ASA Connect

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

This is what we would call a "sub-tweet" where instead of engaging directly, you don't name Dr Daniela Witten or link to her original tweet where she explains her position, and instead summarize it your self. Not the most noble form of discourse. Her comments were public and should be linked and acknowledged as such.

Here is her tweet if interested: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392721275744256?s=09

Your criteria:

1) "The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong?"

2) "Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? "

Responding to 1, yes, universally, there is not evidence that groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity. The entirety of world history stands in contrast to this view (e.g. Arab, African, Chinese, Indian scientific advances spring to mind most immediately, poetry, literature all across the world). It is a classic paternalistic, most often western and certainly racist view that others don't have the innate "capacity" to develop art, poetry, scientific, lead a meaningful existence in the world. We know it now and he knew it then. I would imagine if you asked a non-white, non-western scientist or artist in the 1950s if they though that they did not have the same innate capability as a White Western man that they would probably not agree with Fischer's position.

Responding to 2, yes he advocated for policies that were inherently harmful and based on his believes. Bemoaning the falling birthrates of the upper class here: https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fishuoft/page/258/mode/2up (I'll leave you with the entire book). I'm sure with little digging additional works could be found. So yes, publicly extolling these positions is harmful in my mind. What policies did he advocate for in private amongst influential people in government and thus policy decisions made based at least partly on his positions, I don't know.

I think your argument that basically falls along "if an in-group thinks something at a time, then it must be judged by today's standards" ("... this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era...") is incredibly dangerous and wrong. Virtually anything can be justified using this line of thinking (atrocities especially).

Separating his scientific contributions from his personal views is important. Naming a lecture series after someone celebrates both and deserves care and consideration of both the achievements and the life led. Scientific achievements (F-test, Fischer Information, all the amazing things he did for the field) stand on their own two feet. We can celebrate achievements, but we should not celebrate someone who held these opinions and further institutionalize them.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I for one am not in favor of renaming the R.A. Fisher lectureship. As a Bayesian I do not worship at his shrine ;-) but I do respect the extraordinary and unique contribution he made to the founding of our science.
I agree that he held utterly misguided and frankly unpleasant views on eugenics, and somehow I would prefer to see that reflected in what every homily to R. A. Fisher is given at the time of awarding the lectureship. I think the lesson that even the greatest minds make great mistakes, and that our heroes all too often (always?) have feet of clay is a lesson that we can never learn too often.
With regard to R.A. Fisher's views on eugenics, is there any evidence that his views were racist? I have a feeling that people are too easily assuming that his phrase "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity ..." applies to races, I just skim read his book "The genetical theory of natural selection" the first 170 pages are fascinating early statistical work on genetics. Its the last 100 pages from "Man and Society" onwards that things go awry. But there is no mention race, his analysis "The inheritance of human fertility" is particularly (very British this) in terms of class. There is a lot going on here (that Fisher does not acknowledge), he deludes himself it to thinking he is purely being driven by the data, he can't see how limited and rigid his assumptions are, especially about inheritance, which is ridiculously presumptive since at the time the mechanism of genetic inheritance was so poorly understood (and indeed has going holes even now). Some of the strands behind this are - pushing a new scientific theory (genetic inheritance) into as many areas as possible and see where it breaks down, this is a recurrent part of the scientific process, the decline of the British Empire (crippled by the damage of the First World War, and of course untenable in the long run), a society (like the empire) with a thin layer of "elite" supported by much larger body of "lower classes" and the recurrent fear that the "lower classes" will out breed the "elite, and of course the cognitive dissonance of a pleasant lifestyle and liberal views that is all founded on the exploitation of others.
However if anyone can cite directly racist comments from R. A. Fisher I will adjust my stance accordingly....

------------------------------
Tom Parke
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 08:58
From: Michael DeWitt
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

This is what we would call a "sub-tweet" where instead of engaging directly, you don't name Dr Daniela Witten or link to her original tweet where she explains her position, and instead summarize it your self. Not the most noble form of discourse. Her comments were public and should be linked and acknowledged as such.

Here is her tweet if interested: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392721275744256?s=09

Your criteria:

1) "The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong?"

2) "Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? "

Responding to 1, yes, universally, there is not evidence that groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity. The entirety of world history stands in contrast to this view (e.g. Arab, African, Chinese, Indian scientific advances spring to mind most immediately, poetry, literature all across the world). It is a classic paternalistic, most often western and certainly racist view that others don't have the innate "capacity" to develop art, poetry, scientific, lead a meaningful existence in the world. We know it now and he knew it then. I would imagine if you asked a non-white, non-western scientist or artist in the 1950s if they though that they did not have the same innate capability as a White Western man that they would probably not agree with Fischer's position.

Responding to 2, yes he advocated for policies that were inherently harmful and based on his believes. Bemoaning the falling birthrates of the upper class here: https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fishuoft/page/258/mode/2up (I'll leave you with the entire book). I'm sure with little digging additional works could be found. So yes, publicly extolling these positions is harmful in my mind. What policies did he advocate for in private amongst influential people in government and thus policy decisions made based at least partly on his positions, I don't know.

I think your argument that basically falls along "if an in-group thinks something at a time, then it must be judged by today's standards" ("... this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era...") is incredibly dangerous and wrong. Virtually anything can be justified using this line of thinking (atrocities especially).

Separating his scientific contributions from his personal views is important. Naming a lecture series after someone celebrates both and deserves care and consideration of both the achievements and the life led. Scientific achievements (F-test, Fischer Information, all the amazing things he did for the field) stand on their own two feet. We can celebrate achievements, but we should not celebrate someone who held these opinions and further institutionalize them.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

First, I would like to thank the members who shared the debate on this to the ASA Connect Forum.
I am not on Twitter, so I feel a bit behind on this.

I do remember reading "The Troubling Legacy of Galton" in the Significance magazine June 2019 issue. It wrote mainly of Galton, but also to varying extents implicated Pearson and Fisher. In October of that year, there was a response to that article that essentially suggested that Fisher should not be included in that discussion, as there is less evidence of what he believed compared with Galton and Pearson.

Yes, he was the founding chair of the Cambridge Eugenics Society, but in early 1900s this was more or less simply considered a field of study. He was a scientist, and eventually resigned over a dispute about increasing the power to scientists within the movement. (Thanks Wikipedia and assorted sources).  I believe "eugenics" at the time was more or less synonymous with "genetics" - the Annals of Eugenics now being called the Annals of Human Genetics.  We can all try to read into his work or statements, to determined what he believed... but I think that it is wrong to do that without context. 

Fisher has been described as "difficult" but clearly his legacy to the statistical field is astonishing. I'd hate to see the "baby being thrown out with the bathwater" on this lectureship.  Again, I've not been privy to the Twitter discussion, but has anyone considered "Blackwell-Fisher Lectureship" as a rename? I think that may address some of the concerns about our field blindly valuing contribution to the field without consideration of personal values. Personally, I would be concerned to get rid of named lectures, but we are all human, and none of us is perfect. Everyone's closet has skeletons. Some we manage to fix ourselves after years of growth and some thanks to road to Damascus events, but the evidence will still be there for someone editing our Wikipedia page 100 years later...

Einstein is known to have made racist comments in diary entries in the 20s.. but was a supported of civil rights in the 30s and later... so, should we label him as a racist? Peter Dreier (Professor of Politics at Occidental College) wrote an article about this for the American Prospect in 2018  "Was Albert Einstein a Racist?" he ends with this thought "If we require our progressive heroes to be saints, we won't have many people to admire."

#BlackLivesMatter
#StayHomeStaySafe


 
​​​

------------------------------
Mary Kwasny
Professor
Northwestern University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 08:58
From: Michael DeWitt
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

This is what we would call a "sub-tweet" where instead of engaging directly, you don't name Dr Daniela Witten or link to her original tweet where she explains her position, and instead summarize it your self. Not the most noble form of discourse. Her comments were public and should be linked and acknowledged as such.

Here is her tweet if interested: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392721275744256?s=09

Your criteria:

1) "The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong?"

2) "Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? "

Responding to 1, yes, universally, there is not evidence that groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity. The entirety of world history stands in contrast to this view (e.g. Arab, African, Chinese, Indian scientific advances spring to mind most immediately, poetry, literature all across the world). It is a classic paternalistic, most often western and certainly racist view that others don't have the innate "capacity" to develop art, poetry, scientific, lead a meaningful existence in the world. We know it now and he knew it then. I would imagine if you asked a non-white, non-western scientist or artist in the 1950s if they though that they did not have the same innate capability as a White Western man that they would probably not agree with Fischer's position.

Responding to 2, yes he advocated for policies that were inherently harmful and based on his believes. Bemoaning the falling birthrates of the upper class here: https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fishuoft/page/258/mode/2up (I'll leave you with the entire book). I'm sure with little digging additional works could be found. So yes, publicly extolling these positions is harmful in my mind. What policies did he advocate for in private amongst influential people in government and thus policy decisions made based at least partly on his positions, I don't know.

I think your argument that basically falls along "if an in-group thinks something at a time, then it must be judged by today's standards" ("... this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era...") is incredibly dangerous and wrong. Virtually anything can be justified using this line of thinking (atrocities especially).

Separating his scientific contributions from his personal views is important. Naming a lecture series after someone celebrates both and deserves care and consideration of both the achievements and the life led. Scientific achievements (F-test, Fischer Information, all the amazing things he did for the field) stand on their own two feet. We can celebrate achievements, but we should not celebrate someone who held these opinions and further institutionalize them.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I did not mention Dr. Witten by name because I did not wish to call her out. Moreover, you did not respond to either of my questions as I see it.  Recall the rationale FIsher offered was "seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes." This view was also shared by many other geneticists in 1950's according to Provine. As for the second question, feel free to provide quotations instead of lazily linking to a pdf of Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.  You are familiar with the concept of "Burden of Proof" yes?

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 08:58
From: Michael DeWitt
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

This is what we would call a "sub-tweet" where instead of engaging directly, you don't name Dr Daniela Witten or link to her original tweet where she explains her position, and instead summarize it your self. Not the most noble form of discourse. Her comments were public and should be linked and acknowledged as such.

Here is her tweet if interested: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392721275744256?s=09

Your criteria:

1) "The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong?"

2) "Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? "

Responding to 1, yes, universally, there is not evidence that groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity. The entirety of world history stands in contrast to this view (e.g. Arab, African, Chinese, Indian scientific advances spring to mind most immediately, poetry, literature all across the world). It is a classic paternalistic, most often western and certainly racist view that others don't have the innate "capacity" to develop art, poetry, scientific, lead a meaningful existence in the world. We know it now and he knew it then. I would imagine if you asked a non-white, non-western scientist or artist in the 1950s if they though that they did not have the same innate capability as a White Western man that they would probably not agree with Fischer's position.

