AMS Board of Trustees Opposes Executive Order on Immigration
Monday January 30th 2017
Providence, RI: The members of the Board of Trustees of the American Mathematical Society wish to express their opposition to the Executive Order signed by President Trump that temporarily suspends immigration benefits to citizens of seven nations.
For many years, mathematical sciences in the USA have profited enormously from unfettered contact with colleagues from all over the world. The United States has been a destination of choice for international students who wish to study mathematics; the US annually hosts hundreds of conferences attracting global participation. Our nation’s position of leadership in mathematics depends critically upon open scientific borders. By threatening these borders, the Executive Order will do irreparable damage to the mathematical enterprise of the United States.
We urge our colleagues to support efforts to maintain the international collegiality, openness, and exchange that strengthens the vitality of the mathematics community, to the benefit of everyone.
We have all signed the online petition of academics opposing the ban. We encourage our colleagues to consider joining us in signing it and in asking the Administration to rescind the Executive Order.
Robert Bryant, President of the AMS
Kenneth Ribet, President-Elect of the AMS
UPDATE: The online petition is experiencing a delay in accepting emails and displaying new names. [1/31/17]
Contacts: Mike Breen and Annette Emerson
Public Awareness Officers
American Mathematical Society
201 Charles Street
Providence, RI 02904
Email the Public Awareness Office
Founded in 1888 to further mathematical research and scholarship, today the American Mathematical Society fulfills its mission through programs and services that promote mathematical research and its uses, strengthen mathematical education, and foster awareness and appreciation of mathematics and its connections to other disciplines and to everyday life.
The website was created on January 21. The story seems to have broken just this morning in the Washington Post, and it is gradually being picked up by other media. No date has yet been set, but the movement is growing literally as I type, to judge by this snippet from the Post’s article:
In short order, the march had a Facebook page (which currently has
more than 200 more than 48,000more than 150,000 members), a Twitter handle, a website, two co-chairs, Berman and science writer and public health researcher Caroline Weinberg, and a Google form through which interested researchers could sign up to help.
The AMS Committee on Science Policy (CSP) will be hosting a panel discussion at next month’s Joint Mathematics Meeting in Atlanta. Karen Saxe, who worked for Senator Al Franken as the 2013-2014 AMS/AAAS Science and Technology Policy Congressional Fellow, invited the Minnesota Senator (and former Saturday Night Live cast member) to speak to the panel, and he obliged by sending a video to be played at the meeting. Here is the full CSP panel program:
AMS Committee on Science Policy Panel Discussion
Friday, January 6, 2:30 pm — 4:00 pm
Place: Atlanta Marriott Marquise, Atrium Level, Room A704
Title: “Grassroots Advocacy for Mathematics and Science Policy”
Organizers: Jeffrey Hakim, American University (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Douglas Mupasiri, University of Northern Iowa (email@example.com )
Scott Wolpert, University of Maryland (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Moderator: Karen Saxe (email@example.com), Director, AMS Washington Office
Panelists: Catherine Paolucci, Office of Senator Al Franken (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Douglas Mupasiri, University of Northern Iowa (email@example.com)
Scott Wolpert, University of Maryland (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Description: The AMS Committee on Science Policy has organized this panel to discuss ways to engage with elected officials in addressing policy issues of concern to the mathematics community, including research funding and education. Panelists will discuss the importance of grassroots advocacy and building relationships with legislators to further goals.
The video is about three minutes long, and those of you who cannot attend will be able to watch it at the AMS website — details to be supplied later. In the meantime, if you’re wondering what “Grassroots advocacy for mathematics” looks like, Karen directed me to this blog post about a recent (Capitol) Hill Visit by a Villanova student delegation, organized by the Association for Women in Mathematics.
Speaking of Washington, I found the following quotation from Nietzsche’s Transvaluation of all Values in the chapter on Sade and Nietzsche of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment:
The weak and unsuccessful must perish; this is the first proposition of our philanthropy. And they should even be helped on their way.
