June 22, 2015

Sir Tim, sexism and social media

editor:	Gurmeet Singh

Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel laureate was removed from his position as University College London’s honorary professor of Life Sciences (UCL said he’d resigned, but Hunt’s subsequent comments suggest he was ousted) after making a joke about women in Seoul, South Korea. His joke was tweeted and Sir Tim became the subject of a vicious social media campaign over the next few days.

Hunt apologised for the comments on numerous occasions, and has even stated that he received support from many female scientists, as well as numerous public figures.

So let’s take a look at what he actually said. His joke was delivered at a lunch for female scientists and journalists:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.”

Firstly, the obvious point is – it’s clearly unfunny. It’s gauche, old-fashioned and embarrassing. Secondly, it’s sexist.

But, should Sir Tim have lost his job? I think it’s the right question to ask as it’s a real-world consequence after something less concrete – a social media campaign against the man.

We’re in difficult territory when we ask this question, as we’re asking: should popular sentiment have influence over institution’s actions, and moreover – should popular sentiment have influence over whether you keep your job? After all, you could say that social media and popular sentiment help to boost democracy and the public’s voice to be heard. Or you could say that people are easily swayed and unreflective when it comes to social media; who knows, tomorrow, people might be saying how silly it was that Sir Tim got fired over a joke.

The intersection between the acceptable and the challenging is exceptionally small and these days it’s incumbent on every figure in the public eye, especially those in established positions of authority to be careful what they say. It’s not to say that there is a tyranny of good opinion – of bien pensant people which kill debate. Believe me, the world is still a vastly unequal place and it’s much more common for people to be derided, insulted and stereotyped than it is for people to put their support behind people who are different from them.

So, is it wrong to say that all Sir Tim did was tell a joke? This isn’t a defence of the joke, nor of the sentiments behind it (whatever they may have been) – but shouldn’t we defend his right to tell it? Shouldn’t we be tolerant of intolerance? Also, more importantly, shouldn’t we discriminate between serious and non-serious instances of prejudice? It’s not as though Sir Tim was saying women shouldn’t and couldn’t be scientists.

Or was what he said absolutely intolerable? He’s in a position of authority – Nobel-endorsed authority – that’s no joke. Sir Tim’s not infallible, but he does have more responsibility when he speaks in public. His joke was clearly sexist and given credence by his authority and responsibility.

But is that what makes this case difficult? Is this a case of free speech and tolerance, or is it something else?The point is it’s hard to tell whether a case like Sir Tim’s is really or falsely controversial. He was in a position of authority and he should have recognised his own privileges when speaking; does that mean people shouldn’t be allowed to make jokes, however prejudiced and unfunny? Does it matter if people get hurt? I don’t know – and I come back to this point. I don’t know because social media distorts proportion and makes trivial things seem important – cat pictures or celebrity fails or the like. So how am I to know when to take people’s sentiments seriously?

Secondly, the only actors to benefit from Sir Tim’s sacking have been UCL and the other institutions which asked him to resign. People in authority don’t simply speak for themselves – they speak on behalf of their employers, and what’s crucial – their employer’s brand. If we say this is an issue of morality or free speech – a real controversy – then we kid ourselves. This is an issue of sponsorship.

UCl acted as any brand would. It’s swept Sir Tim under the carpet. This isn’t an argument in favour of Sir Tim or his comments; it’s to say let’s not kid ourselves in cases like this. Let’s learn to discriminate between serious and non-serious controversies and devote our energies to the serious ones. And let’s not kid ourselves when we say we’re being moral or, Christ, more moral. We’re just being more neutral, less controversial, and making the space for brands to operate without the possibility of getting hurt – or to say, for brands to operate without humans.