Ensaf Haidar reports that U2 spoke up for Raif Badawi at a concert:
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The end stage of a metamorphosis in which the idea took final flight
Jun 17th, 2015 5:37 pm | By Ophelia BensonNow it’s just getting funny – all the bolts and sprockets flying off the “Secular Policy Institute” and landing in the middle of the banana cream pie.
Last week I was busy getting rid of a whole bunch of assholes so I missed Edwina Rogers’s comment at Almost Diamonds. I wish I’d seen it then, because if I had I would have known about it when I was accidentally introduced to her at the conference. (I did mention that I was accidentally introduced to her, right? I was. Her smile shrank quite a lot when she heard my name. I wasn’t very effusive myself.)
Rogers starts off by saying the post is fiction – which is amusing, given all the references in the post.
The blogger spins a story of the transformation of GSC into the GSI and its eventual emergence as the Secular Policy Institute (SPI). This is a breezy reconstruction of the actual events that almost suggests that the Secular Policy Institute is the latest incarnation of what began as the Global Secular Council, the end stage of a metamorphosis in which the idea took final flight. The account reads as an improbable and serpentine transformation of projects and organizations precisely because it is improbable and, well, untrue, too.
Oh yes? Then why is there so much overlap? So many of the same “experts” and “thought leaders” and “Fellows”? So many of the same photographs of the same people?
SCA participated fully in the development of GSC. Amanda Metskas and the Board participated in, and approved, its development as an SCA project (see March 27 board minutes). Amanda wanted a name without the word Institute, drafted part of the press release for it, and selected the term “expert” for the members of its Think Tank as she thought Fellow as sexist. It is fair to say that Amanda and I were collectively spearheading the implementation of the GSC at the time that she terminated me, assumed my position as Executive Director, and then discontinued working on the project.
The donor, Lloyd Rubin, was understandably incensed that his 50K was going to be squandered in my absence and with the discontinuation of the GSC project. He rattled his sabers and threatened to sue SCA (no surprise there) and in response, SCA gave the Secular Global Council with its Experts to Mr. Rubin, at which point he renamed it the Global Secular Institute. I know because I was a volunteer Fellow of the Global Secular Institute. Mr. Rubin put out a series of newsletters- yes, with pictures of this cats!- and soon tired of the work involved in the running of the Institute and allows it to lie largely fallow to this day. My understanding is that he discontinued its newsletter but that the organization still exits. It is a Think Tank Group. Not a coalition of organizations, but a stand-alone think tank group.
Oh, well then. That’s all very straightforward and respectable. The saber-rattling, the threats to sue, the cats, the getting bored, the convicted felon – nothing to see here folks, move along.
The Secular Policy Institute is not the reincarnation of the Global Secular Institute or GSC. Yes, SPI has a secular think tank of scientists and scholars dedicated to the separation of church and state in public policy making, but it is also a coalition of international groups; the world’s largest coalition, in fact.
Really? How many of those groups are part of the coalition voluntarily? How many of them were simply added without being informed they were being added? How many have asked to be removed with no success?
Also I just plain don’t believe that “world’s largest” claim, on the grounds that it’s Edwina Rogers making it plus it’s absurd.
It is a separate legal entity. It is sponsoring the World Futures Forum and drafting the World Future Guide, and has assisted in the implementation of a wide variety of projects nested within other secular organizations, including a website for UnitedCoR, a table at CPAC for American Atheists, a website for Freethought Film Festival, a website for Hispanic Freethought, a cash grant to the Youth Atheist Conference, a cash grant to the Association for Atheism in Turkey, a website and demonstration campaign for the United Church of Bacon, a website and Congressional visits for the Foundation for Critical Thinking, and a range of others. By contrast, the Global Secular Institute and GSC were never coalition organizations, never had any national or international affiliates, never had any projects or initiatives, and were (and still are) completely separate legal entities (although not actually even legal entities with any nonprofit status under any U.S. or foreign laws). In short, GSC/GSI and SPI are simply different organizations. SPI is a U.S. Charity approved by the IRS and exists legally while GSC and GSI are simply just names.
