Updating to add: I had it in mind all along that Hunt was pushed out of a non-tenured position, but the post doesn’t reflect that. He wouldn’t be pushed out of a tenured position because of his remarks, and I wouldn’t advocate that he should be.
Many of the usual suspects – Dawkins, yes, but not only Dawkins – are raging about the illiberal attacks on Tim Hunt. But they’re doing it by ignoring the time and place at which he made his oh so funny “joke.” They’re ignoring the fact that he said it in a work environment. Picture an admiral trash-talking about women in the Navy, at an official Navy event. Would that be generally considered a mere joke? Picture a CEO making racist comments at a company banquet – would that be seen as just some yuks among buddies?
I don’t think so.
Dawkins in his tweet cited this awful article in Reason by the always-awful Brendan O’Neill. (Yes really, Our Brendan yet again.) The whole piece is deeply dishonest, because it does that pretending it was just a joke on a social occasion thing.
Hunt is a British biochemist. A really good one. In 2001 he won the Nobel Prize for his breakthrough work on cells. He’s a fellow of the Royal Society in London, founded in 1660 and thought to be the oldest scientific research institution in the world. And this week he was unceremoniously ditched by University College London for telling a joke.
No. Not just “for telling a joke” – for telling it when and where and to whom he did.
But Our Brendan takes that line throughout.
In a normal world, a world which valued the freedom to make a doofus of oneself, that should have been the end of it. Seventy-two-year-old man of science makes outdated joke, tumbleweed rolls by, The End.
No. That’s staggeringly disingenuous. He wasn’t being a “doofus” and it wasn’t just an “outdated joke.” It was a top man expressing (“jokey”) contempt for women in his field, at a work conference in that field. It was, in short, a hostile work environment. Saying it was “just a joke” hasn’t cut it in about thirty years.
But we don’t live in a normal world. Certainly we don’t live in a world where people are allowed to make off-color comments. And so with tedious, life-zapping predicability, Hunt fell victim to the offence-policers, to the machine of outrage being constantly cranked up by self-styled guardians of what we may think, say, and even joke about.
Nope, and nope, and nope. All wrong. All ignoring the salient points.
His comments were branded “shocking and bewildering.” (You find a silly joke bewildering? You really should get out more.) And then came the denouement to this latest outburst of confected fury: Hunt “resigned” from UCL, where he was honorary professor.
“Resign” is in quote marks because it’s pretty clear he was elbowed out. Consider UCL’s statement about his leaving. “UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome [Hunt’s resignation] is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.”
Quite. That’s part of their job, do you see? To make sure there isn’t a hostile work environment for women and other despised groups at UCL. They have every right to say what they did, and in fact a duty to.
That’s another way of saying that Hunt’s penchant for making un-PC jokes was incompatible with life at UCL. So he had to be excommunicated. Professors of Britain, be warned: tell a funny that irritates the right-on, and you shall be cast out.
No. Again, it’s not about mere irritation, it’s about a hostile work environment. I don’t believe O’Neill is too stupid to grasp that.
What is truly alarming, what should really send a shiver down every liberal’s spine, is not the words that came out of Hunt’s mouth but the haranguing of him that followed, the shunning of him by the academy and possibly by the scientific elite itself.
Nonsense. The academy needs to ensure that casual sexism and racism aren’t just business as usual. That’s part of their job.
The response to Hunt is way more archaic than what Hunt said. Sure, his views might be a bit pre-women’s lib, pre-1960s. But the tormenting and sacking of people for what they think and say is pre-modern. It’s positively Inquisitorial.
“Women’s lib”??? It’s sheer affectation – he’s nowhere near old enough for that absurd label to be a natural part of his vocabulary – it’s been dead as a dodo since 1971 at the latest. And again, it’s not about what Hunt thinks and says in general, it’s about what he thinks and says on the job.
