From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Fri Dec 20 14:25:00 2019 From: "Nathan Seifert nas3xf.:.virginia.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy, and all other things Message-Id: <-53908-191220140956-24031-LpmIF9Lb//q20pS20iy1gA|,|server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Nathan Seifert Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec9cd3059a276bd5" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:09:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Nathan Seifert [nas3xf(_)virginia.edu] --000000000000ec9cd3059a276bd5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CCL members, The conversations over the past 48 hours have been instructive, and Sebastian's "rant" yesterday about the dynamics of privilege and "merit" was particularly excellent. However, I think these discussions, while valuable, miss some of the important meta-analysis about the dialogue on this mailing list. My snarkiness in my post a few days masked some of the direct reasons of my frustrations. I certainly think the person whom I responded to has deplorable views regarding gender equity. He, is, as I am, totally free to express his thoughts openly. And, due to the recurring nature over the years of these kinds of posts, Jim probably accepts the fact that the community will systematically deconstruct his arguably backwards, and certainly fringe views about these issues regarding gender representation in science. However, I think the CCL owner's measured and well-thought response regarding civility misses a key aspect of this discussion, as does Mr. Mihailovs' most recent post. In at least some small part, they assume that both sides are acting in good faith. Civility works in this context, for sure. The problem is that both sides here are *not* acting in good faith. Mr. Kress' posts over the years have exhibited casual formal misogyny (I am reminded of his "femninist harpies" rant from a few years ago) and transphobia (his most recent comments about "26 genders"). These hateful comments are not made in good faith. He understands these things are offensive and the community has either responded as such or ignored it, and yet we continue to have to hear this drivel. All respondents are certainly allowed to feel however they will. But no one should tolerate such bad faith intolerance and hate, and using excuses of "civility" only serve to reduce accountability for that kind of disgusting language. There is no civility to maintain. His presence here only exists to inflame and troll, so we must treat his comments as such. There is no interest on his part to have a civil conversation regarding these issues on Mr. Kress' part, so we, as powerless users and respondents, are left with only a few choices: 1) ignore it, or 2) mock and shame such behavior. I will proudly continue to exhibit the latter when necessary, which I do so quite sparingly -- I chose not to involve myself during the ICQC "discussion", figuring that certain individuals learned their lesson from the massive outpouring of support on the part of the female respondents and their allies across all genders. Unfortunately, from the evolution of this discussion, it's clear that such lessons weren't learned. With regards, Nathan Seifert On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Igors Mihailovs igorsm]=3D[cfi.lu.lv < owner-chemistry*|*ccl.net> wrote: > Dear everyone, > > As far as I understand, the original problem of this discussion > (unbalanced selection of invited speakers at a workshop) got its solution > as good as this community can provide - by sending the notification about > the concerns to the organizers. I sincerely doubt that further heated > discussion would be helpful considering the staunch positions of both > sides. Let me remember Max Planck: > > "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually > winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul > becomes Paul." > > I believe this is applicable to the present discussion, too. Seldom > arguments are solved by persuading, especially on the Internet. Let us > better remember that Christmas is approaching and just wish/pray for > everyone around us and us ourselves to be kinder towards each other. > > With best regards to everyone, > Igors Mihailovs > > 19 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2019 =D0=B3. 20:45:09 GMT+0= 2:00, "Matthias Heger heger=3D-=3Dualberta.ca" > =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> >> >> Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca] >> Sebastian, >> >> First of all, thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the mer= itocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming t= hat we're seeing in this discussion. >> >> You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actua= lly expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgr= ounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and wom= en are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it a= bsolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For e= xample, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lead= to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of compete= nce and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that alre= ady in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better tha= n boys in math exams, but only if thally as well or even better than boys i= n math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a = distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their a= cademic career choices right from the very start. [2] >> >> Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the= "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to = injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bo= otstraps" thing. >> >> Best, >> Matthias >> >> >> [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 >> [2] >> >> >> >> Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com: >> >>> Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com] >>> >>> Dear CCLers: >>> >>> Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already disc= ussed >>> here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enough = is to say >>> that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong. >>> >>> >>> However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy. >>> >>> >>> TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong= . Savage >>> capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong. >>> >>> >>> Long version: >>> >>> For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in ec= onomy, >>> sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matthew effe= ct: >>> >>> "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundanc= e; but >>> from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25= :29) >>> >>> In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) >>> >>> We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in th= e 21st >>> century, but there are many studies that point to something that we all= know >>> here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge a= dvantage >>> to receive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There a= re >>> mathematical models >>> (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) alr= eady >>> pointing to the obvious: >>> >>> >>> Success =3D Talent + Luck >>> >>> Great Success =3D A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck >>> >>> (Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow") >>> >>> >>> Nobody says that the big names in comp chem are not bright. But there a= re tons >>> of other bright and extremely hard working people that never made it to= the big >>> leagues due to a lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fa= il, but >>> nobody could know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to t= he gods >>> of science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were= born