Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ‘ruined by rush to judgment after stupid remarks’

[laughing dog]

First, I doubt he would have been sacked, I don't think he was forced to do anything. Second, I seriously doubt that there are not plenty of research facilities and universities who would gladly pick up a tarnished Nobel laureate, so if his career is over, that is his decision.

So as always, you are just blatantly ignoring the facts and inventing a fictional world to defend your views.

I invented nothing nor did I ignore any fact. I simply do not believe the threat of his sacking was a real one.

His wife was told directly by a senior administrator that he was going to be fired the next day, if he did not resign.

So? If that is true, that still doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff. And why resign instead of forcing them to fire him so that they would look even more foolish and he would look less like some shivering clueless twit.

Also, all the same rabid ideologues that pressured his resignation would have pressured any other place that tried to hire him. Regardless, those ideologues wanted him fired and out of science, so even if he had avoided that outcome, it wouldn't change the degree of over-reaction inherent to anyone who thought or thinks that he should lose his job.

And here you are inventing a fictional world to defend your views.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So? If that is true, that still doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff. And why resign instead of forcing them to fire him so that they would look even more foolish and he would look less like some shivering clueless twit.

You want us to explain why a man none of us personally know didn't use your bizarrely over-simplistic reason for making a life altering decision given a short window of time?

 

[laughing dog]

So? If that is true, that still doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff. And why resign instead of forcing them to fire him so that they would look even more foolish and he would look less like some shivering clueless twit.

You want us to explain why a man none of us personally know didn't use your bizarrely over-simplistic reason for making a life altering decision given a short window of time?

Even though none of us know this man personally, every single poster who accepts what he did at face value is accepting a bizarrely over-simplistic reason for making a life altering decision given a short period of time. Everyone makes life altering decisions in short periods of time in their lives, usually more than once in a lifetime. It is a life skill we expect of all people. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect a Nobel Laureate to act strategically or show some common sense?

I am skeptical that the threat of sacking was a real valid threat.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Even though none of us know this man personally, every single poster who accepts what he did at face value is accepting a bizarrely over-simplistic reason for making a life altering decision given a short period of time.

No, accepting events as presented at face value doesn't require assumptions on his reasons and motives.

Everyone makes life altering decisions in short periods of time in their lives, usually more than once in a lifetime. It is a life skill we expect of all people. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect a Nobel Laureate to act strategically or show some common sense?

We have no real reason to believe it was or wasn't applied in this decision. We know pretty comfortably it was not applied when he made his sexist remarks.

 

[laughing dog]

No, accepting events as presented at face value doesn't require assumptions on his reasons and motives.

It certainly does if you are accepting he was forced to resign.

We have no real reason to believe it was or wasn't applied in this decision.

Yes, we do. That is my point.

We know pretty comfortably it was not applied when he made his sexist remarks.

Not really. He says it was a joke. People tell stupid jokes all the time without expecting them to cause life altering decisions.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You are reinforcing your conclusions with your own embedded assumptions and values which to this point are not supported by any apparent logic or evidence. We don't have any reason to assume he did not think strategically about his resignation or apply common sense because we do not know beyond a tiny glimpse of insight his priorities, aims, perspective, life situation, considerations and line of reasoning used. It is the height or presumptuousness to think your assessment of the situation is common sense while his is not.

Regarding the joke, the fact that it was a joke is semantic. The remark was sexist and he knows sexism was not appropriate in that situation, that it is not appreciated by the college, and that it is not well received by a vocal portion of the general population. He had almost nothing to gain with the remarks to offset the potential negatives he faced. It was a mistake and he himself concedes to that, if I am not mistaken. Wouldn't need to weigh in the possibility of being fired to understand that the risk of loss was higher than the potential reward if you had so much as a modicum of current social awareness.

 

[credoconsolans]

He's not the only hard science professor who is a closet misogynist. I have a degree in the hard sciences. And in college, we had at least 2 professors who taught required classes who were contemptuous of women in the hard sciences and women in the soft sciences as well. Hmmm, I wonder if any talented women in our class lost out on teaching assistant positions or research work and recommendations because they didn't have a dick between their legs.

Both were tenured - like I'm sure Dr. Hunt was - and they could do or say whatever they liked and not get sacked. Guess Dr. Hunt thought he could do the same.

Instead, he made himself and his university the butt of Twitter and Instagram jokes worldwide - FOREVER since it's the internet that will be circulating them.

Seeing as he was in his 70s, his Nobel Prize won 15 years ago, his productive years were probably already over, and his younger colleagues were probably secretly happy to see him go. And his professorship was honorary anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

You are reinforcing your conclusions with your own embedded assumptions and values which to this point are not supported by any apparent logic or evidence.

True there is no evidence, but there really is no evidence for any conclusion here other than we don't really know what actually happened. As to the logic, I know you are wrong, but it is obvious to me that it is futile and pointless to discuss it, since it doesn't really matter.