The Hunt incident is quite terrifying. For what we have here is a university, under pressure from an intolerant mob, judging a professor’s fitness for office by his personal thoughts, his idea of humour. Profs should be judged by one thing alone: their depth of knowledge. It shouldn’t matter one iota if they are sexist, stupid, unfunny, religious, uncouth, ugly, or whatever. All that should matter is whether they have the brainpower to do the job at hand.
Nope. They have other duties as part of the job. Their “depth of knowledge” is not a free pass to be dismissive and scornful (however jestingly) toward subordinates. Professors don’t have a golden permit to say anything they feel like saying merely because they’re professors. Professing is a job, and it has requirements.
UCL and the mob’s hounding of Hunt echoes the university of the pre-Enlightenment era, when only those who were 100 percent Good Catholics had a hope in hell of getting a job. Only now, academics must be unflinchingly in accordance with the commandments of PC rather than with Biblical thinking. A Nobel Laureate has been broken on the wheel of PC. This is bad. Really bad. For if even a Nobel winner can be treated like this, what hope is there for lesser professors? The chilling effect of the Hunt debacle on the Western academy is likely to be pretty intense.
No, it’s not “PC.” It’s the rules of the workplace. Deal with it.
The only people who throw the political correctness canard around are those trying to defend sexism, racism or other forms of bigotry. In this instance O’Neill is defending Hunt’s sexism by whining that Hunt’s critics are being PC.
Heh. Whenever someone says “women’s lib”, it’s a good bet that you’re going to hear some astonishingly ignorant things.
If you want a psychiatrist to analyze you, then tell a joke. I could probably write a paper just by analyzing Tim Hunt’s jokes and comments. And that was a quite a bit if histrionic writing by Brendan. He is basically saying the world is collapsing because some dude lost his honorary position. I think an important criteria for an honorary position is that you respect other people. Clearly Hunt has a lot of difficulty with this.
He also made it very shortly after having attended an event in India about women in science, in which women got up and talked about being sexually harassed on the job and the impact it had on their careers, and none of their stories apparently made the slightest dent in his sympathies. Michael Eisen, who was there at the same event, describes it and wonders what is wrong with Hunt:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1728
When someone starts about political correctness you may be pretty sure s/he has no argument whatsoever.
I think it was pretty obviously a joke. A terrible joke, but only that, and by someone who seems to have a good record for supporting women in science. I think the actions of a person over a lifetime matter more that a single stupid comment. Laugh at him, ask for clarification, ask for an apology, but try to ruin a career? Really? Even if it was the worst most sexist or racist joke ever I think we can agree that people shouldn’t be sacked 12 hours later without any kind of investigation or process. In most places even a serious assault would be investigated before someone was sacked. So, yes, massive overreaction. So Dawkins and the huge number of women scientists who know and have worked with Hunt over the years are right.
His career has not been “ruined”. He has lost one honorary position, which carried no duties and paid no salary. He retains several other positions.
You can argue about whether or not it has been ruined, he and his wife seem to think it has. It has certainly been badly damaged in what seems to me an offhand way. If he had committed a crime he would have been treated with greater respect. I hope nobody on here ever loses a job over a silly or unpleasant remark, even if they utter it in the workplace..
He <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/10/tim-hunt-apologises-comments-trouble-female-scientists"had the opportunity to apologize; he used it to give a bullshit notpology and then say “but I meant it really”. However he may have intended it, he only dug the hole deeper afterwards.
And no, I don’t agree that people shouldn’t be kicked out one of multiple honourary positions they hold because doing so brings prestige to the institution granting it, shortly after making a public embarrassment of themselves. It’s not as if a fact-finding mission was needed to confirm that he really did say what he was reported as saying to an audience on the record.
He has apologised and come to understand what the objection to his comments was. That is the point, he really did not understand at first what was going on. Now he does. That is another reason why the kangaroo courting of him was so wrong.It was a silly comment. That is all. God protect is all from having our lives judged decided by the stupidest thing we ever say.
