A Brief Word on Michael Shermer

9/12/2014

Like many of you, I read with dismay BuzzFeed’s article about allegations that Skeptic magazine founder Michael Shermer raped skeptic Alison Smith in 2008 after plying her with alcohol at a party during The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) in Las Vegas. Shermer released a statement denying the allegations but admitting to having had consensual sex with Smith. He points out that there is no evidence for the accusations and that the accuser continued to correspond with him happily years after the event. Other women speaking to BuzzFeed reported unwelcome sexual advances from Shermer, including an incident where he was allegedly “playing with his crotch” while hitting on a young woman at an atheist event. Shermer denies this as well, noting that the allegation of several minutes of indecent display in the midst of a crowded event is hard to credit.

Because I have criticized fringe authors for their involvement with former American Nazi party president and convicted pedophile Frank Collins (in his Frank Joseph publishing persona), it would be hypocritical of me not to take note of these very serious allegations since Michael Shermer has published many of my articles, including my very first, “Charioteer of the Gods.”

I have never met Michael Shermer in person, nor have I exchanged more than a few lines of email with him over the years. All of my Skeptic magazine articles were published before allegations against Shermer became public knowledge, and certainly before I became aware of them today. Apparently PZ Myers wrote a piece about the allegations last year, but this came after my last Skeptic appearance and was not known to me.

If the allegations are true, it is truly disturbing. For the time being, I don’t see myself returning to the pages of Skeptic until this sorts itself out. Also: These skeptic and atheist conferences sound like absolutely awful bacchanals. I am glad I have never been to one.

50 Comments

9/12/2014 12:46:27 pm

Bacchanals had less skewed sex ratios. Which is at the root of the some of this behavior on the part of the male attendees. It has nothing to do with the "Atheist Movement" being more or less sexist than any other community with comparable demographics. (Note that this is in no way meant to justify or excuse any offensive, let alone criminal behavior towards anyone.)

At present there is no evidence beyond hearsay that any of this really happened (which it would be nice if the blog post had mentioned). As far as being an aggressive womanizer, I just want to point out that while I find such behavior distasteful, being a womanizer doesn't make a man more likely to be a rapist.

Jason Colavito link

9/12/2014 12:53:25 pm

I mentioned that Shermer denies the allegation. It's rather obvious, I think, that this is presented in the BuzzFeed report as a he said/she said situation, and there isn't really any way for those of us who weren't there to evaluate the claims. I'm giving this wide berth to let the parties involved pursue or otherwise resolve the matter. I can't see that I have anything useful to say about it.

9/12/2014 05:38:14 pm

I was going to make a joke about giving this wide berth by writing a blog post about it, but then I realized that it would be misconstruing what you say and that your post is actually a very sensible way of approaching the situation.

Though I still worry that some people could miss the point of you dwelling on Shremer, rather than his accuser (who, if Shremer is telling the truth, has possibly done something reprehensible). Because you *could* appear as boycotting Skeptic because of allegations against Shermer, some people *could* accuse you of rushing to take his accuser's side *or* of betraying Shermer. I don't know you could say what you want to say any better than you did, but I'm still worried that such misperception could occur.

But I suppose it's the price you pay for actually caring about transparency. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Jason Colavito link

9/13/2014 01:20:43 am

There isn't anything to betray, nor am I boycotting Skeptic (I have no articles planned, and haven't since last year). I don't know the man, and to be quite frank when I did ask for his assistance in helping to start my career in skepticism and publishing many years ago, he declined.

As I said above, I don't have any idea what actually happened, but I'd prefer to avoid charges that I am a hypocrite for holding fringe writers to a higher standard than I do myself.

IMOHO

9/12/2014 12:57:38 pm

Mr. Shermer will most likely see his close friends defending
his reputation before and during the trial, if he is cleared of
the charge, his life will go back to what it was before the trail.

Jason Colavito link

9/12/2014 01:01:33 pm

So far as I know, no charges were or will be filed.

IMOHO

9/12/2014 01:07:06 pm

I stand corrected. He must be in a state of limbo right now...

Either she will carry through or she won't. I;m not trying to try

him in the court of public opinion if there is to be no trial at all.

It's hard to do a retraction on a false accusation, usually bad

news has more metaphoric "legs' than good news has or does.

