Nobel Laurette's Academic Career Ended by a Single Joke

[jmc]

He never said this before. He still hasn't said it. Worse yet, his attempts at giving context to the situation made it more clear that it wasn't a joke he didn't see any truth in. Are you going to ignore what he has said since, in actual interviews?

As far as I'm aware he has always admitted he said it and that it was taken out of context. Are you going to ignore the evidence which suggests the entire thing may have been taken out of context and by someone with a questionable background?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

As far as I'm aware he has always admitted he said it and that it was taken out of context. Are you going to ignore the evidence which suggests the entire thing may have been taken out of context and by someone with a questionable background?

You do realize he quit right? He could have forced the school to fire him, but he didn't. He resigned. You do realize he admitted what he said was stupid right? That he never said that he prefaced our followed up on the stupid comments, right?

This is what he and his wife said:

“I stood up and went mad,” he admits. “I was very nervous and a bit confused but, yes, I made those remarks – which were inexcusable – but I made them in a totally jocular, ironic way. There was some polite applause and that was it, I thought. I thought everything was OK. No one accused me of being a sexist pig.”

Collins clutches her head as Hunt talks. “It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,” she says. “You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim. But really it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s. Nevertheless he is not sexist. I am a feminist, and I would not have put up with him if he were sexist.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...g-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins?CMP=fb_gu

Not once did he state that he prefaced the comments or followed up in a way that made it sound like a clear joke. In fact, he points out that he was confused and nervous, suggesting he wasn't quite sure of himself in the moment. Both acknowledge it would be considered offensive if you don't get his humor.

This is also the guy who said this:
http://www.dcscience.net/2015/06/15/are-women-still-at-a-disadvantage-in-science/

In your opinion, why are women still under-represented in senior positions in academia and funding bodies?

Hunt: I’m not sure there is really a problem, actually. People just look at the statistics. I dare, myself, think there is any discrimination, either for or against men or women. I think people are really good at selecting good scientists but I must admit the inequalities in the outcomes, especially at the higher end, are quite staggering. And I have no idea what the reasons are. One should start asking why women being under-represented in senior positions is such a big problem. Is this actually a bad thing? It is not immediately obvious for me… is this bad for women? Or bad for science? Or bad for society? I don’t know, it clearly upsets people a lot.

But please, go on.

 

[jmc]

Yep, you clearly are showing confirmation bias here. He was asked to resign by the way.

 

[ThePhantasm]

He's always said that his joke was taken out of context and meant ironically. This new information just corroborates his claim. The fact is that in his speech itself the joke was used to parody sexist people, and thus was an anti-sexist remark. It was also self-depreciating humor, in which he suggested that women were attracted to him (in the context of a joke, its clearly faux boasting meant only to highlight his unattractiveness). Torn out of context it appears to be a sexist joke, but in the actual speech itself it clearly did not play that way.

He did not "voluntarily" resign, he was forced to resign. That's being fired without having to put on your resume that you were fired.

Everyone who knows him agrees that he is not a sexist in the slightest.

In short, this was nothing but an internet witch hunt, a lynch mob targeting a man who they did not know, over comments that they did not hear. It is a tragedy and an injustice that this brilliant man lost his job, and only hurts the cause of feminism and inspires sexism for people to respond with such vitriol and condemnation.

Against the word of ONE person who started this whole s***storm, numerous other people who were present at the speech have come out saying that the joke was not sexist.

Granted, the joke was perhaps poorly worded and delivered, but that's not something worth condemning someone over. Even professional comedians have jokes that don't play well or are misunderstood.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I have no doubt he thought what he was saying was a joke. But it is a sexist joke, in front of a bunch of people he doesn't know. The basis of the joke is clearly sexist. Even if something is a joke, that doesn't make it not sexist.

This is clearly wrong now. Doesn't matter if you "didn't call for him to be fired," you've nonetheless condemned him without having all the facts. The new information at the very least establishes reasonable doubt over whether the joke was sexist, which means that condemning a man you don't know is a baseless leap.

 

[jmc]

I'm doubtful DarthSkywalker is going to retract anything. Was quick to assume this mans guilt and is clearly not accepting of contradictory evidence, even going so far to give misinformation that the man wasn't forced to quit.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Bald Whedon made BW forget her dignity by loving the giant green goblin. Get him! Oh, this isn't that thread. Put out your pitchforks, Susan. Time to go home.

 

[Destructus86]

Welcome to the PC world where everyone over-reacts and everyone is self-entitled.

 

[Erzengel]

What do you mean "everyone"?

 

[Anita18]

I think it sucks that his career has taken a nosedive because he put his foot in his mouth. Since the more recent developments have come out, my personal opinion of him has become more positive, but I can't say I'd sign a petition for him to get his position back. Since he's a public figure representing the industry, the truth is HE JUST CAN'T SAY STUFF LIKE THAT.

It doesn't matter if it was a joke. People have lost their jobs for less. If you're in PR, you have to know what you can and can't say or do. If you don't heed what's acceptable, you might lose your job. That's how life has always been for public figures. Tough s***.