That’s what I said last year – they’re just names, with lists of people; they’re not doing anything. Nice of Rogers to confirm. But this business about how totally separate they are – don’t make me laugh.
5. The blogger makes all kinds of hay over Mr. Lloyd Rubin’s felonious background and his unsavory involvements with secular start-ups. Actually, Mr. Rubin mostly funded standing groups, not start-ups. He donated to groups like the American Humanist Association, American Atheists, the Secular Coalition for America and Americans United. The blogger is quizzically critical of my bringing Mr. Rubin into the donation scene for SCA without mentioning his donations to a wide variety of other secular groups who relished his support. Of course, other groups, such as Amanda Metskas’ CampQuest organization, were not successful in their efforts to lobby Mr. Rubin for support; he supported only those that he viewed to be worthy secular projects.
Wait. Where’s the part where she explains why “the blogger” is wrong to point out Lloyd Rubin’s felonious background? I completely missed that part, and I can’t find it how hard soever I look. She says nothing at all to explain that. Too busy wrapping party favors in sheets of dollar bills?
6. “Lloyd Rubin was gong to give 2,333 paintings to the Vatican”.
Actually, that was a joke. A cruel joke because he was angry. He was angry because he had given 2,333 pieces of art to SCA and we worked for a year to find a donor to bear the considerable expense associated with cataloging, packing, shipping, housing and building a website for this 1.5 millions dollar’s worth of art so that the proceeds could go to the various member groups of SCA. When SCA terminated me, however, that donor in Ohio who had pledged $250k for these expenses withdrew his support out of protest (as did MANY donors to SCA) killing the project (and the 1.5 million of donations) and leaving Mr. Rubin holding his art work after a year of brokering its liquidation for a suitable cause.
Money. Money, you see. Mr Rubin had lashings of money. That’s really all that matters, don’t you agree?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
He’s done his time in prison and is now funding secular start-ups
Jun 17th, 2015 4:08 pm | By Ophelia BensonNostalgia time. Let’s look back at the first blushing days of the new Global Secular Council, later to be the Secular Policy Institute – by which I mean, let’s look back at what I had to say about it starting in May 2014.
In Global shmobal, for instance, the first whisper of its arrival.
Oops. There’s a thing called the “Global Secular Council.”
First? It’s not so global. They’re nearly all American or Ukanian, and the whole thing is clearly Anglophone.
Last? Its team of experts – 23 of them. Five women. Five.
Look at the glam picture at the top of the front page – what do you see? Four men and three women – not parity, not more women than men, but close to parity. Funny how the conspicuous glam photo on the front page looks as if there are almost as many women as men when in fact, there are not.
That’s not all you see, but I won’t go into that.
In The adorbs Secular Council.
They’re adding stuff, the Top of Their Field geniuses at The Global Secular Council. We get to watch them add stuff.
They’ve added a page for something called The Bella & Stella Foundation, which has a link at the bottom of the Team page. It’s some sweet whimsy-whamsy so that we’ll know they don’t take themselves too seriously. (Right, because a few US/UK white guys declaring themselves a Global Council has no trace of taking themselves too seriously.)
These two furry heathens do not suffer fools lightly, as they are both staunch proponents of the separation of church and state. When lounging in direct sunlight, they have a propensity for summoning the unwitting to their soft stomachs. A simple enough gambit, they let others pet them for the perfectly calculated amount of time, before the naïve are swatted at with more speed than a Hitchens one-liner.
Both have advanced degrees in the theory and practice of self-cleansing, and follow in the pursuit of each other’s genius to Ph.Ds in cat-naptology.
Isn’t that just adorable? Doesn’t it make you forget all about wondering what the hell this handful of white mostly-males from the US/UK has to do with anything global? Aren’t Bella and Stella just a perfectly fine substitute for people with some actual global reach and experience? Why wonder where Taslima Nasreen and Maryam Namazie and Gita Sahgal and Pragna Patel are when you can have Bella and Stella?
