Tim Hunt shouldn't resign. He should lead the way against sexism in science
|
Version 0 of 1. It’s a fraught prospect when a feminist finds herself sharing a side with Boris Johnson, the Tory mayor of London. Yet the case of Tim Hunt, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who has faced an internet tsunami of feminist wrath for his sexist comments about women in science, has compelled me into a superficial alliance with Johnson, a man whose own habitual sexism I have protested in person. Like Johnson, I don’t believe Hunt’s comments warranted his forced resignation –but this is not because I think Hunt shouldn’t be criticised for his “light-hearted, off-the-cuff speech”. Related: Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ‘ruined by rush to judgment after stupid remarks’ We have become accustomed in Australia to the clamour of social media outrage extending beyond criticism to demands for the immediate public stripping of those who offend across a subjective spectrum of standards for public propriety. The conservative preacher Mark Driscoll, for example, was dropped from an Australian conference after facing calls from feminist groups to be barred entry to the country for vile comments made in the past that women were but “penis homes”. Those on the right may be defending Hunt (only a rare few are defending Driscoll), but the local conservative quarter took its own scalp recently with the sacking of SBS sportscaster Scott McIntyre after his tweets about Anzac Day were interpreted as attacking the values of the day. Perhaps the most famous bringing-down among the Australian commentariat was Fairfax’s removal of left-wing contrarian columnist Catherine Deveny after some tweets mocking the sexualisation of the Logies were targeted at a then-underage Bindi Irwin. In the new social media universe where capacity to offend is re-excercised second-to-second, determining who gets sacked, punished, excused or forgiven is a decision made by institutions weighing up which audience they believe it is in their best interests to appease. Sacking, banning, blocking or removing is the easiest form of punitive action to choose before a baying social media mob, because it immediately blinds everyone to the details of more complex social problems which these controversies allow to be seen – and for which no individual, not even one with views as reprehensible as Mark Driscoll, deserves either to be completely exonerated or to shoulder the entire blame. Sacking McIntyre from SBS may have quickly placated those for whom Anzac Day holds sacrosanct value but removing him as an individual from public life for some clumsy stream-of-consciousness on Twitter will not silence criticism of how Anzac mythology overrides the historical realities of Australia at war. Public censure was provoked by McIntyre, and it was delivered, with the maximum humiliation social media affords. But by sacking McIntyre, SBS instantly lost the opportunity to allow those who believe that Anzac mythos is worth defending to engage in a mature and detailed conversation about war and history, the role of remembrance and why McIntyre was wrong. Similarly, the sacking of Hunt is not going to end sexism in science. The reason why the Hunt sacking sits so uncomfortably with me is not because the septugenarian scientist is somehow blameless or mistaken but because Hunt is obviously one of many people – men and women – who express views based on persisting gender stereotypes that art and literature have been perpetuating for centuries. Related: Tim Hunt: ‘I’ve been hung out to dry. They haven’t even bothered to ask for my side of affairs’ Hunt’s lived reality should have provided him with overwhelming evidence that sexual tension and gendered crying were not behaviours that any scientific method would determine to be universal – but he still used them as a joke. Feminists get criticised as doing “feminism lite” when they attack the sexist traditions of popular culture, but if stereotypes from culture can override the logic of a Nobel prize-winning scientist, such criticism rightfully deserves condemnation as a form of sexism in itself. I’m not trying to excuse or exonerate Hunt, but rather to criticise his selection as an individual scapegoat, in this case for the broader and ongoing cultural problem of sexism and gender misrepresentation that remains unchallenged. Shoving him off his social platform with a forced resignation is tokenism. Since sexist traditions within the institutions of science have marginalised women, those same institutions have a responsibility to address that sexism by rehabilitating Hunt, not pretending that he has suddenly ceased to exist. If words of careless sexism – or criticisms of Anzac or misplaced mockery of Bindi Irwin – can wound on this scale, surely opportunities provided for words of true self-awareness, humility and sincere remorse can be powerful and transformative. Suspend Hunt, yes, invest time and energy in devising an appropriate program that would enable his contribution to ending sexism in science – and then if he’s found to be irredeemable, fire him. But if, as reports suggests, the great immunologist has become aware that he’s the symptom of a cultural disease, do not deny women in science the powerful advocacy that maintaining his platform could provide. |