racism in europe, sexual discrimination in university

i met a turkish astronomer yesterday. she'll be here for a year for a research project. it was not so hard for her to find me, since my name is out there and here i am bothering people by sending group mails for organizations. through the foggy and snowy landscape around the observatory i found my way to her building and we sat down for a while.

i was happy to meet another astronomer, sometimes i am jealous of my italian colleagues who can discuss their problems in their own language. one of them says it does not matter because the terms are english. i believe learning and discussing science in mother tongue is a hindrance we learn and practice the language of the master, we are stripped off of our culture and ability to express ourselves. one language as the international language might be practical but in everyday life usage the cultural particularities which defines us as a person is lost in the translation and the language spoken between colleagues is an empty receptacle for information transfer not a profound communication tool. that's why we are speaking a language with english grammar with italian and german words.

anyhow the reason i go through this is to explain the fact that my positive response of meeting another turkish astronomer was something personal and practical not ideological.

as opposed to an unknown max planck institute worker, who said "you are the first turkish astronomer in max planck," during a visit.

i would have understood if he said, "you are the first turkish person working here," which she was not. i wonder do they tell our swedish colleague, you are the first swedish student coming here. will they care if they had a norwegian postdoc, pointing out the exoticity of it.

i don't think so and this is not just pointing out an objective fact. facts are things we notice, as they pass through our filter of prejudices.

let me sketch it out for you, a female turkish astronomer is a positive thing because it means "we" are raising ourselves up from our backward stance. this is coming from a male professor who works in a country with currently one (in number: 1) female professor in astronomy.

it is well known that the fractions of female scientist in engineering and natural sciences in western, scientific central countries are far below the levels of greece, turkey and india. researchers are puzzled. i read this fact before but here is the words of wendy williams concerning the book they edited "why aren't more women in science?" :

The single most surprising finding was how much better women in some countries perform on math tests as compared to men in the United States and Canada! For Steve Ceci, the most surprising finding was that countries not known for their egalitarian attitudes toward women (for example, Turkey) produce more women computer scientists than do countries thought to be more modern and egalitarian (for example, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom).

i know for a fact that only in ankara the total number of female professors of astronomy is higher than whole germany. this is not considering the departments in istanbul, izmir, çanakkale and antalya.

i am not suggesting that turkey is doing "good science," after all we are at the periphery of science. but it shows where science is the science as we know it creates less female scientist, due to the competitive male aggressive aspect of it. in the center of science, doing good science not only means personal prestige but also means power through big projects and funds.

luckily enough last week there was a nature article about a relevant research that points out that american female astronomy graduate students suffer from "impostor syndrome" more than male phds. meaning they doubt their potential and scientific prowess more than their male counterparts. just to briefly give a cause it is due to the aggressive way of male communication (here i just quote my socialist feminist friends) that dominates the scientific research in which we need to present our results sweeping over the problematic analysis details and "hide" the shortcomings of our approach. there is no flexibility or space for doubt during a presentation, we give a complete, consistent and contingent picture and everybody claps, curtain closes.



another aspect is the so called cultural issue. maybe culturally turkey is not egalitarian (if we consider the female parliament members and violence against women) but institutionally is far ahead of germany in terms of class and sex diversity in higher education (i will write about this extensively later), to explain the institutional discrimination one only need to look at the current discussions about the law which plans to give money to stay at home mothers as opposed to subsidizing the kindergartens which are running out of space for children. this law will condemn women of germany to their homes, rather than to pursue a career, if they ever want to have a family. even worse this is done in the name of in christian values and concept of family.

let's be real, the west still has a long way to go to achieve equality. even worse, some of the rights that have been gained are thinned out. if a male scientist wants to pursue his career, moving from one city to another every 2-3 years till he gets a permanent position, it is more likely that he will find a stay at home partner, or a partner who would sacrifice her future for her family. the situation is far from symmetric for female scientists.

in summary, hell yes we have female astronomers in turkey. if as a professor you are happy for "my people" that we have a visiting female astronomer, and you think you are concerned about the equality of sexes in science, do us a favor and fix your own environment. push your government for egalitarian laws, and change the way western science is done.

to finish, i want to quote roman; a fun, loud and exteremely colorful astronomer colleague, "at least he did not say, you will be last turkish astronomer in max planck!"

racism in europe, an introduction

a very bold title after all this time that i was absent. apparently the people who are the closest to me do not recognize the daily banal racism that i face everyday.

let me back up a bit. i am a turk studying in germany. i talk german worse than a first generation of immigrant (as my other "auslander(foreigner)" peers here in university) yet i am a "white turk" not racially (because i don't believe in such a thing) but rather classwise. i dress up like an average westerner and i almost have an american accent when i speak.

when people hear my strange accent they ask me where i come from and when they hear turkey i get multiple responses which can be bundled up in just one simple sentence.