We understand about the cats now. It’s Lloyd Rubin. Who? Stephanie pulled it all together a couple of months ago:
It took Edwina Rogers being fired by the Secular Coalition for the money behind Bella and Stella to come forward.
“I can be a good and generous friend, or I can be a very effective adversary,” wrote one major donor, Lloyd S. Rubin, in an email to board members and the heads of member organizations last week.
One enterprising commenter on Ophelia’s blog made the Panamanian connection. Who is Lloyd Rubin?
One day in the mid-1980s, Rubin, a portly American in his 50s, steps off a plane. In no time, he is ensconced in opulent offices, complete with an imitation jungle brook. He proceeds to filch millions from visiting countrymen, despite repeated complaints to the U.S. embassy. He tools around in a wine-colored Jaguar. Even after Noriega falls, Rubin continues to con with impunity. He seems untouchable…but is he?
In June, 1991, Rubin travels to Thailand with his new Panamanian wife, Rachell Constante. They drive to a dusty village, where Lloyd is admitted to a drug rehabilitation center run by Buddhist monks. Constante returns to Panama alone. Some weeks later, a New York judge hearing a fraud case against Rubin gets a Thai death certificate in the mail. It states that Rubin died on July 26 at the rehab center and was cremated. As translated, the cause of death is listed as “complication disease, unhealthy.” He was 60.
Rubin is back in Panama now, having failed to convince anyone that he died. He’s done his time in prison and is now funding secular start-ups.
Classy, classy stuff.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Underneath
Jun 17th, 2015 3:24 pm | By Ophelia BensonI plan to post a few bits and pieces about the conference last weekend, if I get around to them.
One item…Saturday afternoon between the sessions and the evening events, Taslima and I went outside to the pool area to talk. We found a nice table under a tree and sat there in the shade gabbing away…and after we’d been there a good while a woman came up to us. I was thinking she was someone attending the conference who wanted to greet Taslima, but no – she was part of Taslima’s security detail, come to ask what her plans were for the evening and how to find her or (while she was on a break) another officer.
She was very…I’m not sure what to call it. Very firm, calm, fit – soldierly, you might call it. I liked her.
I wanted to post about it at the time but didn’t; I waited until we were all long gone.
I hadn’t noticed any security before that day, but at the start of the afternoon sessions I got off the elevator and approached the hall and there were two burly guys with guns at each side of the doorway.
All weekend I kept reminding myself not to mention that Taslima had decided to join me on the Niagara Falls trip until after it was well over.
We live in strange times.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The stories they told were horrible
Jun 17th, 2015 12:17 pm | By Ophelia BensonMichael Eisen took a look at the angry reaction to the angry reaction to Tim Hunt’s “joke” a few days ago (the day I was staring at Niagara Falls and gossiping with Taslima, to be exact – Sunday).
I happened to met Tim Hunt earlier this year at a meeting of young Indian investigators held in Kashmir. We both were invited as external “advisors” brought in to provide wisdom to scientists beginning their independent careers. While his “How to win a Nobel Prize” keynote had a bit more than the usual amount of narcissism, he was in every other way the warm, generous and affable person that his defenders of the last week have said he is. I will confess I kind of liked the guy.
But it is not my personal brush with Hunt that has had me thinking about this meeting the past few days. Rather it is a session towards the end of the meeting held to allow women to discuss the challenges they have faced building their scientific careers in India. During this session (in which I was seated next to Hunt) several brave young women stood up in front of a room of senior Indian and international scientists and recounted the specific ways in which their careers have been held back because of their gender.
The stories they told were horrible, and it was clear from the reaction of women in the room that these were not isolated incidents. If any of the scientists in positions of power in the room (including Hunt) were not already aware of the harassment many women in science face, and the myriad obstacles that can prevent them from achieving a high level of success, there is no way that could have emerged not understanding.
