I am perhaps a bit confused and lack context on the argument being made here. As far as I can tell, it appears the argument is that the telescope should not be named after Webb, because he was "in...
Exemplary
I am perhaps a bit confused and lack context on the argument being made here.
As far as I can tell, it appears the argument is that the telescope should not be named after Webb, because he was "in part responsible for implementing what was by then federal policy", and because he had a meeting (one he appears to have been summoned to, not one he initiated) regarding organization of a hearing, as part of his job prior to being the NASA administrator, with a US Senator who led the subcommittee responsible for the witch hunt. There is also a reference to homophobic quotes that the article notes were misattributed to Webb (the reference they give points out that at least one of the quotes was actually from an official Senate committee report, a depressing reminder of how official this policy was, and how ridiculous the scare).
The meeting referenced is described by a short post-meeting memorandum, and a cover page of material provided to Webb to prepare for the meeting (the material does not seem to be digitized, or at least in the same file). At the meeting, where Webb was only one of the civil servants involved, the impression I get, at least, is of civil servants trying to deal with a crusading politician. In particular, consider the following:
We suggested that the hearings begin with testimony by competent medical authorities on the nature and the scope of the problem, this testimony being designed to put the problem in proper perspective. After that could come testimony from senior Government security officers about the security problems involved. We noted in this connection that homosexuals were one category of security risks, and we discussed some of the other categories.
Consider that this is them suggesting the importance of keeping "the problem in proper perspective" with the Senator (Hoey, who I think rightly has had his name removed from buildings) whose subcommittee would go on to report, despite, at least according to Wikipedia, the professional investigation and testimony given to them not agreeing with their conclusions, that
investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive in influence upon his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might command the influence of a pervert.... One homosexual can pollute a Government office
Similarly, later in the meeting, the civil servants noted to the Senator that, if his subcommittee asked the civil service for names and files, they would have no choice but "to decline and refer the matter to the White House which would put it right in the President's lap."
Outside of this meeting, is the entirety of the argument here that Webb did not fight against government policy, and presumably resign his position and leave his career? Is there other material that I'm missing? It does appear that the authors are suggesting that it would be inappropriate to name anything after any individual working for the US government in the 1950s through, presumably, at least the 1990s when the executive order behind the policy was rescinded, but also replaced in part with don't-ask-don't-tell ("Some argue that if Webb was complicit, so was everyone working in the administration at the time. We agree. [...] individually its members would be poor choices for the honor for some of the same reasons that Webb is. ").
There is, perhaps, an argument to be made against naming things after people more generally, but the authors don't make this argument. They instead argue for Harriet Tubman, a person so entirely unrelated to the astronomy as to be an insult, as imperialismus points out, "to all the disadvantaged people who have worked in that field", whose only connection appears to be being someone of household-name prestige that would be an easy choice for someone who wanted a token name without actually caring enough to think of someone relevant, and a person whose only connection to persecution for sexual orientation could I suppose be argued, in a similar way, to be complicity, particularly through her not leaving religious groups that to this day continue such persecution (yes, this is a ridiculous argument, yet it appears not entirely dissimilar to theirs).
It could also make sense, as the article about the misattributed quotes they link to points out, to call out the people responsible for pushing the scare and the policy, or, following their view of calling out people responsible for policies under their leadership, to call for things named after Eisenhower to be renamed, as the person who actually signed the executive order putting the policy in place. Going after a civil servant instead seems odd.
I have to wonder whether this article stems from a reluctance to drop an argument that, if the quotes that were later found to be misattributed were true, would be enormously more reasonable. Or, I might wonder, whether it is the unfortunate result of scientists attempting to do history research rather than consulting and collaborating with historians: here I am also guilty, though I can at least argue that my partner is an actual historian.
There is some context being left out, so I'd like to provide a bit more context as I feel this comment goes a bit too far in absolving Webb and in other places is borderline inaccurate. I...