in >>> the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture whe= re women >>> are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family valu= es". If >>> by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of success = in the >>> future grow exponentially. >>> >>> In other words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both i= n the >>> economic and in the academic world. >>> >>> >>> We are loosing many talents due to the lack of diversity and the belief= that >>> people reached their status only due to their capacity. We are making t= hings >>> worse each time: >>> >>> 1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women. >>> >>> 2) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors >>> >>> 3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pron= ounce the >>> names of the authors (this is a real thing!) >>> >>> 4) We do not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming fr= om less >>> happy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures >>> >>> 5) We give great honors to selected people just because they got honors= in the past >>> >>> 6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure >>> >>> 7) We applaud the people that published more papers than can humanly wr= ite (or >>> even read!) >>> >>> (what am I forgetting in this list?) >>> >>> >>> Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. Each time t= hat my >>> H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck= effect, >>> and especially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes. >>> >>> The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the= less >>> lucky ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing th= eir >>> capacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st cen= tury. >>> It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/= or people >>> whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invited spe= akers. >>> >>> >>> Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If y= ou >>> believe that the ones that received did so exclusively because they mer= it, oh >>> boy. Not only you are unfair, you are unscientific. >>> >>> >>> Thanks for listening to my rant, >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com] >>>> So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 gen= ders in their program. >>>> >>>> From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. = Seifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead. >>>>> >>>> That is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays = of virtue signaling and mediocre science. >>>> >>>> I will not comment further. I'll have to invoke Mark Twain when he s= aid " "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig= ." >>>> >>>> Jim Kress >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skein= an : gmail.com >>>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM >>>> To: Kress, Jim >>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods i= n Chemistry >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kath= rin here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a ba= lanced conference. >>>> >>>> And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fail t= o do so. >>>> >>>> Shahar >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu >>>>> 2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no >>>>> napisa=C5=82(a): >>>>> >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dea= r >>>>>> Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female >>>>>> speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have >>>>>> misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?). >>>>>> >>>>>> I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a >>>>>> gender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem >>>>>> sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things. >>>>>> >>>>>> with best regards, >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann >>>>>> >>>>> Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then t= he >>>>> balance will be significantly improved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27 >>>>>> To: 'CCL Subscribers' >>>>>> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computationa= l >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I counted 19 confirmed invited speakers on your website. >>>>>> Sadly, not a single of these seems to be a woman. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> with best regards >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^ccl.net >>>>>>> On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 06:47 >>>>>> To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann >>>>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods >>>>>> in Chemistry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu] >>>>>> Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open! >>>>>> >>>>>> Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto >>>>>> university (Japan). >>>>>> >>>>>> We will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers= : >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html >>>>>> >>>>>> More information can be found at: >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.html >>>>>> >>>>>> The registration page is: >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html >>>>>> >>>>>> We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The >>>>>> >>>>>> organizers.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://ww= w. >>>>>> ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>>= Conferences: >>>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/-- >>>>>> >>>>> Krzysztof K. Zborowski >>>>> Faculty of Chemistry >>>>> Jagiellonian University in Krakow >>>>> 2 Gronostajowa Street >>>>> 30-387 Krakow >>>>> Poland >>>>> email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences: >>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Shahar Keinan >>>> (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://w= ww.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail t= o subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>> >>>> E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://ww= w.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml >>>> >>>> Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net >>>> >>>> Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs >>>> Conferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences= / >>>> >>>> Search Messages:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhtt= p://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt >>>> >>>> RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To >>>> >>> recover the email address of the author of the message, please change = the >>> strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can also look = up the >>> X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: >>> CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail >>> to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, c= heck wait time at: >>> http://www.ccl.netConferences: >>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Mess= ages: >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail bounce= s from CCL >>> with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI: >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D->> the strange characters on the top line to the () sign. You can also>> >> E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY()ccl.net or use:>> >> E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST()ccl.net or use>> >> >> > -- > =D0=9F=D1=80=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D0=B8=D1=82=D0=B5 =D0=B7=D0=B0 =D0=BA=D1= =80=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D1=8C, =D1=81=D0=BE=D0=B7=D0=B4=D0= =B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 K-9 Mail. > --000000000000ec9cd3059a276bd5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CCL members,

