another look at the bio professor-killer
I just found it ironic that of the six persons that were shot in the recent Huntsville killings, four of them were biologists of color. Check out this blog by Doctor Cleveland at dagblog.com that raises a question the media seems to think is unimportant (or too sensitive). Doctor Clevaland states,
I think the question -- that is, whether the shooting was motivated by race
-- is a fair one.
Non-whites comprise about a third of the U.S. population. However, their representation in the field of biology field is far from this. According to the National Science Foundation, of the 46,280 faculty with doctorate degrees in biology, agriculture, or life sciences who work in educational facilities as of 2003,only 5,510 (11.9%) are Asian, 1,550 (3.4%) are Hispanic, and 1,230 (2.7%) are Black (NSF rounds the numbers in tens for privacy purposes).
I may be wrong, but the Huntsville Biological Sciences department seems to be a typical microcosm of a Research I biology department. In all, there are 14 non-retired professors, 4 emeriti professors, 3 adjunct professors, and 1 retired professor. Mathematically, we would expect 2.7 Asians, 0.7 Hispanics, and 0.6 Blacks. With 2 Asians, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Blacks, the Huntsville department would be considered diverse.
Now, considering that Dr. Bishop managed to kill all of the black professors, kill half of the Asian professors, and injure the only Hispanic professor, I would say that the issue of race has to be raised. If not in the question of motive, in the question of effect. Further, considering that only only one of the 8 remaining white professors were brutalized, I would then start to ask some questions about who was targetted. For instance, critical questions might be: Were all faculty members present at the meeting? Or not? Was the meeting closed to Dr. Bishop? Or was she invited in? How often did the faculty members that were killed/maimed meet together? Was it on a weekly basis? Monthly basis? Or rarely?
The answers to these questions would give the reader more information to ascertain the circumstances around the event. Right now, we have to write her off as "crazy", "mental", or "stressed". But if I were a betting man, I'd say that those people were targeted. If not because of race itself, because of some role that they played in the department. Possibly the fact that she was being denied tenure for the second time may reveal some more of the story. Maybe one or more of the victims had established a rapport with her, (positive, neutral, or negative) so they became blameful in her twisted mind.
In any case, this stressed-out tenure story is weak on all fronts. Since I have been in graduate school, I've seen many a professor go through the tenure process, some who didn't make it. None of them have become homicidal. And the stress of tenure process shouldn't be accepted as an excuse to lose respect for humanity. Further, as the details of her troubling past are revealed, maybe we will see that she was given the benefit of the doubt too many times. I've never heard of someone accidentally shooting someone. Even people who kill people in a car accident get sentenced criminally. Some family had enough money, wealth, or prestige to get this woman off. Now innocent people must pay the consequence.
Sorry, no sympathy here.
On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.
I think the question -- that is, whether the shooting was motivated by race
-- is a fair one.
Non-whites comprise about a third of the U.S. population. However, their representation in the field of biology field is far from this. According to the National Science Foundation, of the 46,280 faculty with doctorate degrees in biology, agriculture, or life sciences who work in educational facilities as of 2003,only 5,510 (11.9%) are Asian, 1,550 (3.4%) are Hispanic, and 1,230 (2.7%) are Black (NSF rounds the numbers in tens for privacy purposes).
I may be wrong, but the Huntsville Biological Sciences department seems to be a typical microcosm of a Research I biology department. In all, there are 14 non-retired professors, 4 emeriti professors, 3 adjunct professors, and 1 retired professor. Mathematically, we would expect 2.7 Asians, 0.7 Hispanics, and 0.6 Blacks. With 2 Asians, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Blacks, the Huntsville department would be considered diverse.
Now, considering that Dr. Bishop managed to kill all of the black professors, kill half of the Asian professors, and injure the only Hispanic professor, I would say that the issue of race has to be raised. If not in the question of motive, in the question of effect. Further, considering that only only one of the 8 remaining white professors were brutalized, I would then start to ask some questions about who was targetted. For instance, critical questions might be: Were all faculty members present at the meeting? Or not? Was the meeting closed to Dr. Bishop? Or was she invited in? How often did the faculty members that were killed/maimed meet together? Was it on a weekly basis? Monthly basis? Or rarely?
The answers to these questions would give the reader more information to ascertain the circumstances around the event. Right now, we have to write her off as "crazy", "mental", or "stressed". But if I were a betting man, I'd say that those people were targeted. If not because of race itself, because of some role that they played in the department. Possibly the fact that she was being denied tenure for the second time may reveal some more of the story. Maybe one or more of the victims had established a rapport with her, (positive, neutral, or negative) so they became blameful in her twisted mind.
In any case, this stressed-out tenure story is weak on all fronts. Since I have been in graduate school, I've seen many a professor go through the tenure process, some who didn't make it. None of them have become homicidal. And the stress of tenure process shouldn't be accepted as an excuse to lose respect for humanity. Further, as the details of her troubling past are revealed, maybe we will see that she was given the benefit of the doubt too many times. I've never heard of someone accidentally shooting someone. Even people who kill people in a car accident get sentenced criminally. Some family had enough money, wealth, or prestige to get this woman off. Now innocent people must pay the consequence.
Sorry, no sympathy here.
Comments