Why not just call it + then? it would include everything... or call it the group of sexually active people..... such non-sense... maybe because some don't like to be called people and would rather be called things? or they?
This is kind of sad for me. I'm always impressed by the JWST's engineering and the incredible work put in over decades by talented engineers to see it completed. But the name is a painful reminder of the discrimination and outright cruelty of the federal government, even in supposedly more "meritocratic" agencies like NASA. As a compromise, I choose to only refer to the JWST by its acronym, which as far as I'm concerned lends none of its accomplishments to James Webb.
I'm confused by your response. If NASA is to be believed, he was not particularly zealous in following the policy. You propose that any government official of pre say 1980 should not be referenced because of this?
Note that the actual title is NASA Shares James Webb History Report, not the title as of this posting NASA Declines to Rename JWST. If the poster feels that the title is clickbaity, I think that it could be simply clarified to Results of NASA Investigation on the James Webb Period, but I think that the original title is neutral enough.
Edit 2022-11-18 20:06: I think that the full title of the report, NASA Historical Investigation into James E. Webb’s Relationship to the Lavender Scare is actually okay but too long for HN. NASA Investigation into Webb’s Relationship to the Lavender Scare is concise enough.
I rarely editorialize titles. In this case I felt that NASA was intentionally "burying the lede" so I substituted with a clear headline so HN readers would know what it's actually about.
Burying the lede counts as misleading, especially in press releases, which are usually designed to obfuscate*. So this is a legit edit, covered by the "unless" in "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
I hesitate to point this out for fear of opening a loophole for abuses, but it really is a consistent pattern with press releases.
The other option, of course, is to find a good third-party article reporting on the same news. Whatever is in an organization's interest to obfuscate, is in a good reporter's interest to uncover, and if the story is important or popular, such an article probably exists somewhere.
> The other option, of course, is to find a good third-party article reporting on the same news. Whatever it's in an organization's interest to obfuscate, it's in a good reporter's interest to uncover, and if the story is important or popular, such an article probably exists somewhere.
The problem I think that there's (as of posting) no third-party articles about this from reasonably-credible writers.
Aside from Webb's human rights record, isn't it wildly inappropriate for a major international scientific collaboration to be named after one of the host country's (non-scientist) bureaucrats?
This is one of the greatest scientific instruments ever produced, shouldn't it be named after an astronomer/astrophysicist? Shouldn't the scientists that worked on it for decades be the ones to pick the name?
Absent the Lavender Scare, Webb was instrumental in turning NASA into a cohesive organization, enabling scientists to do good work. On that grounds alone the name is no big deal. It's like naming a computer science building after Bill Gates or even Al Gore.
But his participation in a hate campaign makes him ineligible for the honor in my view.
The Lavender scare took place during the early communist scares of the 50s.
At the time being gay was absolutely grounds for blackmail. Being openly gay was socially impossible for anybody outside of a few industries like entertainment.
Many people participated in the Lavender scare for horrible, hateful reasons, but the security risk of employing closeted individuals was real. That's why Eisenhower issued the order. He was morally wrong to do so and deserves all blame.
Government administrators could not defy a presidential order regarding security on a moral basis. It was legally impossible to do so.
If Webb had actively refused he would have been fired. If he subverted the policy he would have risked prison. Therefore we do not know how often he turned a blind eye to somebody's orientation.
Today you cannot work in a classified position if you have a gambling problem because it makes you vulnerable to bribery. When the administrator of a classified agency complies with this policy it does not mean he hates gambling addicts. It means that they are security risks and that he is acting within the law.
When the executive order was finally repealed a significant part of the reasoning was that being gay no longer necessarily meant being closeted and was therefore no longer a security risk. The cold war was also over which reduced security concerns for ordinary military personnel.
The Lavender policy was repugnant, but literally the only people who had any choice in the matter are the seven presidents who chose to continue the executive order, Eisenhower who implemented it, and anybody who actively campaigned for it.
It's a good thing we don't name anything important after former Presidents, isn't it?
Even if they had participated in the lavender scare, they are a product of their time. The governments themselves did it, which is funny why we somehow now trust those systems today.
We can both condemn the actions of a historical figure and also respect them for their achievements that did good. By trying to erase history we cannot learn from it.