There is some context being left out, so I'd like to provide a bit more context as I feel this comment goes a bit too far in absolving Webb and in other places is borderline inaccurate. I generally try to avoid quote-a-palooza responses, but I'll use some statements here as a jumping off point.
As far as I can tell, it appears the argument is that the telescope should not be named after Webb, because he was "in part responsible for implementing what was by then federal policy", and because he had a meeting (one he appears to have been summoned to, not one he initiated) regarding organization of a hearing, as part of his job prior to being the NASA administrator, with a US Senator who led the subcommittee responsible for the witch hunt.
There is other supporting evidence to suggest that Webb played a more active role than as a civil servant navigating an official policy position, some of which is indeed referenced in the article, and some of which can be found in books on the State Department at that period in time. I'll actually begin with some outside resources that I think provide more context for the meeting that Webb attended and the materials he brought with. One of the more comprehensive books on the Lavender Scare is aptly titled The Lavender Scare by David Johnson, which is fortunately digitized on the Internet Archive. There is one passage that provides some vital context on the June, 1950 meeting between State Department officials and staffers for the Hoey sub-committee. The above link brings you to that passage, but I'll quote the relevant portions here:
On June 22, President Truman and Undersecretary of State James Webb met to discuss how the Hoey Committee and the White House might "work together on the homosexual investigation." Truman told the undersecretary "he was sure we could find a proper basis for co-operation " and agreed that Webb and two White House aides should meet with Hoey to establish a modus operandi. [emphasis added]
This is the planning of the meeting referenced in the summary memorandum linked in the Scientific American article. The key bit of context that this provides is that Webb was not just a civil servant going to a required meeting, but in fact was involved in the planning of the meeting in the first place. The wording here implies that he may have even been the one to suggest it in the first place! It is tough to tell without access to the primary source materials that Johnson cites here, which I could not find online.
In preparation for this meeting, which was to happen a week later, Carlisle Humelsine sent James Webb a packet of material to provide information current investigations into gays, as well as:
(3) A memorandum suggesting a basis for discussion and briefing for your meeting with Senator Hoey on the objectives and methods of operation of the Senate Committee established to look into the problem of homoesecuals and moral perverts in the Federal Government
and
(4) A memorandum suggesting the organization and principles to govern the Department's participation in the Senate Inquiry.
These are quotes from the first archival document linked in the SciAm article. Remember, Webb had met with Truman days before to plan a meeting with the Hoey subcommittee to answer these questions, and here is Humelsine sending supporting documents that direct address this goal - establishing an MO for cooperation between the Senate and the State Department in this matter. While it is not said explicitly, I think the timing of above events, the fact that Humelsine was lower ranking than Webb (Deputy Undersecretary vs Undersecretary), as well as the wording of the above passages suggest that Webb had probably requested this document be prepared to help him prepare for his meeting. Humelsine was suggesting positions for Webb to take in the meeting regarding cooperation and a modus operandi. The above linked document was just a cover memo for the accompanying materials that Webb needed to prepare.
Then we have the after action report of the meeting itself, the Spingarn memo also linked to in the article. The above comment does note some passages that, at least on the surface, indicate that Webb and the other civil servants at the meeting were less than enthusiastic about the potential investigation. It is indeed the case that:
later in the meeting, the civil servants noted to the Senator that, if his subcommittee asked the civil service for names and files, they would have no choice but "to decline and refer the matter to the White House which would put it right in the President's lap."
Was this because they were opposed to the idea of investigating homosexuals in the civil service, and wanted to dissuade the Senator from requesting files? It could be. But here once again David Johnson provides some context. From the same Internet Archive link above we see that:
The White House was also heavily involved in managing the investigation. Already alarmed by the political implications of the continuing charges that the administration was harboring homosexuals, Truman aides worried that the Hoey investigation might lead to an escalation.
With this context, it seems to me that the State department officials at the meeting were more concerned with mitigating political fallout than they were squashing investigations. They were managing the investigations, not trying to shut them down.