Responding to 2, yes he advocated for policies that were inherently harmful and based on his believes. Bemoaning the falling birthrates of the upper class here: https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fishuoft/page/258/mode/2up (I'll leave you with the entire book). I'm sure with little digging additional works could be found. So yes, publicly extolling these positions is harmful in my mind. What policies did he advocate for in private amongst influential people in government and thus policy decisions made based at least partly on his positions, I don't know.

I think your argument that basically falls along "if an in-group thinks something at a time, then it must be judged by today's standards" ("... this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era...") is incredibly dangerous and wrong. Virtually anything can be justified using this line of thinking (atrocities especially).

Separating his scientific contributions from his personal views is important. Naming a lecture series after someone celebrates both and deserves care and consideration of both the achievements and the life led. Scientific achievements (F-test, Fischer Information, all the amazing things he did for the field) stand on their own two feet. We can celebrate achievements, but we should not celebrate someone who held these opinions and further institutionalize them.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

The point I referenced was actually where the link directed (page 258). Read the rest of the chapter for your edification. I am familiar with Russell's Teapot which seems apropos here.

Personal attacks are unbecoming and are not arguments in good faith.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 10:23
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I did not mention Dr. Witten by name because I did not wish to call her out. Moreover, you did not respond to either of my questions as I see it.  Recall the rationale FIsher offered was "seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes." This view was also shared by many other geneticists in 1950's according to Provine. As for the second question, feel free to provide quotations instead of lazily linking to a pdf of Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.  You are familiar with the concept of "Burden of Proof" yes?

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 08:58
From: Michael DeWitt
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

This is what we would call a "sub-tweet" where instead of engaging directly, you don't name Dr Daniela Witten or link to her original tweet where she explains her position, and instead summarize it your self. Not the most noble form of discourse. Her comments were public and should be linked and acknowledged as such.

Here is her tweet if interested: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392721275744256?s=09

Your criteria:

1) "The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong?"

2) "Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? "

Responding to 1, yes, universally, there is not evidence that groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity. The entirety of world history stands in contrast to this view (e.g. Arab, African, Chinese, Indian scientific advances spring to mind most immediately, poetry, literature all across the world). It is a classic paternalistic, most often western and certainly racist view that others don't have the innate "capacity" to develop art, poetry, scientific, lead a meaningful existence in the world. We know it now and he knew it then. I would imagine if you asked a non-white, non-western scientist or artist in the 1950s if they though that they did not have the same innate capability as a White Western man that they would probably not agree with Fischer's position.

Responding to 2, yes he advocated for policies that were inherently harmful and based on his believes. Bemoaning the falling birthrates of the upper class here: https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fishuoft/page/258/mode/2up (I'll leave you with the entire book). I'm sure with little digging additional works could be found. So yes, publicly extolling these positions is harmful in my mind. What policies did he advocate for in private amongst influential people in government and thus policy decisions made based at least partly on his positions, I don't know.

I think your argument that basically falls along "if an in-group thinks something at a time, then it must be judged by today's standards" ("... this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era...") is incredibly dangerous and wrong. Virtually anything can be justified using this line of thinking (atrocities especially).

Separating his scientific contributions from his personal views is important. Naming a lecture series after someone celebrates both and deserves care and consideration of both the achievements and the life led. Scientific achievements (F-test, Fischer Information, all the amazing things he did for the field) stand on their own two feet. We can celebrate achievements, but we should not celebrate someone who held these opinions and further institutionalize them.

------------------------------
Michael DeWitt

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I find it necessary to respond to Robert O'Brien's recent post claiming that there is insufficient justification for renaming the R. A. Fisher Lectureship to the David H. Blackwell Lectureship. First, to question where are the "receipts" and to state that statisticians in support of renaming this lecture are "engaging in bandwagonism" as well as praising "intellectual laziness" is completely tone deaf and missing the point, quite frankly. The fact that Fisher, Galton, and others openly expressed beliefs that Blacks and other racial groups were inferior to Whites and that they believed there was conclusive evidence to support these differences should provide sufficient "receipts" for you that by naming a lectureship in his honor is a celebration of White supremacy. If the American Statistical Association is to foster a culture of diversity, inclusion, and equitable advancement, then celebrating a White supremacist or reinforcing policies or standards that promote racial inequality, gender inequality, or any other form of inequality in our field completely contradicts this mission. Renaming the Fisher Lectureship is only the start of the many reforms that need to occur. #BlackLivesMatter ​

------------------------------
Emma Benn
Associate Professor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

These are mere assertions Dr. Benn. Lazy references to Wikipedia do not constitute a legitimate argument and since this is all that was offered as justification it most certainly was bandwagonism for many statisticians to endorse it. As I see it, the only point that has been demonstrated thus far is that statisticians are not immune to cognitive errors and sloppy thinking. (Myself included.)

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 09:33
From: Emma Benn
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I find it necessary to respond to Robert O'Brien's recent post claiming that there is insufficient justification for renaming the R. A. Fisher Lectureship to the David H. Blackwell Lectureship. First, to question where are the "receipts" and to state that statisticians in support of renaming this lecture are "engaging in bandwagonism" as well as praising "intellectual laziness" is completely tone deaf and missing the point, quite frankly. The fact that Fisher, Galton, and others openly expressed beliefs that Blacks and other racial groups were inferior to Whites and that they believed there was conclusive evidence to support these differences should provide sufficient "receipts" for you that by naming a lectureship in his honor is a celebration of White supremacy. If the American Statistical Association is to foster a culture of diversity, inclusion, and equitable advancement, then celebrating a White supremacist or reinforcing policies or standards that promote racial inequality, gender inequality, or any other form of inequality in our field completely contradicts this mission. Renaming the Fisher Lectureship is only the start of the many reforms that need to occur. #BlackLivesMatter ​

------------------------------
Emma Benn
Associate Professor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I agree with honoring David Blackwell.  He was a personal hero of mine.  

If we are getting rid of the Fisher Lectureship lets also get on board with destroying the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. 
(Washington seems to have freed his - but obviously not Martha's - slaves upon his death, so not sure about
his attitudes when he died.)

------------------------------
Ronald Christensen
Univ of New Mexico
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I feel compelled to comment on this topic. I will start by saying that I agree with the positions stated by Profs Benn and Chrisensen.  

I only need only to look at the faces in my own classes to see that there are far too few US born women and people of color in the seats. There are, of course, many reasons for this problem and it will take the efforts of many people, well beyond the ASA's membership, to change the situation. 

In my opinion, it will be a small step in the right direction to change the name of the R. A. Fisher Lectureship to a name without the legacy of racism. Within statistics, we cannot avoid the legacies of Galton, Person, Fisher and others. Their influence on the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of our subject is clear. At the same time, we must condemn the well documented racism, wrapped in a false blanket of science, these men espoused. This sad legacy is a determent to everyone. 

There is no reason at this time in history to continue as before. We should remove this barrier. 

------------------------------
Stephen Elston
Principle Consultant
Quantia Analytics, LLC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.  

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine: 

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

The excuse that Fisher, Pearson, Galton and others were men of their time, and that everybody was eugenicist back then is not tenable in my view. According to wikipedia "only two universities in England established courses in eugenics (UCL, and Liverpool University)". With Galton (the founding father), Pearson, and Fisher being the tenors at UCL. Furthermore, many of the shortcomings of eugenics were already well known and voiced back then (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21488848/). Sooner or later I think we will have to confront this very troubling past of our field.

------------------------------
Aguemon Atchade
Professor
Boston University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 16:49
From: N. Justice
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hear! hear!

Prof. Justice's argument is a key point. Changing the name is a good idea because it will very likely have positive effects.
It might be unfair to Fisher, but there's no need to worry about his reputation suffering. So, why not change?

------------------------------
Eduardo Tabacman
Somalogic, Inc.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 16:49
From: N. Justice
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hi Robert,

I loved reading you note and disagree with you.  The response that keeps running through my mind is: Would Fisher want his daughter to marry one?

Then I remembered that his daughter ended up married to a Box.

I expand with a personal story:

I was a member of the first Yale graduate statistics class that entered in 1963.  I was accepted for that class even though I was a Penn State engineer whose statistics background was a single undergraduate statistics course.  While I enjoyed my time at Yale, the very mathematical department was not a good match for my skills and interests.  I left after two years with a masters obtained with the minimum passing grade (1 honors, 1 pass and the rest high passes).  I did not know that the faculty recommendations that I had received, particularly Frank Anscombe's, were so poor that the only job offer I received was from DuPont's Applied Statistics Group (ASG) where I was Don Marquardt's (1986 ASA President) first outside hire.  Therefore, I became a statistician instead of working in the financial industry as I had originally planned.  I was told, years later, that a reason for my hire was that if I inspired such large negative emotion in pure academics that I could be a worthwhile hire for the ASG.  I am sure that the phrase "those turkeys" was also used.  I also note that I was chosen over Bruce Hoadley who was receiving his Berkley PhD at the time.  Bruce would have accepted an offer because beside having a great ASG, Dupont also had exceptional employee golf facilities and Bruce was a great golfer.  My hiring could show the great certification power of an Ivy League degree above that of a degree from a good state school.

Yale was a very Fisherian place at that time and I credit Fisher for determining the direction of my research.  I am a great fan of Versalius who made foundational discoveries in anatomy because he was among the first to perform dissections himself.  A Fisherian quote from Yale that I remember is: "Quality might have a modicum of interest at the lowest levels of the production process."  Because of this Fisherian quote, and because of my contrarian nature, I decided that research in quality could be fruitful. Quality research has turned out to be a fruitful and fun endeavor for my entire career.  I enjoy toiling in the backwaters of science, where, aside from making scientific advances, I get the fun of answering subdomain statistical leaders, reviewers of my latest submission, who stated: "The paper is written in a style that is much too informal and conversational."  They also stated: "There needs to be a distinction between events and counts of events. The authors refer to all observations as counts,"  and who then ask "Given that OoM/2 and OoM correspond to a 5-fold and 10-fold shift, respectively, I wonder why 2OoM relates to a 100- fold (and not to a 20-fold as I would expect)."  The first response was written by the academic reviewer who, apparently, did not approve of our response to the second question that was contained along our revision as: "We do not feel that this is very important.  Why aren't events counts?"  Of course, he, an excellent academic, responded with quote one that is essentially the same comment in an unanswerable form.  The third question will get the response: "If you start with a meter stick and go 30 OoM each way, you go from sub-atomic particles to the size of galaxies."  We note that it can be hard work to get statistics papers with a scientific component published when the reviewers are very mathematical types with little scientific understanding.

