Hi Bertrand,

I’m not an expert and did not mean to imply I think that convicts in general should be kept out of science. Establishing such a general rule would disproportionately keep men of color out of science — especially considering Black men are imprisoned for minor offenses at such a disturbing rate. What I tried to narrow my article’s limited scope to was men (especially white men, whose crimes are too frequently dismissed with limited to no punishment) who have committed sexual assault or convicted for pedophilia. Their presence is a direct threat to women in science — it implies men can commit such an atrocious crime and still be allowed to participate in science because their work is considered more important than justice for their victims.

We also cannot ignore that sexual offenders are far too frequently repeat offenders. And if a man is willing to cross a physical boundary to assault a woman, it is highly unlikely he is a an individual respectful of female colleague’s psychological and physical boundaries. When we make excuses for these men (i.e they are a genius, they are irreplaceable), we are directly implying that they are of more value than their victims (or future victims). I don’t believe that’s okay.

Rape and sexual assault should not be treated as an insignificant crime. And allowing men who commit that level of atrocity to practice science, we are subtly facilitating a space in which it is acceptable — passable — for men to disrespect women and get away with it. It reinforces that rape, assault, and even harassment just aren’t serious.

I hope that clarifies my position. Thanks for your thoughtful question.