Perhaps the most damning line of the Spingarn memo is this:
Mr. Webb gave the Senator some material on the subject which Humelsine of State had prepared.
These are the aforementioned materials that Humelsine sent to Webb earlier in the week (likely upon his request, in my opinion). After a little digging, I think I managed to track down at least excerpts from those materials, a document by Humelsine called "Information on Homosexuals", which were attached along with the cover memo linked above. There is too much to quote from (and it's not easily copyable), but I highly suggest clicking the above link to read through some of the materials that Webb thought it prudent to supply to the Senate subcomittee. Put simply, it is extremely homophobic, says that homosexual employees create morale problems, were neurotic, etc, and:
Humelsine also listed the broad outlines of methods used to determine if employees were homosexual. These included investigating previous workplaces, where they had lived, and who their friends were. School, credit, and police records might also be checked. In some cases, an employee might be placed under surveillance.
This is the type of information that Webb procured and passed along to a Senate committee investigating civil servants. This brings me to my final point. Through this, and indeed in the SciAm article, we've been referring to Webb as a "civil servant", simply doing things that were a "part of his job prior to being the NASA administrator", with the only alternative being to "presumably resign his position and leave his career".
James Webb was at this time an Undersecretary of State. In the 1950s, this was the second highest ranking position in the State Department, with his immediate superior being the US Secretary of State. He was an important figure in the State department, important enough to meet personally with the President and offer suggestions as to policy, and certainly important enough to help shape policy if he had wanted to. Moral scares like the Lavender Scare, or the Red Scare, or whichever Scare comes next, only stop when you have decent people willing to wield what power they have to stop them. Sometimes that person is a Senator taking a risky political stance, sometimes it's a journalist taking on the issue, sometimes it's a Senate staffer. Webb probably could have pushed back and potentially made a difference - we don't know because he didn't try.
I don't disagree with the article's main thrust, but surely there is a better name out there than Harriet Tubman. Impressive though she was, she had nothing to do with astrophysics, and it would...
I don't disagree with the article's main thrust, but surely there is a better name out there than Harriet Tubman. Impressive though she was, she had nothing to do with astrophysics, and it would be an insult to all the disadvantaged people who have worked in that field to suggest that a space telescope could only be named for a person outside that field, because none other is worthy.
If I were to suggest a name, I would suggest Emmy Noether, whom none other than Albert Einstein called the greatest woman mathematician who ever lived. The theorem which bears her name, Noether's theorem, is absolutely fundamental to modern physics. She's a tragically underappreciated giant in the field of physics, and surely a space telescope should be named for a scientist with relevant credentials.
Yeah, I agree regarding the proposed name in the article. While Noether was an amazing physicist, her work is also not super related to astrophysics (if that is seen as a "requirement"). I'm kind...
Yeah, I agree regarding the proposed name in the article. While Noether was an amazing physicist, her work is also not super related to astrophysics (if that is seen as a "requirement"). I'm kind of of the opinion that we should just name these things like they do the Mars rovers, and not after a singular person.
There are surely other names that are just as valid. However, I'm not sure I agree that Noether is not super related to astrophysics. I am no astrophysicist, but as I understand it, Noether's...
There are surely other names that are just as valid. However, I'm not sure I agree that Noether is not super related to astrophysics. I am no astrophysicist, but as I understand it, Noether's theorem resolved the apparent paradox that Einstein's general relativity appeared to violate conservation of energy (the theorem fundamentally relates symmetries to conservation laws). There is a reason Einstein was so impressed by her: her work was directly related to his own, and I'm not sure anyone could claim that Einstein is not relevant to astrophysics.
I think I'd stand by my original statement. Her work is relevant in the sense that it is fundamental, but most working astrophysicists can probably go a very long time without using Noether's work...