The conversatio= ns over the past 48 hours have been instructive, and Sebastian's "= rant" yesterday about the dynamics of privilege and "merit" = was particularly excellent. However, I think these discussions, while valua= ble, miss some of the important meta-analysis about the dialogue on this ma= iling list.

My snarkiness in my post a few da= ys masked some of the direct reasons of my frustrations. I certainly think = the person whom I responded to has deplorable views regarding gender equity= . He, is, as I am, totally free to express his thoughts openly. And, due to= the recurring nature over the years of these kinds of posts, Jim probably = accepts the fact that the community will systematically deconstruct his arg= uably backwards, and certainly fringe views about these issues regarding ge= nder representation in science.

However, I think t= he CCL owner's measured and well-thought response regarding civility mi= sses a key aspect of this discussion, as does Mr.=20 Mihailovs' most recent post. In at least some small part, they assume t= hat both sides are acting in good faith. Civility works in this context, fo= r sure.

The problem is that both sides here a= re not acting in good faith. Mr. Kress' posts over the years hav= e exhibited casual formal misogyny (I am reminded of his &= quot;femninist harpies" rant from a few years ago) and transphobia (hi= s most recent comments about "26 genders"). These hateful comment= s are not made in good faith. He understands these things are offensive and= the community has either responded as such or ignored it, and yet we conti= nue to have to hear this drivel.

All responde= nts are certainly allowed to feel however they will. But no one should tole= rate such bad faith intolerance and hate, and using excuses of "civili= ty" only serve to reduce accountability for that kind of disgusting la= nguage. There is no civility to maintain.=20 His presence here only exists to inflame and troll, so we must treat his co= mments as such. There is no interest on his part to have a civil conversati= on regarding these issues on Mr. Kress' part, so we, as powerless users= and respondents, are left with only a few choices: 1) ignore it, or 2) moc= k and shame such behavior. I will proudly continue to exhibit the latter wh= en necessary, which I do so quite sparingly -- I chose not to involve mysel= f during the ICQC "discussion", figuring that certain individuals= learned their lesson from the massive outpouring of support on the part of= the female respondents and their allies across all genders. Unfortunately,= from the evolution of this discussion, it's clear that such lessons we= ren't learned.


With regard= s,
Nathan Seifert


On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at= 12:41 PM Igors Mihailovs igorsm]=3D[cfi.lu.lv <owner-chemistry*|*ccl.net> wrote:
Dear everyone,

As far as I = understand, the original problem of this discussion (unbalanced selection o= f invited speakers at a workshop) got its solution as good as this communit= y can provide - by sending the notification about the concerns to the organ= izers. I sincerely doubt that further heated discussion would be helpful co= nsidering the staunch positions of both sides. Let me remember Max Planck:<= br>
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gra= dually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Sa= ul becomes Paul."