There are significantly more important issues affecting us. Who cares about the name of a telescope when homelessness and socioeconomic inequality prevents many from even having a decent quality of living?
Our lives are not infinite, public action is not infinite. choose what you're going to spend it on. Twitter doesn't count.
While I respect your opinion, I'd like to offer another perspective.
Renaming a (recent) symbol of human progress is not the same thing as erasing history. That would be removing James Webb's name from the wall of NASA's former leaders, removing him from history books, etc. No one is proposing that.
Instead, it is holding our symbols to a high standard. We should pick those who truly stood out and above. There are plenty of historical figures that made great contributions to humanity at NASA. I doubt they would struggle to find an alternative.
That being said, based on the conclusions of the report, I think the name should stay.
Expecting every historical great person to have zero skeletons in the closet based on todays political perspectives is unrealistic and irrational anyway.
Of course there are degrees of malice but social media loves this sort of zero-effort cultural gatekeeping where they get to pearl clutch and feel like they are improving the world from the keyboard.
Renaming JWT (even before it was found to be mostly baseless) is just another slacktivist exercise with little real value to society.
Isn't it amazing how they use this ill-defined term "lavender scare"? Like it's just some fact of history. No one in charge could have prevented it. No one is to blame. Not even the literal NASA Administrator.
They looked for
"Notable examples would be any documentation/correspondence which James Webb was either presented with actions on the firing of homosexual employees, any policy documents requesting his approval/review, or any reports in which additional information concerning the firing of homosexual employees was presented to James Webb."
So, since no one complained to Webb about gay men being fired, Webb has no culpability?
Since there's no evidence that he did anything wrong, it doesn't make any sense to just assume that he's guilty due to being in an administrative position during the time.
Presumption of innocence is required in US courts because the state imparting punishment deprives people of rights. What rights is Webb deprived of by not getting a satellite named after him?
A court of law is not the only context in which presumption of innocence is and should be the default. It should in fact be the default in most if not all contexts.
Furthermore, impugning the reputation of someone deceased and unable to defend themselves is an insult to his family and his legacy. The fact that people think that doing this is justified without any supporting evidence is just disgraceful.
Presumption of innocence is an important principle for all of society. It's not just some heady legal principle that doesn't apply to non-state entities. Why do you think that the state is the only entity that can deprive people of their rights or their wellbeing?
Presumption of guilt is how people end up being shamed and exiled for things they didn't do. You don't have to be persecuted by the government to be a victim of persecution.
It's not "assuming" anything to say he went to the White house meeting about these firings. Knew about the firings. Didn't dissent in the discussion or object to the final outcome of firing people
From the report:
"Truman and Webb discussed a strategy of engagement with the Hoey Committee determining how they might “work together on the homosexual investigation”"
From the agency that compiled the report: "The report found no evidence that Webb was either a leader or proponent of firing government employees for their sexual orientation."
I haven't read the 80+ page report in its entirety, but I am not going to take an out-of-context statement from the report that concluded his non-involvement as some evidence against him. That statement sounds perhaps damning, but I can assume that the context might paint a more complete picture, or perhaps it was recollected by somebody else, or maybe the extent of it was that Truman called for a meeting with Webb with the goal being "work together on the homosexual investigation", and Webb attended the meeting out of professional obligation.
I don't know. I do know that the statement is from the report that concluded that he was NOT involved, so right off the bat, I can conclude that in isolation, it's misleading.
I liked the idea of renaming it after Harriet Tubman. She help lead slaves to freedom using the stars for navigation or something, so it's far more appropriate to name a telescope after her than some random white guy no one's ever heard of, who also supported official intolerance LGBTQIA+ people.
41 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadAs far as I know, the name was kept because no evidence of involvement in the Lavender Scare was found.
Do you have specific issues with the report this decision was based on?:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_hi...
Edit 2022-11-18 20:06: I think that the full title of the report, NASA Historical Investigation into James E. Webb’s Relationship to the Lavender Scare is actually okay but too long for HN. NASA Investigation into Webb’s Relationship to the Lavender Scare is concise enough.
I hesitate to point this out for fear of opening a loophole for abuses, but it really is a consistent pattern with press releases.