Clint Knapp

9/12/2014 02:22:26 pm

I had not seen this story yet, but that's not much of a surprise. I've never been a fan of Buzzfeed or found it necessary to follow the more polarizing figures in skepticism and atheism. The very notion such "pillars" of the "movement" are essential to skeptical thought seems rather anathema to the point of skepticism.

It's rather interesting the article takes such pains to set up these men as important figures upon which the entire concept hinges, and goes out of its way to continually reference "freethought"- which is a term I've never heard in relation to skepticism, but usually find used as a buzzword by New Agers, conspiracy theorists, and ancient astronaut believers to describe their own brand of wacky.

These are just my own observations, though. I find the whole notion of organized skepticism an enormous waste of time, and whether Shermer is guilty or not has exactly zero impact on my views, as I would imagine would be the case with most who are actually skeptically-minded and not simply atheist supporters.

What the truth of the incident in question might be or not is simply not mine to judge, but neither is it for Buzzfeed to build a guilt-by-association case against an entire collection of people for the alleged actions of a few of the more notorious members.

9/12/2014 02:49:58 pm

Couldn't agree more with pretty much everything you said.

Especially the "pillars and movement" part. And the "guilt by association" part that follows from it directy.

Dave Lewis

9/12/2014 04:02:49 pm

NEWS FLASH

Stan Deyo was on Coast to Coast AM a few days ago. He has determined that the Garden of Eden was in the Ngorongoro crater in Tanzania.

Well, that's one thing we can quit worrying about!

9/12/2014 05:25:21 pm

Given that it's Stan Deyo, I bet it's actually supposed to be one more thing we need to *start* worrying about...

A. J. West link

9/13/2014 04:18:44 am

<blockquote>These skeptic and atheist conferences sound like absolutely awful bacchanals. I am glad I have never been to one.</blockquote>

My feelings exactly. I have no problem in principle with drinking and casual sex, but that's not my scene at all.

I've followed this scandal on and off for the past few years - not just Shermer & co, but the place of women in scepticism and so forth. I find it depressing, more than anything else. But I'm not particularly interested in scepticism (or atheism, etc) as a social movement with mass gatherings and key figures. I'd much rather find out about the world and try to share that than indulge in such things.

spookyparadigm

9/13/2014 04:34:42 am

In the past, I've had at least a passing interesting in the skeptic community since they've been willing to take on the "weird" topics that the public expects academics to address, but they won't (ie, the sort of stuff that gets discussed here). This has begun to change a bit, thankfully.

Academic politics can be infamously nasty, but by comparison with the secular movement the last few years, they are polite, genteel, and productive. That most of the community is financially and media supported either by a random handful of individuals running small non-profits, or by the ability to win attention on social media, probably has a lot to do with it. And that's a criticism of both sides of the recent fighting.

spookyparadigm

9/13/2014 04:42:07 am

Ah, forgot the other point I was going to make.

Yes, I too am baffled by the blending of a fandom-like environment with these movements, except that there is no actual "thing" they fan, just themselves. The "community" has become defined not by publications or research or legal activism but by conferences and events and public speaking, and it wonders why it has become home to grifters, idealogues, and other less-than-savory characters looking for new marks.

They model themselves on trade shows, motivational speaker conferences, and/or frat parties, and then wonder why they have these problems.

A. J. West link

9/13/2014 05:10:05 am

"They model themselves on trade shows, motivational speaker conferences, and/or frat parties, and then wonder why they have these problems."

Right. I like Jerry Coyne's website because he writes about the issues atheist and sceptic movements are supposed to address without bothering with the big gatherings and celebrity, and Jason's is obviously excellent, but I stopped following the rest a while ago. I just can't stand the bickering.

EP link

9/13/2014 06:20:36 am

+1 for Jerry Coyne

Mark link

9/13/2014 06:44:16 am

"They model themselves on trade shows, motivational speaker conferences, and/or frat parties, and then wonder why they have these problems."

That's an extremely good point, spookyparadigm, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I'm not interested in "movement skepticism", but, as you say, I follow a few skeptic blogs because they're one of the few to address weird topics. This whole thing makes me feel ill...

