Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Community: [Closed] Being Driven Off Math Overflow By Personal Attack Part 1

Bottom of Page

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2010
     
    To All Members Of Math Overflow And Scott Morrison In Particular,
    As those of you who are so bored and petty as to make it a top priority in your lives know by now-and to those poor souls who have to observe this pathetic drama play out and are having their attention wasted, I apologize in advance-I've been suspended for 24 hours by the moderators for being too "acrimonious". It's amazing-since the past few weeks, I've done everything short of kissing people's behinds trying not to offend because I was trying to preserve some enjoyment on Math Overflow. Meanwhile, a small clique of posters-you know who you are-have gone out of their way to make sure I was completely muzzled and if possible, expunged from the board.
    It worked, good job.
    I'll post Scott Morrison's emails to me along with my responses and let it provide the context for this conversation. Note the initial subject line, which shows where he stands in this loud and clear:


    Andrew Locascio <andrew.locascio@gmail.com>

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: Andrew L in his own little world.
    2 messages
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net> Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:44 PM
    To: Andrew Locascio <andrew.locascio@gmail.com>
    Cc: moderators <moderators@mathoverflow.net>
    Dear Andrew,

    As I'm sure you've noticed, your interactions with other on
    Math Overflow have become increasingly acrimonious of late. We've been
    in situations like this before on MathOverflow, with other people, and
    we know form experience that it can seriously affect the positive
    reputation of MathOverflow. I understand that this is by no means
    solely your fault, but I'm also very disappointed that my previous
    attempts to intervene and moderate have been, for the most part, met
    with disbelief or hostility on your part. (Anton reports the same.) As
    a result, I've decided
    that it's time to act decisively. Here's the deal:

    If anyone contacts us and complains that they are annoyed by your
    behavior, you will be suspended for n+1 days (n is currently 1, and
    would increment with each suspension). If any of us see unprofessional
    behavior on your part that annoys us, the same will happen. Now,
    probably this means that the only way that you can continue using the
    site is to stay strictly to technical subjects, and avoid giving any
    opinions about anything. If this means that you think you can't
    participate in any way anymore, so be it.

    Thus I'd offer the following suggestions, which may help you continue
    using MathOverflow for its (narrowly construed) purpose.

    1) Don't give your opinion about *anything* on MathOverflow
    anymore, in posts or in comments.
    2) Only ask questions about technical
    mathematical matters.
    3) Restrict answers and comment to *matters of fact*.
    4) Any criticism, of any kind, of other users should happen on meta: on
    the main site, you might provide a neutrally phrased sentence referring
    to the thread you've started on meta.

    I have discussed this with the other moderators, and we are in
    agreement over this. Of course, you may appeal this publicly on meta,
    and you are welcome to quote this email in its entirety. Please direct
    any response to this email to meta.

    I'm beginning this process with a 1 day suspension: your comments at
    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/5497/what-are-the-qualities-of-a-good-math-teacher/8422#8422
    were not appropriate on MathOverflow.

    best,
    Scott Morrison



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andrew Locascio <andrew.locascio@gmail.com> Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM
    Draft To: Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
    [Quoted text hidden]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (to be continued)
  2.  

    Scott is right that you should focus more on mathematics here. Most (all) of your questions are soft-questions/big-lists/rants, and most of your answers are in response to such threads). You comment on every such question to the point that it is disruptive. You get into pointless arguments with professional mathematicians over the most trivial issues. It needs to stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.

  3.  

    I'm pasting parts 2 through 6 on this thread as my next four posts. There's no reason this should be 7 different threads on meta. Then I'm closing this thread ... if you want to reply, please do so on the conclusion thread

  4.  
    AndrewL says:

    Now the second email, which would be comical if it wasn’t so damn insulting.


