

Physics prof fired from oil spill cleanup job due to controversial blog. - yummyfajitas
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-oil-spill-professor,0,3504925.story

======
Perceval
It's unclear to me why the professor's opinions on homosexuality or
multiculturalism would impede his ability to find a solution to our current
predicament in the gulf, which requires a rapid and expert insight.

If his other four colleagues selected by the Obama administration were unable
to work with him, that would be one thing. There doesn't seem to be any public
indication of that. This mostly seems to be a bow from the administration to
pressure to enforce political correctness.

It would be a shame if the professor's absence unnecessarily prolonged or
impeded a rapid solution to the gulf oil geyser. The longer that geyser is
allowed to spill, the greater the devastation to marine life and the gulf
economy.

~~~
mturmon
Look at his publications:

<http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/publist.html>

He does not seem to have particular expertise on this problem.

~~~
billpaetzke
He entered the project based on aptitude and left based on politics. That's
why it's unsettling.

~~~
mturmon
Here's a good summary of the team Steven Chu, himself a Nobelist, appointed:

[http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/mission_im...](http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/mission_impossible_obama_taps_crack_team_of_scient.php)

Note that Katz is called the "What am I doing here" person. And note, the
above summary piece was posted in advance of those writings coming out.

I think the real issue is, why did Chu ask Katz to join the team in the first
place? He's really not got the same track record as the others on the team.
Not even close.

~~~
lutorm
Sometimes it's good to pick people who are experts in related fields but with
no direct knowledge of the issue -- it's a source of unbiased ideas that can
be valuable. My impression is that that's the whole idea behind this JASON
team, to bring together people from various fields of science who all bring
their particular viewpoint to a problem. It's the whole idea behind the word
"interdisciplinary"...

~~~
mturmon
<blockquote> In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as
he sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky. "I am
training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe." "Why is the net
wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions
of how to play." Minsky shut his eyes. "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman
asked his teacher. "So the room will be empty." At that moment, Sussman was
enlightened. </blockquote>

My point: not to confuse "no preconceptions" with "not much directly usable
knowledge." Look at the resumes of the people on the team. You've got the head
of one of the premier research institutions in the nation (Sandia), a national
medal of science winner who has consulted about the Kuwait oil well disaster,
a robotics engineer, and a petroleum engineer. And an astrophysicist.

About Feynman, remember, he was a Nobelist and widely understood, when he was
appointed, to be the most brilliant physicist of the latter half of the 20th
century. His university (Caltech) runs a NASA facility, JPL, where his sister
and a lot of his colleagues worked.

------
billpaetzke
It's unfortunate his social views became a "distraction"--whatever that means.
I am disappointed. He should not have been dismissed due to social pressure.
He's not running for a political office.

He's a smart man who's trying to solve a very important, urgent science
problem. His involvement should only be tied to his problem-solving abilities.

We need to band together--irrespective of barriers and beliefs--like in the
movie Independence Day--where all the countries united to defeat the alien
invaders :)

~~~
pvdm
... should NOT have been cut ... I think you meant to say. Correct ?

~~~
billpaetzke
fixed wording

------
eavc
Let's be clear about what he said in his blog that's so inflammatory.

Essentially, he said that gay people are morally culpable for AIDS, and that
the monogamous gay people are culpable because they belong to the same group
much how people belonging to the KKK are to blame even if they aren't the
exact person committing violence.

~~~
yummyfajitas
He really didn't say that. He compared homosexuals to people who ride
motorcycles without a helmet, not the KKK. He also criticized the homosexuals
and IV drug users who spread disease.

What this has to do with his ability to mitigate an oil spill is beyond me.

~~~
eavc
"Post-Script October 9, 2005: In recent weeks this essay has been the subject
of controversy at, and even beyond, Washington University (see, for example,
recent issues of Student Life). A number of critics have asked if monogamous
homosexuals are also culpable. Quite apart from the question of the definition
of monogamous (sexual contact with only one person in a lifetime? serial
monogamy? some cheating? etc.), I suggest the following analogy: A man joins
the Ku Klux Klan. He is not violent, and would never hurt a fly; he just wants
a safe place to express his racist feelings. Is he culpable for the Klan's
past acts of violence? I believe that even though he is not criminally
responsible for acts that occurred before he joined, he is morally culpable
for joining the Klan. The Klan has blood on its hands, and anyone who joins
must share the guilt. So, too, with the homosexual movement."

~~~
yummyfajitas
My mistake.

------
savant
It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come
together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone
in power decides a person's divisive position on an issue affects his ability
to focus on a problem.

~~~
halostatue
If it affects other people's ability to work with him, it matters.

~~~
lidmith
Maybe it effects his ability to work with them, and they should be removed.

I don't like homophobia, though I do agree with him on diversity (based on
what the article showed): that we should focus on people's merits, and not
their race, for college admissions and jobs.

However, it's my understanding that he only wrote this stuff on his blog; that
he wasn't preaching about it at work, or in this scientist group.

If some scientist is too effected by the personal writings of this guy on his
blog that they are unable to work with him, then that scientist should leave
the group. Moreover, for someone to be removed from a government position
based on his personal beliefs, expressed on his personal web site, is very
clearly a violation of freedom of speech.

To put it another way, suppose someone on the team believed that women should
have the right to vote, and this offended the sensibilities of other members
of the group. Should that person have been removed?

Just because his ideas are wrong, doesn't make them any of our business, or
the government's, or that groups'.

~~~
stretchwithme
jeez, I have probably worked with a lot of people who have divisive
controversial views diametrically opposed to my own.

who cares!

The immature, overly political people on the team, that's who!

I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of his free speech rights. He
can still speak. Its more a violation of his employment agreement, if anything
at all.

~~~
lidmith
I have to disagree with "I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of
his free speech rights. He can still speak."

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have vocal cords. It means you are
free from reprisal for your speech. This was a government appointment, and the
story says that the DOE confirmed that the reason for his removal was because
of his writings. So, the DOE punished him, by removing him from this
appointment, based on his writings.

~~~
pmccool
Freedom of speech doesn't typically imply no fear of reprisals from employers;
why should it in this case?

~~~
lidmith
In essence, it comes down to government use of power. Private companies may
discriminate based on beliefs, because the positions they offer are not
created by use of force, whereas all government positions are.

Put in a concrete, extreme example, consider if all teaching positions across
the US required a statement of belief (say, in god). This would clearly be a
violation of the establishment clause (really, tied to freedom of speech, but
you could make another example that is more closely linked to the current
situation). However, if some private catholic school required its teachers to
believe in god, that would not be a violation, because the constitution binds
the government, not private individuals or groups.

So, in a clear answer to your question, "why should it in this case?", it
should because the constitution is a set of rules for the government to act
upon, not for private companies.

~~~
pmccool
A set of rules for the government to act on in exercising powers peculiar to
government, no?

Hence the historical importance of tenure for judges, for example. I assume
his university position is likewise protected by academic tenure?

So I respectfully disagree. Whatever this is, it isn't a freedom of speech
issue.

------
darkhorse
wow, lots of homophobe-apologists masquerading as free speech crusaders here
tonight.

it doesn't take a genius to realize that:

a) having a lightning-rod homophobe/bigot on the team will turn into a PR
nightmare and result in a media circus

b) it'd be better to not have such a circus and focus on the important stuff

c) removing the bigot puts this problem behind you so you can focus on the
task at hand

furthermore, $50 says this guy is a self-hating closet homo. wait for it....