In 1998 my presentation at the ASA annual meetings, that was originally titled "The Racist Scumbag Approach to Sociological Research" was, at the ASA's request, retitled "A Racist Factor in Sociological Research."  It discussed the "evidence" for the observed difference in black-white IQ test scores.  Eugenic reasoning can be found in much of the "evidence."  This brings us back to the main topic of this email.  Today, as American Cities are tearing down statues of confederate generals, because of their support of slavery and of racist ideology, we are discussing whether to  rename a lecture after a smart black guy, who was one of the very few blacks in our profession, or to keep it named after an eugenicist who espoused many racist ideas.  Why there are so few blacks in the Statistics Profession is an interesting question that has seldom been examined.  Now is a good time for that question to be examined and acted upon.  Your argument for not renaming the lecture can be paraphrased as Fisher was smart, had influential publications and was no more racist than many of his contemporaries.  I consider the fact that he flouted his racist ideas in eugenic publications to be a crucial point.  His, supposedly equally racist, contemporaries did not publicize their racist ideas to the extent that Fisher did.  Therefore, I believe that the lecture should be renamed.

The operational question is:  Who determines the name of the Blackwell/Fisher Lecture?  Are we spinning our wheels and exerting effort that will have no effect?  Who has the naming power?  Are your clearly expressed wishes the determining power?  What is the process for making a name change?

And Bob, could you detect a whiff of condescension, perhaps a teeny tiny whiff, in the revised 1951 UNESCO statement: "You dummies can also participate in civilization" that Fisher wanted?  In my 1998 ASA presentation, one slide stated:

Testing Hypothesis

1. Genetic Black-White Difference is – 15 points
2. Environmental Black-White Difference is -15 points
3. Environmental Black-White Difference is -30 points and the Genetic Black-White Difference is +15 points

 

All Hypotheses Would give Exactly the same Data;

There is No Way to Distinguish Between Them.

James M. Lucas

------------------------------
James Lucas
J M Lucas & Associates
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 09:57
From: Eduardo Tabacman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Hear! hear!

Prof. Justice's argument is a key point. Changing the name is a good idea because it will very likely have positive effects.
It might be unfair to Fisher, but there's no need to worry about his reputation suffering. So, why not change?

------------------------------
Eduardo Tabacman
Somalogic, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 16:49
From: N. Justice
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Greetings, Lucas,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I ​very much expect there is a full range of views on this matter, and I appreciate your and everyone's efforts to see that they are expressed.  And so we disagree.  I would not characterize my position in the fashion you perceived, but I respect your right to interpret  my writings any way you wish. Rather than restate it, I will let my original statement stand. 

I do encourage anyone who has the time and energy to review Maryclare Griffin's research on Fisher (posted on Twitter with a link appearing in this ASA Community thread).  It provides additional context to this overall discussion that is difficult to ignore, although I suppose we all have our own personal thresholds,   For convenience, the link appears below.

I will close by saying that if the Fisher Award was being proposed today, I cannot imagine that it would be approved given our current societal context, our values, and our association's aspirations for diversity and inclusion. What was acceptable to the decision makers half a century ago is no longer acceptable today, at least in my personal opinion. And while I find it disappointing that we disagree on this matter, I embrace our right to disagree and hopefully learn from each other as we navigate this difficult journey.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts

https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270724268410589192

Rob Santos
Urban Institute
Washington, DC




------------------------------
Robert Santos
Vice President & Chief Methodologist
The Urban Institute
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-10-2020 12:21
From: James Lucas
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Hi Robert,

I loved reading you note and disagree with you.  The response that keeps running through my mind is: Would Fisher want his daughter to marry one?

Then I remembered that his daughter ended up married to a Box.

I expand with a personal story:

I was a member of the first Yale graduate statistics class that entered in 1963.  I was accepted for that class even though I was a Penn State engineer whose statistics background was a single undergraduate statistics course.  While I enjoyed my time at Yale, the very mathematical department was not a good match for my skills and interests.  I left after two years with a masters obtained with the minimum passing grade (1 honors, 1 pass and the rest high passes).  I did not know that the faculty recommendations that I had received, particularly Frank Anscombe's, were so poor that the only job offer I received was from DuPont's Applied Statistics Group (ASG) where I was Don Marquardt's (1986 ASA President) first outside hire.  Therefore, I became a statistician instead of working in the financial industry as I had originally planned.  I was told, years later, that a reason for my hire was that if I inspired such large negative emotion in pure academics that I could be a worthwhile hire for the ASG.  I am sure that the phrase "those turkeys" was also used.  I also note that I was chosen over Bruce Hoadley who was receiving his Berkley PhD at the time.  Bruce would have accepted an offer because beside having a great ASG, Dupont also had exceptional employee golf facilities and Bruce was a great golfer.  My hiring could show the great certification power of an Ivy League degree above that of a degree from a good state school.

Yale was a very Fisherian place at that time and I credit Fisher for determining the direction of my research.  I am a great fan of Versalius who made foundational discoveries in anatomy because he was among the first to perform dissections himself.  A Fisherian quote from Yale that I remember is: "Quality might have a modicum of interest at the lowest levels of the production process."  Because of this Fisherian quote, and because of my contrarian nature, I decided that research in quality could be fruitful. Quality research has turned out to be a fruitful and fun endeavor for my entire career.  I enjoy toiling in the backwaters of science, where, aside from making scientific advances, I get the fun of answering subdomain statistical leaders, reviewers of my latest submission, who stated: "The paper is written in a style that is much too informal and conversational."  They also stated: "There needs to be a distinction between events and counts of events. The authors refer to all observations as counts,"  and who then ask "Given that OoM/2 and OoM correspond to a 5-fold and 10-fold shift, respectively, I wonder why 2OoM relates to a 100- fold (and not to a 20-fold as I would expect)."  The first response was written by the academic reviewer who, apparently, did not approve of our response to the second question that was contained along our revision as: "We do not feel that this is very important.  Why aren't events counts?"  Of course, he, an excellent academic, responded with quote one that is essentially the same comment in an unanswerable form.  The third question will get the response: "If you start with a meter stick and go 30 OoM each way, you go from sub-atomic particles to the size of galaxies."  We note that it can be hard work to get statistics papers with a scientific component published when the reviewers are very mathematical types with little scientific understanding.

In 1998 my presentation at the ASA annual meetings, that was originally titled "The Racist Scumbag Approach to Sociological Research" was, at the ASA's request, retitled "A Racist Factor in Sociological Research."  It discussed the "evidence" for the observed difference in black-white IQ test scores.  Eugenic reasoning can be found in much of the "evidence."  This brings us back to the main topic of this email.  Today, as American Cities are tearing down statues of confederate generals, because of their support of slavery and of racist ideology, we are discussing whether to  rename a lecture after a smart black guy, who was one of the very few blacks in our profession, or to keep it named after an eugenicist who espoused many racist ideas.  Why there are so few blacks in the Statistics Profession is an interesting question that has seldom been examined.  Now is a good time for that question to be examined and acted upon.  Your argument for not renaming the lecture can be paraphrased as Fisher was smart, had influential publications and was no more racist than many of his contemporaries.  I consider the fact that he flouted his racist ideas in eugenic publications to be a crucial point.  His, supposedly equally racist, contemporaries did not publicize their racist ideas to the extent that Fisher did.  Therefore, I believe that the lecture should be renamed.

The operational question is:  Who determines the name of the Blackwell/Fisher Lecture?  Are we spinning our wheels and exerting effort that will have no effect?  Who has the naming power?  Are your clearly expressed wishes the determining power?  What is the process for making a name change?

And Bob, could you detect a whiff of condescension, perhaps a teeny tiny whiff, in the revised 1951 UNESCO statement: "You dummies can also participate in civilization" that Fisher wanted?  In my 1998 ASA presentation, one slide stated:

Testing Hypothesis

1. Genetic Black-White Difference is – 15 points
2. Environmental Black-White Difference is -15 points
3. Environmental Black-White Difference is -30 points and the Genetic Black-White Difference is +15 points

 

All Hypotheses Would give Exactly the same Data;

There is No Way to Distinguish Between Them.

James M. Lucas

------------------------------
James Lucas
J M Lucas & Associates

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 09:57
From: Eduardo Tabacman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Hear! hear!

Prof. Justice's argument is a key point. Changing the name is a good idea because it will very likely have positive effects.
It might be unfair to Fisher, but there's no need to worry about his reputation suffering. So, why not change?

------------------------------
Eduardo Tabacman
Somalogic, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 16:49
From: N. Justice
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Fisher belongs to the group of statisticians whose work was the starting points for the rest of us. He held beliefs that many people still do. He believed in white supremacy (very common when I grew up in Sweden in the 40's and 50's). He did not believe in smoking as a cause of cancer and other illnesses ( even today some people think the same). He was not always a nice person. He used to mock Neyman for his early problems with the English language, really childish things. I have always been under the impression, though, that awards in the name of someone reflects what the person has accomplished scientifically, not that he or she also had to be a role model. Fisher's groundbreaking accomplishments are undeniable.
I think David Blackwell deserves his own award. From what I have read and heard he also was a role model. And I don't think he would be very happy about the suggested move.

Lars Lyberg
Retired professor, Stockholm University.

------------------------------
Lars Lyberg
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 16:49
From: N. Justice
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed the petition, and I appreciate the chance to think about and share why I stand behind my decision.

I will never know what it feels like to be a minority at the meetings. But I tried to imagine:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program honoring someone who is associated with believing the color of my skin implies limits about my aptitude and/or character.

As for me, under these conditions, I might skip the lecture and feel generally unwelcome in the meetings.

Then, I tried to imagine a different scenario, with point (1) the same as above:

1. noticing there aren't many people there who look like me
2. a key lecture on the program having a new name designed to communicate honor and respect to someone who overcame many of the challenges I, too, faced to be there

In this scenario, I imagined going the lecture and feeling that this was a community that was trying to make positive change, even if many of them would never know what it's like to be in my shoes. I felt much more welcome at the second meeting.

I'm not claiming my imagined scenarios represent the black community; but as for me, the second option seemed to encourage participation from a wonderful, beautiful smorgasbord of skin colors. That was enough for me to want a new name.

Accuse me of sloppy thinking or of joining a bandwagon, and you may (or may not) be correct.
Accuse me of letting my heart play a part in the decision, and I happily plead guilty as charged.