    Andrew Locascio <andrew.locascio@gmail.com>

    Re:
    2 messages

    Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net> Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:45 PM
    To: Andrew Locascio <andrew.locascio@gmail.com>
    Cc: moderators <moderators@mathoverflow.net>
    Oops, I forgot to edit the subject line after our internal discussion.
    I'm a little embarrassed about that, and it was inappropriate. Sorry.

    scott

    On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 16:44, Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net> wrote:
    > Dear Andrew,
    >
    > as I'm sure you've noticed, your interactions with other on
    > MathOverflow have become increasingly acrimonious of late. We've been
    > in situations like this before on MathOverflow, with other people, and
    > we know form experience that it can seriously affect the positive
    > reputation of MathOverflow. I understand that this is by no means
    > solely your fault, but I'm also very disappointed that my previous
    > attempts to intervene and moderate have been, for the most part, met
    > with disbelief or hostility on your part. (Anton reports the same.) As
    > a result, I've decided
    > that it's time to act decisively. Here's the deal:
    >
    > If anyone contacts us and complains that they are annoyed by your
    > behavior, you will be suspended for n+1 days (n is currently 1, and
    > would increment with each suspension). If any of us see unprofessional
    > behavior on your part that annoys us, the same will happen. Now,
    > probably this means that the only way that you can continue using the
    > site is to stay strictly to technical subjects, and avoid giving any
    > opinions about anything. If this means that you think you can't
    > participate in any way anymore, so be it.
    >
    > Thus I'd offer the following suggestions, which may help you continue
    > using MathOverflow for its (narrowly construed) purpose.
    >
    > 1) Don't give your opinion about *anything* on MathOverflow
    > anymore, in posts or in comments.
    > 2) Only ask questions about technical
    > mathematical matters.
    > 3) Restrict answers and comment to *matters of fact*.
    > 4) Any criticism, of any kind, of other users should happen on meta: on
    > the main site, you might provide a neutrally phrased sentence referring
    > to the thread you've started on meta.
    >
    > I have discussed this with the other moderators, and we are in
    > agreement over this. Of course, you may appeal this publicly on meta,
    > and you are welcome to quote this email in its entirety. Please direct
    > any response to this email to meta.
    >
    > I'm beginning this process with a 1 day suspension: your comments at
    > http://mathoverflow.net/questions/5497/what-are-the-qualities-of-a-good-math-teacher/8422#8422
    > were not appropriate on MathOverflow.
    >
    > best,
    > Scott Morrison
    >



    My comments “were not appropriate”. Ok, before discussing anything else, let’s look at EXACTLY what transpired with apparently raised such a public outcry:


    (to be continued)
  5.  
    AndrewL says:

    My comments “were not appropriate”. Ok, before discussing anything else, let’s look at EXACTLY what transpired with apparently raised such a public outcry:


    First and foremost an excellent teacher has all the qualities of an excellent student. She is articulate, open minded and friendly. She is excited about the subject and is able to communicate her amazement and understanding to her students by articulating her own intuitions and expertise in a way that is accessible to everyone. She also provides a bird's eye view of the subject by interjecting various tidbits from the history of the subject and pointing to stumbling blocks. You'd be surprised to see how many teachers act like answering a simple question is beneath them, speak in monotone, purposely ask trick questions to make the students feel stupid, dismiss questions as not worthy of an answer and just plain act rude and unfriendly.
    link|flag answered Dec 10 at 4:35
    david karapetyan

    What makes this behavior even more despicable at the university level is that many of its worst practitioners are some of the field's top researchers.They're POed they actually have to come down from the mountaintop and teach,which is the most degrading of actions for someone of thier self-percieved character.I can't help but think of that scene from "A Beautiful Mind",where Russell Crowe's John Nash is really upset he has to teach at MIT and delibrately gives the students a homework exercise he knew they couldn't solve without a trick to both keep them out of his hair and demoralize them. – Andrew L 2 days ago
    @David continued: Of course,there are exceptions.There are great researchers who are passionate teachers-such as Micheal Artin at MIT and John Milnor at SUNY Stonybrook. But sadly,they are the exception and not the rule and the 'publish or perish" philosophy at major universities only encourages this behavior. – Andrew L 2 days ago
    4
    While some people are better teachers than others, very few of the top researchers that I know fit Andrew L's description. – Andy Putman 2 days ago
    4
    Andrew L, perhaps you could try to distinguish more between "things that are generally true," "things that are true in your experience" and "things that you have heard are true"? Whenever you begin discussing "top researchers," you deliver a lot of pronouncements that sound like they're in the first of these three categories, but I suspect that they belong on the last. The fact that you defend your perception by reference to a fictionalization of the biography of an exceedingly unusual individual really reinforces my perception. – JBL 2 days ago
    @JBL I was using a well-known movie for literary resonance.I can recount a half a dozen real experiences-without naming names,of course-as I've been a wanderer auditing classes at colleges of just about every level and course type.For example,at Princeton University several years ago,where I was visiting a friend, a well known researcher was guest teaching a regular level course on linear algebra and used a 2 sided module without defining it in an unusual proof of the dimension theorum.Half the class was completely baffled.One asked what a module was. – Andrew L 2 days ago
    @JBL Continued: The professor just smirked and said,"Well,if you ask me,spoon feeding something as childishly simple as linear algebra like this is a waste of everyone's time to begin with. Rather then interrupting me and wasting my time further,why don't you try and look it up yourself?" No one asked a question for the rest of the 3 lectures the professor gave after that and worse,when I brought it up to the graduate students there,they all laughed."Being able to do that to undergraduates is a sure sign you've made it,Andrew". – Andrew L 2 days ago
    (To be continued)
  6.  
    AndrewL says:

    @JBL Continued:I'm not saying top-level researchers are all like this,of course. Far from it.I'm just saying the culture of academia encourages it and does nothing to discourage it.Worse,they end up setting this example for the next generation of P.H.D's. – Andrew L yesterday
    3
    @Andrew L: So, going back to the three categories mentioned in my comment, you assert that you make pronouncements of "general truth" based on personal experience, rather than hearsay. Yet every time you make such a comment, someone has responded to note that your experiences differ noticably from their own. How do you suppose this can be reconciled? – JBL yesterday
    @JBL Perhaps they were fortunate enough to be students in programs where that was by and large not the case with the instructors they personally dealt with.Perhaps in the long painful struggle to be accepted as mathematicains by thier peers-the one they need to impress the most being of the previously described group-they've allowed themselves to become much more tolerant and understanding of such behavior then they're willing to admit to themselves. "Rules of the game". Or maybe they just are in denial. – Andrew L yesterday
    1
    @Andrew L: It really troubles me that "Perhaps my views don't really reflect universal truth" isn't on your list. How hard have you considered this possibility? (Incidentally, I've never found it difficult to "be accepted as a mathematician by my peers," nor have I ever been subject of any sort of negative attention for my expressed love of teaching. And while I have certainly been subjected to my share of bad teaching in undergraduate and graduate level math classes (and in other subject areas!), none of it even remotely reminds me of your experiences.) – JBL yesterday
    @JBL Then you've been fortunate and I envy you.I also envy your students as they'll mature with a much more positive and optimistic outlook then I. Keep up the good work for them. And now,sadly-we better terminate this exchange before both of us get in trouble with the moderators for making too many personal comments.If you want to continue via email,drop me a line sometime. – Andrew L yesterday

    What the hell was so inflammatory about those comments? I still have no idea after looking at it. But since JBL has defended one of the most aggressive of the instigators at this board against me in the past, it wouldn’t surprise me if he took advantage of this exchange to file a complaint to pressure Morrison. We can’t discuss our personal feelings over things of merit in a civilized manner on one of the few public outlets for mathematicians to contact each other?!? This is “unprofessional”? All of you look and be the judge whether or not that was insulting and inappropriate for MO. It’s also clear from the new “rules” for my continued involvement that they’re effectively telling me to agree with everyone no matter what they say or I’m gone. Which they know is impossible. It’s like the old test in Salem for proving you’re not a witch-how do you show someone you CAN’T fly short of being thrown off a cliff and falling to your death? Which of course was the REAL point of the test, right? I’ve been thrown under a bus. Plain and simple.
    (To be continued)
  7.  
    AndrewL says:

    I can go systematically through all the posts of the last several weeks and the subsequent incidents, but that would go on for days and serve no useful purpose other then to make the instigators chuckle with glee. To be honest, the ones I'm most disappointed at are the moderators. They get a few complaints strategically placed over nothing and they boot me with no hesitation or remorse and tell me they'll give me longer and longer ones as the complaints come in. Scott concedes it’s “not entirely my fault”. Then how come to my knowledge, I’m the only one being regularly asked to shut up? Frankly, Shirley Sherrod got better treatment from the Agriculture Department and the NAACP over an incident just as maliciously misleading.
    To Scott Morrison, with whom I’m personally annoyed now: You claim in your second email you “forgot to edit the subject line”. First of all, the fact you wrote that in your internal discussion means that’s what you really think, so you’re not sorry you said it, just that I saw it. Second-it’s insultingly laughable that you want me to believe an award winning PHD faculty member at the University of Berkeley (Yes, I’ve heard of you and I know how to use a search engine to confirm it, I’m well aware who you are) forgot to erase his personal opinion from the top. Yeah, right. You forgot to delete it like Karl Rove forgot to remove Valerie Plame’s name from the information he “mistakenly” gave to Robert Novak. That's probably how stupid you think I am-that you could do that and then give me this lame excuse and I'll believe it. It's fine-you're not the first person to treat me like a brain dead troll and I seriously doubt you'll be the last.
    If you’re going to think badly of someone, OWN IT. Don’t back peddle like someone running for Congress. “Yes, I think you’re a self-righteous, deluded, ignorant boob who’s wasting the time of real mathematicians on this website and that’s why I never stood up for you.” That wouldn’t be as polite as what you’ve been telling me-but it’s what all your ACTIONS have been saying loud and clear. And unfortunately for you, I am in that shrinking group of Americans whose intelligence and analytic skills are sufficient to realize that. And if you use what I just wrote as an excuse to boot me off for good, so be it.
    (To be continued)
  8.  
    AndrewL says:

    I’ll make this very easy for all of you. I would like to continue using Math Overflow and think it’s one of the most important online resources for mathematicians of all levels from undergraduate to PHD to trade ideas on the issues and research topics of interest to all of us with people with whom it will have the most productivity. I’m posting this entire here at meta for those involved to hear my side of it and hopefully get the input of all the regular users on it. Hopefully, they’ll see this for what it is-a ridiculous alpha male personality clash between my blunt manner and a half a dozen would-be Masters Of The Universe in their own minds. (Unless of course only the people who want me off use Meta with any frequency and the entire matter will die quietly without the rest of the rank and file ever hearing my side.Which of course would explain why Scott was so fired up to have it here. But I’m just speculating, we’ll see…….)
    The other members have been borderline insulting and abusive with me and I've had to swallow it to stay on. Meanwhile, they've been doing everything short of calling me an ignorant f**k in order to goad me into an outburst. And when that didn't work, they filed complaints over nothing. I've been very polite and cordial of late and it's gotten me nowhere. The moderators and thier internal politics have been waiting for any excuse to boot me.And why? Because I'm verbal in my opinions and care passionately about our profession. I care about how we’re training the next generation of students. The United States is 37th in the world in mathematics and the hard sciences and one of the reasons is because professional mathematicians in academia don’t take a more active role in stimulating the education of those talented students at lower tier schools. I think that’s just as important to discuss as the latest development in model categories or ordered topological vector spaces.
    Do I go over the line sometimes being too passionate and personal? Yes, by my own admission, I do. But the majority of those incidents were early in my postings and I apologized both privately and publicly for any offense given. I’ve been nothing but cordial since. I’ve worked my butt off to bite my tongue and be cordial, even when others have not been so. But like professionals, do the members of this board forget it and move on? Hell, no. They file complaints over nothing, they shut down and ridicule every question I begin on MO-whether it’s valid or not. And when they fail to shut down a thread, they ridicule it mercilessly until they can contact the others in the clique to shut it down. It doesn’t help the situation that despite the official stance that educational issues are valid fodder for MO, such posts are met with hostility and outright ridicule. Someone asked a question about mathematical logic texts to begin with-a perfectly valid and innocent question. First comment made? “…this is even worse then a homework question”. But that we could deal with. It’s this personal sniping that’s being tolerated that’s so damaging here. Even worse is the fact there seems to be a double standard here that goes back to the cliques forming here: Because certain posters agree in what is and is not appropriate for MO regardless of the rules, they are tolerated where I am not. One of the other posters, who is far more abusive and demeaning then I am , is pretty much allowed to say and do whatever he wants-including laugh at me for getting me suspended on Meta. “That’s just Harry being Harry”, as one of his defenders put it. Well, why can’t Andrew be Andrew when he’s non-aggressive and civil about stating his mind? Because Andrew doesn’t ask research questions and think Rudin is God and that makes him beneath contempt to people ,that’s why.
    I know many faculty and graduate students who won’t post on Math Overflow because of the “fragile egos and outright hostility between personalities that form gangs on there.” Now I know what they meant. It's so sadly childish, it's like dealing with the popular girls in a college sorority in a bad Lifetime original movie.
    (to be concluded)

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page