I think I'd stand by my original statement. Her work is relevant in the sense that it is fundamental, but most working astrophysicists can probably go a very long time without using Noether's work to any real degree. It's simply doesn't come up when it comes to observing astrophysical objects, and to be honest it also doesn't that much when it comes to modelling them either - most calculations in astrophysics take place in the non-relativistic regime (the three main exceptions being if you are studying compact objects like black holes and neutron stars, or doing some type of gravitational lensing analysis, or gravitational wave stuff. But global non-conservation of energy is also not super relevant there). It's more relevant for people studying GR, but that's not a super active field in it's own right these days. Also, when I say not relevant I don't mean not foundational or not impressive, I just mean that it's not super relevant to the day-to-day.
Yeah, okay, I understand what you mean. I happen to be a person who is overly fond of foundational work (like Gödel, Russell, Turing, Church, Hilbert and Einstein) but I understand it is not the...
Also, when I say not relevant I don't mean not foundational or not impressive, I just mean that it's not super relevant to the day-to-day.
Yeah, okay, I understand what you mean. I happen to be a person who is overly fond of foundational work (like Gödel, Russell, Turing, Church, Hilbert and Einstein) but I understand it is not the kind of stuff one encounters in the day-to-day.
Yeah, I think there's enough people in the field, e.g. Cecilia Payne that figured out that stars are made of hydrogen : https://youtu.be/damkjiFNn5E?t=456
Yeah, I think there's enough people in the field, e.g. Cecilia Payne that figured out that stars are made of hydrogen :
This is a bit off-topic, but it kind of bugs me that the same document is presented twice (this one), but the way it is presented the second time makes it seem like they're trying to imply that it...
This is a bit off-topic, but it kind of bugs me that the same document is presented twice (this one), but the way it is presented the second time makes it seem like they're trying to imply that it is different evidence. I hope they just accidentally linked to the same document twice (since the alternative would look like they're trying to make it seem as if they have more evidence than they really do).
I am perhaps a bit confused and lack context on the argument being made here.
As far as I can tell, it appears the argument is that the telescope should not be named after Webb, because he was "in part responsible for implementing what was by then federal policy", and because he had a meeting (one he appears to have been summoned to, not one he initiated) regarding organization of a hearing, as part of his job prior to being the NASA administrator, with a US Senator who led the subcommittee responsible for the witch hunt. There is also a reference to homophobic quotes that the article notes were misattributed to Webb (the reference they give points out that at least one of the quotes was actually from an official Senate committee report, a depressing reminder of how official this policy was, and how ridiculous the scare).
The meeting referenced is described by a short post-meeting memorandum, and a cover page of material provided to Webb to prepare for the meeting (the material does not seem to be digitized, or at least in the same file). At the meeting, where Webb was only one of the civil servants involved, the impression I get, at least, is of civil servants trying to deal with a crusading politician. In particular, consider the following:
Consider that this is them suggesting the importance of keeping "the problem in proper perspective" with the Senator (Hoey, who I think rightly has had his name removed from buildings) whose subcommittee would go on to report, despite, at least according to Wikipedia, the professional investigation and testimony given to them not agreeing with their conclusions, that
Similarly, later in the meeting, the civil servants noted to the Senator that, if his subcommittee asked the civil service for names and files, they would have no choice but "to decline and refer the matter to the White House which would put it right in the President's lap."
Outside of this meeting, is the entirety of the argument here that Webb did not fight against government policy, and presumably resign his position and leave his career? Is there other material that I'm missing? It does appear that the authors are suggesting that it would be inappropriate to name anything after any individual working for the US government in the 1950s through, presumably, at least the 1990s when the executive order behind the policy was rescinded, but also replaced in part with don't-ask-don't-tell ("Some argue that if Webb was complicit, so was everyone working in the administration at the time. We agree. [...] individually its members would be poor choices for the honor for some of the same reasons that Webb is. ").