We don't have any reason to assume he did not think strategwe do not know beyond a tiny glimpse of insight his priorities, aims, perspective, life situation, considerations and line of reasoning used.ically about his resignation or apply common sense because It is the height or presumptuousness to think your assessment of the situation is common sense while his is not.

Perhaps. Then again, he is now whining about his situation which suggests he did not think strategically or at least regrets his strategy.

Regarding the joke, the fact that it was a joke is semantic. The remark was sexist and he knows sexism was not appropriate in that situation, that it is not appreciated by the college, and that it is not well received by a vocal portion of the general population. He had almost nothing to gain with the remarks to offset the potential negatives he faced. It was a mistake and he himself concedes to that, if I am not mistaken. Wouldn't need to weigh in the possibility of being fired to understand that the risk of loss was higher than the potential reward if you had so much as a modicum of current social awareness.

Since "we do not know beyond a tiny glimpse of insight his priorities, aims, perspective, life situation, considerations and line of reasoning used" it is the height of presumptiveness to draw that conclusion about his understanding.

 

[Toni]

Men are too emotional when it comes to criticism.

He didn't get criticized. He got fired, lost his income, essentially blacklisted from getting another job, and lost his ability to do what he was was passionate about, which incidentally included training female scientists and heading efforts to promote more women in science.

He didn't get fired. Please keep up.

 

[Toni]

He's not the only hard science professor who is a closet misogynist. I have a degree in the hard sciences. And in college, we had at least 2 professors who taught required classes who were contemptuous of women in the hard sciences and women in the soft sciences as well. Hmmm, I wonder if any talented women in our class lost out on teaching assistant positions or research work and recommendations because they didn't have a dick between their legs.

Both were tenured - like I'm sure Dr. Hunt was - and they could do or say whatever they liked and not get sacked. Guess Dr. Hunt thought he could do the same.

Instead, he made himself and his university the butt of Twitter and Instagram jokes worldwide - FOREVER since it's the internet that will be circulating them.

Seeing as he was in his 70s, his Nobel Prize won 15 years ago, his productive years were probably already over, and his younger colleagues were probably secretly happy to see him go. And his professorship was honorary anyway.

So he's a washed up sexist has been Nobel Laureate who deserved to lose his position because you had professors who were mean to women .

Got it.

Why does Watson still have a job?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

before we declare a man ruined, let's at least see if he can survive until, oh I don't know, next Tuesday?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

True there is no evidence, but there really is no evidence for any conclusion here other than we don't really know what actually happened. As to the logic, I know you are wrong, but it is obvious to me that it is futile and pointless to discuss it, since it doesn't really matter.

The point is not about conclusions. The statement I called out was you talking to another member as if they were foolish for believing his wife. Whether she is correct or incorrect, he version of events is plausible enough that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about believing it. Hunt did make the statements. The statements did draw public ire. UCL is not supportive of his statements yet is accepting of his decision to resign. Hunt did resign despite not having apparent intentions of leaving his position prior to this, and stating he had been 'hung out to dry'. We do not know what happened, yet it is plausible that UCL offered Hunt a modest exit through resignation rather than an openly conflicted termination of his honourary position.

Perhaps. Then again, he is now whining about his situation which suggests he did not think strategically or at least regrets his strategy.

I would need to see an actual statement to the effect that he regrets resigning in light of the options he had, or feels it was a mistake. It seems rather likely he dislikes the overall situation and would be inclined to do some 'whining' about that.

Since "we do not know beyond a tiny glimpse of insight his priorities, aims, perspective, life situation, considerations and line of reasoning used" it is the height of presumptiveness to draw that conclusion about his understanding.

Why would we need to know that when a) it's fairly common knowledge that sexist remarks are frowned upon far more than a lack of sexist jokes at such an event, and b) he is reported to have said the following:

“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.”

Understandably, he doesn't think he's committed the crime of the century, but it would appear he understands the remarks were not a good idea, attributing them to nerves and confusion.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

 

[laughing dog]

The point is not about conclusions. The statement I called out was you talking to another member as if they were foolish for believing his wife.....

I did not write nor imply that anyone was foolish for believing Hunt's wife.

I would need to see an actual statement to the effect that he regrets resigning in light of the options he had, or feels it was a mistake. It seems rather likely he dislikes the overall situation and would be inclined to do some 'whining' about that.

Hunt is complaining he was forced to resign before he could present his side of the story. Clearly if he not resigned he could have presented his story before they fired him (assuming, of course, he was actually going to be sacked).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It is your contention that somehow his employer made a reknown Nobel prize winner resign against his will and better judgment based on the comment of his wife. Perhaps I could interest you in purchasing the Brooklyn bridge?

You don't understand what that rhetoric means, or you simply find the word 'foolish' too strong?

