[HN Gopher] Breaking the silence around academic bullying ___________________________________________________________________ Breaking the silence around academic bullying Author : larve Score : 38 points Date : 2022-09-03 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com) (TXT) w3m dump (febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com) | dang wrote: | I s/harassment/bullying/'d the title above, in the hope of making | the article's scope clearer. | | The word 'harassment' tends to snap to the grid of culture war | categories, which led to some offtopic flamewars. Hopefully we | can avoid those in Take 2 of this thread. | jwond wrote: | MontyCarloHall wrote: | The article then immediately goes on to say | | >Note that bullying appears to be related to power | differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason why | perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men | disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions. | Obviously, women in powerful positions can be bullies, too | [[29, 30]]. | dang wrote: | Your comment here broke the site guidelines, including these: | | - " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and | generic tangents._ " (you went on a quintessential generic | flamewar tangent) | | - " _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an | article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something | interesting to respond to instead._" (you did exactly the thing | that we added this rule to discourage) | | Can you please review | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to | the rules? They're designed to avoid the tedious, repetitive | flamewars this kind of thing leads to. | | p.s. I'm not saying that such phrases aren't provocative--they | _are_ provocative. That 's why we (HN commenters) have to be | the ones to interrupt the predictable provocation process, if | we're going to have the interesting, curious, diffy* | conversations that this site is supposed to be for. | | * | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... | jwond wrote: | > "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article | or post to complain about in the thread. Find something | interesting to respond to instead." | | If we aren't allowed to discuss a certain part of the article | it seems unfair to me that it is not against the rules to | post the article in the first place. | tptacek wrote: | The guideline implicitly asks you to read the submitted | story and understand it well enough to make an educated | guess as to what the thrust of the story is, or what | interesting phenomenon motivated it. Then, when you comment | on the story, you're asked both to weigh whether you're | adding more heat than light, and, most especially, whether | the heat you're adding is connected with the core of the | story. | | Here, the story is not at all about race; it's about the | underreported and under-studied phenomenon of early-career | academic researchers who are effectively captive to abusive | PIs and professors. Lots of people on HN are, or have in | the past been academic researchers; many of them have | horror stories. The notion that this abuse might be taken | more seriously is a very big deal. | | Instead, for a good long time on this story, we had a | thread that was commanded by a the most boring possible | political argument one can have on HN: the debate over | woke-ism. We have the "most provocative thing" rule | precisely so we don't lose the ability to talk about | important things just because an article happens to veer | into some third rail or other of whatever cultural drama is | happening right now on HN. | | It's not just woke-ism; when this guideline was first being | discussed, the signal example of it was a thread where | Amazon had just introduced Route53, and the thread was | commandeered by HN's 482459th debate about Snowden. We have | the guideline because this pattern recurs regularly. | | It's also an especially nasty abuse of HN to make an | inflammatory political argument in an off-topic thread on a | story, because people who take HN seriously will want to | avoid taking the bait and giving oxygen to the political | tangent. That is: it's a way of not only introducing a | provocative tangent to a story, but of ensuring that only | the least reasonable conversations about that tangent can | occur. | | It's essentially message board arson. | | (This thread is dead and collapsed now, so I guess we're | freer to talk about it). | dang wrote: | pp.s: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily, | if not exclusively, for political and ideological battle. We | ban accounts that cross that line (for more explanation, see | https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme. | ..), regardless of which ideology they favor. Accounts that | are using HN primarily for this sort of argument are not only | not using HN as intended, they're contributing to destroying | it--I'm not saying intentionally, but we still have to ban | such accounts because the flames burn just as fatally either | way. | | I'm not going to ban you for it right now but if you'd please | review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and | stick to using HN as intended in the future, we'd appreciate | it. That means a lot of things, but most importantly it means | using the site primarily out of curiosity. Curiosity and | battle are disjoint motivations. | larve wrote: | Stating that white heterosexual men are at the intersection of | privilege is quite different from "mandatorily demonizing white | men in everything they publish." That is quite the chip on your | shoulder, I think. | | I am a cisgender, straight, white male in tech (not in | academia) and I don't think it's a big deal to acknowledge that | I benefit from quite a few privileges as such. I don't get | harassed sexually, noone bats an eye when I mention my partner, | society doesn't expect me to bear children, I have a very | decent income, I get a default level respect for my technical | abilities just by virtue of showing up. | | I have many friends in leftist, queer, activist circles and | don't feel demonized in the slightest. What I do, and I don't | feel diminished at all by doing so, on the contrary, is learn | and listen to how people not having all these characteristics | have a wildly different life experience. If someone rails | against white patriarchy or whatever, realize that that is very | much a thing in many people's experience, and you might be | blind to it by virtue of being a white man. | | The great thing about intersectionality is that even if you're | a white man, that is not all you are. You can use an | intersectional framework to address areas where you are indeed | a minority, be it because of your financial background, | physical or mental disabilities, physical or mental illnesses, | etc... Being a white man, yet an immigrant in the US, is a | different experience than being a citizen. | | I always find it puzzling that critics think that | intersectional studies are about vilifying "all white men", | when the premise is actually the opposite. A white man with | mental illness from a working class background would not be | part of the "very narrowly defined group that enjoys | intersectional privilege". Nor does enjoying the intersectional | privilege assume that you are a harasser, a bad person, just | that other people probably encountered harassment more often | than you. | RichardCNormos wrote: | throw_m239339 wrote: | > Stating that white heterosexual men are at the intersection | of privilege is quite different from "mandatorily demonizing | white men in everything they publish." That is quite the chip | on your shoulder, I think. | | It's very much a racist statement in my book. Of course, | that's the core of the intersectional ideology, a racist | ideology. The first and most important divider when it comes | to classes is wealth. Identity politics as practiced by | intersectionalists served the elite well. | | If one pushes that obnoxious and absurd intersectional logic | to its paroxysm, then one can deem people from jewish origin | "at the intersection of privilege". Sounds antisemitic? | Indeed, because that whole ideology is indeed racist at its | core, under pretense of "social justice". | kodah wrote: | > I always find it puzzling that critics think that | intersectional studies are about vilifying "all white men", | when the premise is actually the opposite. A white man with | mental illness from a working class background would not be | part of the "very narrowly defined group that enjoys | intersectional privilege". Nor does enjoying the | intersectional privilege assume that you are a harasser, a | bad person, just that other people probably encountered | harassment more often than you. | | I think where people get lost is rhetoric. You're getting | lost because: | | > I am a cisgender, straight, white male in tech (not in | academia) and I don't think it's a big deal to acknowledge | that I benefit from quite a few privileges as such. I don't | get harassed sexually, noone bats an eye when I mention my | partner, society doesn't expect me to bear children, I have a | very decent income, I get a default level respect for my | technical abilities just by virtue of showing up. | | You believe this is uniform enough that it can be said | definitively. They're getting lost because they see the | subject continually brought up but then walked back with | statements like: | | > Note that bullying appears to be related to power | differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason | why perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men | disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions. | Obviously, women in powerful positions can be bullies, too | [[29, 30]]. | | All that tells me is that we don't really know how to talk | about any of this correctly yet. | larve wrote: | It is uniform enough in the sense that I don't experience | the discrimination people experience due to being non- | white, or poor, or gay. Maybe I experience discrimination | as a white man, so far I haven't been aware of it, and if I | were able to decode it as such, that would be a valid | intersectional study. I posit for example that were I to | live in say, Japan, I