The professor of the #distractinglysexy fame loses his job

[merithyn]

I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.

Because it isn't?

The guy was sent out to do a job (encourage women scientists) and did the exact opposite of what he was asked to do (told women scientists that they weren't welcome nor wanted). He lost his job. Yeah, actually, it is.

If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job.

Which is impossible. If he was doing his own research he would have a grant that he would be responsible for spending.

For his own research, usually. Which he can do however he chooses. On his own. In his own lab.

If he can't handle treating people as equals while they work in his lab, then he shouldn't be allowed to supervise anyone in his lab. This is the same in any job. You don't put people - no matter how brilliant - in a position of authority when they can't treat those people they supervise with respect and parity.

[Valmy]

The guy was sent out to do a job (encourage women scientists) and did the exact opposite of what he was asked to do (told women scientists that they weren't welcome nor wanted). He lost his job. Yeah, actually, it is.

So you think this should be a universal situation? If you ever say something horrible you should lose you job? It is simple and straightforward?

For his own research, usually. Which he can do however he chooses. On his own. In his own lab.

If he can't handle treating people as equals while they work in his lab, then he shouldn't be allowed to supervise anyone in his lab. This is the same in any job. You don't put people - no matter how brilliant - in a position of authority when they can't treat those people they supervise with respect and parity.

So you think that everybody who has a personality flaw in this fashion should be banned from ever supervising anybody? What should the burden of proof be? I do not think it is that cut and dry. Or maybe it is. But if it is than the answer to Marty's question is no.

[Malthus]

I think it is a common part of human nature: to be continually lauded as an absolutely top expert in one field swells the ego, until the person starts to assume he's an equal genius in everything else - including whatever cranky bigotry he or she may develop on completely unrelated topics.

This could explain why this fellow thought it made sense to press for gender segregation in a room full of women scientists.

I tend to agree that such a person can't be retained in a spokesperson role, though I do loathe with every fibre the modern tendency of social media to arouse mobs. This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.

[Valmy]

This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.

Yep. Though he got pilloried on social media anyway.

Should have just been silently fired or reprimanded in such a way that would satisfy the injured parties.

[LaCroix]

people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? that's the gist of the argument i'm seeing here. at least the "what he said wasn't bad!" makes sense assuming those people also agree that hitler jokes aren't bad.

I'm saying that a punishment should fit the crime.  A concept that many lynch mobs have historically had problems with.  Permanent unemployability is not a just punishment for making one stupid comment that happened to go viral.

then are you arguing employers shouldn't be allowed to dismiss employees when an employee brings about public embarrassment? lynching is a mob bypassing a court system to execute a person. what has the social media mob bypassed?

[merithyn]

So you think this should be a universal situation? If you ever say something horrible you should lose you job? It is simple and straightforward?

I think that when a spokesperson, in the doing of his job, makes his employer look like an ass, yes, he should lose his job for what he said.

This wasn't at a party with friends. He was in his official capacity with the university doing his job, and he openly insulted the very people he was sent to woo.

So you think that everybody who has a personality flaw in this fashion should be banned from ever supervising anybody? What should the burden of proof be? I do not think it is that cut and dry. Or maybe it is. But if it is than the answer to Marty's question is no.

Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.

[merithyn]

This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.

Yep. Though he got pilloried on social media anyway.

Should have just been silently fired or reprimanded in such a way that would satisfy the injured parties.

He was at a conference of scientists and JOURNALISTS. This isn't about social media. This was never going to be silent, even if it had happened before Facebook and Twitter ever hit the 'net.

[Valmy]

Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.

Well I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be. I don't think things are that simple. I am not sure why that blows your mind.

[Valmy]

He was at a conference of scientists and JOURNALISTS. This isn't about social media. This was never going to be silent, even if it had happened before Facebook and Twitter ever hit the 'net.

Do you honestly do not get my concerns at all here? I get where you are coming from you don't need to capitalize things and go constantly. There is something about it that makes me feel uneasy.

[merithyn]

Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.

Well I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be. I don't think things are that simple. I am not sure why that blows your mind.

Because that's a basic rule of management. You don't put people in a supervisory position when they can and will hurt people simply because of their skin color, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc. That is an invitation to a lawsuit, at the very least.

[derspiess]

Yeah, I'm going to go with this might deter women from entering the field of science. Why go into a field where the top-most Scientists are allowed to say those things and no one bats an eye? Had it been ignored by the university. Had it been laughed off or otherwise condoned, that sends a message that if women do go into science, they will get zero support.

Then maybe women aren't as strong as I thought.  I guess I've just been spoiled by the women in my life, all of which would be strong & thick-skinned enough not to let a bad joke like this get to them.

The dude made a bad joke that he shouldn't have made-- I will agree with that much.  But all the shrieking & outrage (faux or otherwise) surprises me even in this day and age. 

[Legbiter]

Well I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be.

East Germany.

[Tamas]

Marty, you ARE aware I hope that basically this guy's reasoning applies 100% to gay men. If you do not accept women because they put sex in the mind of themselves and the straight men in the team, then you cannot have more than one gay men per team either.

And we all know that if he DID talk about gay men instead of women, you would be organising a protest to execute him.

[derspiess]

Good maneuver there, Tamas

[Valmy]

Because that's a basic rule of management. You don't put people in a supervisory position when they can and will hurt people simply because of their skin color, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc. That is an invitation to a lawsuit, at the very least.

I have a feeling I am not getting through to you at all.

And that is alright this is not a good example of my concerns. But given how things tend to go a better one will come along soon enough.