuate ideas about women and their place in the laboratory that dissuade, discourage, and stifle their careers. Read the comments he made linked above where he doubled-down on saying women cry too much, and that this is damaging to the scientific process. He truly believes this. He refers to it as a "fact." Now tell me how this is "funny" and how this view does no one any harm when your boss at the lab holds it: that you are an inherently over-emotional crybaby, and that your presence in the lab impedes the scientific process. Hilarious! Right? You would definitely not want that guy fired, his view is mostly definitely never going to harm your career, eh?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

People criticizing totalitarian governments are also "expected" to go to jail. It doesn't mean it's not wrong that it's happening.

How is that even relevant? Or is this just hyperbole? He lost his job, he's not blindfolded and tied to a stake awaiting a 7 gun salute. As I stated ... I've personally lost a job for saying something less to a customer. You don't see me screaming about 'totalitarianism' because I pissed off my employer and they chose not to employ me anymore.

And just because employers do immoral acts for the sake of their profits and reputation does not make said acts less immoral. After all - government also has to care about it's prestige and reputation, but when it starts employing it's power to punish people for damaging said reputation, we somehow find it wrong and straight out tyrannical.

'Immoral' ... an employer fired him for running his mouth. That's neither 'immoral', nor 'inethical', nor a social cataclysm. Trust me, the sky is not falling if someone gets fired for running their mouth and pissing off the wrong people. I pissed off some clients in one of my jobs, boss axed me. Sky did not fall, and no police paddy wagons came to pick me up.

(Edit) Also, back up a moment. Companies are immoral for wanting to be efficient and marketable in their image so as to be profitable? As a person who has run businesses, we employers and business owners proper are not all guilty of some 'immorality'. If anything, how can you criticise someone firing another person for running their mouth, if you then decide that all business owners and managers of business are immoral because they seek people who will best promote their image?

By all means, I'll just give you my mission statement and company policies and you can dictate to me how to run my business ... in the hopes that I'm not the one seen as tyrannical. Does that seem as hypocritical to you as it does to me? I would hope so ...

And yes, it's a freedom of speech concern. Because freedom of speech is a moral and juridical principle, that believed to be fundamental in determining the morality of a democratic society.

I assure you, his right to free expression is maintained. He can run his mouth off AS MUCH AS HE WANTS. Unless he breaks into someone's private property to do it or begins to threaten violence towards someone, or delving into people's trashcans to get dirt on them, his rights are maintained. Because he hasn't done anything legally wrong. Unless you wish to point me to where he's being charged with a crime?

When we justify any actions that don't fit said principle by mentioning a different moral context like reputation and profits - we simply admit that freedom of speech is irrelevant in our society, for it is run by different morals and principles. And Tim Hunt was not merely criticized by his fellows - he was punished by his higher-ups for what he said, and in no way that fits any concept for free speech.

How? Everybody eventually gets punished by higher ups because of what they say or do. Everybody. If I call a customer a ****, I'll get fired. Rightly so. If I call my co-workers cunts and repeatedly verbally harass, I'll be fired for it. And rightly so...

 

[Angelblaze]

Gotta love the irony for the first couple pages of this thread.


People bashing a vague source, for bashing a man over the head for 'a joke', and claiming that that 'vague source' was over aggressive, jumped to conclusions and was hasty in its decision making.

Of course, not realizing that it wasn't a joke, people just assumed that it was a 'joke' like the headlines said, became over aggressive, jumped to conclusions and was hasty in its posting.

Good work people, nice journalism here.
--

In addition, very nice job again for people who don't know the difference between 'Freedom of Speech' and 'facing the socially enforced consequences of your actions'. Applause, applause.

 

[Ariseishirou]

What in Tim Hunt's supposedly sexist statement is that he was talking about how often scientific work and cooperation becomes all about people and their relations and feelings, while it should be about science.

Oh, that's horseshit. It would be easy to make a statement about how often relationships and feelings get in the way of the scientific process that any scientist in the world would agree with: virtually every controversy, every contested priority claim, etc., has been accompanied by battles of egos, in-fighting, power plays, rivalries, researchers using personal connections to get published/promoted, grudges, hurt feelings, etc., long before women were allowed in the laboratory at many institutions.