And if that joke had been told at a private dinner after a few drinks in, there might have been some pushback from people at the table or – if they were long-term friends – a bit of eye-rolling at dear ol’ Tim being dopey again. It would have been passed off as a bit of a social faux pas and never mentioned again.
However, it wasn’t an off-hand remark nor was it a private function, and into the bargain it was at an event with at least one period dedicated to an explicit focus on journalism and women in science. He had time to write a speech or to recycle a speech he’d made before to other audiences. To get family, friends, colleagues to review and suggest revisions, deletions, additions to his draft and then to rethink and reconsider and wholly or partially rewrite.
He might be suffering a bit, but he brought it all on himself. (Maybe he should share a bit of blame with all those friends-relatives-colleagues who’ve let him get away for too many decades with that ‘I’m just an unreconstructed chauvinist’ stuff with a shrug and little more.)
No, so he was bound to attract criticism and contumely. But should he be hounded out of a job? Obviously, it seems to me, not. And UCL have acted disgracefully. No employer should react like that towards any employee, no matter how egregious their transgression or ‘honorary’ their position.
God?
He was not “hounded out of a job.” He will continue to make 100% of the income that he made prior to his stupid comments.
Please educate yourself before commenting.
‘It was a top man expressing…contempt for women in his field’
To me that’s a perfect, succinct way of explaining why this sort of ‘joke’ is so harmful. Signed, a woman in STEM, but not for much longer.
Just because it is a “joke” doesn’t make it less harmful. And again the best jokes are the ones that make fun of oneself rather than making fun of people who are at a disadvantage.
He was forced out of a position; the income is neither here nor there and I didn’t mention it. I think you need to think a bit more carefully before making your next priggish remarks.
To quote the immortal wisdom of Mandy Rice-Davis, “Well, ‘e would say that, wouldn’t ‘e?”.
Indeed it has. By Tim Hunt. Look, it’s not rocket science: if you have an honorary position that’s basically just for PR purposes, it’s probably not a great idea to make off-colour jokes at official functions. Hell, that’s probably not a great idea under any circumstances…
No, he very definitely did understand what was going on, because he said so, by declaring himself “a chauvinist” and “apologising” for telling “the truth”. That’s exactly equivalent to “this is going to sound really racist, but hear me out…”
[Blink] [Blink] Sorry, did you just say that nobody should ever loose their job over misconduct (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what this is), no matter how egregious their transgression? Really?
Bluntnose
I wasn’t aware of this – if you happen to have a link handy, would you mind saying where and how Hunt has given any indication that he understands? (I’m only aware of his initial reaction to criticism, in which he simply doubled down and said it was an unfortunate joke but that he meant it).
He did not lose a scientific job. He lost an honorary position; those are marketing/PR stunts in the first place. He did something that caused his marketing attractiveness among other scientists to fall, therefore he lost his marketing value within that field. That is 100% cause and effect; no “witch hunts” required.
@Bluntnose
No employer should react like that towards any employee, no matter how egregious their transgression or ‘honorary’ their position.
Seriously? Not very familiar with this employer-employee thing are you ?
It’s not like the position is going to cease to exist, though. It’ll just be given to someone more qualified.
Do you think that Tim Hunt is entitled to hold jobs that he’s not qualified for? That sounds like some kind of Affirmative Action program for whiny old bigots. I just don’t see a need for it; whiny old bigots are already better off than they deserve to be. Anyway, if his wife is insisting he have an unpaid position to keep him out of the house, there are lots of available volunteer jobs that don’t require any interaction with the general public. He’s probably qualified for one of those.
Bluntnose@16:
Previously you called it a “job”, now you call it a “position”. You’re parsing your language very carefully in order to (apparently) dishonestly present what actually happened. You’re right, it was a position, an honorary one, and one which was essentially acting as an ambassador. It’s a curious ambassador who acts so undiplomatically. Hence he lost his position as that ambassador.
Of course you didn’t mention it, because if you had, your use of “employer” and “employee” would have been obviously ridiculous.
Charming.
