Stop the Oil or be Politicallly Correct?

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

^That's incorrect.

The article in the OP quotes US Dept of Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu as stating, "Some of Professor Katz's controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill. Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department's efforts."

He wasn't fired for writing something controversial, he was fired because his writings became a distraction for the team the DOE established to tackle the oil spill problem..

"A St. Louis scientist who was among a select group picked by the Obama administration to pursue a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been removed from the group because of writings on his website, the U.S. Energy Department confirmed Wednesday."

The point of using that direct quote was to highlight his release does not appear to have any grounding in professional misconduct. If his colleagues were uncomfortable with his opinion, that's fine, but it is possible - and I speak through experience as both a woman and minority - to take part in a professional environment with others whose opinions or behavior I may find repugnant. Indeed, I have, often.

An organization has every right to remove a worker whose presence, for whatever reason, becomes detrimental to the morale and performance of other employees. To argue otherwise is ignorant of the legal and ethical reality of professional work environments.

Did I state an organization did not have the right, or did I disagree with one taking such action?

 

[Bodaddio]

Tomcat, really? You answered that question like a spoiled 13 year old, really?
So what if he is an ignoramus on the human body. He was asked to be on a scientific panel about the oil spill.
Tomcat no one is asking you to feel sorry for a homophobe. But he is one of the top scientists in his field. Do you ask your doctor if he is a homophobe before you get a check up? Do you check to see if the pilot of the plane you are getting on has any posts that might not be of your liking before you get on a plane?
We will sit here and say we need to stop this oil and get the best people on it, but only if you like gays and post wonderful diverse things on the web?
No the only thing I implied was the guy according to the source was one of the top scientist in his field and he was kicked off because some people found it distracting.
You are there to do a job of finding a way to stop this. Not argue over the guys beliefs. Everyone is allowed to have them. If they are arguing or being distracted by how much of a bigot he is, then who really are the ignorant ones.
When was the last time you got a group together where everyone agreed on everything everyone else though? Doesn't happen.

 

[D_Phallus P Phyllum]

Professor Katz seems to have been something of a cantankerous character, judging by his views on 'social issues', and given that these views were also not well thought through, especially for someone of his level of education.

I find it likely that his controversial writings are being used as a public excuse to get a difficult character off the team, where he may have been doing more harm than good in finding solutions to the crisis.

Admittedly, that's just my speculation. However, I'm pretty sure that if he was a genius that could dream up an idea to fix the disaster with the click of his fingers, he would have been kept on, and any embarrassing views he may hold be hushed up, explained away, or swept under the carpet.

 

[SilverTrain]

There has been no information posted in the article linked in the OP, nor anywhere else in this thread, that this scientist brought anything essential to the table. No evidence that he would have any positive effect on remedying the oil spill. No evidence that his removal from the team will have any effect on remedying the oil spill in any way.

The Obama administration picked him to be a part of a team of "top scientists", (of which there may be many more) and the Obama administration can remove him from the team at their discretion. If he was becoming a distraction, and not offering anything positive (again, no evidence that he was), then not removing him would arguably be negligent.

 

[TomCat84]

Do you ask your doctor if he is a homophobe before you get a check up?

Not quite. I did some research into whether he was gay-friendly or not. So, yes and no. I didn't ASK him if he was a homophobe. Did my own research.

 

[TomCat84]

^But that's really my right as a patient shopping for services. Just like a doctor has a right to his own personal views, I have a right to choose a doctor with whom I'm comfortable- to be 100% sure that I can confide in him without fear of being judged, and to be 100% sure that he treats me to the utmost of his ability.

 

[HazelGod]

At this rate, we'll hippie-love ourselves right into extinction.

 

[Bbucko]

Professor Katz seems to have been something of a cantankerous character, judging by his views on 'social issues', and given that these views were also not well thought through, especially for someone of his level of education.

I find it likely that his controversial writings are being used as a public excuse to get a difficult character off the team, where he may have been doing more harm than good in finding solutions to the crisis.

Admittedly, that's just my speculation. However, I'm pretty sure that if he was a genius that could dream up an idea to fix the disaster with the click of his fingers, he would have been kept on, and any embarrassing views he may hold be hushed up, explained away, or swept under the carpet.