Nicola Justice

------------------------------
N. Justice
Assistant Professor
Pacific Lutheran University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I signed and promoted the petition not because I am anti-Fisher (whose contributions to the field are undeniable) but because I am pro-Blackwell (who I don't think gets recognized enough). When I was given the opportunity to name a conference room at my previous institution I named it the David Blackwell room and often had to educate people on his role in statistics and what that means to me as a black statistician. I agree the petition as written is very anti-Fisher but I think many people signed because they a pro-Blackwell.
MG

------------------------------
Melody Goodman
Associate Professor
New York University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hello Dr. Goodman,

The merits of the current petition to change the name of the Fisher Lecture aside, it was brought to my attention that there is already a lectureship honoring David Blackwell:

https://imstat.org/ims-special-lectures/

There is also this lectureship, which appears to be separate:

https://www.nam-math.org/blackwell-lecture.html


------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 17:16
From: Melody Goodman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I signed and promoted the petition not because I am anti-Fisher (whose contributions to the field are undeniable) but because I am pro-Blackwell (who I don't think gets recognized enough). When I was given the opportunity to name a conference room at my previous institution I named it the David Blackwell room and often had to educate people on his role in statistics and what that means to me as a black statistician. I agree the petition as written is very anti-Fisher but I think many people signed because they a pro-Blackwell.
MG

------------------------------
Melody Goodman
Associate Professor
New York University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Thank you, Robert (if I may), for bringing up this topic. I would have missed it completely given that I don't follow Twitter very much. I did find the thread to which you refer, and for the benefit of the group here it is: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392728586420224. And on the whole your characterization of Professor Daniela Witten's position is correct.
Let me, before I continue, lay out my own prejudices. I agree with Professor Witten that we should get rid of the name "R. A. Fisher"--but not for the same reason. I am against naming anything (prizes, building, towns, streets, etc.) after any individual. In my view, it promotes the cult of personality, the myth of the "great man" (or woman as the case may be), and I find that totally repugnant. Besides, one's hero is another person's villain--as we see. Why not name the prize after some area of the field? Of course, this view is a non-starter. And why is that?
Because, and here I am putting on my sociologist's hat, every generation (or more precisely those among that generation who have the power to set the agenda) wants to celebrate its heroes ('great guys') and values, beliefs, etc. And I will differ with you. You ask "where is the critical thinking?" It's not a question of "critical thinking": what we are witnessing here (and participating in) is an ideological battle. Professor Witten is right to bring up the issue of the statues of Southern civil warriors. Those statues were put up to celebrate the end of Reconstruction and to reaffirm the dominance of whites over Blacks. Where's the critical thinking? Today the pendulum is swinging the other way (will it prevail?). Folks are affirming that "black lives matter," they want equality and equity--social realities that are sorely missing in this country (and many others).
Back to Fisher. Many of the founders of the modern field of statistics (mostly in Britain) were eugenicists (Galton, Pearson the elder, Major Greenwood, etc.). They were the product of a colonial and imperial power that didn't think twice about subjugating people all over the world. They were bringing "civilization." Eugenics worked hand in glove with these views. It was seen as a way of "improving" society by getting rid of the lower elements of society (e.g. the "feeble minded")--"getting rid" didn't necessarily killing them, but rather preventing them from reproducing. This view is exemplified in the Buck v. Bell case in the United States. These folks were also against certain types of immigrants (southern and eastern Europeans, then) because this would lead to a deterioration of the human stock (the "good" stock) of a country. (I recommend "Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge" by Donald A. MacKenzie.)
Eugenics, perhaps not in so many words, is still with us: the most conspicuous academic, and fairly recent example, is the publication of the famous, or infamous, book "The Bell Curve", and of course, in the political realm, Donald Trump (read his "speech" announcing his run for the presidency).
So if you expect to have an argument like you would have when discussing why one should have "n-1" in the denominator of the sample variance and not just "n," you are going to be disappointed--and you already are.
Sincerely and respectfully, Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Dr. Lusinchi/Dominic,

Thank you for comments. I appreciate your perspective and acknowledge you are more qualified to speak to this than I am. I am familiar with the "Victorian" belief that Anglo-Saxons were superior to other peoples including Celtic and Latinate Europeans, which I find equal parts offensive and risible. (After the invasion it took at least a millennium to get close to where Romano-Celtic civilization was circa 450 AD/CE.)

Perhaps Fisher should have realized that groups of humans do not differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development as Michael DeWitt wrote and perhaps the rationale he offered "seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes" was merely a fig leaf for racism as Stephen Elston wrote. Would Fisher have modified his views if he had lived into the late sixties and seventies as others appear to have done or would he have persisted in his belief? It is impossible to know and useless to speculate. And in any case not a hill worth dying over.

Also, thanks to you (and others) I now perceive that this isn't about the pure application of reason and trying to hold this proposal to a Platonic standard of analytical reasoning is ultimately fruitless. However, I stand by my criticisms of the initial twitter argument and responses to it. (Granted, I understand why no one wants to take a deep dive into Fisher's Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. It is as stale as Lazarus before Jesus raised him from the dead.) That being said (or rather written), I feel no need to belabor the point. I've done enough objurgating and should get back to writing papers.


------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2020 17:40
From: Dominic Lusinchi
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thank you, Robert (if I may), for bringing up this topic. I would have missed it completely given that I don't follow Twitter very much. I did find the thread to which you refer, and for the benefit of the group here it is: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392728586420224. And on the whole your characterization of Professor Daniela Witten's position is correct.
Let me, before I continue, lay out my own prejudices. I agree with Professor Witten that we should get rid of the name "R. A. Fisher"--but not for the same reason. I am against naming anything (prizes, building, towns, streets, etc.) after any individual. In my view, it promotes the cult of personality, the myth of the "great man" (or woman as the case may be), and I find that totally repugnant. Besides, one's hero is another person's villain--as we see. Why not name the prize after some area of the field? Of course, this view is a non-starter. And why is that?
Because, and here I am putting on my sociologist's hat, every generation (or more precisely those among that generation who have the power to set the agenda) wants to celebrate its heroes ('great guys') and values, beliefs, etc. And I will differ with you. You ask "where is the critical thinking?" It's not a question of "critical thinking": what we are witnessing here (and participating in) is an ideological battle. Professor Witten is right to bring up the issue of the statues of Southern civil warriors. Those statues were put up to celebrate the end of Reconstruction and to reaffirm the dominance of whites over Blacks. Where's the critical thinking? Today the pendulum is swinging the other way (will it prevail?). Folks are affirming that "black lives matter," they want equality and equity--social realities that are sorely missing in this country (and many others).
Back to Fisher. Many of the founders of the modern field of statistics (mostly in Britain) were eugenicists (Galton, Pearson the elder, Major Greenwood, etc.). They were the product of a colonial and imperial power that didn't think twice about subjugating people all over the world. They were bringing "civilization." Eugenics worked hand in glove with these views. It was seen as a way of "improving" society by getting rid of the lower elements of society (e.g. the "feeble minded")--"getting rid" didn't necessarily killing them, but rather preventing them from reproducing. This view is exemplified in the Buck v. Bell case in the United States. These folks were also against certain types of immigrants (southern and eastern Europeans, then) because this would lead to a deterioration of the human stock (the "good" stock) of a country. (I recommend "Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge" by Donald A. MacKenzie.)
Eugenics, perhaps not in so many words, is still with us: the most conspicuous academic, and fairly recent example, is the publication of the famous, or infamous, book "The Bell Curve", and of course, in the political realm, Donald Trump (read his "speech" announcing his run for the presidency).
So if you expect to have an argument like you would have when discussing why one should have "n-1" in the denominator of the sample variance and not just "n," you are going to be disappointed--and you already are.
Sincerely and respectfully, Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Good morning, fellow ASA members,

I, too, am compelled to weigh in with my own perspective on this matter.  I'll begin by saying that as a Latino who has experienced discrimination and unconscious biases throughout my life & career, I bring my own personal lens ​to bear when considering issues like the renaming of the Fisher award, just as anyone does.  And I openly admit that I have my own biases -- conscious or otherwise -- as an imperfect human being and a statistician who is a "work in progress", always trying to be better.  Now, on to my thoughts.

I seek simplicity in considering potentially volatile issues like the one at hand. To me, the simple facts are that (1) RA Fisher was a brilliant statistician; and (2) he was an famous Eugenicist.  At the height of his career and beyond (to this day, in fact), many people have suffered and died worldwide in the name of Eugenics.  Even in the US, we have an appalling history with Eugenics (see: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations). 

In 1968, a mere dozen weeks after the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King and subsequent nationwide riots in cities across the nation, a group of prominent statisticians created the RA Fisher Award. I do not know whether they considered Fisher's Eugenics career or the current turmoil of the time, but I doubt it.  The timing offers a striking juxtaposition of events that reflects the values of the statistical community at that time. Fast forward a half century, and here we are today, about to honor and celebrate the life and accomplishments of a brilliant statistician -- who intentionally or not -- significantly contributed to Eugenics work that has been used as a basis for vast human suffering.  Once again, we are in a time when across our nation people are protesting for racial equity in our society. A striking juxtaposition of events is at hand and this context cannot be ignored.  Our values cannot be ignored.  Our aspirations to dispel inequities in our statistical community and our society cannot be ignored. This cannot be a time for nuance about why Fisher may or may not have objected to a UNESCO statement. There is a much bigger issue here -- the association of Eugenics with what is considered one of the statistical community's most distinguished awards. And this comes at a time where we are once again clearly seeing the racial inequities in our society, but this time to new generations of statisticians. I believe the name of this award deserves to be changed.  It would represent but one small step in a much bigger challenge we have as a statistical community -- addressing structural, systemic racism.

I have tried to be respectful in this posting.  Let's please demonstrate our values and professionalism by being respectful of our fellow ASA members as we offer out thoughts on this matter. 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration, and reflecting my personal perspective (i.e., I am not yet speaking for ASA),

Rob Santos
Urban Institute
Washington, DC
(2020 ASA President-Elect)

------------------------------
Robert Santos
Vice President & Chief Methodologist
The Urban Institute
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I will add to the sentiments already voiced by Dr. Benn and Dr. Justice, and strongly encourage us all to consider the substantial impact of Fisher's work on the Black community and the discomfort members of our community might feel when we exemplify his work. 

Undeniably, Fisher contributed greatly to the field of Statistics. However, these contributions are muddled by his strong views on racial differences. Fisher was a founding member of the Cambridge University branch of the Eugenics Society, and a strong proponent of the theory that poverty was due to the genetic differences of the working class. Moreover, he advocated that by funding family allowances for the poor, society was rewarding the breeding of individuals he viewed as eugenically undesirable. The study of eugenics gave rise to the concept of intelligence, a construct that continues to impede the educational progression of students of color today. The belief that Black students are intellectually inferior persists through student tracking, a modern system of segregation that predominantly affords White students with long-term achievement. Thus, to me, it does not take a great deal of "critical thinking" to understand that Fisher's views on racial superiority continue to have an impact on the Black community. 

