Bio Professor Shoots 3: Being Brilliant and Nuts are Not Mutually Exclusive
February 14th, 2010
|
| Share |
By now you’ve probably heard of the tragic events in Huntsville Alabama, where Biology professor Amy Bishop allegedly shot and killed three fellow faculty members of the University of Alabama. I use the word “Allegedly” as a technicality, because although she has not been convicted or confessed, it’s pretty clear that she did do it. Of course, all killings and killers are unique, although this one seems to fit the pattern of a “workplace rampage” – the kind of killing which is usually the result of an extreme amount of anger and frustration and often involves a feeling of being treated unfairly. These usually (but not always) result in the death of the perpetrator, either by suicide or because they refuse to surrender and are shot by police after trying to continue to kill. At this point it’s not clear whether or not Bishop attempted suicide, but had run out of amunition or had the gun jam. It’s also not clear whether she had made any attempt to flea the scene.
Not surprisingly, discussion quickly moved to the topic of religion and politics. There’s thus far no evidence that Bishop was in any way an “Intelligent Design” or creationism advocate. However, according to some in the community, she was a regular church goer – although to a church that was decidedly “liberal” in social additude. She was also a member of the Clergy Letter Project, a project which seeks professors and scientists to give advice to clergy on issues of science. Other than that, she does not appear to have been especially active in religion. A number of reports (especially local) have pointed out that she was a “liberal from New England” or used similar language. A number of outlets have also stated that she was a “Socialist.” These reports seem to based their conclusion on some comments by her students, in which they state that she was not openly political in class but that she was “a socialist.” Despite the headlines, it’s not really clear from these comments that she was actually a “socialist” in the sense of being for overthrowing the entire capitalist system and creating a Workers’ Paradise – it may simply be that she was a bit left wing. (Not that this is unusual in professors in general)
The bottom line is that, despite grasping for straws on both sides, there’s really no evidence that Bishop had any extreme beliefs or was all that active politically or religiously. Even if she was, that really doesn’t count for much. There are millions of Christians, Atheists, left-wingers, progressives, socialists, conservatives and libertarians who have never killed anyone and never would.
There is, however, some information which indicates a troubled past. In 1986, Bishop shot and killed her 18 year old brother in Braintree, MA. The bizzare incident happened when she shot her brother in the chest with a shot gun and was found in the street holding the gun. Police investigated the incident, but were unable to find any conclusive evidence to refute Bishop’s claims that it had been an accident. Although some suspected it was not, no charges were ever filed.
Possible trigger was a tenure dispute?
There seems to be one thing that stands out as an issue of potential conflict. Bishop had been working at the University of Alabama at Huntsville for six years but had been denied tenure in April. She had appealed the decision and recently lost the appeal. Being tenured is a pretty airtight guarantee of continued employment at a university, but also has other significance. Tenure is often seen as a status symbol and not having received it after six years can be equally seen as an implicit failure or lack of status. Not receiving tenure after six years also a tacit way of telling a professor that they might want to start looking for a new job, as it often means their employment is coming to an end.
Why Bishop was denied tenure appears to be rooted more in her teaching manners, dealing with colleges and generally her personal and social lackings. It was certainly not due to lack of intellect or scientific accomplishments. By all accounts, Bishop was brilliant. She had published a number of papers on cutting edge areas of research and had developed a number of significant technologies, including a cellular incubator that provides greater control and effeciency for tissue culturing.
Her reviews as a professor, however, were decidedly mixed. Nearly all of her students comment that she was very smart and knew her research well, but many said that her class was dry, boring or that she “read from the book.” There’s no indication that she was an unfair, harsh or difficult to deal with professor, but there is a lot of criticism of her tests. Many of the students complain that she didn’t make it entirely clear what kind of material was going to be on the tests or feel that the test questions were confusing. Others complained about her grading policy or believed she didn’t do enough to teach the material and left too much up to the students to learn on their own.
On a few occasions it seems she had some major conflicts with others at the university. One professor described Bishop as “Not able to deal with reality.” Others indicate that she had become quite angry about some of the decisions made by the university and her colleges. Yet others seem to state Bishop was accommodating and even funny. These polar opposite reviews may indicate that Bishop was the kind of person who either “Loves or hates” others and was prone to holding grudges or playing favorites. She was know to carry a “personal beef.”