I'd say, based on experience in team dynamics, that your right on the money with this. He was probably a crank who did something to alienate himself from the group to the point where his presence there was no longer anything but a distraction. I'll admit that this is entirely speculative on my part, but it makes sense and also conforms to the official line.

Not quite. I did some research into whether he was gay-friendly or not. So, yes and no. I didn't ASK him if he was a homophobe. Did my own research.

Had I been smart enough to have done this with a certain GI specialist I wouldn't have wasted over two years looking for causes to a simple problem in areas where they did not exist.

 

[TomCat84]

I'd say, based on experience in team dynamics, that your right on the money with this. He was probably a crank who did something to alienate himself from the group to the point where his presence there was no longer anything but a distraction. I'll admit that this is entirely speculative on my part, but it makes sense and also conforms to the official line.



Had I been smart enough to have done this with a certain GI specialist I wouldn't have wasted over two years looking for causes to a simple problem in areas where they did not exist.

I guess the real question is why would that poster think it wrong that a homosexual would not wish to patronize a homophobic doctor.

 

[D_Navengil Nutroll]

maybe he was a distraction to gay co workers that are on site. a number of years ago, i dragged a much more experienced person into the break room at work and told him to stop using the word faggot in the workplace because it was hurtful. sob started to cry actually. i don't think he was evil, but he was just raised in an environment where he thought it was ok to say that. the hell you will, not in the workplace, and around other gay people. it is demoralizing. and we did a better job and were more educated than him.

 

[D_Navengil Nutroll]

At this rate, we'll hippie-love ourselves right into extinction.

no need. greedy corporations are doing a great job of that already.

 

[Viking_UK]

Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one, but not everyone wants to see or hear it. Perhaps he couldn't keep to that, and was a distraction and an irritation to his colleagues who were trying to do their jobs. If you're part of a team working on something urgent, the last thing you want is some loudmouth wasting time and energy mouthing off and annoying other people rather than pulling their weight.

 

[TomCat84]

maybe he was a distraction to gay co workers that are on site. a number of years ago, i dragged a much more experienced person into the break room at work and told him to stop using the word faggot in the workplace because it was hurtful. sob started to cry actually. i don't think he was evil, but he was just raised in an environment where he thought it was ok to say that. the hell you will, not in the workplace, and around other gay people. it is demoralizing. and we did a better job and were more educated than him.

:You_Rock_Emoticon:

 

[TomCat84]

My point was that it seems only straight people don't have a problem with the government giving credence to a virulent homophobe's views by putting him on a government committee to solve problems. Fascinating.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

I don't have a problem with it, and I suck cocks.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^What does the word "it" refer to in your post?

 

[HazelGod]

My point was that it seems only straight people don't have a problem with the government giving credence to a virulent homophobe's views by putting him on a government committee to solve problems. Fascinating.

Exaggerate much, Francis?

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

^What does the word "it" refer to in your post?

The government not worrying about this guy being an admitted homophobe when he is working on an important and pressing matter.

I was responding to the post directly above mine.

 

[vince]

Said the STRAIGHT woman...

My point was that it seems only straight people don't have a problem with the government giving credence to a virulent homophobe's views by putting him on a government committee to solve problems. Fascinating.

Stereotype much Tom? Who here has said the government gave credence to a virulent homophobe's view's? In fact, how does that equate in the first place? If I hire a guy to do some work does that mean I am giving credence to his political or social views? Fuck that noise. You need to think again.

Phobic people come from both sides of the sexual spectrum and I've known plenty from the gay side.

If this guy was being disruptive for whatever reason, then yes, he should have been fired. But please, enough with the jumping to conclusions and making generalizations about people based on their sexual orientation. (not Katz. the people responding here)

 

[TomCat84]

I'm not making any generalizations about straight people- only the straight people in THIS thread. @ Mr. Buildington- you're not gay- you're 70% straight. Look, I dont have a problem with the guy getting kicked off. We can't have sick people like that working for the government in ANY capacity. Same goes for white supremacists, child rapists, etc and so on. Sorry folks, but that's just the way it is. There HAVE to be consequences for extreme views.