When a Black student persists to a higher education institution, despite an educational system that is largely stacked against them, their statistics course(s) will present concepts, such as the F-distribution, which were originated by Statisticians who believed students like them did not deserve a desk. More than likely, as was the case for my education, there will be no mention of these Statisticians' views. I raise a similar question as Dr. Justice: when Black students in Statistics learn that an award of high recognition of scholarship in Statistics is named for a Statistician who advocated for the oppression of their members of their race, will they feel welcome? As advocated by Dr. Benn, if we as a field and association desire to foster a culture of diversity, inclusion, and equitable advancement, we cannot remain complicit and glorify the achievements of a White supremacist. Renaming the R.A. Fisher Lectureship is but the beginning of reforms needed to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion in academia. #BlackLivesMatter

------------------------------
Allison Theobold
Assistant Professor of Statistics
California Polytechnic University
Pronouns: she, her, hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

This is a challenging issue, but I agree with those who think we need more discussion.  There is very much that is just plain wrong with our basic societal systems, from legal to medical to educational, and we have the challenge of figuring out how to fix them before us. 
It is not clear if that is the same petition that I saw, as the latter had more to it.  In particular, the proposal was to change the name of the Lectureship to "David Blackwell Lecture".  The idea of having a Blackwell Lecture is excellent.  David was a major pillar of our field, in terms especially creative research, and also outstanding mentoring.  If a fund for such a lectureship starts, I will be happy to make a contribution.
I am really wondering about  re-purposing the Fisher Lecture to do that.  Like every single one of us, R. A. Fisher was a very complicated person.  There are many stories of his arrogance, and I think plenty of documentation in terms of his discussions at Royal Statistical Society meetings (published in the JRSS).  In addition to the Eugenics (an area that indeed became extremely racist as it evolved), there were also his efforts to disprove statistical links between smoking and cancer.  I have no doubts that he made the racist comments hinted at in the original posts.  I wonder if would help to add to the context of the full person by posting one or two such quotes on his Wikipedia page.  It would be an interesting test of their "anybody can edit" policy...
However I am not comfortable with changing the lectureship name because of his accomplishments.  Of course educated statisticians are well aware of the formative impact that his ideas had on our field, so I won't elaborate.  But I would like to report something beyond that.  A while ago I was collaborating with evolutionary biologists, and enjoyed a visit to NIMBioS, a Biology-Math Center in Knoxville.  I note that off their main lounge, they had two conference rooms.  One named after Darwin, and the other named after Fisher.  I curiously inquired from my biological colleagues and they assured me that is consistent with how Fisher is viewed in their area.  He really was a founding father of the whole field of genetics.  
For these reasons, I think we need a much closer look at all sides of this issue.  Here at UNC, our Silent Sam statue is now well known.  It is clear to me that needed to go, as it was erected in the Jim Crow era as a clear signal that was offensive to many members of our community.  I wonder about the depth of offense engendered by the name Fisher Lecture?



------------------------------
J. S. (Steve) Marron
Univ. of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies. 
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Andrew,

Could you cite the references that show that R.A. Fisher was a white supremacist, or indeed just a racist?
Because of hist belief in eugenics I'm quite prepared to believe they exist but I haven't seen them.
I do see a eugenics belief based on class not race in his "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection".

My current preference is to retain the award in his name - acknowledge his achievements, but include in the presentation of the award an excoriation of his beliefs and a warning to never stop questioning our assumptions.

But if his did also express racist views then I agree his name becomes too offensive.

But we are statisticians, evidence still matters, right?

------------------------------
Tom Parke
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 00:09
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies.
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Tom,
The targets of eugenics were both "race" and class. In the US, Carrie Buck was white. She was labeled "feeble minded" (all this under the guise of "science") and she was sterilized. Why? Because her offspring would have deteriorated the national stock. The resurgence of the KKK in the 1920s was in large part fueled by an anti-immigrant animus (sounds familiar?). Again because they were seen as a danger to the national "stock". And this was called "Americanism." ("America! America! How many crimes have been committed in your name!" --to paraphrase.) Not that African-Americans were off their radar, after all were talking KKK.
Eugenics was not synonymous to genetics. Eugenics, if not a political movement, was a social movement of sorts. Here I'm thinking of Britain, mostly. The eugenics societies had a social agenda (see above). Much more could be said about some of the founders of the discipline (e.g. Karl Pearson, aka "The" professor), but I won't abuse of your time.
Sincerely, Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 05:17
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Andrew,

Could you cite the references that show that R.A. Fisher was a white supremacist, or indeed just a racist?
Because of hist belief in eugenics I'm quite prepared to believe they exist but I haven't seen them.
I do see a eugenics belief based on class not race in his "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection".

My current preference is to retain the award in his name - acknowledge his achievements, but include in the presentation of the award an excoriation of his beliefs and a warning to never stop questioning our assumptions.

But if his did also express racist views then I agree his name becomes too offensive.

But we are statisticians, evidence still matters, right?

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 00:09
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies.
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hi Dominic,

What you say about eugenics (and eugenicists) in general is absolutely right,
I was just asking if there was a smoking gun in anything that Fisher had written, said, or done, that was racist,
e.g. said that one race was was better than another, or that a race was unfit for something. I haven't found one so far.

Indeed he writes:

------------------------------
Tom Parke
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 12:57
From: Dominic Lusinchi
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Tom,
The targets of eugenics were both "race" and class. In the US, Carrie Buck was white. She was labeled "feeble minded" (all this under the guise of "science") and she was sterilized. Why? Because her offspring would have deteriorated the national stock. The resurgence of the KKK in the 1920s was in large part fueled by an anti-immigrant animus (sounds familiar?). Again because they were seen as a danger to the national "stock". And this was called "Americanism." ("America! America! How many crimes have been committed in your name!" --to paraphrase.) Not that African-Americans were off their radar, after all were talking KKK.
Eugenics was not synonymous to genetics. Eugenics, if not a political movement, was a social movement of sorts. Here I'm thinking of Britain, mostly. The eugenics societies had a social agenda (see above). Much more could be said about some of the founders of the discipline (e.g. Karl Pearson, aka "The" professor), but I won't abuse of your time.
Sincerely, Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 05:17
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Andrew,

Could you cite the references that show that R.A. Fisher was a white supremacist, or indeed just a racist?
Because of hist belief in eugenics I'm quite prepared to believe they exist but I haven't seen them.
I do see a eugenics belief based on class not race in his "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection".

My current preference is to retain the award in his name - acknowledge his achievements, but include in the presentation of the award an excoriation of his beliefs and a warning to never stop questioning our assumptions.

But if his did also express racist views then I agree his name becomes too offensive.

But we are statisticians, evidence still matters, right?

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 00:09
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies.
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

In summary, based on the aforementioned comments:

1) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him when given the context of the times.

2) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him and there is inconclusive evidence of behavior/opinions/perspectives that would warrant removing his name. 

3) There are a number of statisticians of various backgrounds that have expressed that Fisher was a great statistician but expressed a desire to remove the name after taking into consideration how this decision reflects on the organization and ultimately the composition of its membership in the present.

I am sure there may be other combinations but I think these the main ones expressed on this thread. 

Again, Fisher's work is not the debate. The only question is:

Are sentiments (1) and (2) more important than having an inclusive organization? 

I know this is only one lectureship name but I do believe this is not an insignficant conversation.

------------------------------
Derrick Joseph Cordy
derrickjosephcordy@gmail.com

Derrick,

That is a powerful argument. And to answer your question directly, my answer is no, they are not more important than having an inclusive organization.

I am beginning to appreciate how much more recent and painful eugenicists are for you and Dominic, where here in the UK my impression is that the movement withered after the second world war due to its similarities to, and links with fascism.

This interchange has been highly educational, thank you.

Tom

------------------------------
Tom Parke
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 14:45
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

In summary, based on the aforementioned comments:

1) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him when given the context of the times.

2) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him and there is inconclusive evidence of behavior/opinions/perspectives that would warrant removing his name.

3) There are a number of statisticians of various backgrounds that have expressed that Fisher was a great statistician but expressed a desire to remove the name after taking into consideration how this decision reflects on the organization and ultimately the composition of its membership in the present.

I am sure there may be other combinations but I think these the main ones expressed on this thread.

Again, Fisher's work is not the debate. The only question is:

Are sentiments (1) and (2) more important than having an inclusive organization? 

I know this is only one lectureship name but I do believe this is not an insignficant conversation.

------------------------------
Derrick Joseph Cordy
derrickjosephcordy@gmail.com

Derrick,

Thank you so much for adding your voice to this important discussion. The key factor we have needed in addressing this question is how a Fisher Lectureship is viewed by Black and other minority statisticians; not how White statisticians view it.

Holding historical figures up to current standards is complicated.  It is clear, for example, that leaders of the Confederacy do not deserve statues in the Capitol, or as the names on military bases.  On the other hand, Washington and Jefferson were great presidents who enslaved people. They should not be honored for the latter, but having monuments honoring their Presidencies seems quite appropriate.

We shouldn't be worried about whether it was right many years ago to establish a Fisher Lectureship. The question is today.  My guess is that your insight is supported by many. Our goal is to make the ASA supportive and welcoming to ALL statisticians, We have many ASA committees working to achieve this goal. I encourage you and all others who are interested in supporting this goal to volunteer for these committees.

The bottom line is if the Fisher name on the lectureship makes minority statisticians feel unwelcome, then we need to change the name. This discussion has clarified that need.

------------------------------
David Marker
Senior Statistician
Westat
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 14:45
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

In summary, based on the aforementioned comments:

1) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him when given the context of the times.

2) There are a number of statisticians that have expressed that Fisher's work justifies the recognition associated with a lectureship named after him and there is inconclusive evidence of behavior/opinions/perspectives that would warrant removing his name.

3) There are a number of statisticians of various backgrounds that have expressed that Fisher was a great statistician but expressed a desire to remove the name after taking into consideration how this decision reflects on the organization and ultimately the composition of its membership in the present.

I am sure there may be other combinations but I think these the main ones expressed on this thread.

Again, Fisher's work is not the debate. The only question is:

Are sentiments (1) and (2) more important than having an inclusive organization? 

I know this is only one lectureship name but I do believe this is not an insignficant conversation.

------------------------------
Derrick Joseph Cordy
derrickjosephcordy@gmail.com

Tom, given that my social calendar is barren (I can't imagine why?), I suppose I can spend a little more of my time and waste some of your time (perhaps).
"Smoking gun," you say. "Balance of probability," you add. If I were to join a rowing, would it not be reasonable to assume that I am a rower (or at least want to learn how to row)?
Given the social agenda of the eugenics movement, what should we assume of the person that joins a eugenics society or clearly supports its goals?
Let me add an anecdote:
Pearson the elder and Fisher hated each others guts. But they had one thing in common, though, they were eugenicists. Pearson founded the Annals of Eugenics in (if memory serves) 1925. In the first issue, he wrote, along with co-author Margaret Moul, about "The Problem of Alien Immigration into Britain." In it, he had less than charitable things to say about Russo-Polish Jewish immigrant children--very much in line with the eugenics agenda. The irony is that one of his student, Leon Isserlis, had been, in his childhood a Russo-Jewish immigrant. He, his widowed mother and his siblings were escaping the repression that Jews were victims of in the hands of the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century. Another irony, Isserlis was a close friend of Major Greenwood who was (at some point in his career) a council member of the Eugenics Education Society (as was Spearman).
Stay well - Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 13:43
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Hi Dominic,

What you say about eugenics (and eugenicists) in general is absolutely right,
I was just asking if there was a smoking gun in anything that Fisher had written, said, or done, that was racist,
e.g. said that one race was was better than another, or that a race was unfit for something. I haven't found one so far.