Tim Hunt was there, remember – he was sitting next to Eisen. Tim Hunt was there, yet…
When I am thinking about what happened here, I am not thinking about how Twitter hordes brought down a good man because he had a bad day. I am instead thinking about what it says to the women in that room in Kashmir that this leading man of science – who it was clear everybody at the meeting revered – had listened to their stories and absorbed nothing. It is unconscionable that, barely a month after listening to a women moved to tears as she recounted a sexual assault from a senior colleague and how hard it was for her to regain her career, Hunt would choose to mock women in science as teary love interests.
I wish Richard Dawkins had read this piece instead of the execrable one by Brendan Predictable O’Neill.
That a person as smart as Hunt could go his entire career without realizing that a Nobel Prizewinner deriding women – even in a joking way – is bad just serves to show how far we have to go.
Oh well, it’s only women.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The list of Fellows gets shorter again
Jun 17th, 2015 11:52 am | By Ophelia BensonHemant reported in an update yesterday that Phil Zuckerman had asked to be removed from the Secular Policy Institute’s list of Fellows; today he is off the list.
Two more have left: Ron Lindsay and Stephen Law.
CFI is no longer a member of the SPI. (Or possibly never was – at any rate it’s not now. We know they have a history of adding organizations without asking, and then balking when asked to remove.)
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
All the superheroes
Jun 17th, 2015 11:28 am | By Ophelia BensonDavid Koepsell has a beautiful piece at the CFI blog which you must read right this minute. It’s in the form of a letter to his daughter.
Dear Amelia,
It broke my heart last week when we were talking as I drove you to school. You saw the poster for the Avengers movie and asked who “the girl” was. When I explained she is Black Widow, and that she is an Avenger, you laughed and said “how can she be an Avenger? Avengers are superheroes, and she’s a girl.” It horrifies me to know that already, there are forces at work on you that convince you that somehow, girls and women cannot be anything you want. And I meant it when I told you that yes, women can be superheroes.You can be.
The world is full of people who will try to tell you that you can’t be or do something, sometimes due to you background, sometimes due to other things that don’t matter. Many members of your father’s family, my grandparents and their relatives, were despised, imprisoned, tortured, and killed because of our ethnicity, because we are descended from Jews. Millions of people were judged as unworthy, unclean, unfit. While the nations that tried to wipe us out lost in a world war, the battles over prejudice continue. Captain America cannot save us from the ongoing harm that those who judge others due to ethnicity, religion, skin color, and gender pose to every child who wants to be exactly what she wants to be.
There, that should be enough to make it impossible for you not to read the rest.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Never cite Brendan
Jun 16th, 2015 6:04 pm | By Ophelia BensonUpdating to add: I had it in mind all along that Hunt was pushed out of a non-tenured position, but the post doesn’t reflect that. He wouldn’t be pushed out of a tenured position because of his remarks, and I wouldn’t advocate that he should be.
Many of the usual suspects – Dawkins, yes, but not only Dawkins – are raging about the illiberal attacks on Tim Hunt. But they’re doing it by ignoring the time and place at which he made his oh so funny “joke.” They’re ignoring the fact that he said it in a work environment. Picture an admiral trash-talking about women in the Navy, at an official Navy event. Would that be generally considered a mere joke? Picture a CEO making racist comments at a company banquet – would that be seen as just some yuks among buddies?
I don’t think so.
Dawkins in his tweet cited this awful article in Reason by the always-awful Brendan O’Neill. (Yes really, Our Brendan yet again.) The whole piece is deeply dishonest, because it does that pretending it was just a joke on a social occasion thing.
Hunt is a British biochemist. A really good one. In 2001 he won the Nobel Prize for his breakthrough work on cells. He’s a fellow of the Royal Society in London, founded in 1660 and thought to be the oldest scientific research institution in the world. And this week he was unceremoniously ditched by University College London for telling a joke.
No. Not just “for telling a joke” – for telling it when and where and to whom he did.
But Our Brendan takes that line throughout.
In a normal world, a world which valued the freedom to make a doofus of oneself, that should have been the end of it. Seventy-two-year-old man of science makes outdated joke, tumbleweed rolls by, The End.
