Yesterday, two Twitter users whom I follow have retweeted a sequence of tweets by an American female astrophysicist working in Amsterdam, Ms Anna Watts, that I found shocking.
She complained that the Aspen Center for Physics – which is located in the ski resort in Rocky Mountains in Colorado – has a discriminatory policy because... because it requires the theorists to visit at least for two weeks. Experimenters maybe there for one week.
The policy allows experimenters to leave after one week because experimenters don't need to go so deeply to explain their work. It's normal that theorists must talk much more than the experimenters and a viable center that is more than a trick to get a vacation for free simply has to maintain some intellectual inertia, some focus of the interactions etc.
Now, who is being discriminated against by the two-week rule? Of course, it's women – mothers who can't leave their kids for more than a week. So this Ms Anne Watts whined and whined while spineless shameless feminism apologists have retweeted the outrageous tweet. And at the end, she reported that "the particular case" – probably her case – was resolved. The participant could have visited for one week or Aspen has paid the full expenses for the vacation in the Rocky Mountains for the kid(s), too.
I just find it absolutely staggering – another proof of the complete collapse of decency in that far left environment that is already controlled by parasitic whining spoiled brats and especially spoiled girls. I am deeply ashamed that some people who tolerate if not encourage this outrageous behavior call themselves physicists.
First of all, basic laws of Nature imply that a person who is alive can't be at two continents at once.
So if someone wants to be in Amsterdam and in Colorado at the same moment, it's not possible. It's impossible not because some evil old white men are discriminating against somebody. It's impossible because the location-of-a-human eigenstates corresponding to two different continental locations are orthogonal to each other. The impossibility is guaranteed by the laws of physics.
Now, please, let's accept that the Aspen Center for Physics can't be "blamed" for the fact that someone can't be at two continents at once.
There are other solutions. The most obvious solution is simply not to go to the damn Rocky Mountains. The participants of such programs are being selected, anyway, and lots of great people – including those who could be easily invited – just don't go there. Why someone who has totally understandable reasons not to go there at some time should feel that she must be absolutely there?
This sense of entitlement only means one thing. The arrogance of the feminists and similarly "would-be discriminated groups" within the Academia has surpassed all previously imaginable thresholds.
Vacations such as this one cost something. In all reasonable conditions, some cost-and-benefit analysis takes place. Someone's presence brings something to the physics center and to science in general; and it costs something. Ideally, what it brings should be more valuable than the expenses. But when someone wants to be paid twice as much – by bringing family members so that someone else pays for it – such a desire obviously changes the cost-and-benefit analysis.
The women in science already have a significantly smaller production per dollar of wages than the men. Do the administrators want this gap to grow further? Will female scientists be capable of bringing all of their female friends in order to increase "diversity" or because of some similarly demagogic and disgusting far left ideological explanations? Will Muslim physicists be able to bring all their fellow believers from a mosque, in order to fight against the "underrepresentation" of the Islamofascists in Aspen?
Similar comments apply to the two-week rule. The two-week rule is something that protects the intellectual spirit of the Aspen Center for Physics. It is obviously a rule motivated by totally fair, neutral, meritocratic motivations. Why should some groups – defined by social criteria that have nothing to do with physics – be exempted? What sort of a "justice" does this approach represent?
David Simmons-Duffin, I am profoundly disappointed that you retweeted these outrageous demands – combined with the absolutely indefensible accusations from "discrimination". In fact, I am shocked that you don't vigorously fight against the toxic trends that the likes of Ms Anne Watts increasingly impose upon the scholarly environment.