Indeed he writes:

"without assuming that racial intermixture is necessarily a step in the right direction, however much, assuming it could be accomplished in, say, ten thousand years, its accomplishment might seem to simplify world problems."
Which whilst not exactly a ringing endorsement of interracial marriage, it doesn't smack of a racist (in the conventional sense), or supremacist.

He was no shrinking violet, and enjoyed a bit of controversy, especially if he could do a bit of data wrangling to back it up, (see his, again wrong headed, letters against the link between smoking and lung cancer). So IF he's written nothing overtly racist, my balance of probability would be that he wasn't and that he was just beloved of his genetics, wanted to use it to account for as much as he could, and overreached.

Tom

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 12:57
From: Dominic Lusinchi
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Tom,
The targets of eugenics were both "race" and class. In the US, Carrie Buck was white. She was labeled "feeble minded" (all this under the guise of "science") and she was sterilized. Why? Because her offspring would have deteriorated the national stock. The resurgence of the KKK in the 1920s was in large part fueled by an anti-immigrant animus (sounds familiar?). Again because they were seen as a danger to the national "stock". And this was called "Americanism." ("America! America! How many crimes have been committed in your name!" --to paraphrase.) Not that African-Americans were off their radar, after all were talking KKK.
Eugenics was not synonymous to genetics. Eugenics, if not a political movement, was a social movement of sorts. Here I'm thinking of Britain, mostly. The eugenics societies had a social agenda (see above). Much more could be said about some of the founders of the discipline (e.g. Karl Pearson, aka "The" professor), but I won't abuse of your time.
Sincerely, Dominic

------------------------------
Dominic Lusinchi
Independent researcher & consultant (retired)
San Francisco, Calif.

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 05:17
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Andrew,

Could you cite the references that show that R.A. Fisher was a white supremacist, or indeed just a racist?
Because of hist belief in eugenics I'm quite prepared to believe they exist but I haven't seen them.
I do see a eugenics belief based on class not race in his "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection".

My current preference is to retain the award in his name - acknowledge his achievements, but include in the presentation of the award an excoriation of his beliefs and a warning to never stop questioning our assumptions.

But if his did also express racist views then I agree his name becomes too offensive.

But we are statisticians, evidence still matters, right?

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 00:09
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies.
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hi Tom,

I agree that Fisher appears to have been a classist first and foremost and trying to cast him as another R. L. Moore (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/RLMoore-racist-math.html) seems tendentious to me based on what I have seen thus far. Fisher argued that too much social promotion/mobility was a bad thing and appears to have thought that most people like me from working-class backgrounds should have been content to remain in our caste. From another chapter of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection  than the one Michael DeWitt linked to previously:

(iv) Intimately bound up with the concentration of reproductive
activity in the poorer classes of citizens, is a consequence, which, at
first sight, has its beneficial aspect, namely that very extensive social
promotion must take place in every generation, in order that the
numbers of the better paid classes may maintain a constant proportion
to those of the worse paid. Social promotion due to this cause must,
however, be distinguished from such normal promotion, due to
increasing age and experience, as will leave the children to start with
no greater social advantages than their parents, and also from that
relative promotion of special merit or talent, which allows the more
gifted, whether greatly, or in only a slight degree, a proper opportunity
for the exercise of their special abilities. Promotion of these two
kinds should, of course, characterize any society wisely and generously
organized, whatever may be the distribution of reproduction within
it ; and in wishing prosperity to deserving merit we do not necessarily
desire the continuous replacement of whole classes by those of
humbler origin, unless such replacement can be shown to conduce to
general prosperity. The sympathy which we feel, too, for the efforts
of dutiful parents, to aid their children to good fortune, would be
misplaced if it led us to desire the existence of increased numbers of
children who require good fortune to attain a useful and prosperous
way of life, and a decrease of those children who might claim such
a life as their birthright.

If we take account of the natural consequences which flow from
promotion throughout the whole social scale, involving the transfer
of many millions in every generation, we shall find some which may
be desirable, and others which are certainly harmful. In any body
of people whose parents and grandparents occupied, on the average,
a distinctly humbler position than themselves, it is obvious that we
should not expect to find that pride of birth and ancestry, which is
characteristic of many uncivilized peoples. The conservative virtue,
which strives to live up to an honourable name, will be replaced by
the more progressive virtue, which strives to justify new claims. At
the worst pride of birth is replaced by pride of wealth, and popular
sentiment tends to grant the privileges of an aristocracy, rather to
the wealthy than to the well-born.

A second and less equivocal effect of wholesale social promotion
is the retardation of the cultural progress of every class of the community,
by reason of the need to educate up to a higher level those
suffering from early disadvantages. The strain put by this factor
upon our educational system seems to be severe, and it doubtless
accounts, in large measure, for the slow progress of genuine culture,
and for the set-backs which it seems, here and there, to be receiving.
This consequence of social promotion would, of course, show itself,
whatever the hereditary aptitudes of the different classes might be.

The third and most serious disadvantage is that, whereas the
efficiency of the better paid classes may, in some measure, be maintained,
by progressively perfecting the machinery for social promotion,
in such a way as to make the best use of every grade of talent,
wherever it may be found, yet the worst-paid occupations have no
source from which they can recruit ability, and consequently suffer
a continual degradation in the average level of the talents they
possess. Without underestimating the value of the services, which
those promoted perform in their new spheres, it would be fatal to
ignore the extent to which the prosperity of any co-operative community
rests upon the average efficiency of the great masses of citizens,
and, I should add, the extent to which its well-being rests on
the level 'at which their self-respect, enterprise and spirit can be
maintained.

Summary

The different occupations of man in society are distinguished
economically by the differences in the rewards which they procure.
Biologically they are of importance in insensibly controlling mate
selection, through the influences of prevailing opinion, mutual
interest, and the opportunities for social intercourse, which they
afford. Social classes thus become genetically differentiated, like
local varieties of a species, though the differentiation is determined,
not primarily by differences from class to class in selection, but by
the agencies controlling social promotion or demotion.

Comparisons between the vital statistics, and especially between
the birth-rates, of different classes, are generally defective and much
out of date. The principal need in our own country is to bring the
occupational classification, used in the registration of births and
deaths, into harmony with that used in the census, and to record the
ages of the parents in birth registration.

Numerous of investigations, in which the matter is approached from
different points of view, have shown, in all civilized countries for
which the data are available, that the birth-rate is much higher in
the poorer than in the more prosperous classes, and that this difference
has been increasing in recent generations. As more complete
data have become available, it has appeared that this difference is
not confined to aristocratic or highly educated families, but extends
to the bottom of the social scale, in the contrast between the semi-
skilled and the unskilled labourers. There is no direct evidence of a
period at which the birth-rate in all classes was equal, and the decline
in the birth-rate in all classes in recent decades has been apparently
simultaneous, though greater hi the more prosperous classes.

Since the birth-rate is the predominant factor in human survival in
society, success in the struggle for existence is, in societies with an
inverted birth-rate, the inverse of success in human endeavour. The
type of man selected, as the ancestor of future generations, is he
whose probability is least of winning admiration, or rewards, for
useful services to the society to which he belongs.

If, as is still uncertain, a similar inversion has prevailed in the
Asiatic centres of civilization, the mortality suffered by the poorest
class must have tended to arrest the progress of racial deterioration,
and had perhaps produced an equilibrium before the impact of
European ideas. The condition of the Roman empire was certainly
similar to that observed in modern countries.

The causes, which have produced the inversion of the birth-rate,
must have been sufficiently powerful to counteract both direct and
indirect economic agencies, favouring a higher birth-rate among the
more prosperous. By its tendency to make the rich richer and the
poor poorer, and, especially, to inflict hardship upon the parents of
the next generation, the inversion of the birth-rate is an important
cause of social discontent.

A consequence which, at first sight, appears beneficial, is the very
large amount of social promotion which is required to maintain the
proportion of the classes. Upon examination it appears that this kind
of promotion should not be confused with increasing prosperity, and
that it carries with it the serious disabilities of the retardation of the
cultural progress of every class, and the uncompensated depletion of
the poorest class in the ability to maintain then- self-respect and
economic independence.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 05:17
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Andrew,

Could you cite the references that show that R.A. Fisher was a white supremacist, or indeed just a racist?
Because of hist belief in eugenics I'm quite prepared to believe they exist but I haven't seen them.
I do see a eugenics belief based on class not race in his "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection".

My current preference is to retain the award in his name - acknowledge his achievements, but include in the presentation of the award an excoriation of his beliefs and a warning to never stop questioning our assumptions.

But if his did also express racist views then I agree his name becomes too offensive.

But we are statisticians, evidence still matters, right?

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 00:09
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

The Fisher Lectureship should be renamed because of the White supremacy and eugenicism of its namesake.
Granted that Fisher's work in statistics was great and enduring, the analysis should proceed upon the distinction between past and ongoing events.
The F-distribution arrived long ago; while it, among Fisher's body of work, will not disappear from books, it is a fait accompli as far as Fisher goes - as he himself is, being long dead.
It would be meaningless for me to mention to students in a gen. ed. class that the "global F" refers to (a man named) Fisher (who lived and died long ago). The likelihood that one such student will pursue the gratuitous mention to a biographical article is negligible. I do not have the luxury of teaching the history of statistics, but if I did, "the controversy" would be part of that history.

The Fisher Lectures are not a fait accompli; rather, they are the result of renewed actions by current human beings, a growing majority of them with a lifespan that does not intersect 1890 - 1962. Each year that honoring notable statisticians involves the efforts of changing memberships and younger members of statistical associations, there is renewal of the discussions, actions, and choices (including those by default) making up those efforts, including the naming of awards, lectureships and the like. Although R.A. Fisher and his work comprise matters fixed in the past, the Fisher Lectureship, in its very naming, is an ongoing affair, involving the present and future efforts of changeable individuals.
There is no reason that the name of the Lectureship cannot change. It did not always exist; and it the processes of time make it increasingly likely to  change.
Changing the name will not erase Fisher or his work from statistics books. Those are faits accompli.
However, every year that Fisher's name remains attached to the lectureship is the result of new actions and new decisions - or failures to decide - by new individuals. Such new actions and new decisions are subject to current standards of human behavior.
We are not called upon to condemn Fisher out of the context of his time, although there were people of his time who were far more enlightened on the value of diverse humanity and the principles of just societies.
However, we are called upon to behave according to the better understood principles of our own time respecting equality, justice, and the ethics of a fair and equitable society - and what our moral obligations are in regard to present and future other human beings..
Failing to change the name of the Fisher Lectureship, in the foregoing perspective, is a failure on our own, contemporaneous part to behave according to those principles and ethics that guide us today. Any sense that we are beholden to the errors of a person, memorable in some respects and despicable in others, is bereft of the intellectual integrity of science itself and is in violation of the ethos that, by our very recognition of the issue is shown to be our chosen guide for our behavior and reflection in our own, continuing time, unchained from the dead hand of the past.



