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
------------------------------