But that's not what he's saying. You're spin doctoring his statements. He's a Nobel Laureate, he doesn't need some random internet commenter white knighting for him by lying about his claims. He's pinning this emotionality and science-ruining relationship focus on women, specifically, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Fallow]

I don't want to live in a world where I have to walk on eggshells out of fear that I will be punished, either by a deranged mob or by actual institutions, that I hurt someones feelings with a harmless joke.

Well, you do.

In the real world, people have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not to embarrass the people who are decent enough to pay you a salary. You don't have a "right" to a salary or to limitless job security just because you work in academia. You have to earn it like the rest of us.

I have a friend, an early career researcher and university lecturer and quite typical of my friends in academia, except she's also one of the best academics I know and I can see her work having real impact. If she told a "joke" like that in front of her students (or if I, as a GTA, did in front of mine for that matter) it wouldn't even make it to tumblr, we'd simply vanish and replaced with someone else. My friend is not 72, she's 30, and that would probably be the end of her career because you genuinely can't afford a missing reference as an early career researcher. What I'm saying here is that this is something we all learn now because it's life and death, you don't embarrass your institution if you want to keep your job.

In the past, maybe you could slide through, get tenure and then sit there fucking your students and wanking off your ego for the rest of your life while your institution was powerless to curb you, and maybe in a way that was good for free speech, but those days are gone.. And actually, I don't think I'm as sad as I should be about that, because why the fuck should someone get paid a salary to fly to Korea and tell women how they can't stop crying when the rest of us are begging for metaphorical scraps and can't afford a train ticket to get to conferences?

Goddamn it, I sound really right-wing don't I? But seriously, answer me that question.. why should someone be paid an extremely comfortable salary on the basis of having "paid their dues" and then expect to be able to fly around the world making an ass of themselves when the next generation of researchers can't even find jobs?

Ahh, now it makes sense. You're jelly.
What is even more adorable is that you're calling a Nobel Laureate, an academic paragon, knighted for his accomplishments in service to humanity, an "ego-wanking student fucker".

I would love to hear the tale when your loved ones get really really sick, and you can sit by their bed and explain to them how the advancement and development of modern medicine wasn't as important as being jealous and outraged. Watching someone close to you die of cancer without the ability to do anything kinda sucks, and your intolerance consigns a lot more people to that fate.

Now simmer down because your entitlement is embarassing everyone that actually works to advance in academia.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I get what you are saying, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be able to do that. But one should be allowed to make some jokes that don't harm anyone without people losing their shit because TRIGGERED.

Yeah.. I know I'm coming at it from a different angle, and in a way I have sympathy. I personally feel that older people should have a certain license to be out of touch with modern reality, but it's a license which is born out of their incapability, not the legitimacy of what they're doing. When I worked as a carer I would routinely hear the most horrible, insulting things and just have to smile and nod, and that actually wasn't so bad. It was a gift to those people and it made them happy.

The thing is, smiling and nodding is a luxury you extend people in recognition that they don't know better, and sometimes it's best not to put people who don't know better in public situations where they're going to fuck it up. If you go to an event in the capacity of an ambassador and end up offending the audience, then I think it's safe to say you've fucked it up.

In my mind, it would be pretty monstrous not to dismiss him for what he said irrespective of any social media dramatics, because purely on an institutional level it's not appropriate conduct, and a person who can't maintain appropriate conduct is not functionally different from someone who won't. To let him off would essentially be a vindication of the idea that established researchers are above the rules which apply to the rest of us, and I don't think that's fair. There's something intensely elitist about the idea that "free speech" requires that a few select people can say or do whatever they want while the rest of us eat dick because we haven't paid our dues yet. I don't want to go back to that system, and sometimes that means holding people responsible for what they do even when they feel it shouldn't be as serious as it is.. because for an early career researchers it really would be that serious. They'd lose their whole life's work and the chance to work in the profession Hunt has already made a career out of, and noone would care or raise any outcry because noone would even hear about it. Universities can fill an early career researcher post at the snap of a finger, they don't even have to pay minimum wage.. people will work on the mere chance that they might be paid later. You can say that's not fair either, but it is the way it is. None of the people caught in this system chose it, why should someone like Tim Hunt believe they should just be able to wave the consequences away?

 

[maninahat]

Who really needs criticism for firing the guy? His employers. Given a week, this would have died down to nothing but an embarrassing memory for one scientist and an occasional reference for talks on women in STEM. But the institution decided to force a resignation out of the guy, either because they placed a disproportionate value in Twitter based outrage, or they themselves took the guy's quip way too seriously. There are other ways to punish employees, and practically any of those would have been more suitable.