Also this quotation from Sade’s Justine:
How in truth can you require that he who has been endowed by nature with an eminent capacity for crime… should have to obey the same law that calls all to virtue or to moderation?
If these sentiments remind you of individuals, living or dead, who have been mentioned in the news recently, you will be relieved to see that, more than one month after national elections, the officials entrusted with the business of the Republic appear not to be guided by Sadist ethics.
Tim Gowers has once again done the university community a great service by using his blog to publicize the impending decimation of the University of Leicester’s mathematics department. More like a double decimation: of the department’s 23 full-time staff, 5 are slated to lose their jobs, with the research staff shrinking by close to 30%. Rather than repeat the details, which you can find presented with Gowers’s customary clarity on his blog, I am using this space to encourage readers and their friends to sign the protest petition. The petition already has over 2500 signatures, many of them alerted to the situation (as I was) by reading Gowers’s account.
Leicester is being cut back across the board, but the cuts in mathematics are particularly severe. For a crash course in the neo-liberal conception of the university, you can read the relevant chapter in Wendy Brown’s Undoing the Demos, featured in an entry on this blog last year.
This blog has been suspended but it will be revived occasionally for urgent news items like this one.
UPDATE: Vladimir Tasić points out that this sort of thing is happening with increasing frequency in Canada as well.
Snail image: Creative Commons licence courtesy of Te Papa; Clairaut’s love formula from Chapter 6 of MWA
My tireless editor Vickie Kearn at Princeton University Press has brought me the welcome news that Mathematics without Apologies will be coming out in a paperback edition next spring. I started this blog for two reasons, and one of them — to clarify my intentions in writing the book — will vanish when I add two or three pages to the preface of the new edition. The new pages — I have already written them — will devote one paragraph or so to each of four topics, provisionally under the headings charisma, memoirs, utility, and ethics; each paragraph will address some of the points raised by comments on this blog as well as in some of the more negative reviews.
My other reason for starting this blog was to find some outlet for the wealth of material that I was not able to incorporate in the book. Most of this material has remained untapped while I composed comments on current events or new findings, and I was idly wondering when I would get around to sifting through the 7 GB or so that is gathering nanodust on my computer’s hard drive. My Eureka! moment came when I realized that I had already devoted a considerable amount of my free time to writing the book during the better part of three years. Perhaps I didn’t really want to return to the old material? With the new preface, I can finally declare the book finished and move on to something else.
Will it be another book, maybe one that will win me the mythical seven figure advance? Or will there be another blog, or the same one under another name? That’s for the future to decide. Meanwhile, this one will remain visible, but with no new entries.
My thanks to the regular readers and occasional visitors who helped keep the blog from slipping into solipsism. And my special thanks to authors of comments who, by disagreeing, often sharply, with opinions expressed here, demonstrated that the meaning of mathematics is still a matter of controversy.
This was supposed to be the last entry, but I’m now thinking I should include part of the new preface material — or all of it, if PUP allows it. Meanwhile, in order not to let anything go to waste, here is the post on which I was working when I realized that this blog had reached the end of its natural life…
This was originally going to be an appendix to the playlist near the end of Chapter 8: an exploration of the attitude to mathematics in the genre of organized crime ballads. The deeper meaning of Rick Ross’s 2009 single Mafia Music was exposed even before it was released, but I was unable to find an interpretation of the unexpected appearance of mathematics in the middle of this rap à clef:
I thought about my future and the loops I could pin.
Walked out on a gig and I turned to da streets,
Kept my name low key, I ain’t heard from in weeks.
I came up with a strategy to come up mathematically,
I did it for da city but now everybody mad at me.
Apart from Rick Ross, Gödel is the only person Google finds who can “come up mathematically.” My guess is that Ross’s strategy (unlike Gödel’s) involves money. But Ross is not really a gangster, and Mafia Music is not really a mafia song at all; in fact, by naming names the song breaks what I’m told is the most fundamental of all the rules of the Italian Malavita, namely the rule of omertà, the iron law of silence.
