Lakhasly

TOP
Published on September 7, 2018
comments 367
Academic Activists Send a Published Paper
Down the Memory Hole
written by Theodore P. Hill
In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability
Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men
than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found
that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is
generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the
animal kingdom.
Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging
from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple
studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low
ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures
and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly
more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, andchess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison
inmates.
Darwin had also raised the question of why males in many species might have evolved to
be more variable than females, and when I learned that the answer to his question
remained elusive, I set out to look for a scientific explanation. My aim was not to prove
or disprove that the hypothesis applies to human intelligence or to any other specific
traits or species, but simply to discover a logical reason that could help explain how
gender differences in variability might naturally arise in the same species.
I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and
evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at
Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model. When I posted a preprint
on the open-access mathematics archives in May of last year, a variability researcher at
Durham University in the UK got in touch by email. He described our joint paper as “an
excellent summary of the research to date in this field,” adding that “it certainly
underpins my earlier work on impulsivity, aggression and general evolutionary theory
and it is nice to see an actual theoretical model that can be drawn upon in discussion
(which I think the literature, particularly in education, has lacked to date). I think this is
a welcome addition to the field.”
So far, so good.
Once we had written up our findings, Sergei and I decided to try for publication in
the Mathematical Intelligencer , the ‘Viewpoint’ section of which specifically welcomes
articles on contentious topics. The Intelligencer ’s editor-in-chief is Marjorie Wikler
Senechal, Professor Emerita of Mathematics and the History of Science at Smith
College. She liked our draft, and declared herself to be untroubled by the prospect of
controversy. “In principle,” she told Sergei in an email, “I am happy to stir up
controversy and few topics generate more than this one. After the Middlebury fracas, in
which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a
real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard, and providing links to them.”
Professor Senechal suggested that we might enliven our paper by mentioning Harvard
President Larry Summers, who was swiftly defenestrated in 2005 for saying that the
GMVH might be a contributing factor to the dearth of women in physics and
mathematics departments at top universities. With her editorial guidance, our paper
underwent several further revisions until, on April 3, 2017, our manuscript was officially
accepted for publication. The paper was typeset in India, and proofread by an assistant
editor who is also a mathematics professor in Kansas. It was scheduled to appear in the
international journal’s first issue of 2018, with an acknowledgement of funding support
to my co-author from the National Science Foundation. All normal academic procedure.

Coincidentally, at about the same time, anxiety about gender-parity erupted in Silicon
Valley. The same anti-variability argument used to justify the sacking of President
Summers resurfaced when Google engineer James Damore suggested that severalinnate biological factors, including gender differences in variability, might help explain
gender disparities in Silicon Valley hi-tech jobs. For sending out an internal memo to
that effect, he too was summarily fired.
No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we
began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In
Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that
the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. “As a
matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters
openly ... At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was
obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less
sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to
support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas...”
A few days later, she again contacted Sergei on behalf of WIM and invited him to attend
a lunch that had been organized for a “frank and open discussion” about our paper. He
would be allowed 15 minutes to describe and explain our results, and this short
presentation would be followed by readings of prepared statements by WIM members
and then an open discussion. “We promise to be friendly,” she announced, “but you
should know in advance that many (most?) of us have strong disagreements with what
you did.”
On September 4, Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he
wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the
Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and
free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A
female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias,
adding that the belief that “women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at
the very top end is bias.” Sergei said he had spent “endless hours” talking to people who
explained that the paper was “bad and harmful” and tried to convince him to “withdraw
my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political
capital I may still have.” Ominously, “analogies with scientific racism were made by
some; I am afraid, we are likely to hear more of it in the future.”
The following day, I wrote to the three organisers of the WIM lunch and offered to
address any concrete concerns they might have with our logic or conclusions or any
other content. I explained that, since I was the paper’s lead author, it was not fair that
my colleague should be expected to take all the heat for our findings. I added that it
would still be possible to revise our article before publication. I never received a
response.
Instead, on September 8, Sergei and I were ambushed by two unexpected developments.
First, the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment
of NSF funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished. I
had never before heard of the NSF requesting removal of acknowledgement of fundingfor any reason. On the contrary, they are usually delighted to have public recognition of
their support for science.