So now not only does the institute look bad, but the general public are laying the whole blame on anyone who complained about this guy's stupid remarks - even though there shouldn't be anything wrong with mocking or condemning what he said.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ahh, now it makes sense. You're jelly.

No. Just bitter.

I would love to hear the tale when your loved ones get really really sick, and you can sit by their bed and explain to them how the advancement and development of modern medicine wasn't as important as being jealous and outraged.

Maybe when your loved ones get really, really sick, you can sit by their bed and explain to them why it was more important to pay an old man to tell women in Korea about their crying habits than to actually give a salary to a young researcher who might have found a cure for whatever is making them sick.

Piss on your homilies.

 

[K12]

I am really disappointed that a number of people who criticise others for "listening and believing" are completely ignoring some important facts in this situation:

Sir Tim Hunt, who is a Royal Society fellow, reportedly told a conference in South Korea women in labs "cry" when you criticise them and "fall in love" with their male counterparts.

He told the BBC he "did mean" the remarks but was "really sorry"....adding it was "a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists".

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," he said. "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.

"I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.

"I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually."

"It's terribly important that you can criticise people's ideas without criticising them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth.

"Science is about nothing but getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

It should be noted that it was not even a quick quip as some present it either:

Connie St Louis, a lecturer in science journalism at City University, was in the 100-strong audience in South Korea..."The Korean female scientists who hosted us looked aghast and he just ploughed on for about five to seven minutes."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

His defence that it was a joke simply cannot stand either, given that he stands by his comments.

The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously by my audience".

He went on to say he stood by some of the remarks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33077107

The fact he is being supported by the likes of Brian Cox and Boris Johnson is a shame - particularly since the latter is not really making things any better:

But Mr Johnson said the response was an "overreaction" and it was not wrong to point out "gender differences"...said it was scientific fact that women cried more than men...did not deserve to be "pilloried" for pointing out "a natural phenomenon", he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33137497

That is not the context of the comments, Mr. Johnson.

It is unfortunate that he had to lose his job over this, but as a Noble Laureate you are essentially a scientific ambassador to the wider world (never mind your duties as a representative of your university as a professor; nor that whilst speaking in a professional capacity you are expected to be professional) and comments such as his can be argued to harm the perception of science and deter bright minds who would otherwise be interested in following scientific careers.

You see whenever I see a story that says something along the lines of "hard-working high-achieving man sacked for making one anti-PC" comment. I always get the suspicion that this is probably the latest in a long line of such comments but it's often hard to actually find that kind of thing out and I don't want to make assumptions... so thanks for doing all my work for me.

I still think him losing his job completely is a bit harsh if there is an option to simply be more selective about the events he goes to (why send him to a gathering of female scientists if you know he acts like that?) but basically this story is actually "University representative gets sacked for consistently representing his University badly" with the sub-header "Old man is out of touch with modern world". Probably wouldn't get so many hits with those headlines though.

 

[Fallow]

Ahh, now it makes sense. You're jelly.

No. Just bitter.

I would love to hear the tale when your loved ones get really really sick, and you can sit by their bed and explain to them how the advancement and development of modern medicine wasn't as important as being jealous and outraged.

Maybe when your loved ones get really, really sick, you can sit by their bed and explain to them why it was more important to pay an old man to tell women in Korea about their crying habits than to actually give a salary to a young researcher who might have found a cure for whatever is making them sick.

Piss on your homilies.

Broseph, that's a quick story. She ain't getting paid cause she ain't doing good enough.

 

[fenrizz]

Jesus Christ, when did people become such little bitches that so grossly overreact to anything that isn't absolutely PC. Get a grip. How are real issues supposed to be taken seriously when such a major stink gets raised over menial shit like this.

I would expect most people to be intelligent enough to separate real issues from small issues. It isn't really that difficult.

You'd think so, but apparantly there is still people out there that think sexism is ok.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Broseph, that's a quick story. She ain't getting paid cause she ain't doing good enough.

If you're talking about my friend, she is getting paid. In fact, she has a teaching position in the states and a possible book deal coming up. She's fine.. which is not to say it hasn't been fucking difficult getting there. She is massively in debt, but anyone who doesn't have rich parents and wants to work in academia will end up in debt nowadays so that says nothing.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that she would not have a job, and none of us would, if they went around doing unprofessional bullshit instead of actually.. you know.. doing their jobs. That is the definition of not being good enough.