I believe this is applicable to the present d= iscussion, too. Seldom arguments are solved by persuading, especially on th= e Internet. Let us better remember that Christmas is approaching and just w= ish/pray for everyone around us and us ourselves to be kinder towards each = other.

With best regards to everyone,
Igors Mihailovs

19 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2019 = =D0=B3. 20:45:09 GMT+02:00, "Matthias Heger heger=3D-=3Dualberta.ca" <owner-chemistr= y()ccl.net> =D0=BF=D0= =B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca]
Sebastian,

First of all, =
thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument=
 really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're see=
ing in this discussion.

You're asking if you are forgetting anyt=
hing in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not foster=
ing students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the =
current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is=
 not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be =
very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on =
otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applican=
ts are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific position=
s. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform eq=
ually as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if thally as=
 well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are ano=
nymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obviou=
s and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very =
start. [2]

Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secr=
et. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing le=
ss than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "=
pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing.

Best,
Matthia=
s


[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
[2] 
<=
br>

Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gma=
il.com:
Sent to=
 CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com]

Dear CCLers:

Sinc=
e the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already di=
scussed
here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about =
it. Enough is to say
that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong.


=
However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy.


=
TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Sa=
vage
capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kin=
d of wrong.


Long version:

For those that are not familiar=
 with it, there is a concept known in economy,
sociology and obviously i=
n sociology of science called the Matthew effect:

"For to every=
 one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but
from hi=
m who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29)
In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer&qu=
ot;
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)

We kn=
ow this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21stcentury, but there are many studies that point to something that we all kn=
ow
here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge=
 advantage
to receive more grants, good students and honors in the futur=
e. There are
mathematical models
(https://www.w=
orldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already
pointi=
ng to the obvious:


Success =3D Talent + Luck

Great Succes=
s =3D A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck

(Daniel Kahneman, &quo=
t;Thinking, Fast and Slow")


Nobody says that the big names =
in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons
of other bright and extr=
emely hard working people that never made it to the big
leagues due to a=
 lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but
nobody co=
uld know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods
of=
 science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born =
in
the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture w=
here women
are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect =
the family values". If
by a stroke of luck you had a good head-star=
t, your chances of success in the
future grow exponentially.

In o=
ther words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in theeconomic and in the academic world.


We are loosing many talents=
 due to the lack of diversity and the belief that
people reached their s=
tatus only due to their capacity. We are making things
worse each time:<=
br>
1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women.

2) We =
review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors
3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pr=
onounce the
names of the authors (this is a real thing!)

4) We do=
 not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less
h=
appy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures

5) We give gr=
eat honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past
<=
br>6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure

7) We applaud the p=
eople that published more papers than can humanly write (or
even read!)<=
br>
(what am I forgetting in this list?)


Of course that publi=
shing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my
H-index climbs=
 one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect,
and es=
pecially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes.

The fair t=
hing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less
lucky=
 ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their
ca=
pacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century.<=
br>It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women a=
nd/or people
whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' lis=
t of invited speakers.


Meritocracy should be one-way: the one wh=
o merits, should receive. If you
believe that the ones that received did=
 so exclusively because they merit, oh
boy. Not only you are unfair, you=
 are unscientific.


Thanks for listening to my rant,

Sebas=
tian



On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote:
 Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [j=
imkress35[a]gmail.com] So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 gender=
s in their program.

From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seif=
ert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead.
 Tha=
t is unfortunate.  It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue=
 signaling and mediocre science.

 I will not comment further.  I'=
;ll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a =
pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig."

 Jim Kress<=
br>
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net <owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net> On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com
 Sent=
: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM
 To: Kress, Jim  <jimkress35{=
:}gmail.com>
 Subj=
ect: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistr=
y


 Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is =
the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conferenc=
e.