Now it struck me when I saw this that the mathematical profession has its own version of omertà, probably not very different from other forms of academic rules of silence, having to do with forms of behavior that straddle the line that divides the unpleasant from the unethical. The behavior protected by mathematical omertà differs from other varieties in that it tends to inspire less literary commentary. Instead it consists in scandalous rumors whispered in corridors when they are not being shouted across barroom tables, but that must under no circumstances be mentioned in public. (There was a scurrilous exception in a well known literary magazine a few years ago, but I will not dignify it with a link.)
I am particularly sensitive to this rule just now, because in the past few weeks I was shocked to learn of abuse of power by several colleagues I would not have believed capable of such behavior (and by a few others I can easily believe capable of anything). Whether being the repository of such confidences is one of the perks of my charisma, or whether it’s the abusers who feel newly entitled as a result of their own charisma, the mildest punishment I could expect if I chose to betray the dark secrets of the mathematical profession is not to be privy to such secrets in the future. Breach of Mafia omertà is treated more harshly than that. Many of the songs on the delightful album La Musica della Mafia are devoted to the many kinds of punishment the gangster ethic —
Laws that don’t forgive those/Who break their silence
reserves for traitors — cunfirenti, in Calabrian dialect. For example, the song entitled I cunfirenti promises that they will find “their final resting place in concrete walls” (‘Mpastati ccu cimentu e poi murati).
The album’s title is imprecise; it’s not a collection of songs of the Sicilian mafia but rather the ballads of their Calabrian declension, the ‘Ndrangheta, who deserve to be better known, and not only for their songs:
Its success at drug smuggling catapulted the ‘Ndrangheta past its more storied Sicilian rival, the Cosa Nostra, in both wealth and power. Italian authorities now consider the ‘Ndrangheta to be Europe’s single biggest importer of cocaine.
What I find most charming about this collection is the contrast between the lively rhythms of many of the songs and the uniformly grim, often bloody, content of the lyrics. For example:
Puru si c’impizzu a vita
Eu nun fazzu na sgarrata
I am one of the honorable society.
And even if it costs me my life,
I will never surrender.
If you’re looking for mathematical content you have to skip to the last verse:
Ed eo chi tingu sangu ´nta li vini
Su prontu d’affruntari mille infami
A chista genti ci rispunnimu
Pidi sunu pronti centu lami
And I who have blood flowing through my veins
Am ready to face 1000 traitors
As they know all too well
That 100 sharpened knives are ready for them.
A few weeks ago, Terry Tao used Donald Trump’s perceived lack of qualification for the presidency to illustrate the difference between mutual knowledge and common knowledge, in a blog post with the normative title It ought to be common knowledge that Donald Trump is not fit for the presidency of the United States of America. It’s common knowledge that Terry Tao, in addition to being one of the Mozarts of mathematics, is a very sensible person, and like every sensible person he is appalled by the prospect of Trump’s election as president. As an attempt to account for this unwelcome prospect, Tao suggested that the correctness of Proposition 1 above is a matter of mutual knowledge —
information that everyone (or almost everyone) knows
but not (or not yet) common knowledge
something that (almost) everyone knows that everyone else knows (and that everyone knows that everyone else knows that everyone else knows, and so forth).
It seems to me, though, that Tao’s formulation of the question — whether Trump is “fit for the presidency” or, in the words of Proposition 1, is “even remotely qualified” — is ambiguous. The only axiomatic answer is the one provided by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which implies unequivocally that Trump, like me but (unfortunately) unlike Tao, is indeed “eligible to the office of President” — though I admit I haven’t seen his birth certificate — and eligible is here the only word that is unambiguous and legally binding.