No. That’s staggeringly disingenuous. He wasn’t being a “doofus” and it wasn’t just an “outdated joke.” It was a top man expressing (“jokey”) contempt for women in his field, at a work conference in that field. It was, in short, a hostile work environment. Saying it was “just a joke” hasn’t cut it in about thirty years.
But we don’t live in a normal world. Certainly we don’t live in a world where people are allowed to make off-color comments. And so with tedious, life-zapping predicability, Hunt fell victim to the offence-policers, to the machine of outrage being constantly cranked up by self-styled guardians of what we may think, say, and even joke about.
Nope, and nope, and nope. All wrong. All ignoring the salient points.
His comments were branded “shocking and bewildering.” (You find a silly joke bewildering? You really should get out more.) And then came the denouement to this latest outburst of confected fury: Hunt “resigned” from UCL, where he was honorary professor.
“Resign” is in quote marks because it’s pretty clear he was elbowed out. Consider UCL’s statement about his leaving. “UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome [Hunt’s resignation] is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.”
Quite. That’s part of their job, do you see? To make sure there isn’t a hostile work environment for women and other despised groups at UCL. They have every right to say what they did, and in fact a duty to.
That’s another way of saying that Hunt’s penchant for making un-PC jokes was incompatible with life at UCL. So he had to be excommunicated. Professors of Britain, be warned: tell a funny that irritates the right-on, and you shall be cast out.
No. Again, it’s not about mere irritation, it’s about a hostile work environment. I don’t believe O’Neill is too stupid to grasp that.
What is truly alarming, what should really send a shiver down every liberal’s spine, is not the words that came out of Hunt’s mouth but the haranguing of him that followed, the shunning of him by the academy and possibly by the scientific elite itself.
Nonsense. The academy needs to ensure that casual sexism and racism aren’t just business as usual. That’s part of their job.
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.
“Women’s lib”??? It’s sheer affectation – he’s nowhere near old enough for that absurd label to be a natural part of his vocabulary – it’s been dead as a dodo since 1971 at the latest. And again, it’s not about what Hunt thinks and says in general, it’s about what he thinks and says on the job.
The Hunt incident is quite terrifying. For what we have here is a university, under pressure from an intolerant mob, judging a professor’s fitness for office by his personal thoughts, his idea of humour. 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.
Nope. They have other duties as part of the job. Their “depth of knowledge” is not a free pass to be dismissive and scornful (however jestingly) toward subordinates. Professors don’t have a golden permit to say anything they feel like saying merely because they’re professors. Professing is a job, and it has requirements.
UCL and the mob’s hounding of Hunt echoes the university of the pre-Enlightenment era, when only those who were 100 percent Good Catholics had a hope in hell of getting a job. Only now, academics must be unflinchingly in accordance with the commandments of PC rather than with Biblical thinking. A Nobel Laureate has been broken on the wheel of PC. This is bad. Really bad. For if even a Nobel winner can be treated like this, what hope is there for lesser professors? The chilling effect of the Hunt debacle on the Western academy is likely to be pretty intense.
No, it’s not “PC.” It’s the rules of the workplace. Deal with it.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The witch-hunt under the bed
Jun 16th, 2015 4:54 pm | By Ophelia BensonAnd more from the Department of Please Please Please Please Stop, Dawkins Division:
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins Jun 14
“A moment to savour”? Really? Please, Guardian, could we just lighten up on the witch-hunts? #ReinstateTimHunt. http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/the-illiberal-persecution-of-tim-
Again with the putative witch hunts – again used by a man, to rebuke women for rebelling against casually contemptuous treatment. Wouldn’t it be nice if Richard Dawkins actually came out against some item of casually contemptuous treatment of women? Wouldn’t it be nice if he didn’t keep insisting that because stonings and forced marriages are so horrific, therefore women in places like the UK and the US should stop rebelling against casually contemptuous treatment? I think that would be nice. It would make a change, too.