 And it is the role of the community to call them out when they f=
ail to do so.

 Shahar


 On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zbor=
owsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl=
 wrote:
Sent to CCL=
 by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu
2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopman=
n kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no<=
br>napisa=C5=82(a):
 Se=
nt to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear
 Organizers of the 8th French-Ja=
panese Workshop on Computational
 Methods in Chemistry,

 I am sor=
ry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female
 speaker among=
 the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have
 misinterpreted some =
of the other name and there are more?).

 I know it is not easy for c=
onference organizers to ensure a
 gender-balanced program. But we need t=
o talk about this problem
 sometimes, so that we can find out how we can=
 improve things.

 with best regards,
 Kathrin Hopmann
 Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then th=
e
 balance will be significantly improved.


 -----Original Message-----
From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann
 Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27
 To: 'CCL Subscribers=
9; <chemistry^ccl.net&g=
t;
 Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
 =
Methods in Chemistry

 Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Wor=
kshop on Computational
 Methods in Chemistry,

 I counted 19 confi=
rmed invited speakers on your website.
 Sadly, not a single of these see=
ms to be a woman.


 with best regards
 Kathrin Hopmann

=
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^c=
cl.net
<owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann=3D=3Duit.no^ccl.net> On Behalf Of
Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu
 Sent: on=
sdag 18. desember 2019 06:47
 To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann <kathrin.hopm=
ann^uit.no>
 Subject:=
 CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods
 in Chemistr=
y


 Sent to CCL by: "Francois  Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu]
 Registration =
for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational
 Methods in Chemis=
try (FJCMC2020) is open!

 Please consider joining us March 19th and =
20th 2020 at Kumamoto
 university (Japan).

 We will be lucky to h=
ave presentations by many prestigious speakers:
 htt=
p://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html

 M=
ore information can be found at:
 http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac=
.jp/~frjp2020/index.html

 The registration page is:
 http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html
 We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The

 organize=
rs.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.
 ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://=
www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences:
 h=
ttp://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/--
 Krzysztof K. Zborowski
 Faculty of Chemistry
 Jagiellonian Univ=
ersity in Krakow
 2 Gronostajowa Street
 30-387 Krakow
 Poland
=
 email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences:
 http://se=
rver.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/>     >

<=
/blockquote> --
 Shahar Keinan
 (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl=
.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.sht=
mlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net  or use:>>
 E=
-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net  or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.sht=
ml

 Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net

 Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs  
 Con=
ferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/confer=
ences/

 Search Messages:htt=
p://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.=
txt

 RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instruc=
tions/To
 recover the email address of the author of th=
e message, please change the
 strange characters on the top line to the =
:-: sign. You can also look up the
 X-Original-From: line in the mail he=
ader. E-mail to subscribers:
 CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail
 to administrators: CHEMISTRY-R=
EQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBef=
ore posting, check wait time at:
 http://www.ccl.netConferences:
 http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Mess=
ages:
 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If y=
our mail bounces from CCL
 with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI:
 http=
://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing sc=
ript =3D-
To recover the email address of the author of the message, ple=
ase change
the strange characters on the top line to the () sign. You ca=
n also
E-ma=
il to subscribers: CHEMISTRY()=
ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_mes=
sage

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST()ccl.net or use
      http://www.cc=
l.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message
      http://www.ccl.net/c=
hemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net
Job: http://www.ccl.=
net/jobs 
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry=
/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.cc=
l.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml

If your mail bounces from =
CCL with 5.7.1 error, check:
      http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: <=
a href=3D"http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



--
=D0=9F=D1=80=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D0=B8=D1= =82=D0=B5 =D0=B7=D0=B0 =D0=BA=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D1= =8C, =D1=81=D0=BE=D0=B7=D0=B4=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 K-9 Mail.
--000000000000ec9cd3059a276bd5--