Now I realize that, even if you are a mathematician and therefore legally or at least professionally bound to respect the axiomatic method, you will object (at least I hope you will) that Tao did not mean to suggest that Trump’s bare eligibility was in question, but rather that Trump did not meet the more stringent criteria of fitness or even remote qualification. By analogy, no one would deny that ø (the empty set) is eligible to be a set, according to the usual axioms of set theory, but rather that
- ø is hardly anyone’s favorite set;
- ø is in no sense a paradigmatic set; and
- ø is not the kind of set for which set theory was designed.
Thus, even if it were mutual or even common knowledge that Trump is, so to speak, the empty set of American politics, that would hardly count as a consensus on his fitness or even remote qualification. I’m naturally sympathetic to this kind of argument, but Tao made it clear that only comments that
directly address the validity or epistemological status of Proposition 1
were eligible for consideration on his blog. While I’m hardly a strict constructionist, I don’t see how to avoid interpreting the word epistemological in terms of the maximal epistemological framework I share with Tao, which in this case can only be Article II, Section 1 (together with the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, but I doubt they are of much help here).
I was already leaning to a different explanation of the Trump phenomenon before fivethirtyeight.com offered this helpful but depressing roster of the worst (and best) presidents in the history of the United States, according to (unspecified) “scholars.” Running down the list, one sees that, although Barack Obama is undoubtedly one of the most fit of all the presidents, intellectually as well as academically speaking, he only shows up near the middle of the ranking. Presumably this is because he has been less effective as a politician than the presidents at the top of the list. Judging by his words, I would like to say that Obama is one of the most morally fit of the presidents on the list; judging by his deeds, on the other hand — these, for example, or these — the record is much less appealing. Jimmy Carter has proved to be both intellectually and morally admirable since leaving the presidency, but he made two of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent history while in office (he ranks quite poorly on the list, probably for different reasons).
It is clearly mutual knowledge that the notion of fitness to lead a modern democracy, in particular fitness for the presidency of the USA ,correlates strongly with a shocking disdain for the notion that elections are designed to reflect the popular will. My sense is that Trump’s supporters, and their counterparts across Europe, would like this to be common knowledge. Fortunately, they are not the only ones.
This will be the next-to-last post for the summer; the next post will explain why it may be time to put this blog to rest permanently.
1985ean Parisko École Normale Superieureko matematikako zuzendari eta irakasle hautatu zuten. Urte berean, Londresko Errege Elkarteko kide izendatu zuten. Emmanuel Collegeko kide izateaz gainera, Cambridgeko Matematikako Sadleiriar katedra ere lortu zuen. 1991n Cambridgeko Matematika Huts eta Estatistika Matematikako saileko zuzendari izendatu zuten.
Wikipedia lists 395 number theorists, from Euclid and Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī to Jacob Tsimerman, but I am not on the list. Actually, one should consider not one list but all the lists of number theorists, in languages from العربية to 中文, but I am not on any of the lists.
Some of the lists are easy to remember; for example, the Kazakhs only recognize Diophantus, Hadamard, Gauss, and Fibonacci (in alphabetical order: Д, Ж, К, Ф); the Icelandic page only lists Dirichlet. I wonder whether John Coates knows that he is the only number theorist not born in the 18th or 19th century, and only one of five number theorists of any time or place, to have a Wikipedia page in Basque, excerpted above; I will surely ask him the next time I see him.
I like to point out Wikipedia’s frequent errors, omissions, and oddities; it reinforces my possibly naive hope that there is a future for professional scholarship. When I start writing anything I inevitably consult Wikipedia for source material, and I sometimes use “Wikipedia” as a stand-in for wired public opinion; but I never quote it as a reliable reference, because too often it is not. On this occasion I was looking for a list of number theorists — it should be easier to get that right than a list of autobiographies — because I had just come across an exchange on the n-Category Café in which Harvey Friedman took part, and in which Peano arithmetic was mentioned and I was wondering how many number theorists on the list would be able to recite the Peano postulates, and what that said about the state of our subject. Surely Eratosthenes and John Coates’s four companions on the Basque page are exempt, but are contemporary number theorists really entitled to their places on the list? To be continued…