And he didn’t say it in haste and then withdraw it, either. He said it and then defended it.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins Jun 14
@SquashedLumps I didn’t like Tim Hunt’s joke. But I loathe and detest mob rule and witch hunts and politically correct feeding frenzies.
And that’s the important thing. It’s never the important thing to say, “my dear fellow, with all the respect in the world, you really mustn’t talk about our women colleagues in that way; it’s not right.” No. That’s not the important thing to do. The important thing to do is to protest against the women colleagues’ protests, by calling the women witch hunters and mob rulers and PC piranhas.
So I wish he would Please Please Please Please Stop. But I know he won’t; he’s made that crystal clear by now.
He was at the CFI conference this past weekend. He was – naturally – at the awards banquet Friday where he was among those receiving an award. His was a lifetime achievement award. I naturally kept wishing he hadn’t mucked up the appearance of his lifetime achievement by indulging in so much hostility to rebellious women recently. It doesn’t adorn his record. It makes it harder to read his books with unalloyed pleasure.
In his remarks after receiving the award, he made a “People’s Front of Judaea” reference. For the millionth time, I wished he wouldn’t. It’s not petty little squabbles over nomenclature, it’s the horrible sexist bullshit that women still have to deal with and that he is encouraging. And now here he is again, back at work, belittling women and complaining of witch hunts. What a pity he won’t stop.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Mixed Gender Lab
Jun 16th, 2015 4:32 pm | By Ophelia BensonVia Sarah Tuttle, via Jen, a useful sign:
Sarah Tuttle @niais
Ok. I made a lab sign, if anyone needs one. #TimHunt #DistractinglySexy #WomenInScience #STEM #SafeLab
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
More #DistractinglySexy
Jun 16th, 2015 3:31 pm | By Ophelia BensonOur friend Jen Philipps:
jen phillips @ClutchScience Jun 12
Collection protocols may vary, but tear production is reliably abundant. #DistractinglySexy
As luck would have it, the tears of girl scientists make excellent embryo medium #DistractinglySexy
Sarcastic Rover (whom I have a crush on):
SarcasticRover @SarcasticRover Jun 15
Can being a woman prevent others from doing their job? No… that’s stupid. #distractinglysexy
And a couple more floating around –
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Under the rock
Jun 16th, 2015 12:34 pm | By Ophelia BensonMore on Hemant’s post about the “Secular Policy Council.”
He starts with pointing out that a lot of their content is identical to content from the Secular Coalition for America – where she used to be Executive Director until she…erm…left it a year ago. Mary Ellen Sikes points out in a comment that the content has a Creative Commons agreement. That sounds benign until you remember that Rogers used to work for them. Quoting Mary Ellen:
If you check the bottom of page 3 of the SCA’s Model Secular Policy Guide, you’ll see the following: “Permission is granted for the reproduction of this document in whole or in part without consent of the authors and the Secular Coalition for America.” [The website terms of use state, “This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.” — but the specific statement on the Guide itself seems to override that.]
In other words, Edwina Rogers oversaw the development of a Model Secular Policy Guide that lacked a copyright, thus allowing her to republish it at another organization. As well, the Creative Commons license for the site as a whole represents a change which I believe (but am not positive) came about under her direction.. Perhaps the SCA Board can explain its thinking about these alterations to its intellectual property status.
Jeezus.
Back to Hemant:
It all looked very familiar… and the CEO of this new group was Edwina Rogers.
It appeared that, after parting ways with the SCA, she was setting up her own organization with a lot of overlapping parts.
This new organization didn’t lack credibility. In addition to that large coalition of supporting groups, she had a number of big-name “Fellows” — “distinguished scientists and scholars dedicated to the idea that policymaking should be informed by scientific evidence.”
That list of fellows included: Lawrence Krauss, Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Rebecca Goldstein, Carolyn Porco, Michael Shermer, and Andy Thomson.
All of those people have now left, and Hemant did an update to say Phil Zuckerman has now joined the leavers.