In some ways, I’m reminded of Bruce Ivins.
Some comments on a professor ratings site include the following:
What a waste of a great resource. Dr Bishop is very intelligent but a horrible teacher. No point going to class, she will tell you to read and know the entire book. She does not teach but gives you a list of topics that you have to teach yourself. Unfortunately this class is only offered with one other instructor! Take it with Adcock if you can.
Extremely horrible teacher. All she does is read information from the book and never explains anything. Her review is telling you to study everything, and she picks the most insignificant information on tests. You have to teach everything to yourself, but her tests are so insame it’s hard to do well. TAKE ADCOCK
(Adcock is the name of another professor who teaches similar classes.)
These are, of course, entirely legitimate criticisms. I’ve had a couple of instructors who gave tests which contained material which nobody expected would be on the test and was never mentioned in reviews before the test. It’s frustrating. Professors who just read from the book or expect students to teach themselves everything are also a legitimate issue – after all, courses cost a lot more then the text book and it’s fair to expect some descent instruction for the price.
In addition to this, the image that has been coming from her colleagues and other students appears to indicate that Bishop may have been a rather stubborn and difficult person to work with at times. She may not have done well with the decision regarding her tenure and it seems she believed she was treated unfairly. She may not have done well with criticism.
There has been some debate raised from this as to whether or not personality and other aspects of a professor should be taken into account when considering tenure. One blogger over at Science Blogs asks “What role should personality or collegiality play in tenure decisions?” Others ask whether it should be considered at all.
My own opinion on the matter: It absolutely should be considered, at least in cases where the primary responsibility of a position is teaching,
There have been many brilliant scientists throughout the years who are just not very good at explaining concepts in simple terms and are not generally good speakers or communicators. They may be excellent with their subject matter, but put them behind a podium and tell them to give an address to a small group and they’ll studder, say the wrong thing, confuse people or bore them to death.
I have met a couple brilliant researchers who actually come across as shy and are not outgoing at all. I did some computer work for a guy who was an amazingly intelligent researcher in the mathematics of chaos theory, but he never returned phone calls and was impossible to deal with in general.
If we’re talking about a job that involves primarily pure research, then that’s fine. If it involves a combination of research and some graduate advising or teaching, then it might also work out.
However, if we’re talking about an undergraduate professor or biology who is going to be regularly teaching, holding office hours, advising students and so on then it won’t cut it. It doesn’t matter how brilliant you are, if you can’t teach then you shouldn’t be teaching – you should find a role that better suits your skills. Aside from being bad at it, my guess is that a person like that would be absolutely miserable having to spend time trying to explain things to undergrads.
As far as teamwork and cooperation – again, it depends on the setting and type of research. If it’s something that generally requires a lot of team work and very little individual research, then you have to be a team player. It doesn’t matter if you’re brilliant, if you can’t get the job done because you can’t work in that setting. If it’s something that is mostly individual research, it might not be an issue.
Of course, since decisions like tenure are made by faculty votes, department heads, committees and such, they’ll always be subjective to one degree or another. It’s a judgment call, but this is not necessarily a bad thing either. If a department feels that a certain professor simply does not fit in, is not being productive enough or is not doing a very good job of teaching, then it’s probably best that they don’t offer tenure. If the faculty didn’t like working with her or didn’t believe she was contributing well to the department, then forcing them to work with her simply because she knew her work well isn’t going to help things.
Based on the accounts that have come out, Bishop was very talented but probably shouldn’t have been teaching. In addition to not being very good at it, it seems she was never really that enthusiastic about the teaching side of things. She really should have considered a career involving pure research, either for a private company, a government institution or a university in a position that does not involve undergraduate teaching.
If anything, the fact that she shot up a faculty meeting only proves that the department was right when it considered her not fit for pursuits that involved a great deal of social interactions and cooperation. Tragically, they underestimated just how antisocial, difficult to work with and generally unqualified as a team player she was.
