Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Well articulated article, thanks.
"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."

I think one of the problems is the magnifying glass that the internet puts over everything. In the pre-net world, one man would say something, ten people would hear it, one journalist would be outraged. Nowadays, one guy makes a comment, millions hear it, tens of thousands are outraged. The scale is simply that much larger.

In other words, the scary thing is that the inquisition isn't even organised. It just arises organically. *shiver*

Jeff, its not about freedom of speech or the consequences, its about an abnormal reaction to a joke that didn't merit such a strong reaction.

Even after there was a media fuss, Tim Hunt maintained that he did mean what he said.

In what sense can anyone claim he was making a "joke", when he has actually stated that his comments were sincere?

Here is a source of him stating that (whilst he regretted the negative reaction) his comments were a true reflection of his views:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/jun/10/nobel-laureate-tim-hunt-sorry-women-scientists-video

FWIW, I think he should be allowed the time and space to make things right, and to demonstrate that he has learned from this incident and understands why his words were damaging. I also think that removing him from his post is going too far.

But I will defend most of the criticism of him. People in prominent academic positions have a level of privilege - it is not ok for them to be openly sexist.

I for one love a world in which, in an effort to increase tolerance, we increase intolerance.

Please expand on that point, killer135.

Tim Hunt is not a comedian. He was bringing disrespect upon his employer as their representative at the World Conference of Science Journalists. This wasn't some offhand comment around the water cooler in the break room. They let him resign instead of being fired.

That's how it works.

While the idea that a Nobel laureate could be forced to resign over 39 words is a bit disquieting, the article also makes the following claim, which makes it a bit hard to take it seriously:

"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."

Whenever you read an article in Reason look for the word "should." That
is usually followed by libertarian talking points about why the world *should* be something different than it is. Typically this is the individual having supreme rights. They often forget that just because you can freely associate, you can also be freely dissociated.

If everyone got fired for anything they said that someone else found offensive, no one would ever be able to hold a job.

1. He wasn't fired, he resigned.
2. From honorary unpaid positions - i.e. he's retired already, not actually working.
3. Seriously, if you said that sort of shit in most workplaces you'd be up for some sort of a talk with HR about not being a team player. And if you kept it up with any frequency or unrepentance, you'd be fired.

Best comment I've seen is "So let me get this right, dude who claims women cry when criticised resigns after 48 hours of criticism?" Lol.

"1. He wasn't fired, he resigned."

Po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh.

"3. Seriously, if you said that sort of shit in most workplaces you'd be up for some sort of a talk with HR about not being a team player"

I don't know what kind of workplaces you have experience with, but the ones I've worked in, a comment like this would've been met with a shrug and/or groan at the most. You might be right about companies where HR departments are dominated by humorless and fanatical Social Justice Warriors such as pervade the administrations of academia, although I'd be willing to wager that HR workers at such companies that drove off top talent to inquisitions like this would in turn get a talking to by upper management.

"And if you kept it up with any frequency or unrepentance, you'd be fired."

This guy didn't keep it up with frequency or unrepentance. He made one statement one time, for which he was taken out behind the woodshed.

I am astonished! Dr Krellin, where are you? Your services are desperately required!

This man so many of you sanctimonious fools are slagging off is a Nobel prize winner. Do you prigs have no idea as to the stupidity of a society that hounds a guy (or girl) out of being able to continue to contribute to our understanding of science? As to his ill-judged comment, I, too, in a long life, have found getting involved with the opposite sex in the workplace full of traps and pitfalls. Problem is, for most of us in a society with successful careers, to get on means high geographic mobility and so the majority of our social contacts tend to be in the workplace!

The reason he was able to be dumped so quick is simply because the guy is outdated and irrelevant. Working male scientists do this kind of shit every day and don't get fired. Sometimes they get a talking to, but not that often.

^ P.S.: That is the word from a *lot* of people I know who actually work in science. Both the men and women.

'Jeff, its not about freedom of speech or the consequences, its about an abnormal reaction to a joke that didn't merit such a strong reaction.'

It turns out ILN, that you don't get to decide how strongly people should react.

When women in science are the ones offended and posting photos of themselves to ridicule him. That is their honest reaction.

'This man so many of you sanctimonious fools are slagging off is a Nobel prize winner.'

You don't have to be competent to be a noble prize winner. And he will still be able to contribute to his field - people may no longer respect his 'honourary' position, but they will still respect any useful contributions he might make to his field.