Hemant wonders why they left, and if it was their doing or the SPI’s.
Last week, I reached out to all the former Fellows I just named to find out if they could shed some light on those questions.
While some of them did not respond, the ones who did, including Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, told me they asked to be removed. They have no formal connection with SPI anymore.
It’s my understanding that Sam Harris left a while ago, but the rest of the names have all asked to be taken off the list over the past week or two.
And that’s the point at which he dropped the Dennett bomb.
Richard Dawkins — who is the subject of one of the damning accusations in Rogers’ lawsuit — said that he requested to be taken off the list after hearing from Dennett.
He also told me, “I have no recollection of how I [came] to be on the list in the first place.”
That’s pretty interesting considering how his image was used to promote the organization from the get-go:
Yes, yes it is.
That’s actually what I’ve thought about it all along – thought and said – that it’s basically just a list of Top Names, of “Thought Leaders” (never forget it was the Global Secular Council / Secular Policy Institute that started calling them that), for no particular purpose other than having a list of Top Names. It was just some ridiculous Look At Me project engaged in an infinite loop of adding people so as to draw in more people who would draw in more people repeat forever. Look at us being important. Bow.
And at least for now, the cover photo for SPI’s Facebook page still features both Dawkins and Krauss, neither of whom are Fellows anymore:
I asked Rogers about this situation a few days ago (and again over the weekend), but have not yet received an on-the-record statement. If she provides one, I’ll post an update.
Well, she was at the CFI conference over the weekend, being important.
So there you are. A large number of their Top Names have bailed, at least one of them having been added to their list of Top Names without his knowledge or permission. More are likely to follow suit as they find out what’s going on.
The whole thing is an embarrassment.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A fellowship should be consensual
Jun 16th, 2015 11:51 am | By Ophelia BensonOh my god.
You know I’ve always wondered why all those Big Name atheist and secularist types signed up to the “Global Secular Institute” now more modestly named the Secular Policy Institute. You know I wondered it very loudly and without muffling or disguise.
Now we know.
Hemant has a post today titled Notable Atheists and Scientists Are Disassociating from the Secular Policy Institute. I did a loud sustained intake of breath – “gasped” is inadequate to describe what I did – when I reached this bit:
Daniel Dennett in particular told me he asked to be removed from their list after learning that Rogers had filed a lawsuit against the Secular Coalition for America(which made some damning allegations about the SCA and several people associated with it).
Not only did Dennett inform many of the other Fellows why he was leaving (prompting them to do the same), here’s the most shocking part of what he told me:
I didn’t know I was a Fellow of SPI until I saw my picture and name on the website.
Oh.my.god.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Too sexy for the lab
Jun 16th, 2015 11:00 am | By Ophelia BensonFemale scientists have been sharing “distractingly sexy” photos of themselves after a feminist website encouraged them to respond to comments by a Nobel laureate.
Andrea Bidgood @Andreabigfoot Jun 11
#distractinglysexy hot science at work. Haven’t cried all week
Whoaaaaaaaa throw some cold water over me.
Many of them are hilarious, such as:
Morgan Kelly @MorganWKelly Jun 10
Smelled like dead oysters at the faculty meeting. Hope I wasn’t too #distractinglysexy
Jane Evans @jede39 Jun 10
@rhiannonlucyc @VagendaMagazine Indian rocket scientists #distractinglysexy
And Stephanie Evans, whose feed is full of STEM and women in STEM goodness:
Stephanie Evans @StephEvz43 Jun 10
Idk how any men were able to function when I was in this bunny suit and integrating a satellite. #distractinglysexy
Makes it hard to think straight, doesn’t she.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Not quite
Jun 16th, 2015 10:25 am | By Ophelia BensonMark J. Perry @Mark_J_Perry Jun 12
Cartoon of the Day: The Gender Disparity in STEM explained
(HT: @stevenfhayward) @CHSommers @AsheSchow @instapundit
No.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A fine table
Jun 16th, 2015 10:10 am | By Ophelia BensonI’m back.