There is, perhaps, an argument to be made against naming things after people more generally, but the authors don't make this argument. They instead argue for Harriet Tubman, a person so entirely unrelated to the astronomy as to be an insult, as imperialismus points out, "to all the disadvantaged people who have worked in that field", whose only connection appears to be being someone of household-name prestige that would be an easy choice for someone who wanted a token name without actually caring enough to think of someone relevant, and a person whose only connection to persecution for sexual orientation could I suppose be argued, in a similar way, to be complicity, particularly through her not leaving religious groups that to this day continue such persecution (yes, this is a ridiculous argument, yet it appears not entirely dissimilar to theirs).
It could also make sense, as the article about the misattributed quotes they link to points out, to call out the people responsible for pushing the scare and the policy, or, following their view of calling out people responsible for policies under their leadership, to call for things named after Eisenhower to be renamed, as the person who actually signed the executive order putting the policy in place. Going after a civil servant instead seems odd.
I have to wonder whether this article stems from a reluctance to drop an argument that, if the quotes that were later found to be misattributed were true, would be enormously more reasonable. Or, I might wonder, whether it is the unfortunate result of scientists attempting to do history research rather than consulting and collaborating with historians: here I am also guilty, though I can at least argue that my partner is an actual historian.
Is there something being left out here?
There is some context being left out, so I'd like to provide a bit more context as I feel this comment goes a bit too far in absolving Webb and in other places is borderline inaccurate. I generally try to avoid quote-a-palooza responses, but I'll use some statements here as a jumping off point.
There is other supporting evidence to suggest that Webb played a more active role than as a civil servant navigating an official policy position, some of which is indeed referenced in the article, and some of which can be found in books on the State Department at that period in time. I'll actually begin with some outside resources that I think provide more context for the meeting that Webb attended and the materials he brought with. One of the more comprehensive books on the Lavender Scare is aptly titled The Lavender Scare by David Johnson, which is fortunately digitized on the Internet Archive. There is one passage that provides some vital context on the June, 1950 meeting between State Department officials and staffers for the Hoey sub-committee. The above link brings you to that passage, but I'll quote the relevant portions here:
This is the planning of the meeting referenced in the summary memorandum linked in the Scientific American article. The key bit of context that this provides is that Webb was not just a civil servant going to a required meeting, but in fact was involved in the planning of the meeting in the first place. The wording here implies that he may have even been the one to suggest it in the first place! It is tough to tell without access to the primary source materials that Johnson cites here, which I could not find online.
In preparation for this meeting, which was to happen a week later, Carlisle Humelsine sent James Webb a packet of material to provide information current investigations into gays, as well as:
and
These are quotes from the first archival document linked in the SciAm article. Remember, Webb had met with Truman days before to plan a meeting with the Hoey subcommittee to answer these questions, and here is Humelsine sending supporting documents that direct address this goal - establishing an MO for cooperation between the Senate and the State Department in this matter. While it is not said explicitly, I think the timing of above events, the fact that Humelsine was lower ranking than Webb (Deputy Undersecretary vs Undersecretary), as well as the wording of the above passages suggest that Webb had probably requested this document be prepared to help him prepare for his meeting. Humelsine was suggesting positions for Webb to take in the meeting regarding cooperation and a modus operandi. The above linked document was just a cover memo for the accompanying materials that Webb needed to prepare.
Then we have the after action report of the meeting itself, the Spingarn memo also linked to in the article. The above comment does note some passages that, at least on the surface, indicate that Webb and the other civil servants at the meeting were less than enthusiastic about the potential investigation. It is indeed the case that:
Was this because they were opposed to the idea of investigating homosexuals in the civil service, and wanted to dissuade the Senator from requesting files? It could be. But here once again David Johnson provides some context. From the same Internet Archive link above we see that:
With this context, it seems to me that the State department officials at the meeting were more concerned with mitigating political fallout than they were squashing investigations. They were managing the investigations, not trying to shut them down.