It's not about demanding political correctness, it's not censorship, it's plain old business. Very few organizations are okay with being represented by someone who's liable to run his mouth. They'd have to chase after him with yet another PR person having to reassure everyone it's not what it seems. Not worth it.

If you're not Stephen Colbert, DO NOT try to pull off Stephen Colbert. And even then, Colbert still got occasional flak, but at least he had years of satirical history for us to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm part of a Toastmasters public speaking group, and we often get practice speeches from people who want to run a work speech by an audience before they actually give it. If Tim Hunt had given a practice speech like that in our Toastmasters group, we would have told him "NO STAHP WHAT ARE YOU DOING DON'T DO THAT."

 

[ThePhantasm]

You're right, we should absolutely censor academics in case they offend someone who misunderstands completely what they were saying.

 

[redhawk23]

While its easy to write this off as an "over reaction", even if he didn't really mean what he said, his comments echoed a lot of hurtful stereotypes and real attitudes and biases held by a lot of men in the science fields. It really is a shame to see a leader in the field inadvertently feeding into a lot of ass****'s actual bullcrap.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Ahem.

New report of presentation reveals the joke was not sexist at all, but in fact anti-sexist:

The report began by confirming that Sir Tim had joked about falling in love with women in laboratories and ‘making them cry’.

However, it said he’d prefaced those comments with an ironic introduction, joking that they would illustrate what a ‘chauvinist monster’ he was.
The report then revealed the existence of an entire second half of the controversial toast.

In it, Sir Tim was said to have told his audience that his remark about ‘making them cry’ was, indeed, an ironic joke.

He purportedly said, ‘now seriously . . .’ before going on to speak enthusiastically about the ‘important role’ women scientists play. He ended by joking that his largely female audience should pursue their trade, ‘despite monsters like me’.

The report’s author added: ‘I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media,’ going on to describe the speech as ‘warm and funny’.

All of which, for quite understandable reasons, sparked further angry debate. Supporters of Sir Tim felt he had been vindicated. Among them was Professor Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, who said the leaked memo’s contents showed Sir Tim to be ‘the reverse of a chauvinist monster’.

He wasn't "feeding into a lot of ass****'s actual bullcrap," he was sardonically criticizing and mocking that bullcrap.

This guy is married to a leading feminist scholar and was making a joke criticizing sexism, and people who can't properly interpret a speech that everyone else who was present understood decided to get upset over it and crucify this guy over their own misunderstanding.

 

[Teelie]

Straight out of Poe's Law with a twist that he said this in person and was still misinterpeted.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yes, but he was only misinterpreted by one person who ignited a twitter firestorm. The rest of the audience understood him clearly, and felt it was obvious that he was mocking, not exhibiting, sexism.

Its amazing that one unintelligent, insecure b**** can misinterpret something and cause job loss for a brilliant, award-winning scientist and scholar. Just amazing. And his own university didn't have the balls to support him, but pressured him out.

 

[Anita18]

Yes, but he was only misinterpreted by one person who ignited a twitter firestorm. The rest of the audience understood him clearly, and felt it was obvious that he was mocking, not exhibiting, sexism.

Its amazing that one unintelligent, insecure b**** can misinterpret something and cause job loss for a brilliant, award-winning scientist and scholar. Just amazing. And his own university didn't have the balls to support him, but pressured him out.

Sure, but that's the danger when you're a public figure and give a speech to people who don't know you very well. Even if it's just one person who misinterprets it, that's a possibility he should have thought of before he ran his mouth with an off-color joke. He's not a bad person, but he IS a liability if he was supposed to be a spokesperson.

And I don't know if I'd call it censorship. It's not like we're putting people in jail if they say something bad. You just have to be careful when it's your job, especially when you represent an organization.

My sister is a hardcore liberal who works for a non-profit in public policy. Election season is torture for her, partly because she has a lot of work to do, but also because she can't say ANYTHING when it comes to her own personal opinions on social media. It's because she works for a non-profit, and they need to give off the idea that they are completely unbiased. On paper, it's censorship, but in a bigger context, it's because it might affect her organization's non-profit status. It's not about spreading "evil" ideas or whatever. There are consequences to what you do, always. It's just a matter of weighing what they are and what the cost is.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is clearly wrong now. Doesn't matter if you "didn't call for him to be fired," you've nonetheless condemned him without having all the facts. The new information at the very least establishes reasonable doubt over whether the joke was sexist, which means that condemning a man you don't know is a baseless leap.

It is a sexist joke. It is, and always will be. As a joke, it is one based in sexism. That is the joke. Do you not understand how jokes work? It is no different then a joke about race.

I'm doubtful DarthSkywalker is going to retract anything. Was quick to assume this mans guilt and is clearly not accepting of contradictory evidence, even going so far to give misinformation that the man wasn't forced to quit.

He was not forced to quit. He could have made them fire him. If he believed in his version that much, he would have forced them to fire him. You can't complain after you willingly quit that you want your job back. A job they have once again said he will not be getting back.

By the way, he has shown sexist tendencies in the past.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ahem.



He wasn't "feeding into a lot of ass****'s actual bullcrap," he was sardonically criticizing and mocking that bullcrap.

