Read on Twitter
The #FisherMustFall campaign is asking for the removal of a stained glass window in the dining hall of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, where Fisher was a student (1909-12), Fellow (1920-26, 1943-62), and College President (1956-59). The window was installed in 1989. (1/n) https://twitter.com/profjoecain/status/1273598023994613761
The petition, started by @donlon_lili is here: https://www.change.org/p/gonville-and-caius-college-remove-the-window-in-honour-of-ronald-aylmer-fisher-in-gonville-and-caius-hall
The College has noted that the window "has been of interest to Fellows and students for some time and we are aware of the growing concern and anger towards it." https://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/news/statement-ra-fisher-window (2/n)
The College has noted that the window "has been of interest to Fellows and students for some time and we are aware of the growing concern and anger towards it." https://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/news/statement-ra-fisher-window (2/n)
There is no question that Fisher held an active, lifelong commitment to eugenics. There is an ongoing question, however, of what this means for his legacy. The debate began in the 1970s, when historians of science (Bernard Norton and Donald MacKenzie) began researching (3/n)
Fisher's eugenical beliefs and activities, inc. his co-founding of the Cambridge Eugenics Society whilst an undergraduate, and his years of service and involvement with the British Eugenics Society in the 1910s-30s. Norton and MacKenzie were writing during the heyday of (4/n)
SSK and "externalist" historiography of science, both of which challenged the notion that science was entirely "objective" and thus shielded from "outside" influence of politics, ideology, etc. Fisher seemed a good test-case: did his eugenical beliefs shape/influence his (5/n)
unquestionably important contributions to science, particularly to evolutionary theory? Norton, esp., argued "yes"! But being such an influential scientist, Fisher has/had many disciples and some came out in defence of Fisher, arguing that his eugenical views were only (6/n)
incidental to his science; that his interests were primarily in evolution and genetics, and from this starting-point he was led to consider the ultimate consequences of evolutionary theory in the human species. His conclusions re humans were commonplace, and did NOT shape (7/n)
his scientific contributions. Essentially, Fisher's defenders argued we can separate the man from the science (and, further, that the man was simply a "product of his time"). Norton and MacKenzie never suggested we should stop reading, learning and using Fisher's work. (8/n)
Similarly for the petition to remove the memorial window. Precedent has been set by @ucl regarding the removal of memorials/honours to known eugenicists, as we agree they no longer represent our values https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jun/ucl-starts-process-renaming-buildings-named-after-prominent-eugenicists (9/n)
Important tho to go carefully into the details of these eugenicist's views. The Caius petition emphasises Fisher's racist views - makes lots of sense in light of #BlackLivesMatter 
. But my own research on Fisher's eugenics @hpsleeds indicates that the main axis on which F (10/n)
. But my own research on Fisher's eugenics @hpsleeds indicates that the main axis on which F (10/n)
constructed his eugenical theories was the issue of *class* - he believed lower classes were "genetically inferior" and was worried by their higher rates of reproduction (as indicated by census data). Dedicated himself to coming up with ways of encouraging more breeding by (11/n)
the "genetically superior" middle and upper classes, in order to improve "quality" of population. He thought a scheme of family allowances ("baby bonuses") might do the trick, putting him in an unlikely alliance with feminist campaigners such as E.F. Rathbone, as he tried (12/n)
and failed to rally support for eugenical family allowances. Tho Fisher's eugenics was not as *explicitly* racist as that of some peers, it was overtly *classist*. Ofc, in many contexts the two are inseparable. A problem with the claim that we can simply wave away Fisher's (13/n)
eugenical views as "a product of his time" is that they are also widely held in *our* time too, and increasingly by those in positions of power. Just think of the recent Sabisky row: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/16/tory-aide-wants-enforced-contraception-to-curb-pregnancies . (14/n)
And whilst we might debate whether his eugenical views shaped/influenced/motivated his "science proper", it seems certain that his status as a leading scientist added the weight of authority to his eugenical pronouncements. Eugenicists and racists today continue to rest (15/n)
their hateful ideologies on a bedrock of "science". (check out Angela Saini's book https://www.angelasaini.co.uk/superior ). Science and politics are inseparable, which is why we must revisit and learn about the ideologies of those like Fisher who have contributed most to modern science (16/16).