would experience discrimination due | to my race. That the article seems to address mostly | western if not american academia is valid, imo. That it | "demonizes" white men? Way less so. | [deleted] | kodah wrote: | My point overall is that not everyone is on the plane of | existence you're on. For a cis-gender heterosexual white | man that has reaped all of the privileges of being so | it's probably pretty easy to see your perceived privilege | talked about so patently. If you're someone who hasn't | uniformly enjoyed those privileges this language is | probably triggering. I don't think that intersectionality | is about demonizing white men, but I do think it | struggles with phrasing that is eventually used by some | people to communicate that message. | larve wrote: | I perceive some of my privilege, which is that I am not | subject to non-white racism, etc... I have a few crosses | to bear otherwise (autistic, bipolar, chronic illness, | immigrant), and I can relate to being in the minority | quite well too. This is actually why I find | intersectionality a productive lens. I can be both | privileged and discriminated against at the exact same | time. I can be both respected for my technical skills by | virtue of my looks, and in the same field be | discriminated because I communicate differently. Being | white doesn't shield me from all discrimination, but it | shields me from some. | kodah wrote: | Intersectionality _is_ a productive lens to view | societies problems through. My experience is largely the | same as yours, though slightly different circumstances. | The problem in a lot of online, and in real life, | discussions is that the intersectional ideas people have | been exposed to are through amateur activists who don 't | have a view on intersectionality beyond themselves. This | isn't really new in social paradigms, to my knowledge, | people often recognize the struggle of others | definitionally but fail to recognize it in the person | standing in front of them. The experience of which is | probably not pleasant. | | You asked why people get triggered over this, this is my | hypothesis. Don't take that for me _not liking_ | intersectionality. | larve wrote: | appreciated, and indeed, people often have a hard time | empathizing. One reason why I both enjoy twitter in order | to connect with some communities, and the discourse never | really feels fulfilling. | [deleted] | devwastaken wrote: | Blue politics believes they own diversity, but lack the | knowledge of different cultures and backgrounds to understand | that western liberalism is not the default position of the | world. | | The same as red politics it's designed to be a "you're X so | your reasons and facts don't matter.". | | Unfortunately universities are filled with warm bodies and | students that cannot survive in the private sector. Therefore | they need tax funding to get paid to do research. Grants are | based on what's politically popular, and so here we are. | | An easy way to resolve this will be to remove federal student | loans. They're predatory and cause students to spend their | lives in an echo chamber of psuedo science at tax payer | expense. | [deleted] | tarakat wrote: | That sounds rather Euro-centric. Non-majority-white countries | are also heavily represented in academia - China, India (and | most of Asia, really), and the Middle East pop to mind - whites | don't enjoy "intersectional privilege" _there_. | | In fact, at most scientific conferences, Antarctica is usually | the only continent not represented, so it's doubly unusual for | academics to suddenly become so blinkered. | tptacek wrote: | Your complaint has virtually nothing to do with the article, | which is about a widespread and serious problem in academia. | It's not about wokeism; it's about labs in which PIs berate and | grind down postdocs and employees. You won't find many academic | STEM professionals that don't have horror stories, and there | are whisper networks about which PIs to avoid. | | The topic of "whiteness" comes up in a small section of the | article that discusses the fact that there has been far less | reporting of the phenomenon than would be expected from how | "open" this secret is. You can agree or disagree with whether | whiteness or maleness has much to do with it, but you can't | reasonably disagree with the broader point of that section of | the article: academic STEM research is _way worse_ than you 'd | expect looking at it as an outsider. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | If that section has little to do with the content of the | article, why include it considering it's obviously | inflammatory point? | tptacek wrote: | The guidelines on this site _specifically_ ask you not to | write comments like this: | | _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an | article or post to complain about in the thread. Find | something interesting to respond to instead._ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | This is a particularly egregious instance, because this | article discusses a phenomenon that should be especially | interesting to HN (overwhelmingly widespread abuse in | academic science labs), and yet here we are bickering over | whether the article used the word "whiteness" appropriately | in one paragraph. | tarakat wrote: | So if an article casually threw in some disparaging | remarks about Blacks, Asians, or Jews (or, as was the | case here, implied the entire problem the article was | talking about was disproportionately their fault), they'd | be expect to let the accusations stand unchallenged, | because they should only address more interesting parts | of the article? | stonogo wrote: | In what world is "these people disproportionately hold | positions of power" disparaging? The degree of mental | gymnastics must be exhausting. | tarakat wrote: | So "despite being only 2% of the US population, due to | their unearned privilege, 4 out of 8 Ivy League | presidents are Jewish [1], and they abuse the power that | comes with their positions" _isn 't_ disparaging? Or is | it only not disparaging when _white_ people are alleged | to hold and abuse unearned privilege and power? | | [1] According to their wikipedia pages | orwin wrote: | If you continue by :" Note that all presidents abuse | their power and the issue is more about the unearned | powers presidents have than being Jewish or from the Ivy | league" i would find it weird but Ok, wouldn't you? | | Taking a piece from a single paragraph, ignoring not only | the context, but also the following sentence because it | weakens your argument, how would you call that? Do you | think it's fair? Do you just like storytelling so much | you also lie to yourself? | dang wrote: | > _Do you just like storytelling so much you also lie to | yourself?_ | | Please don't cross into personal swipes, regardless of | how another commenter is or you feel they are. That only | makes everything worse. Your comment would be fine | without that bit. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tarakat wrote: | DiggyJohnson wrote: | I have a strong understanding of the guidelines of this | site, and I do see how you might want to invoke them for | this thread, but considering the subjective nature of | this topic, I am comfortable that my comment remains | acceptable. These sorts of statements absolutely impact | my perception of the strengths and applicability of the | (strongest possible) interpretation of the linked blog | post. | | Also, I would say that you're comments in this subthread | do not assume the strongest possible interpretation of | the commenters point. You're coming across as actively | hostile, frankly. | tptacek wrote: | See above. | jwond wrote: | > Your complaint has virtually nothing to do with the | article, which is about a widespread and serious problem in | academia. | | The article is about academic harassment. I would consider | demonizing a specific demographic to be a form of harassment. | | If your PI or a colleague published an article demonizing a | demographic you belonged to, would you be ok with that? | | If the article instead mentioned the 'unearned benefits' | enjoyed by Asian people or Jewish people would that be worth | complaining about? | amluto wrote: | To be clear: are you suggesting the article is demonizing a | specific demographic? | | The article says: | | > Note that bullying appears to be related to power | differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason | why perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men | disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions. | | This seems to be about as demonizing of a demographic as | saying "with great power comes great responsibility." | Tenured professors may not have mutant superpowers, but | they do have _tenured_ superpowers, and some of them abuse | these superpowers. In my personal experience, there is no | evidence to suggest that the perpetrators are especially | correlated with any particular demographic other than being | people _who are able to do the specific problematic things | they do_. The perpetrators who abuse those they advise [0] | are people _who advise other people_. There is no shortage | of examples of cis, straight, white, able, male, etc people | in academia harassing others who are every bit as cis, | straight, etc as they are. There are, of course, _also_ | examples of males with power harassing females with less | power and many other combinations. | | And there are many, many examples of people harassing other | people in ways that were seen as normal and even expected | in an earlier era. Some of the perpetrators here genuinely | do not realize that they're doing anything wrong, and some | of the victims may also not feel that they are being | wronged. There are huge gray areas here! One thing that | society could do a lot better is to realize that many of | these perpetrators are not bad people, that they should not | be vilified or canceled, but that they should learn to do | better in the future. | | So, while I'm sure there is a whole host of problematic and | maybe even "woke" literature that is over-the-top on | demonizing a demographic, I don't think this article is it. | | [0] "Advise" here is a term of art. There are academic | advisors and research advisors who