The ostensible reason for this request was that our paper was unrelated to Sergei’s
funded proposal. However, a Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed
that Penn State WIM administrator Diane Henderson (“Professor and Chair of the
Climate and Diversity Committee”) and Nate Brown (“Professor and Associate Head for
Diversity and Equity”) had secretly co-signed a letter to the NSF that same morning.
“Our concern,” they explained, “is that [this] paper appears to promote pseudoscientific
ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the
values of the NSF.” Unaware of this at the time, and eager to err on the side of
compromise, Sergei and I agreed to remove the acknowledgement as requested. At least,
we thought, the paper was still on track to be published.
But, that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer ’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal
notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our
paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke
“extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing
media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day
I was left flabbergasted. Working mathematicians are usually thrilled if even five people
in the world read our latest article. Now some progressive faction was worried that a
fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the
conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?
In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an
already-accepted paper. And so I emailed Professor Senechal. She replied that she had
received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely
about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation,
Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been
removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky. In the interests of setting
our arguments in a more responsible context, she proposed instead that Sergei and I
participate in a ‘Round Table’ discussion of our hypothesis argument, the proceedings of
which the Intelligencer would publish in lieu of our paper. Her decision, we learned,
enjoyed the approval of Springer, one of the world’s leading publishers of scientific
books and journals. An editorial director of Springer Mathematics later apologized to
me twice, in person, but did nothing to reverse the decision or to support us at the time.
So what in the world had happened at the Intelligencer ? Unbeknownst to us, Amie
Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become
aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. A back-and-forth had ensued.
Wilkinson then enlisted the support of her father—a psychometrician and statistician—
who wrote to the Intelligencer at his daughter’s request to express his own misgivings,
including his belief that “[t]his article oversimplifies the issues to the point of
embarrassment.” Invited by Professor Senechal to participate in the proposed Round
Table discussion, he declined, admitting to Senechal that “others are more expert on this
than he is.” We discovered all this after he gave Senechal permission to forward his
letter, inadvertently revealing Wilkinson’s involvement in the process (an indiscretion
his daughter would later—incorrectly—blame on the Intelligencer ).I wrote polite emails directly to both Wilkinson and her father, explaining that I planned
to revise the paper for resubmission elsewhere and asking for their criticisms or
suggestions. (I also sent a more strongly worded, point-by-point rebuttal to her father.)
Neither replied. Instead, even long after the Intelligencer rescinded acceptance of the
paper, Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social
media, inciting her Facebook friends with the erroneous allegation that an entirely
different (and more contentious) article had been accepted.
At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental
colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the
NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their
names from the research. Fortunately for me, I am now retired and rather less easily
intimidated—one of the benefits of being a Vietnam combat veteran and former U.S.
Army Ranger, I guess. So, I continued to revise the paper, and finally posted it on the
online mathematics archives.

On October 13, a lifeline appeared. Igor Rivin, an editor at the widely respected online
research journal, the New York Journal of Mathematics , got in touch with me. He had
learned about the article from my erstwhile co-author, read the archived version, and
asked me if I’d like to submit a newly revised draft for publication. Rivin said that Mark
Steinberger, the NYJM ’s editor-in-chief, was also very positive and that they were
confident the paper could be refereed fairly quickly. I duly submitted a new draft (this
time as the sole author) and, after a very positive referee’s report and a handful of
supervised revisions, Steinberger wrote to confirm publication on November 6, 2017.
Relieved that the ordeal was finally over, I forwarded the link to interested colleagues.
Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a
completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the
same volume ( NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been. As it turned out,
Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board.
Upon discovering that the journal had published my paper, Professor Farb had written a
furious email to Steinberger demanding that it be deleted at once. “Rivin,” he
complained, “is well-known as a person with extremist views who likes to pick fights
with people via inflammatory statements.” Farb’s “father-in law...a famous statistician,”
he went on, had “already poked many holes in the ridiculous paper.” My paper was
“politically charged” and “pseudoscience” and “a piece of crap” and, by encouraging
the NYJM to accept it, Rivin had “violat[ed] a scientific duty for purely political ends.”
Unaware of any of this, I wrote to Steinberger on November 14, to find out what had
happened. I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an
impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be
unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published
elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily,
had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the
journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own
scientific legacy, he had capitulated. “A publication in a dead journal,” he offered,
“wouldn’t help you.”*
*
*
Colleagues I spoke to were appalled. None of them had ever heard of a paper in any field
being disappeared after formal publication. Rejected prior to publication? Of course.