Perhaps the most damning line of the Spingarn memo is this:
These are the aforementioned materials that Humelsine sent to Webb earlier in the week (likely upon his request, in my opinion). After a little digging, I think I managed to track down at least excerpts from those materials, a document by Humelsine called "Information on Homosexuals", which were attached along with the cover memo linked above. There is too much to quote from (and it's not easily copyable), but I highly suggest clicking the above link to read through some of the materials that Webb thought it prudent to supply to the Senate subcomittee. Put simply, it is extremely homophobic, says that homosexual employees create morale problems, were neurotic, etc, and:
This is the type of information that Webb procured and passed along to a Senate committee investigating civil servants. This brings me to my final point. Through this, and indeed in the SciAm article, we've been referring to Webb as a "civil servant", simply doing things that were a "part of his job prior to being the NASA administrator", with the only alternative being to "presumably resign his position and leave his career".
James Webb was at this time an Undersecretary of State. In the 1950s, this was the second highest ranking position in the State Department, with his immediate superior being the US Secretary of State. He was an important figure in the State department, important enough to meet personally with the President and offer suggestions as to policy, and certainly important enough to help shape policy if he had wanted to. Moral scares like the Lavender Scare, or the Red Scare, or whichever Scare comes next, only stop when you have decent people willing to wield what power they have to stop them. Sometimes that person is a Senator taking a risky political stance, sometimes it's a journalist taking on the issue, sometimes it's a Senate staffer. Webb probably could have pushed back and potentially made a difference - we don't know because he didn't try.
I don't disagree with the article's main thrust, but surely there is a better name out there than Harriet Tubman. Impressive though she was, she had nothing to do with astrophysics, and it would be an insult to all the disadvantaged people who have worked in that field to suggest that a space telescope could only be named for a person outside that field, because none other is worthy.
If I were to suggest a name, I would suggest Emmy Noether, whom none other than Albert Einstein called the greatest woman mathematician who ever lived. The theorem which bears her name, Noether's theorem, is absolutely fundamental to modern physics. She's a tragically underappreciated giant in the field of physics, and surely a space telescope should be named for a scientist with relevant credentials.
Yeah, I agree regarding the proposed name in the article. While Noether was an amazing physicist, her work is also not super related to astrophysics (if that is seen as a "requirement"). I'm kind of of the opinion that we should just name these things like they do the Mars rovers, and not after a singular person.
There are surely other names that are just as valid. However, I'm not sure I agree that Noether is not super related to astrophysics. I am no astrophysicist, but as I understand it, Noether's theorem resolved the apparent paradox that Einstein's general relativity appeared to violate conservation of energy (the theorem fundamentally relates symmetries to conservation laws). There is a reason Einstein was so impressed by her: her work was directly related to his own, and I'm not sure anyone could claim that Einstein is not relevant to astrophysics.
I think I'd stand by my original statement. Her work is relevant in the sense that it is fundamental, but most working astrophysicists can probably go a very long time without using Noether's work to any real degree. It's simply doesn't come up when it comes to observing astrophysical objects, and to be honest it also doesn't that much when it comes to modelling them either - most calculations in astrophysics take place in the non-relativistic regime (the three main exceptions being if you are studying compact objects like black holes and neutron stars, or doing some type of gravitational lensing analysis, or gravitational wave stuff. But global non-conservation of energy is also not super relevant there). It's more relevant for people studying GR, but that's not a super active field in it's own right these days. Also, when I say not relevant I don't mean not foundational or not impressive, I just mean that it's not super relevant to the day-to-day.
Yeah, okay, I understand what you mean. I happen to be a person who is overly fond of foundational work (like Gödel, Russell, Turing, Church, Hilbert and Einstein) but I understand it is not the kind of stuff one encounters in the day-to-day.
Yeah, I think there's enough people in the field, e.g. Cecilia Payne that figured out that stars are made of hydrogen :
https://youtu.be/damkjiFNn5E?t=456
This is a bit off-topic, but it kind of bugs me that the same document is presented twice (this one), but the way it is presented the second time makes it seem like they're trying to imply that it is different evidence. I hope they just accidentally linked to the same document twice (since the alternative would look like they're trying to make it seem as if they have more evidence than they really do).