This is an example of social norm setting. You upset lots of people, they complain, the world gets better... Hooray, victory for everyone.

What's that i hear, you don't like this social norm? Well go ahead and complain, you're entitled to. It is part of this process. But if you expect people to listen to you, you're probably going to need to listen to them first...

The dude is thoroughly retired from actual science. His entire contribution to the field currently is being trotted out as "Bigwig Nobel Prize Winner What Whom We Have On Our Board" to impress sponsors. People with actual grants and things don't get fired like that even when they do much worse things (like actual outright sexual harassment including physical groping).

"It turns out ILN, that you don't get to decide how strongly people should react."

but we're allowed to discuss it, right?

^ might want to reread orthaic's post..to the end

The Age of Intolerance is clearly upon us, ushered in by no other than "Big Tent" Liberals. Ironic that those who's general philosophy of living is "...anything goes - who are you to judge another man's actions..." are the first to, loudest and most blood-thirsty when judging another man's actions.

Good little authoritarian hypocrites.

Ah, the good old "freedom to be a shitty person with no consequences" argument.

The old dude's entire job is basically PR. you can't make shitty statements that actually hurt other people (as in, his statements encourage sexist bullying, which is most definitely a real thing that happens to literally every single female scientist I know, some of them on an ongoing daily basis), then completely fail to make anything resembling a real apology, and continue life as normal in PR world.

If he actually made a real apology, he may well still have had his cushy PR honorary positions. That sort of thing does actually happen - people make idiotic comments, realise they've been an idiot in public, *genuinely apologise*, never do it again, and the furore goes away. It's not impossible, or even particularly difficult.

I think this interview with Tim Hunt and his wife is probably on point. It seems to me this is a pretty good case for "people make idiotic comments, realise they've been an idiot in public, *genuinely apologise*, never do it again, and the furore goes away".

Except he was fired *in* the furore. And unfiring somebody is pretty tough. I'd argue that in this day and age, we should counsel ourselves more patience in a case like this. It's probably unwise to fire the guy within 24h, while he's still oblivious in a plane.

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

@Thorfi, and every other mental reject cheering at the death of a man's career for a *single* comment in poor taste: I hope all you motherfucker live *perfect* lives.

Please, any one of you, feel free to apply with my company, and I will watch you like a dung beetle on shit, and call you out each and every time you do something that I find offensive.

All you little fucking narrow-minded liberal twats that think YOUR shit doesn't stink, and whom cheer this age of active Thought Police destroying people's lives - you will all reap the rewards of your hypocrisy someday, when you create a society of mindless fucking drones.
The first way to dominate a society and turns free men into slaves: Make them afraid to speak the thoughts on their minds, no matter how good or ill.

It's too bad none of you little shits have ever studied history, and therefore don't understand that reason "free speech" is the FIRST and most important amendment.

Oh...I get the idea that speech/behavior has consequences. But you vile little fucktards CHEER when people's lives and careers get destroyed.

You say, "Ahhhh...he was old and ready to retire anyway...". BULLSHIT. You vile hate-mongers would have equally cheered if he was an up-and-coming superstar in his field. And...again....the funny thing is all you little hypocritical judegmental hate-mongers seeking to judge every word and thought in a person's mind are the first and loudest to tell everyone they have no right to judge anything that anyone does. The truth, of course, is that you don't want YOUR thoughts and actions judged....and the Liberals have placed themselves as the ultimate moral authority. Funny thing is, though, that every political/social leader of Liberalism is equally as vile and wretched as those they judge.

Ah, yay, I have won the dubious honour of Krellin slinging a series of personal insults at me! Hooray! *shrug*

@TMOW: Seems like UCL maybe could have waited a bit, 'tis true. OTOH, most orgs with social media aware PR have a policy that essentially says that if your role is essentially PR, and you cause giant PR outrage, you're quite likely to get dumped ASAP. If he's genuinely sorry, good, and he'll probably be back on boards at some point shortly. If not, then I guess he gets to look after his quince trees.

"Please, any one of you, feel free to apply with my company, and I will watch you like a dung beetle on shit, and call you out each and every time you do something that I find offensive."

This is normal in an employer/employee relationship.

"It's too bad none of you little shits have ever studied history, and therefore don't understand that reason "free speech" is the FIRST and most important amendment."

This doesn't apply in an employer/employee relationship.

So krellin either contradicts himself or doesn't understand the facts, yet again. *yawn*