“Picture an admiral trash-talking about women in the Navy, at an official Navy event. Would that be generally considered a mere joke?”
Does anyone remember Tailhook?
Can we get this guy to tell us what he thinks “self-styled” means? Because it’s pretty obviously not what the dictionary says.
#10:
Taking that as true, it would seem to be an important reason why what happened was important and right, not why it “was so wrong”. Why does his having learned a lesson mean that what taught him the lesson was “so wrong”?
UCL has amended their statement:
Apparently UCL is rather frustrated with people bemoaning the career-ruining resignation. Though I’m really not sure what this “he resigned before direct contact” thing is all about.
Oh I remember Tailhook all right – that’s probably why I chose admiral:Navy for my analogy. Tailhook prompted some policy improving.
I should have spelled out in the post that the issue is an honorary position, not a tenured one. As PZ and others pointed out on a Facebook post I did, he wouldn’t be fired from a tenured position over this. I knew I was talking about non-tenured positions all along, but I neglected to stipulate that.
Thanks Patrick – very interesting.
“Women’s lib”??? … it’s been dead as a dodo since 1971 at the latest.
Certain friends of mine might beg to disagree.
Please note that National Women’s Liberation, though small and long-rooted, does not consist solely of old-timers shaking their canes at lawn-trespassers: their recent “morning-after pill” campaign, for example, seems to have played a major role in reversing a serious step backward by the Obama administration.
I found this particularly annoying. Brendan is implying that we wouldn’t object to Hunt’s comments if we “got out more” and realized that Hunt’s sexism is common. This is so backwards.
I’ve been thinking about the joke aspect of this. I think we all have jokes we have ‘perfected’ over the years, ones that people generally enjoy and we bust out at gatherings to much amusement. We hone these jokes as part of our conversational repertoire. To me, this is what happened, here is a tried and true joke that never failed (speculating here) to get a good guffaw from the good old boys, so much so that he didn’t think it inappropriate to tell to a bunch of journalists. If the climate is such that no one had ever called him out on it? That is part of the problem. The problem that he didn’t see a problem with this ‘joke’. A culture shift is due.
And yet, somehow the name is not National Women’s Lib.
Margaret @ 30 – very true. It’s so typical of Our Brendan, too, that stupidly cynical, worldly-wise, oh grow up note.
yazikus @ 31 – I don’t! I don’t have jokes I’ve perfected over the years to trot out on all occasions – and I hate them when other people do. I hate any jokes or anecdotes that give off an air of much repetition – in my experience they’re the mark of the windbag. I hate windbaggery.
I missed the news that Hunt had been arrested for being a doofus. I will certainly protest against that.
Ophelia @ 33
Well I do try my best not to go for windbaggery, I suppose my collective ‘we’ was a presumption. I do rather see Hunt as a windbag, though, so perhaps that is where my mind was going. I’m trying to think if I actually have any, and the closest I can think of is a joke about solving a crossword puzzle in my twenties and the clue was F: so I ought to have written my chemistry teacher to tell them I finally used something I learned in that class. It was funny for a bit- and then grated on me. Presumptuous, oblivious and self-centered. I don’t tell that one anymore.
So O’Neill believes that
I wonder what his opinion is of Adria Richards then.
@Bluntnose says
June 17, 2015 at 1:22 am
Assertion without evidence. How many women did he directly, and indirectly shut down, close out, or turn off of science? Plus, adding into the cluelessness as pointed out by Michael Eisen, it appears it was not a “joke” but his world view that he felt comfortable enough to articulate, in front of women, without hearing what women were saying.
What is the saying in Academia, paraphrased, “adapt or perish”?
It’s only a joke if both the deliverer and the target are laughing. Otherwise, it’s a failure. In this context “a terrible joke” is an oxymoron. If you want to tell terrible jokes, use bad puns that have been around for ages.
Is this an example of Dunning-Kruger? An expert in one field (biology) is a complete failure at another (stand-up comedy) and is completely unaware of that fact.
Richard Dawkins never fails to disappoint me.