------------------------------
Andrew Tierman
Lecturer of Mathematical Sciences
Saginaw Valley State University

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 14:06
From: Robert Riffenburgh
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I knew both Fisher and Blackwell and respected them both. By all means, honor Blackwell. He deserves it. But do not destroy a valued legacy because today's social values conflict with those of a different time.

Looking just at some presidents as examples, Washington and Jefferson held slaves; Jackson engaged in genocide against Native Americans; Lincoln imprisoned people against war without trial; FD Roosevelt put loyal American citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestors; and on and on.

Let us recognize that leaders in a democracy have faults. Let us decry those faults. But let us not destroy the valued contributions that our leaders have made. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

------------------------------
Bob Riffenburgh
Retired (Mostly)

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Dear Maryclare,

You cite Fisher:
"I do think, however, that it is an essential part of the problem which, if ignored, will prevent us from solving it, if we do not recognize profoundly important differences between races, or if we imagine erroneously as to believe that such differences are rapidly disappearing through race mixture, By profoundly important differences, I mean, of course, not the superficial indications provided by skin and hair, but temperamental differences affecting the moral nature."

clearly this an egregiously wrong headed belief, made worse by it being held by someone whose whole reputation is built on the interpretation of data. We should never forget that heroes have feet of clay and nothing is true simply because of the person who says it. But you omit Fisher's preceding sentence:



------------------------------
Tom Parke
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Hello Tom,

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 05:36
From: Ian Parke
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Dear Maryclare,

You cite Fisher:
"I do think, however, that it is an essential part of the problem which, if ignored, will prevent us from solving it, if we do not recognize profoundly important differences between races, or if we imagine erroneously as to believe that such differences are rapidly disappearing through race mixture, By profoundly important differences, I mean, of course, not the superficial indications provided by skin and hair, but temperamental differences affecting the moral nature."

clearly this an egregiously wrong headed belief, made worse by it being held by someone whose whole reputation is built on the interpretation of data. We should never forget that heroes have feet of clay and nothing is true simply because of the person who says it. But you omit Fisher's preceding sentence:

"Mankind as a whole certainly constitutes a single family, and it is an old ideal and certainly not a dead one to treat all mankind as our brethren."

Now we can note that he doesn't explicitly say that he shares this ideal! However simply taking the moment to state this, at least to me reduces my repugnance to what he says next.

Furthermore he goes on to say:

"and without assuming that racial intermixture is necessarily a step in the right direction, however much, assuming it could be accomplished in, say, ten thousand years, its accomplishment might seem to simplify world problems."

So his "solution" is more interracial mixing? He's certainly not your average racist or white supremacist!

Best,
Tom

 

------------------------------
Tom Parke

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Thank you Maryclare for taking the time to look into this and for providing a sourced argument, which should have been provided from the outset. I have looked into the materials you quoted/linked to and I agree the following (which you cited) is worthy of condemnation:

Mankind as a whole certainly constitutes a single family, and it is an old ideal and certainly not a dead one to treat all mankind as our brethren. I do think, however, that it is an essential part of the problem which, if ignored, will prevent us from solving it, if we do not recognize profoundly important differences between races, or if we imagine erroneously as to believe that such differences are rapidly disappearing through race mixture, By profoundly important differences, I mean, of course, not the superficial indications provided by skin and hair, but temperamental differences affecting the moral nature.

I also agree that Fisher's participation on the Committee for Legalizing Eugenic Sterilization is troubling.  Even though the Eugenics Society lobbied for "voluntary" sterilization, the argument against it by Hyacinth Morgan that prevailed in the House of Commons was that is was fundamentally anti-working class and would only be used on the poor. (From the article by John Macnicol you linked to.)  Considering Fisher's enthusiasm for sterilizing "mental defectives" (an example of which you cited) that fear was entirely justified.


------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2020 12:55
From: Maryclare Griffin
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I recommend that you review the evidence cited in the Twitter thread I just posted and reevaluate: https://twitter.com/mcmcgriffin/status/1270378107615293442 The sources I cited are not Wikipedia - I hope you will take them seriously. It isn't a complete review of Fisher's despicable views, but if it's not enough I don't know what else to say.

------------------------------
Maryclare Griffin

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head. 
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate. 

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity. 

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities. 

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us. 

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships. 











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

Thank you for offering your voice, Derrick.

Rob Santos
Urban Institute​

------------------------------
Robert Santos
Vice President & Chief Methodologist
The Urban Institute
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

Thanks very much Derrick,
    I find your perspective to be very useful in my attempts to understand the many things going on right now (of which this Fisher thing is a very small part), and the really fundamental issue of how we can improve many aspects of our society.
    Please stay engaged.

------------------------------
J. S. (Steve) Marron
Univ. of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

I completely agree with Derrick Cordy's comments. Fisher's views on race were not just 'distasteful'. ('Distasteful' is wearing plaid and stripes together.) His views were and are truly dangerous. The views of Fisher and other highly educated, upper class scientists and leaders across Europe and the United States provided support, encouragement and a veneer of respectability to groups such as the Nazis and the KKK, both during his time and up to the present day. They lead to death.

Black statisticians have been clear that the Fisher award's name needs to change (see also the discussion Daniela Witten started in Twitter: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392727252623364). If we white statisticians don't listen, or continue to ignore or discount or minimize the issue, then we need to stop wondering why there are so few black statisticians. #BlackLivesMatter.

------------------------------
Ann M. Brearley, PhD, MS
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
University of Minnesota
brea0022@umn.edu
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

Some of the posts in the various threads of these discussions have come across as arguing that Fisher's strong advocacy for eugenics wasn't so bad, as long as he didn't explicitly say "Black people are inferior to White people". I disagree. It WAS so bad. It was very bad. The ideas of eugenics were used to advocate for and justify terrible actions, against Blacks, Jews, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and women, among others. A few of these are listed below, taken verbatim from the timeline at the Minnesota Historical Society's website https://www.mnopedia.org/thing/eugenics-minnesota, which was brought to my attention today by a young Black woman of my acquaintance. I am sure that similar histories could be found for other US states and other countries.

"1924

Eugenicists succeed in lobbying Congress to pass the Immigration Act. The act ends immigration from Asia and suppresses Italian, Eastern European, and Jewish immigration. It also results in the creation of the US Border Patrol.

1927

The Buck v. Bell US Supreme Court decision upholds compulsory sterilization, which, as of 2020, has not been overturned.

1945

Many become aware of the horrors of the Holocaust fueled in part by the advancement of Nazi eugenics through the 1930s and 40s, which was inspired by US eugenic policies and bolstered by American eugenicists' financial and scholarly contributions.

1972

Testimony of the United States Senate Committee reveals that at least 2,000 Black women had been involuntarily sterilized without their consent or knowledge, oftentimes under threat of losing government benefits.

1973

The Southern Poverty Law Center charges that the Relf sisters were sterilized without consent. Investigations reveal that the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare sterilizes over 100,000 people every year without their consent.

1976

An investigation of four out of twelve Indian Health Service regions done by the US General Accounting Office reveals that widespread sterilizations of Native American women took place every year, including in Minnesota."

------------------------------
Ann M. Brearley, PhD, MS
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
University of Minnesota
brea0022@umn.edu
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 11:51
From: Ann Brearley
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I completely agree with Derrick Cordy's comments. Fisher's views on race were not just 'distasteful'. ('Distasteful' is wearing plaid and stripes together.) His views were and are truly dangerous. The views of Fisher and other highly educated, upper class scientists and leaders across Europe and the United States provided support, encouragement and a veneer of respectability to groups such as the Nazis and the KKK, both during his time and up to the present day. They lead to death.

Black statisticians have been clear that the Fisher award's name needs to change (see also the discussion Daniela Witten started in Twitter: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392727252623364). If we white statisticians don't listen, or continue to ignore or discount or minimize the issue, then we need to stop wondering why there are so few black statisticians. #BlackLivesMatter.

------------------------------
Ann M. Brearley, PhD, MS
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
University of Minnesota
brea0022@umn.edu

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

​Thank you Ann, for your clear and compelling statement in support of the ASA board's decision to rename the Fisher Award. I also heartily endorse this decision by the board.  .

------------------------------
Stan Altan
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2020 22:29
From: Ann Brearley
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Some of the posts in the various threads of these discussions have come across as arguing that Fisher's strong advocacy for eugenics wasn't so bad, as long as he didn't explicitly say "Black people are inferior to White people". I disagree. It WAS so bad. It was very bad. The ideas of eugenics were used to advocate for and justify terrible actions, against Blacks, Jews, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and women, among others. A few of these are listed below, taken verbatim from the timeline at the Minnesota Historical Society's website https://www.mnopedia.org/thing/eugenics-minnesota, which was brought to my attention today by a young Black woman of my acquaintance. I am sure that similar histories could be found for other US states and other countries.

"1924

Eugenicists succeed in lobbying Congress to pass the Immigration Act. The act ends immigration from Asia and suppresses Italian, Eastern European, and Jewish immigration. It also results in the creation of the US Border Patrol.

1927

The Buck v. Bell US Supreme Court decision upholds compulsory sterilization, which, as of 2020, has not been overturned.

1945

Many become aware of the horrors of the Holocaust fueled in part by the advancement of Nazi eugenics through the 1930s and 40s, which was inspired by US eugenic policies and bolstered by American eugenicists' financial and scholarly contributions.

1972

Testimony of the United States Senate Committee reveals that at least 2,000 Black women had been involuntarily sterilized without their consent or knowledge, oftentimes under threat of losing government benefits.

1973

The Southern Poverty Law Center charges that the Relf sisters were sterilized without consent. Investigations reveal that the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare sterilizes over 100,000 people every year without their consent.

1976

An investigation of four out of twelve Indian Health Service regions done by the US General Accounting Office reveals that widespread sterilizations of Native American women took place every year, including in Minnesota."

------------------------------
Ann M. Brearley, PhD, MS
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
University of Minnesota
brea0022@umn.edu

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 11:51
From: Ann Brearley
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I completely agree with Derrick Cordy's comments. Fisher's views on race were not just 'distasteful'. ('Distasteful' is wearing plaid and stripes together.) His views were and are truly dangerous. The views of Fisher and other highly educated, upper class scientists and leaders across Europe and the United States provided support, encouragement and a veneer of respectability to groups such as the Nazis and the KKK, both during his time and up to the present day. They lead to death.