 

[Nexus]

You guys are wasting you time with laughing dog. He will argue any absurd position with tedious devotion once he sets his mind to it. All reasonable people understand that when someone resigns after public outcry over some incident that person was asked to do so with the implicit threat that if they don't they will be forcibly removed from the organization ie fired. Usually they have face saving cover stories like they want to spend time with their family or pursue other opportunities. The fact his wife is complaining about his treatment only further shows how ridiculous Laughing dog's position is

My original post was to counter the people I quoted that were ignoring the harm done to him and his reaction to it as if he were simply behaving emotionally for no reason like the females he joked about.

 

[Metaphor]

You guys are wasting you time with laughing dog. He will argue any absurd position with tedious devotion once he sets his mind to it. All reasonable people understand that when someone resigns after public outcry over some incident that person was asked to do so with the implicit threat that if they don't they will be forcibly removed from the organization ie fired. Usually they have face saving cover stories like they want to spend time with their family or pursue other opportunities. The fact his wife is complaining about his treatment only further shows how ridiculous Laughing dog's position is

My original post was to counter the people I quoted that were ignoring the harm done to him and his reaction to it as if he were simply behaving emotionally for no reason like the females he joked about.

Actually, I think laughing dog has it right -- I think Hunt should have called their bluff.

His resignation does not restore his damaged reputation, because of course it is widely known he'd have been fired had he not resigned. The university had two options -- accept the damage to its reputation from the frothing masses by keeping Hunt on, or accept the damage to its reputation from reasonable people by firing a Nobel prize winner with an unblemished history over a bad joke.

I think his wife should have resigned in protest, too. It is certain that both of them could find prestige appointments elsewhere and I'm sure they're not in financial dire straits either.

The only way hair-trigger academic organisations can be taught that the chatterings of the Twitter masses are basically irrelevant and quality science is more important is to threaten to withhold quality scientists from them.

 

[barbos]

Hunt has Nobel Prize in chemistry, not in poker.

 

[RavenSky]

before we declare a man ruined, let's at least see if he can survive until, oh I don't know, next Tuesday?

 

[laughing dog]

It is your contention that somehow his employer made a reknown Nobel prize winner resign against his will and better judgment based on the comment of his wife. Perhaps I could interest you in purchasing the Brooklyn bridge?

You don't understand what that rhetoric means, or you simply find the word 'foolish' too strong?

I understand what rhetoric means. Perhaps you could explain how that quote means or implies that someone should not believe Hunt's wife.

 

[Toni]

The point is not about conclusions. The statement I called out was you talking to another member as if they were foolish for believing his wife. Whether she is correct or incorrect, he version of events is plausible enough that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about believing it. Hunt did make the statements. The statements did draw public ire. UCL is not supportive of his statements yet is accepting of his decision to resign. Hunt did resign despite not having apparent intentions of leaving his position prior to this, and stating he had been 'hung out to dry'. We do not know what happened, yet it is plausible that UCL offered Hunt a modest exit through resignation rather than an openly conflicted termination of his honourary position.

Perhaps. Then again, he is now whining about his situation which suggests he did not think strategically or at least regrets his strategy.

I would need to see an actual statement to the effect that he regrets resigning in light of the options he had, or feels it was a mistake. It seems rather likely he dislikes the overall situation and would be inclined to do some 'whining' about that.

Since "we do not know beyond a tiny glimpse of insight his priorities, aims, perspective, life situation, considerations and line of reasoning used" it is the height of presumptiveness to draw that conclusion about his understanding.

Why would we need to know that when a) it's fairly common knowledge that sexist remarks are frowned upon far more than a lack of sexist jokes at such an event, and b) he is reported to have said the following:

“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.”

Understandably, he doesn't think he's committed the crime of the century, but it would appear he understands the remarks were not a good idea, attributing them to nerves and confusion.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

I read his account in the Guardian as well. If his account is accurate, it seems odd that he was fired for that alone. I am with laughing dog's earlier remark: I think there is something we really don't know about the situation.

His remarks, taken at face value and without any context, are sexist but mildly so. What he said was more romantic than sexist and actually reflects the changes in his field over the course of his career, which, at the outset, included very few women.

If he had said something along the lines of : women are just not bright enough to do science or women are just looking for a man and really want to stay home and raise babies, I would feel differently: sexist pig who shouldn't be exposed to students and probably should retire. Instead, he made a somewhat inappropriate remark that highlighted one of the challenges of working in a mixed gender environment: people fall in love with one another, which is actually true, albeit not a universal truth at any workplace. Of course, in single sex work environments, sometimes people also fall in love with coworkers and sometimes that love is reciprocated and sometimes it is not. Because people do that sort of thing, even at work, even if there are workplace rules against it.

The fact that the university reacted so strongly suggests to me that something else was going on. Either this is not the first (or third) time he's been found to be sexist, or there's another issue going on.

As people have pointed out, there are plenty of extremely sexist professors who keep their jobs. I am sure this is true at Cambridge as well. So why this guy? Over pretty mild remarks?