This guy is married to a leading feminist scholar and was making a joke criticizing sexism, and people who can't properly interpret a speech that everyone else who was present understood decided to get upset over it and crucify this guy over their own misunderstanding.

You keep posting links from the Daily Mail. Do you know who the Daily Mail is? At least find something from the Guardian or at least some news organization with some respect.

Sure, but that's the danger when you're a public figure and give a speech to people who don't know you very well. Even if it's just one person who misinterprets it, that's a possibility he should have thought of before he ran his mouth with an off-color joke. He's not a bad person, but he IS a liability if he was supposed to be a spokesperson.

And I don't know if I'd call it censorship. It's not like we're putting people in jail if they say something bad. You just have to be careful when it's your job, especially when you represent an organization.

My sister is a hardcore liberal who works for a non-profit in public policy. Election season is torture for her, partly because she has a lot of work to do, but also because she can't say ANYTHING when it comes to her own personal opinions on social media. It's because she works for a non-profit, and they need to give off the idea that they are completely unbiased. On paper, it's censorship, but in a bigger context, it's because it might affect her organization's non-profit status. It's not about spreading "evil" ideas or whatever. There are consequences to what you do, always. It's just a matter of weighing what they are and what the cost is.

Completely this. He can say whatever he wants, but he is representing his employer, and if they don't like it, they can fire him.

 

[ThePhantasm]

You keep posting links from the Daily Mail. Do you know who the Daily Mail is? At least find something from the Guardian or at least some news organization with some respect.

Heh. The sources are clearly indicated. But here's some more.

TheIndependent: Transcript shows Tim Hunt was mocking sexism
The London Times: Transcript shows Tim Hunt was mocking sexism
The London Times: Richard Dawkins defends Tim Hunt
London Evening Standard: Tim Hunt praised female scientists in his speech, transcript reveals
BBC: John Dimbleby resigns from the university in support of Tim Hunt
http://forums.superherohype.com/www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4474041.eceReporter who attended the event: Tim Hunt was clearly joking
... and corroborates the released transcript: It was self-depreciating humor
A woman he supervised says he never showed a hint of sexism
He was responsible for the appointment of the first female director of the European Molecular Biology Organization
Washington Post: Tim Hunt was forced to resign

 

[ThePhantasm]

It is a sexist joke. It is, and always will be. As a joke, it is one based in sexism. That is the joke. Do you not understand how jokes work? It is no different then a joke about race.

You weren't there. The only information you have that corroborates your claim is from one woman who ignited a twitter firestorm. Against her testimony there are dozens of others who were there or who know him personally. So, not knowing the context, and not having the text of the comments in front of you, are you positive you want to claim this woman's opinion is infallibly true?

 

[ThePhantasm]

Academics are supposed to be able to publish controversial research and reach controversial opinions. A university that fires someone because they disagree with them is not a university committed to good scholarship, but only a university that cares about money.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I guess for Darth Skywalker and others its "guilty until proven innocent," eh?

You guys are so insistent on being right in your condemnation of this man on the basis of one woman's testimony that you're unwilling to hear the testimony of numerous others who support him and who interpreted the comments differently. I'm tired of this discussion, it sickens me.

 

[Anita18]

Academics are supposed to be able to publish controversial research and reach controversial opinions. A university that fires someone because they disagree with them is not a university committed to good scholarship, but only a university that cares about money.

But if they also want to encourage inclusion, a PR firestorm like this isn't helping their case.

I guess for Darth Skywalker and others its "guilty until proven innocent," eh?

You guys are so insistent on being right in your condemnation of this man on the basis of one woman's testimony that you're unwilling to hear the testimony of numerous others who support him and who interpreted the comments differently. I'm tired of this discussion, it sickens me.

I'm not condemning him. I have a pretty good opinion of him as a person. I applaud his efforts to make science inclusive and supporting the younger generation.

As a SPOKESperson, no, I wouldn't hire him to give speeches to the general public. He showed poor judgement in this case, IMO. It's unfortunate that one person was able to do this to his career, but thems the breaks if you're a public figure.

Things aren't that black and white, you know. It's not all or nothing.

There are plenty of people who I would love to be a mentor to individuals, but fully acknowledge they SHOULD NOT be a public representative. (My own husband is among them, you would think he is a complete a-hole by how he comes off in groups of people.) Some people just should not do it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

But if they also want to encourage inclusion, a PR firestorm like this isn't helping their case.

It's unfortunate that one person was able to do this to his career, but thems the breaks if you're a public figure.

So I can accuse any professor of racism or sexism, regardless of whether its true, and cause a s***storm and get them fired because the university doesn't want to deal with the bad PR? Good to know.

Apparently all it takes is a firestorm, truth be damned.

 

[Anita18]

So I can accuse any professor of racism or sexism, regardless of whether its true, and cause a s***storm and get them fired because the university doesn't want to deal with the bad PR? Good to know.

Apparently all it takes is a firestorm, truth be damned.

But he DID say those things. It took several days for the context to get out, but it's not like he was misquoted or someone made it up out of thin air.