have very specific | powers over those they advise that, in general, are only | vaguely related to the common meaning of giving advice. | stonogo wrote: | darth_avocado wrote: | I read the pattern and what is being described, is not exclusive | to academia. It is a typical workplace. | | A few lost jobs and horrible bosses later I can summarize the | experience as follows: | | 1. Bullying is legal. Unless it's provable that it is based on | one of the protected classes. | | 2. Because it is legal, companies side with the aggressor to deny | everything and absolve themselves from liabilities. | | 3. Bystanders rarely help you. They may show solidarity, but will | not step in on official channels. | | 4. Lawyers are expensive and it's very hard to pursue any claims. | | 5. Documentation is very hard because modern workforce is trained | on how to not get sued (unless someone is really stupid) | | 6. Some laws like "two party consent" for recording that is meant | to protect privacy, has the unintended consequences of enabling | abuse. | | TLDR; harassment is legal and okay. Workers have limited | protections. | feet wrote: | From what I'm aware, two party consent laws usually have | exceptions for when a person feels like they are threatened or | in danger in some way | tptacek wrote: | It may be significantly worse in research: | | 1. PIs are under incredible pressure themselves | | 2. PIs are as a rule not formally trained in management, nor | have they tended to "apprentice" in middle-management positions | | 3. Research is heavily reputation-based, which creates huge | power disparities between employers and employees: lab | employees need references from their employers, who can | withhold them for capricious reasons | | 4. All of these factors also applied to the PI themselves, when | they were starting their career, so it's normed; PIs may see it | as a form of "dues-paying" | | These dynamics are not in fact present in most ordinary market | jobs. The jobs where the dynamics are at play --- say, as an | assistant to a producer at a media company --- are notorious | for it. | analog31 wrote: | Indeed, while I don't want to diminish the cost and | disruption of walking out of a job, it's much less likely to | have long repercussions in industry than academia. In all of | the industry jobs that I've never held, nobody has ever asked | me for a letter of recommendation, and I don't think any of | my employers have even checked my references. Also, changing | jobs in industry without the blessing of your current | employer, even after a brief tenure, raises no eyebrows. | | The situation is even worse for grad students, who leave | empty-handed if they walk out. I had a great advisor, but I | also heard horror stories from friends. | c7b wrote: | I'd say for postdocs it's subtly different, if not | necessarily better, than you suggest. With the kind of move | we're talking about here, people will often (have to) move | out of academia altogether. It's just too rare to find a | position that you can transition into smoothly at short | notice, and the young academic lifestyle doesn't allow for | building up a lot of savings. The burnt bridges to your | previous lab won't matter much in industry or government | and your experience will typically be valued, but the price | is that you are walking away from a career path that might | have been your first choice. | tptacek wrote: | What really worries me is that everybody who ends up a PI | has been through this harrowing process, so it | perpetuates itself; just broken people breaking people. A | dramatic way to put it, I guess, but I don't know what | else you can say about a PI demanding someone come into a | lab on the same day as their appendectomy. | Andy_G11 wrote: | Bullying is a form of torture: seeking to erode the | psychological, social, financial and career wellbeing and | development of the victims. Fortunately, there is a surefire, | methodical way to handle it: | | People who feel that they are being bullied should do the | following: a) Keep a record of the bullying behaviour. b) Talk to | the perceived bully and ask them if 1) they are aware of their | behaviour and 2) if they have considered how that might have made | you, the victim, feel. c) Tell them that you find their behaviour | hurtful and have suffered distress. d) Ask them to please desist | in future. e) Tell them that you are making a record of having | spoken to them and will raise this with HR if it happens again. | f) When it happens again and again and again, 1) raise it with HR | etc; 2) see if you can make a claim against the firm; 3) if it | gets so bad that you cannot stay one month longer or you will | jump off a bridge / knock out the offender, leave your job and | see if someone else will employ you without your family and | career being too badly impacted (NB: not recommended). | | Please note, this is the Right Way to handle bullying if you are | going to moan about being bullied then please ensure you have | followed steps a - f first. | | Or... 1) grow a really thick skin; 2) stock up on anti-ulcer, | anti-insomnia meds; 3) practise meditation, breathing exercises | and ninjitsu; 4) slowly figure out a five year plan to take down | your nemesis in the firm (often your boss) - find out what their | pain points are and use them, and build a group of allies. If | possible obtain incriminating photo's of them and their boss's | wife.; 5) if 5 years is insufficient, try gradually to secure a | soft landing for yourself elsewhere (typically takes 3 to 9 | months). | tptacek wrote: | I'm not sure what any of this has to do with bullying in | academic research labs, where no amount of "ninjitsu" is going | to solve the problem that your abusive PI exerts enormous | control over the trajectory of your career, which will depend | in some significant way on the recommendation they're willing | to provide for your next position. | moralestapia wrote: | It's even worse when there's some sort of immigration | situation involved, as in, your PI can fire you anytime and | then you go back to whatever hellhole you managed to get out | through your work and dedication over years. | | The power imbalance between professors and students in that | situation is abysmally huge. The things they do to students | are unbelievable until you see them happening (e.g. ask for | sexual favors, neglecting them, humiliating them, making them | work on stuff they're not supposed to, ...). | | I went through a horrible experience myself, where my | daughter got kidnapped by some staff from KAUST (they played | the "you are in a remote country with no laws, we can do | whatever we want to you"-card). It led me to leave academia | for good; I'm actually doing much better now in the industry | but it was a very traumatic experience and it saddens me to | think about how many people are still being abused in this | context by assholes like that. | | I am more than willing to work on something to put an end to | this, if any of you in this thread are interested, shoot me | an email (check profile), it's starting small but it's | getting off the ground now :). | Qem wrote: | I think two changes would contribute a lot to fight | harassment in academia: | | I - Ban letters of recommendation as admission/hiring | criteria; | | II - If there's a strong disagreement between | student/advisor, causing them part ways, by default should be | assumed the student has the rights to carry the research on | with another advisor. | tptacek wrote: | This is an article about bullying and abuse by professors and | managers of academic labs. It's a huge problem, because early- | career researchers depend heavily on approval and references from | PIs, and there's a strong element of path-dependence in many | academic career situations: you often can't easily just quit and | join a different lab. You're captive to the abuse. | | As someone with two kids working in academic STEM research labs, | I'm interested if people have any horror stories of their own to | share about abusive PIs (just because I worry about my own kids | and what they're going to face in their fields). | | I asked this on a Slack the other day, and I got stories like "my | friend's PI called and demanded he come in to work, but my | friend's appendix had just burst; the PI said 'I don't care about | your appendix'". Or the lab where the researchers had brought in | special furniture to create a private area to cry in after the PI | had finished berating them. Or the abusive lab with an | anomalously high number of suicides. | nautilius wrote: | Have them ask around about the PI first. | | I've had PIs threatening me as PostDoc to void my contract and | have me deported for wanting to take some vacation accrued over | several years, or (different gig) for wanting to go to a job | interview. And that was me as a married 30ish white male. Can't | imagine what it can be like for the 22 year young woman away | from home for the first time. | sombragris wrote: | Honestly I'm put off by the authors' use of critical theory and | intersectionality. But the fact that this harassment does exist | and should be eradicated is unquestionable, and any effort to | raise awareness and fight it should be commended. | amluto wrote: | This article barely seems to use critical theory (do you mean | critical _race_ theory? the article is barely about race. the | article falls solidly into Wikipedia's definition of "critical | theory" simply on the basis of its overall topic.) | | For better or for worse, "intersectionality" here seems to mean | primarily acknowledging that more than one independent variable | exists that may affect privilege or ability to be easily | harassed and that the effects of these different variables are | nontrivial. I do think the article could have been slightly | clearer by avoiding uses of the word "intersectional" and its | derivatives, but the article actually seems pretty good at | explaining what it means. | tarakat wrote: | [deleted] | boredemployee wrote: | I just got approved in a MSc program and I'm already getting | upset with the group I joined, they think they'all sooo | important. I have an industry job as well and if it gets worse | I'll just tell 'em to fuckoff. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-03 23:01 UTC)