Epstein, Hawking and reputation management

[mids2019]

Reading about the connection between Hawking and Epstein along with alleged events at his parties has made me wonder if incredibly high profile people who have left a legacy of important work can be 'cancelled'. I don't know how far the allegations go but certainly you can't remove 'Brief History of Time' from libraries or remove the countless documentaries about Professor Hawking.

How then do you manage the legacy of a character such as this. To ignore allegations made public through these court files seems to implicitly condone behaviour which would be repulsive to large parts of society but the legacy is too large to distance from.

I found the whole thing disappointing and I I am concerned about the influence on aspiring female theoretical physicists (it's not exactly role model stuff). I also felt.watching some of the interviews with his immediate family that there was The underlying fact Hawking was a a complex character but I never imagined something possibly so tawdry.

Talking generally and not specifically to SH. You wouldn't be able to cancel the science unless it was disproved. Lots of scientific information was gathered in unethical ways. This can be addressed by writing a forward to the publication putting the work in context.

@Coffeespill

Very true. I was just wondering if reputational damage impacts the extent to how we venerate public figures. Hawking's ashes are inferred between Newton 's and Darwin's; was this wise in hindsight?

I think it leaves institutions like Cambridge in a bit of a bind whether to publically defend one of its most prominent academics by assisting in denying allegations or letting the allegations not be commented on in fear of being accused of abetting silencing women victims of crime.

it's a real challenge and it does bring into question yet again how we defend reputations and if it matters.

If you cancelled male academics based on sexual misconduct then academia would fall apart.

Slightly OT, but wasn’t the claim about Hawking a fake circulating on Twitter?

whether to publically defend one of its most prominent academics by assisting in denying allegations or letting the allegations not be commented on in fear of being accused of abetting silencing women victims of crime.

This sounds like a false dichotomy. Why would the U of C deny allegations? It's not for them to do so. If there are allegations if grooming or abuse from students or from people Hawking had access to through the university or university systems then I'd expect them to review and confirm what safeguards are or will be put in place.

How would they be accused of "abetting silencing victims of crime" unless there was evidence that university staff had done this?

@Whataretheodds .

Good point. It would in reality not be a university concern as it is a private matter.

It brings up the question of anyone should be responsible for putting up a reputations defence?

@Dynamoat

that is so sad. Is It possible that attitudes have changed since Hawking was in his hat day? There are probably a lot of male.scientists historically that were misogynist and maybe this is worth highlighting?

I think physics does need more strong female role models in general (which is happening). I think the disappointing thing is that when allegations like this arise it puts women off physics as it provides role.models whose behaviour presumably turns some girls away.

I work in academia (in administration) and deal directly with allegations of sexual misconduct. Most senior academics are men and they hold a lot of power, especially if they run large labs. At conferences it's not untypical to see one of the male 'stars' in their field being followed by 20 female students like they're some kind of rock god. Some men take advantage of this and perpetuate it. To complain of misconduct would ruin a young academics career and the predatory men know this so it's a mess in some fields. Typically if someone does complain hr get involved and male academic is put on study leave for a term (helping their career because it takes them away from administrative and teaching duties to focus on research) and then they're back with no repercussions. I've even had people say to me when I've discussed some allegations that "tsk that's just male profs for you".

@Dynamoat

very similar to medicine. It's the age old dilemma complaining against those in power.

to what extent are these things covered up as the university is desperate to avoid reputations damage?

also is there a degree that the scientific community dismissed allegation as it would by 'be fair' to besmirch the reputation of someone esteemed in their field?

Not Epstein but hardly family friendly. From 2012:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106025/Stephen-Hawking-visits-California-swingers-sex-club.html

You always have to separate art from artist. I lecture in literature and teach my students this all of the time. Same applies in any field, sometimes the person was an absolute abomination but it doesn’t remove the incredible things they did from society. We can enjoy or celebrate their work without also celebrating them.

@Sartre

there are limits though aren't there e.g. Saville? Seville was a sickening individual but it would have been an ethical head ache if he has left a legacy of work (as was he a very creepy DJ and children's presenter)

@Sartre I disagree. For me art in all of its forms is integrated with the artist. With lyrics the meanings change and I can no longer enjoy them the same way. With books, if I find out an author was say a misogynist, I will not be able to enjoy reading it in the same way. It will make me reassess the characters' motivations etc Science is somewhat different to an extent. But decent scientists should have integrity. Science isn't an absolute. Clinical trials can be manipulated and cherry picked for the benefit of a particular desired outcome. If a scientist is a bigot, or a cheat or some other sort of person that lacks moral fibre it is hard to trust them.

The Hawking stuff seems vague.

Was about to reply you have to separate the achievements from the bad stuff and not cancel their good work, but then you mentioned Savile and that went out the window! His motives were so awful I feel his good deeds are tainted. So I guess for me it depends.

There are plenty of scientific achievers who have been revealed as awful people we wouldn't want around these days. James Webb for instance. Should the telescope have been named after him in light of his homophobia? Where is the line?

And as another poster pointed out much of the scientific knowledge we use today was gathered unethically. For instance, we know in detail what happens to a live person immersed in boiling water or exposed to freezing temperatures because the Nazis did it, and that information was used by many an ethical researcher afterwards.

I doubt very much whether young women would be put off studying or working in the field of physics because one prominent physicist was a sleaze. As pp have said, artists, writers, geneticists, physicists etc could all have had questionable views or lifestyles, particularly considering what was once acceptable.
Would you say that you wouldn't fight racism or support equal rights because of the personal life of MLK?

If he had left useful scientific knowledge that would have been used. Probably with caveats of his crimes if that was relevant to the science. We can not watch reruns of totp quite easily

Maybe Saville was an extreme example however we have higher bars in society now for public acclaim and respect (rightly so). There will be many historical figures who are expected and lauded by society and yet did hideous things.

I think the thing of interest now is that Hawking is a relatively modern figure and we probably look at him with our 21st century sensibilities. It may be in hindsight his physics achievements were over egged a little (there are many workers involved in all hole theory for example).

I think it is important that girls know science isn't as misogynist as it once was and we need at least currently scientific leaders that don't come with such baggage.

@Coffeespill .

Good point. How do we though praise the art (or science) but not the artist. By lauding someone's work are we not implicitly praising or respecting the originator?

I'm not sure what your last sentence means (at 9.45) In our school girls are very much encouraged in science, and particularly well supported in yr12 and yr13. I don't think that there's such a thing as "science leaders". On the corridor walls of the science department there are posters of women (and poc) who have made valuable contributions to the world of science. Many I hadn't heard of before.

No. We are valuing the work or skill.

I think it is important that girls know science isn't as misogynist as it once was

im not entirely sure we can say that can we? I don’t want to derail into a trans debate but all STEM programmes to improve the representation/experience of work in STEM are open to men now

SH was a theoretical physicist - his theories can be challenged through scientific method. If his results or theories are found to be untrue or lack rigour then they’ll be challenged. That’s how science is meant to work isn’t it?

The thing about science is that it should be independent of the person - we shouldn't be celebrating only a small number of geniuses or heros. Most science is a big team project these days and so it is better to get away from the myth of a lone genius.

We can use Hawkings theories without revering him.

Exactly this. Also it is always going to be affected by the person to some extent and this is usually addressed in any good academic paper.

@parietal

science is often a joint exercise now and maybe individual brilliance causing paradigms shifts is a thing of the past; who knows?

I suppose if we focus less on individuals we need a reduced focus on reputation management or dealing with complex legacies.