What is so disturbing about this case is that it shows how difficult it can be to predict these things. Bishop may have been anti-social, stressed out, prone to holding a grudge, frustrated and bitter, but so are many many others and few resort to violence. Anger and frustration may cause a person to “snap” and start hurling insults at others around them – or, it may cause them to start hurling bullets at them. These are much different situations.
Still, not being happy with one’s job is no excuse for murder. The bitch should never see another day of freedom. Bishop should have learned that sometimes things don’t go your way. Sometimes jobs don’t work out and sometimes you even get treated unfairly. It doesn’t matter how smart or how much of an over-achiever someone is, they’re not special – they have to live by the same rules of civil society that everyone else does. Everyone gets ends up getting screwed by a decision they don’t agree with from time to time. That’s no excuse for violence. Have fun rotting in prison.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 14th, 2010 at 5:42 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Education, Politics, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
February 14th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
If you absolutely have to snap, only kill yourself.
That’s probably how I’ll go out.
Quote Comment
February 14th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Jeremy said:
Uh I agree that between suicide and murder, a person who commits suicide causes a lot less damage and is not culpable for direct harm to others. However, I’d still highly recommend against it.
It won’t solve anything. Making a problem go away is not the same as solving it. It’s also very hurtful to friends and family. That can be easy to forget when you’re bothered by something, but it can all but destroy the life of parents/siblings/friends etc.
Even if you don’t think anyone really really cares about you, suicide can be really upsetting to people who only kinda-sorta care, like casual friends and such.
It’s also irreversible in the most literal sense. I mean, things tend to go up and down, get better and worse, and if you do that at a bad time, things won’t ever get better and you can’t change your mind.
So… don’t.
Quote Comment
February 14th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
drbuzz0 said:
I’m weak and stupid. It’s just Darwinism in action. I’ve come to accept it.
Quote Comment
February 14th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Interesting perspective.
Well, my take on it is this: the university was right to deny her tenure whether or not she was brilliant in her field if she had consistent problems with students and with teaching the courses. Some people are not cut out to teach or just don’t do well in certain situations. If she couldn’t do her job and should have had a different job.
I’ve had jobs which I had high hopes for and it turned out that they were not a good fit. It’s disappointing and have to rethink your career and look for another job sucks.
I have no sympathy at all for her though, because this is no excuse for violent behavior. The best thing to do is accept that things don’t work out and not get angry about it. I could understand how a person could be so frustrated that they would write an angry letter or say something they shouldn’t. This is beyond all reason and rationality.
Quote Comment
February 14th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Also, by the time I ever snap all of my friends will be gone and becoming successful and I’ll be stuck here suffering from stupid decisions I made from being weak and self conscious. No girl would ever want to date a loser like me, especially not start a family. I’m too fat and stupid to do anything productive – everything I’ve set out to do has never been finished because I’m a failure. If all I have are my family, that’s more depressing. You’re forced to love your family, you’re stuck with them from childhood. Only having your family just shows you’ve failed to make any valuable relationships outside of them with talent or personality.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Unfortunately there have been other examples of university professors going on shooting rampages, there was an incident several years ago at Concordia University here in Montreal, when Dr. Valery I. Fabrikant, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, killed four in an academic dispute.
Having worked for a time for another university, between jobs in industry, I can say that the politics are more vicious than anything I experienced in the private sector, and far beyond anything I saw as a student. I certainly could not have spent a career in that environment, and to me the wonder is why more of them don’t snap.
Ironically, I was just offered a one year contract to teach shop at a high school while the incumbent takes a sabbatical. The job, if I take it, will start in the coming school year, and I admit that I have some trepidation going into even that situation, albeit temporarily.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Jeremy said:
Jeremy said:
Alright Jeremy. Look – I’m sorry to hear you feel that way and I’m sure you are overstating it, because I’ve felt pretty crappy at times before. I suggest you seek counciling and try to get a healthier mindset.
However, this website is not intended to be a sounding board for depressed people or a motivational speaker or a therapy center. It’s just not.