Black statisticians have been clear that the Fisher award's name needs to change (see also the discussion Daniela Witten started in Twitter: https://twitter.com/daniela_witten/status/1268392727252623364). If we white statisticians don't listen, or continue to ignore or discount or minimize the issue, then we need to stop wondering why there are so few black statisticians. #BlackLivesMatter.

------------------------------
Ann M. Brearley, PhD, MS
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
University of Minnesota
brea0022@umn.edu

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

I appreciate the discussion that has taken place here, it signals to me that many of us care.  To start working towards inclusiveness we, the majority group, need to be ready to listen more and learn from the minority population. This will also require uncomfortable reflection of how institutionalized racism is in our society at virtually every level including in professional organizations like ours.

What has troubled me about the discussion and petition to rename the Fisher Lecture after David Blackwell is that is conflates different things. 

The discussion to ending the Fisher Lecture in light of current events can and should be pursued independently of honoring David Blackwell. The ethical dilemma we, as a profession, face with Fisher is that his ideological convictions were despicable but his scientific contributions have played undeniably a significant role across virtually every field of science. I would like to learn more from the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) community on how the existence of the Fisher Lecture impacts their life personally and professionally. Further, it is this community that should have a sizable say in what will happen to the Fisher Lecture and/or its name.  

David Blackwell deserves to be honored by his own right. Such an honor should be connected to Blackwell's accomplishments and not to those of Fisher's.  Simply substituting Fisher's name by that of Blackwell communicates, at least to me, that David Blackwell is a "second choice," which is not what I think the intention is behind the name change. 

The merits of an award named after Blackwell, in addition to his scientific accomplishments, can be discussed and decided by the BIPOC community, all other members and the participating associations.

A suggestion for consideration is that in addition to their outstanding research achievements, the recipient has also made significant contributions to ending the oppression of BIPOC people in statistics or through statistical research.
Moreover, linked to the award, an annual scholarship for a BIPOC undergraduate and graduate student and for a BIPOC postdoc should be awarded. The recipients of these scholarships should be identified by nomination and chosen by a jury comprised of BIPOC statisticians.  

If we are not willing to engage in actions that will directly address and help eliminate the inherent racism, we risk accomplishing possibly not much more beyond the current status quo, which we all agree is unacceptable. 

Thank you for listening (reading).

Best wishes to everyone and stay safe,

Ulrike Genschel
Associate Professor of Statistics
Iowa State University

------------------------------
Ulrike Genschel
Associate Professor
Iowa State University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

There are many elements and directions around which we *can* have this type of conversation, most of the usual ones which seem to be represented on this thread.  Derrick Cordy provides a focus on where we *should* be having this conversation.  For most of us -- particularly those of us who are white and in the US -- approaching the conversation in this way is likely to be neither familiar nor comfortable.  Nevertheless, I think it's where the weight of our discussion really should lie at this stage.  And once it does, it seems to me there's not much left to discuss.  Fisher's impact on statistics is nearly unparalleled and will remain that way, but that's not the point.  If ASA truly aims to be the diverse and inclusive society that we say we do, then having one of our society's most prestigious lectureships named after Fisher is simply inconsistent with that goal. 

Eric Kolaczyk
Director, Hariri Institute for Computing
Department of Mathematics & Statistics
Boston University

------------------------------
Eric Kolaczyk
Boston University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 08:48
From: Derrick Cordy
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

I struggled with whether to respond to this thread. I will say first that I am African-American and have very strong feelings about this subject.

The accomplishments based justifications are very scary, I believe, to most African-Americans:

How many research papers can make up for racism?
How many pounds of cotton can justify purchasing a slave?

However, we are not living in 1930. We are in 2020 and Black people are being murdered on television, choked out and hunted down from pickup trucks. And, those are just the ones caught on camera. There are many more every week that never get captured on video.

R.A. Fisher is dead. He did provide great contributions to the field. That is not the debate.

The real question is do you care about how this makes a 17 year old African-American woman from rural South Carolina considering her major feel? And, that is the only question that I care about. No one would call A.S.A. a very diverse organization. Sure there is always the one black person but that is not diversity.

I can acknowledge Fisher's contributions but I will not be attending the Fisher lecture and neither will most minorities.

If any of you have even a modicum of sensitivity I believe these are the wrong questions. If we want to improve the diversity in our organization we have to acknowledge that minorities may look at this equation very differently. When questions like this have come up in society we have gotten out voted in society and therefore conclude that organizations like the A.S.A. are not for us.

This is not a question of do some white statisticians believe Fisher made a contribution to the field that outweighs his beliefs. This is a question of does your organization care enough about the gifted minority child that WILL pick a different field because they cannot see themselves in ours.

Fisher's perspectives were not simply complicated but dangerous. Even the arguments about inter-mixing are racist. People justifying bad with worse.

----

This part below is for all minorities reading this:

If this is a real debate for the A.S.A. I believe we should simply not renew our memberships.











------------------------------
Derrick Cordy

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------
​

Thank you Allan for sharing your thoughts. We actually met once some years ago but I do not expect you to remember. If the name is changed I am not sure what it would be changed to. David Blackwell already is honored by an IMS lecture and an MAA-NAM lecture. Perhaps it should remain nameless, as Dominic suggested. Or perhaps rename it after John Tukey (the brother-in-law of James Lucas's favorite professor). Or perhaps it should remain the Fisher lecture and a disclaimer should be added to the effect that it is intended to honor his scientific contributions and that the ASA condemns and disavows his eugenicist views.  

In any case, I think this should be about what Fisher actually said/wrote (most of which appears to have been prejudiced against working class whites and white "mental defectives"), when he said/wrote it (I can cut him more slack for things he expressed as a callow youth than when he was older), and what should be done about it. Moreover, I think this should involve a sober-minded evaluation of the evidence (which has now been provided) rather than emotional appeals or attempts to establish one's "woke" credentials.*

*Speaking only for myself, what I have seen from some other white statisticians reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjDebAl8Dgc

And also of this:

https://www.theonion.com/white-ally-willing-to-do-whatever-it-takes-to-make-sure-1843998388


------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-11-2020 02:19
From: Allan Stewart-Oaten
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

Thanks Robert.  I don't imagine I'd have agreed with Fisher on any current political issue, or would have liked him socially in the least.  George Barnard, who was - shall we say - "to the left", said he would talk statistics with Fisher and politics with Neyman, never the reverse.  Fisher was wrong on some major issues (smoking was another).  His papers can be hard to follow, and some of his proofs more so.  But no one - NO ONE - has been more important in the development of our discipline, even in directions he didn't like.  (And very few - maybe 10? - have been more important in mathematical genetics, or even in less prominent areas like ecology.)   People like me, who found him often baffling, have learned enormously from smarter people who got the message, if not all the details.  I was going to make a list, but it's far too long - is there any major figure I could omit?  This "push to rename" is shooting ourselves - in the head.
David Blackwell was an admirable man.  He co-authored the first text I took seriously.  I wanted him to be a candidate for UC Santa Barbara's Chancellor, around 1972.  He politely said no, firmly but not in the least dismissive of this "upstart" (as Fisher called I. J. Good).  Name a major lectureship (or anything else - annual workshop?) after him IF APPROPRIATE.  It probably is, but don't do it because he was Black.  He doesn't need it, and Black people in general don't need more paternalism.

------------------------------
Allan Stewart-Oaten
Emeritus, Ecology and Statistics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2020 08:58
From: Robert O'Brien
Subject: The recent push to rename the R.A. Fisher Lectureship

On twitter, one of the members of the award committee for the R.A. Fisher Lectureship argued that it should be renamed because Fisher was "really big into eugenics" and noted that eugenicist is the second word used to describe him on his Wikipedia page and that he therefore "was not a great guy." She also mentions that Fisher "said some terrible things in the 1950's" but declines to quote them. (Which makes it quite difficult to evaluate her argument.) From here, she goes on to equate the Fisher Lectureship with confederate monuments and the J Marion Sims Lectureship, both of which I consider specious analogies. (James Marion Sims experimented on enslaved black women and for this reason the Lectureship was retired in 2017 and rightfully so.)

This is the sum total of her argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, which I would characterize as proof surrogate. (To use a modern colloquialism, where are the receipts?) If this is the argument she made to "a number of full professors from top departments" in statistics/biostatistics then it is no surprise to me that the reception was tepid.

It was disheartening to observe many statisticians on twitter offering effusive praise and engaging in bandwagonism. Where is the critical thinking? Why the praise of intellectual laziness? Subsequent to this, a petition was created on change.org citing Wikipedia (I really appreciate the effort that the creator put into it) that currently has 3861 signatories. It also includes the hyperbolic claim: "By honoring Fisher we dishonor the entire field of Statistics."

Now, it is true that Fisher opposed the 1951 UNESCO statement and wanted to revise to:

"Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes"

However, according to William Provine, this was the prevailing view of geneticists of the era (a view that stretches back to Darwin). Fisher and a few others only differed in that they thought the evidence was conclusive that these differences existed, whereas the majority did not think the evidence was conclusive for the belief.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/26/3/857/1745590

From the same article:

Now came the difficult question for [H J] Muller and the others who agreed with his criticisms [e.g., Fisher] so far. How were geneticists to use their scientific belief that races probably differed in hereditary mental capacities to conclude that all races should be treated equally in society and that race prejudice should be rooted out of society? Muller did not shrink from the issue:

"It would be a tragic mistake to suppose that the above realistic, scientific view leads to the conclusion that race prejudices are justified. It is highly important, especially at this crisis in the relations between peoples, for the committee to give the correct argument against these prejudices. The essential points are that the different racial groups (a) are enough alike genetically (b) are capable of being so much influenced in mental development by cultural and other environmental factors, and (c) contain such important individual genetic differences for psychological traits within each one of them, that all of them are capable of participating and cooperating fruitfully in modern civilization (as has also been empirically demonstrated). It also follows from this that all men should be given equal opportunities, equal civil rights, and the privilege of being judged and treated entirely as individuals with- out reference to their racial origin... Undoubtedly the truth of the point of view above expressed will some time be generally recognized. It would be very unfortunate if in the meantime a statement had been drawn up by the committee which made the argument for fair treatment of one race by another depend upon the spurious notion that they are identical in the genetic basis of psychological traits. (UNESCO, 1953, pp. 50-51)"

Now, others may be content to cast aside Fisher for his feet of clay in the absence of a substantive argument but I am not. The questions should be: Was there sufficient evidence circa 1951 for Fisher to conclude that his belief that "groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" was wrong? Did Fisher's now discredited belief lead him to advocate for terrible things? Since I have yet to see anything resembling a substantive argument for renaming the Fisher Lectureship, I decline to support the name change, although I am open to change my mind if a legitimate argument ever materializes. I do, however, support honoring David Blackwell, but that could be achieved by creating another lectureship and award in his honor.

------------------------------
Robert O'Brien
------------------------------