"you don't look turkish."

there are variations, sometimes they shut up not to say anything inappropriate and i appreciate it. but the other end of the spectrum is is when they ask me whether i have relatives in germany (because as you know turks move in flocks).

in the median of both they ask me about the race of my parents, or try to rationalize that the turks they observe come from anatolia (which from my perspective i do too). but you see the problem is not the looks but the social sense of what turkish is. rude, uneducated, dangerous, unemployed, backward/conservative/islamic/misogynist/non-western. don't think i haven't heard these things. when you talk to people about the racist possibility of turkish houses being burned in ludwigshafen, they say there is no such evidence and the fire was self inflicted due to the faulty illegal electricity tapping.

according to my friends i should be happy about this comments, because this derives from the empirical evidence they have; meaning they only have uneducated, unintegrated turks around them. and i am showing them that it is possible for a turk to have a phd. they pleasantly surprised, they mean well and it means they don't have ill feelings towards me anyway.

i say bullshit.

does looks, meaning phenotype defines the way you behave? this is -fucking- race centric view of life, and if you think that just because of the color of someones skin, or the way he dresses up or talks he acts in a certain negative way, you are racist.

another friend who is learning turkish, after six months, asks me whether i have european ancestors and tells i don't look turks. i tell her, i quickly learned that german girls are not all tall and blonde. she tells me no, those are swedish. i was speechless of course.

when it comes to the empirical reason for this kind of thinking; i just want to say if you want to look and find stereotypical turks, you will see them. you don't walk around with a racemeter and asses what kind of race looks and dresses up like.

and finally as it comes to how i feel personally about it, malcolm x will give the answer for me:

"If you're afraid of black nationalism, you're afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism. To understand this, you have to go back to what the young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro back during slavery. There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes — they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house — quicker than the master would. If the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

"This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro."

-- Malcolm X

i might dress up and talk like the master, but i am not a fucking house negro/white turk that will accept and be happy about the racist discriminatory behavior of the master race.

free speech in university - a.k.a. how to fend off lying ministers

very fresh news. vice prime minister arrives in ankara university to attend a mini conference on "democracy and human rights"

before he starts his talk, a student says he and the government violates human rights dailiy, be it the killing of uğur kıymaz 12 year old, a set up anti-terrorist operation; or the death of engin çeber under custody in prison due to beatings; or the lack of desire to lawfully release the cancer patient güler zere who is a political prisoner.


the students desire for him to leave is expressed with unending applause, nevertheless he appreciates the comments and continues;

Untitled from sendika.org on Vimeo.

not for very long.

the crowd go mad, as one student yells "you talk about democracy. what you understand from democracy is giving a examplary service medal to the likes of coronal ali ertosun," who was responsible for the prison hunger strike crack down of 2001, which resulted in 32 deaths (2 of them soldiers).

the bit i want to make note is that before hell breaks loose, cicek tells that when he is trying to be silenced, it is against democracy. imagine a situation where you know mainstream tv channels would not show the demonstrations, hence you need to have a handy cam so that the footage can be online, is that a equal representation of freedom of speech? as the media and information flow is consciously controlled to suppress free speech, is it really undemocratic to make the vice prime minister leave?

i would say no.

nobody needed to sit through his lies and clap in the end just because of common courtesy.

physics of oppresion, an intro

this week was a strangely busy week with less science and more politics. we had, as astronomers, two evaluations in heidelberg. one for our relatively new astronomy institute and the other for the doctoral program.

what was amazing was the involvement of the students, while in once they had the urge to only nod, in the other evaluation people were more active.

yet again i am cryptic.

let's go back to the basics. everything started on last sunday, gisella called on my bullshit about oppression (based on my lord of the rings analysis), and then i had to really conceptualize.

the temporary employment of the science workers is the basis of the class struggle.

PhD students and postdocs are the workforce of the professors and directors of institutes who are more involved in delegating work, administrative efforts and fund finding.

i first enunciate the problem with the analysis that is the directors do not directly own the means of production, but the access to the means production. computing facilities, high quality data, access to collaborators and most importantly the credibility embedded inside the community or the specific "highly regarded" institute.

before i become highly relativist and holistic, i just say that the increase of huge project demands the employment of the low level scientists to do the fordist production line type of work like coding data analysis pipeline, building instruments and varying the physical parameters of a code for specific problems.

this industrious productive nature alienates the majority of the young researchers from physics and/or astronomy. whom work with the desire that one day they will be professors and good scientists, and the only reason they are disillusioned with their work is that they are not smart enough they are not hard working enough. post-docs/proletariat live with the dream that one day they will become professor/bourgeois themselves.

the simple statistics show that there is not enough permanent position for each post-doc. hence we move with the mobility scheme (again one of the aims of the bologna process) from one job to the other, so that the our bosses can tap into the competitive international market of educated workforce. and we "the educated" don't even have the collective bargaining rights of a common factory worker, because science is such a fucking individualist/competitive enterprise. the nature should be investigated via collaboration, not by competition. that's why our papers are publicly accessible, unlike the patents of the pharmaceutical companies.

the point was, is and will be raised that as the educated class of the society with relatively high wages we can not be oppressed. i will make a loop argument, pointing out the comment i face everytime i propose change:

"our director cannot change anything because it is university rule."
"the university cannot do anything because it is national policy."
"the ministry cannot do anything because it is a european policy."

this kind of empathizing with the position of power really pisses me off. especially if it is argued to curb the action for demanding the rights, no matter how trivial this may look to "the hunger of manual laborers."

i will rather prefer if freire finishes instead of me by the pedagogy of the oppressed:

"The “fear of freedom” which afflicts the oppressed, a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppressed, should be examined. One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription.

(...)

"The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion."

-Paul Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Chapter 1