On occasion I’ve had someone start on about how sad they feel and their depression/suicidal feelings or something like that. The first few times I made an honest effort to contact them, to suggest resources in their area, to try to talk them into seeing a professional etc etc. It went in circles and didn’t work. Furthermore, that’s not my job and I’m not comfortable doing it.
Please find an appropriate outlet for your problems.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 1:31 am
DV82XL said:
Oh I have no doubt about that. I have plenty of gripes about culture and politics in academia, and I’m sure I haven’t seen the half of it.
Some professors seem perfectly happy in that world. Certainly there are others who don’t. That’s no excuse for going and shooting up a meeting, even if you hate the guts of everyone there.
Not everyone is cut out for professorship and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. With her credentials she should have had no problem finding alternate employment in the research sector. Of course, any chance she had of being a successful laboratory scientist or working for a pharmaceutical or bio-tech company – or possibly even starting one – that’s now gone.
I’ve seen plenty of people, even completely professional people, take a little too much heat and blow up. They may end up yelling and cursing up a storm, they send very unwise emails around, post stupid stuff on Facebook, get drunk and make angry phone calls at 1 am. At worst they push over a file cabinet or punch a wall. (hell, I’ve lost my cool and done some things like that after taking a little too much)
In the end the only injuries are bruised egos and some burned bridges. It might seem nasty at the time, but everyone walks home, some looking like a fool, but otherwise fine.
However, it takes an uncommonly cruel, sadistic and downright sick person to take a loaded firearm and bring it into a meeting, then pull it out and start firing at others in there out of anger over an administrative decision. Even given that she might have been ripping mad and stressed to hell, to point the weapon, pull the trigger and see a college fall back and start gurgling up blood, and then to continue to shoot, aiming and firing at five more, killing a total of three and severely injuring another three, keeping it up until the clip is spent. That’s something beyond just being really pissed and spiteful.
It seems this bitch was some kind of twisted psycho before this. In addition to killing her brother in 1986 she was interviewed in connection with a bombing several years ago. In 1993 a bomb was received by a Harvard professor who she apparently had some kind of disagreement with and she was questioned, apparently even enough to be considered a suspect. However, there was not any conclusive evidence to prove it was her and the case remained unsolved.
In light of the latest events, it seems more likely than not that there was a connection there.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 10:57 am
a note: suicide is not just hard on your family and friends (and mind you, ppl who kill themselves might either think those don’t care about them or may want to stick it to them because they’re mean or whatever), there’s almost always also some poor guy who doesn’t have anything to do with it who has to clean up the mess (as in collect the body parts ..). So if you absolutely positively HAVE to kill yourself, please, just please, don’t throw yourself in front of a train or into traffic. It’s ugly and unfair as hell to whoever has to pick up your pieces (literally).
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I think it fits into a larger trend about education.
I know several people who are teacher and did a little teaching myself (in a corporate environment, still a dreadfull experience) and my general conclusion is that while all those people (including myself, the course was about using a tool I created) knew their field far beyond the course required level, teaching has almost nothing to do with doing it yourself.
The finest example I know is a woman who teach english basics to french preteens, as every other teacher, she spent years in general education colege then teacher school, and what did she learn in english teecher school? Mostly middle age literature and romatics, and absolutely nothing about pedagogy or dealing with those little nasty gremlins.
At every level, we need more real teachers, not people who think they are wasting their time and their talent in a classroom.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Franck said:
Oh sure, teaching is not an easy job and it has its own special demands. My hat is off to all the teachers who do their work well and are good at teaching in general. AS for those who just don’t have what it takes or just don’t like to teach or find the enviornment not suitable to their skills and personality, they shouldn’t be teaching. Not everyone is fit for every job.
That is still no excuse for shooting up a meeting. I don’t care how much your job doesn’t agree with you. You bite the bullet and look for a new job. Think of all the workers at McDonald’s or bagging at the super market. You think they really feel like their job is an expression of what they want to do with their life?
So she had a rude awakening and found out the hard way that she was better off in a research job than as an undergraduate professor. Boohoo! She didn’t like academic politics? Oh poor little thing!
I feel no sympathy at all.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Jeremy –
I will reply once and briefly. The moderator has appropriately indicated that this is not a good venue for your particular topic.