The other option, of course, is to find a good third-party article reporting on the same news. Whatever is in an organization's interest to obfuscate, is in a good reporter's interest to uncover, and if the story is important or popular, such an article probably exists somewhere.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
> The other option, of course, is to find a good third-party article reporting on the same news. Whatever it's in an organization's interest to obfuscate, it's in a good reporter's interest to uncover, and if the story is important or popular, such an article probably exists somewhere.
The problem I think that there's (as of posting) no third-party articles about this from reasonably-credible writers.
This is one of the greatest scientific instruments ever produced, shouldn't it be named after an astronomer/astrophysicist? Shouldn't the scientists that worked on it for decades be the ones to pick the name?
But his participation in a hate campaign makes him ineligible for the honor in my view.
At the time being gay was absolutely grounds for blackmail. Being openly gay was socially impossible for anybody outside of a few industries like entertainment.
Many people participated in the Lavender scare for horrible, hateful reasons, but the security risk of employing closeted individuals was real. That's why Eisenhower issued the order. He was morally wrong to do so and deserves all blame.
Government administrators could not defy a presidential order regarding security on a moral basis. It was legally impossible to do so.
If Webb had actively refused he would have been fired. If he subverted the policy he would have risked prison. Therefore we do not know how often he turned a blind eye to somebody's orientation.
Today you cannot work in a classified position if you have a gambling problem because it makes you vulnerable to bribery. When the administrator of a classified agency complies with this policy it does not mean he hates gambling addicts. It means that they are security risks and that he is acting within the law.
When the executive order was finally repealed a significant part of the reasoning was that being gay no longer necessarily meant being closeted and was therefore no longer a security risk. The cold war was also over which reduced security concerns for ordinary military personnel.
The Lavender policy was repugnant, but literally the only people who had any choice in the matter are the seven presidents who chose to continue the executive order, Eisenhower who implemented it, and anybody who actively campaigned for it.
It's a good thing we don't name anything important after former Presidents, isn't it?
We can both condemn the actions of a historical figure and also respect them for their achievements that did good. By trying to erase history we cannot learn from it.
There are significantly more important issues affecting us. Who cares about the name of a telescope when homelessness and socioeconomic inequality prevents many from even having a decent quality of living?
Our lives are not infinite, public action is not infinite. choose what you're going to spend it on. Twitter doesn't count.
Renaming a (recent) symbol of human progress is not the same thing as erasing history. That would be removing James Webb's name from the wall of NASA's former leaders, removing him from history books, etc. No one is proposing that.
Instead, it is holding our symbols to a high standard. We should pick those who truly stood out and above. There are plenty of historical figures that made great contributions to humanity at NASA. I doubt they would struggle to find an alternative.
That being said, based on the conclusions of the report, I think the name should stay.
Of course there are degrees of malice but social media loves this sort of zero-effort cultural gatekeeping where they get to pearl clutch and feel like they are improving the world from the keyboard.
Renaming JWT (even before it was found to be mostly baseless) is just another slacktivist exercise with little real value to society.
Tear their statues down, rename the streets, municipalities, and telescopes.
They looked for "Notable examples would be any documentation/correspondence which James Webb was either presented with actions on the firing of homosexual employees, any policy documents requesting his approval/review, or any reports in which additional information concerning the firing of homosexual employees was presented to James Webb."
So, since no one complained to Webb about gay men being fired, Webb has no culpability?
Furthermore, impugning the reputation of someone deceased and unable to defend themselves is an insult to his family and his legacy. The fact that people think that doing this is justified without any supporting evidence is just disgraceful.
Presumption of guilt is how people end up being shamed and exiled for things they didn't do. You don't have to be persecuted by the government to be a victim of persecution.
From the report: "Truman and Webb discussed a strategy of engagement with the Hoey Committee determining how they might “work together on the homosexual investigation”"
I haven't read the 80+ page report in its entirety, but I am not going to take an out-of-context statement from the report that concluded his non-involvement as some evidence against him. That statement sounds perhaps damning, but I can assume that the context might paint a more complete picture, or perhaps it was recollected by somebody else, or maybe the extent of it was that Truman called for a meeting with Webb with the goal being "work together on the homosexual investigation", and Webb attended the meeting out of professional obligation.
I don't know. I do know that the statement is from the report that concluded that he was NOT involved, so right off the bat, I can conclude that in isolation, it's misleading.