Retracted? Yes, but only after an investigation, the results of which would then be made
public by way of explanation. But simply disappeared ? Never. If a formally refereed and
published paper can later be erased from the scientific record and replaced by a
completely different article, without any discussion with the author or any
announcement in the journal, what will this mean for the future of electronic journals?
Meanwhile, Professor Wilkinson had now widened her existing social media campaign
against the Intelligencer to include attacks on the NYJM and its editorial staff. As
recently as April of this year, she was threatening Facebook friends with ‘unfriending’
unless they severed social media ties with Rivin.
In early February, a friend and colleague suggested that I write directly to University of
Chicago President Robert Zimmer to complain about the conduct of Farb and
Wilkinson, both of whom are University of Chicago professors. The previous October,
the conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens had called Zimmer “America’s
Best University President.” The week after I wrote to Zimmer, the Wall Street
Journal would describe Chicago as “The Free-Speech University” based upon its
president’s professed commitment to the principles of free inquiry and expression.
Furthermore, Professor Zimmer is a mathematician from the same department and
even the same subfield as Farb and Wilkinson, the husband-wife team who had
successfully suppressed my variability hypothesis research and trampled on the
principles of academic liberty. Surely I would receive a sympathetic hearing there?
And so I wrote directly to Professor Zimmer, mathematician to mathematician, detailing
five concrete allegations against his two colleagues. When I eventually received a formal
response in late April, it was a somewhat terse official letter from the vice-provost
informing me that an inquiry had found no evidence of “academic fraud” and that,
consequently, “the charges have been dismissed.” But I had made no allegation of
academic fraud. I had alleged “unprofessional, uncollegial, and unethical conduct
damaging to my professional reputation and to the reputation of the University of
Chicago.”
When I appealed the decision to the president, I received a second official letter from
the vice-provost, in which he argued that Farb and Wilkinson had “exercised their
academic freedom in advocating against the publication of the papers” and that their
behavior had not been either “unethical or unprofessional.” A reasonable inference is
that I was the one interfering in their academic freedom and not vice versa. My quarrel,
the vice-provost concluded, was with the editors-in-chief who had spiked my papers,
decisions for which the University of Chicago bore no responsibility. At the Free Speech
University, it turns out, talk is cheap.
*
*
*Over the years there has undoubtedly been significant bias and discrimination against
women in mathematics and technical fields. Unfortunately, some of that still persists,
even though many of us have tried hard to help turn the tide. My own efforts have
included tutoring and mentoring female undergraduates, graduating female PhD
students, and supporting hiring directives from deans and departmental chairs to seek
out and give special consideration to female candidates. I have been invited to serve on
two National Science Foundation gender and race diversity panels in Washington.
Which is to say that I understand the importance of the causes that equal opportunity
activists and progressive academics are ostensibly championing. But pursuit of greater
fairness and equality cannot be allowed to interfere with dispassionate academic study.
No matter how unwelcome the implications of a logical argument may be, it must be
allowed to stand or fall on its merits not its desirability or political utility. First Harvard,
then Google, and now the editors-in-chief of two esteemed scientific journals, the
National Science Foundation, and the international publisher Springer have all
surrendered to demands from the radical academic Left to suppress a controversial idea.
Who will be the next, and for what perceived transgression? If bullying and censorship
are now to be re-described as ‘advocacy’ and ‘academic freedom,’ as the Chicago
administrators would have it, they will simply replace empiricism and rational discourse
as the academic instruments of choice.
Educators must practice what we preach and lead by example. In this way, we can help
to foster intellectual curiosity and the discovery of fresh reasoning so compelling that it
causes even the most sceptical to change their minds. But this necessarily requires us to
reject censorship and open ourselves to the civil discussion of sensitive topics such as
gender differences, and the variability hypothesis in particular. In 2015, the University
of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression summarized the importance of this
principle beautifully in a report commissioned by none other than Professor Robert
Zimmer:
In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or
even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral,
or wrong-headed.
Ted Hill is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, and currently a
research scholar in residence at the California Polytechnic State University in
San Luis Obispo. His memoir PUSHING LIMITS: From West Point to Berkeley
and Beyond was recently published jointly by the American Mathematical
Society and the Mathematical Association of America.