You are describing common symptoms of depression. Your condition is treatable. You do not need to feel this way.
There was a quote from someone who survived a suicide attempt in a New Yorker article a few years ago. I don’t remember it perfectly but will offer a fair paraphrase.
He said “As soon as I jumped off that bridge, I realized that all of my problems really did have solutions – except for the fact that I had just jumped off a bridge“.
There is plenty of treatment available and you deserve it. Go get it.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’ve been a TA and it’s not my favorite thing. It’s not the worst thing to do either, but some people like teaching and some don’t. It sounds like she had problems with it and she also didn’t like the office politics of the university.
So they denied her tenure, probably because they didn’t think she was the best professor around and didn’t think she contributed to the department. And she goes and shoots up a meeting?
Chances are the bitch is unable to accept that sometimes things don’t go your way. She’s smart and she got into Harvard and received notoriety. She therefore assumes that everything should go her way and she should always be selected. In other words, she thinks she’s so special that it’s okay to kill when others don’t recognize how special you are. It’s no better than a 2-year-old throwing a fit, except two year olds don’t usually have firearms and shoot people.
I have no sympathy for her. She took three lives out of an administrative disagreement. She will probably claim some mental issue, but the only one she has is being a bitch who can’t accept that she doesn’t always get her way.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I enjoyed your article and appreciated all of the moderator’s comments, particularly the reply to Jeremy.
Thanks for a good read & interesting insights.
Quote Comment
February 18th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I would argue that she did not display any special brilliance. Academically, publishing 5 papers (one of which is still in press) in the last 5 years, in mid-range discipline-specific journals, is very ordinary. I regularly assess academic track records as when reading grant applications (I’m an academic myself), and a decent TR would have 30 papers in 5 years in good to decent journals. The outstanding researchers are more like 100 papers in 5 years, including top tier journals like Nature/Science/PNAS. These are the folks who always secure the grant and have no issue with securing tenure.
So, if I was on the tenure review panel I would have recommended turning it down, but on the basis of weak and inconsistent academic performance.
Quote Comment
February 19th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Gul Dukat said:
Yeah, well all the news articles stated that she was regarded as brilliant. Apparently some of her research was fairly advanced, but I do agree that the number of papers she published was pretty mediocre. She may have been on a losing streak in recent years, as she was well regarded by many of those who went to grad school with her.
Quote Comment
February 19th, 2010 at 3:15 am
Well, she went to Harvard and was not a legacy and didn’t have a father who donated a library to them. That alone shows she’s not an idiot. From what I’ve read, she was regarded as being quite intelligent and knowing her field very well. However, it’s also clear she had not lived up to this in the past few years.
Lets remember that not all smart people are well accomplished. Some just don’t put in the time and effort to use their full potential.
I got the impression from the coverage I’ve seen and the interviews with those around her that she was pretty smart, but seems to have been sliding down hill for three or four years.
Quote Comment
February 19th, 2010 at 9:32 am
That’s a good point – the difference between aptitude and application. I concede that she could be brilliant, with a high IQ, but I think it’s quite clear that in the terms of an academic department trying to justify its research budget, she was not producing the goods. A regular stream of peer-reviewed papers, with a reasonable smattering in high-ranked outlets (measured by factors such as impact factor), are the grist with which research budgets are milled. Given that her teaching was also apparently sub-par, I think this adds up to reasonable grounds to speculate that her personality may have had little to do with her failure to secure tenure. Perhaps it was a contributing factor, but I think the card is played too heavily in the above.
Quote Comment
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Chem Geek Gregor said:
No offense intended, but being a TA is only loosely related to teaching, at least at my school (U of Windsor). Most of them can barely speak a word of English, and they’re really only there to grade papers. They supposedly only hire people who have done well in the course, but whenever I ask them questions they literally sound like they’re retarded or something. They don’t even know the answers to the most basic of questions. Ask them how to deference a pointer in C and watch them stutter and stumble out a totally wrong answer… Its only a first year course, not that difficult people. Maybe that’s just cause my school is small and not exactly high-class, but still, you’d think they’d at least interview people before they make hiring decisions.
Quote Comment