The return trip was one nightmare after another – the Buffalo to Chicago flight canceled due to (I’ve just learned) tornadoes; the process to rebook unbelievably badly handled by American Airlines that’s AMERICAN AIRLINES; the rebooking entailing a four hour wait in Buffalo and a time of arrival in Seattle five hours later than the scheduled one; the Buffalo to Detroit flight made to sit at the gate for an hour because of a storm in Detroit, and – now this was really unfair – the train from the airport to downtown Seattle made to sit in the third station for twenty stinking minutes because of an accident on or near the tracks farther up the line. Do admit.
On the other hand – there was the getting off in Detroit and going to the Departures board and finding the next flight to Seattle and seeing that it left in twenty minutes and was 61 gates away – and the sprint to get there in 19 minutes, knowing the whole time that it was hopeless because all the cancellations would mean that every flight was packed to the rafters, and my deep loathing of every human being who impeded my desperate sprint, which they all did, and finding the gate and seeing the last people at the door, and rushing up to the desk to gasp out “Do you have any leftover seats?”…
…and being told YES.
So I got on a flight that left two solid hours before the one I’d been booked on.
That’s the second time I’ve done that. Yay me.
So now I’m back, and my usual rate of idle chatter will resume.
Here’s a photo of Taslima and me at the Friday evening dinner, taken by Kevin Smith of CFI Canada. theobromine and Eamon Knight of CFI Ottawa are on my other side.
A few minutes after that Taslima asked me what the elevated table at the other end of the room was about – it was the star table, where all the stars sat. I told her that if the powers had seen her she would be there too, and she laughed at the idea. A few minutes after that there was Tom Flynn to bear her away. We were sad to lose our dinner companion but happy to see her where she belongs.
That looks like Michael De Dora next to Taslima’s head. And Nick Little talking to the guy with his back to us.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Looking at the edge
Jun 15th, 2015 4:37 am | By Ophelia BensonI saved up and splurged on taking the tour to Niagara Falls yesterday afternoon and evening. I didn’t say anything about it beforehand, because Taslima had decided to go with me and if I had mentioned it we would have had to take a security detail with us.
We went first to the Botanical Garden and the Butterfly Conservatory, and then in stages down the gorge with stops to gape in awe, ending up at the Falls. One of my favorite views is a few yards back from the falls where you can see the edge kind of hanging in the air but not what’s behind and below it – but you know what’s behind and below it, yet the edge itself looks so calm. It’s a weirdly terrifying, sublime, spooky kind of sight…and, now I think of it, simple enough that you can actually hold an image of it in your mind, unlike most landscapes.
Another favorite – everyone’s favorite – is right above that edge. The river is dark as it charges along over the rocky bed, and then as it hurtles over the edge it’s bright, toothpaste green. Also, it’s very within reach. There’s a decorative wrought-iron fence and a little area of grassy river bank like any other grassy river bank – and then there’s the Niagara River just before it plunges off the ledge.
We had dinner at the Skylon, 500 feet up. You can imagine.
Taslima took pics; I’ll ask her if I can share some.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
What is this “walking” you speak of?
Jun 14th, 2015 3:31 am | By Ophelia BensonI’m going to Niagara Falls this afternoon. I was here for nearly 3 weeks in 2007, and I never managed to get to the Falls, though I did get to the Finger Lakes (all the way to Skaneateles) and Niagara-on-the-Lake, which were cool. The omission has always bugged me, so I’M GOING.
So there.
Meanwhile I think I’ll have time for a walk this morning. Ima go over to the entrance to the university, if I can make it without being run over – there are literally no sidewalks here. None. You have to walk in the street. Hey, you’re not supposed to be walking in the first place, so don’t look at us! It’s extra fun because people go about 50 miles an hour on these suburban streets with no sidewalks.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Saturday evening
Jun 13th, 2015 3:46 pm | By Ophelia BensonI’m about to go to the 2 hour Point of Inquiry interview of Richard Dawkins. Could be interesting.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