Cathleen Anderson

9/13/2014 10:17:53 am

I would guess that if anything Alison Smith is probably understating what Shermer actually did.

Only Me

9/13/2014 10:39:30 am

Question: How do you understate the accusation of *rape*? Seriously.

9/13/2014 11:10:46 am

Good thing guesses don't count as evidence in the court of law. Or for rational people in general.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/13/2014 10:48:45 am

Being a "Realist" about many things, including Human Nature … I am neither shocked to learn that even an Atheist Skeptic person might be a "sinner" … nor am I inclined to "throw stones" ...

9/13/2014 11:10:10 am

You *just* learned that an atheist skeptic might be a "sinner"?! I could have told you that!

9/13/2014 12:14:47 pm

Rev. Phil just said he's holding back rather than leaping to a
conclusion either way. This is a commendable stance on this.
We simply don't know the facts of the matter as it stands now.
I am trying to give the man the benefit of doubt, even though it
can be either difficult or easy for the poor woman to say in the
public realm what she just said. It cuts either way, in light of how
some social situations have too much drinking and accusations
are easy to make retroactively. In two or three years, after he does
deal with this situation, he would be appreciative of any support.
Atheism does not let folks off the hook if they do something very
criminal and hurtful. He won't get his life back until he faces this.
If she was badly raped, she may never get her life back at all!!!!

The Other J.

9/13/2014 11:11:34 am

Shermer, Benjamin Radford and Brian Dunning have made the skeptical community look as problematic as any other personality-led organization. And that's before you get to the atheist spiritual warriors.

I guess it just shows that skepticism doesn't necessarily insulate one from making poor choices. But it's probably still a more useful approach than other ways of thinking that encourage blind acceptance or unwarranted leaps to unverifiable conclusions.

9/13/2014 11:23:10 am

This is exactly why I think "skeptic" is such a misnomer for what these people are. They are frequently as dogmatic and narrow-minded as all but the more hopeless believers. They may hold more true beliefs than the religious crowd, but all too often they have as much right to call themselves skeptics as Ayn Rand's cultists have to call themselves objectivists.

Atheist spiritual warrioring has been a cheap way for intelligent apologists of religion (like T. S. Eliot or G. K. Chesterton) to score legitimate points since the 19th century.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/13/2014 03:45:26 pm

"EP" --

You got it right on … The self-proclaimed-annointed purists of any ideology-movement often turn out to be dangerously self-deluded and prone to the same self-centeredness as any other cult leader ...

Mark link

9/14/2014 05:06:58 am

I suspect it's tribalism. There's a certain personality type or types that needs or wants to have an out-group to fight with. The belief system they use in the fighting is fundamentally a secondary consideration - they could just as easily have latched on to evangelical Protestantism, or communism, or the environmental movement. And I say that as a guy who's closer to atheism/agnosticism then to any other mainstream belief system.

Kal

9/14/2014 09:19:34 am

The actions of boorish skeptics at a gathering of fringe thinkers leads to unruly and even offensive social behavior and criminal actions may have happened. This surprises anyone? I've been to some of those fringe conventions. Those people aren't exactly firing on all thrusters. I prefer Star Trek/scifi/comics conventions. At least there they don't actually act criminal.

9/14/2014 09:46:05 am

ALLEGEDLY "act criminal"!

Titus pullo

9/14/2014 11:51:45 am

This is unfortunate and I sincerely hope justice is served whomever is right. Shermer is someone I listen to when he discusses junk science but I thought he was out if his league when he talks fiscal or monetary policy.

psCargile

9/15/2014 02:42:28 am

"...after plying her with alcohol..."

Other than answering Craig's List, isn't that the ritual?

9/15/2014 02:51:24 am

Some day you'll discover that these are not the only alternatives. I believe in you, man! :)

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/15/2014 11:48:32 am

Candy (chocolate is best); flowers; dinner and a movie ...

psCargile

9/16/2014 02:36:04 am

Well, there is gaming journalism.

BillUSA

9/15/2014 03:24:23 pm

Money, power, bullshit.....

BillUSA

9/15/2014 03:15:52 pm

I hope the allegations prove to be false. The matter of sexual conduct at conventions isn't anything new, so it surprises me little that allegations such as these crop up from time to time. It seems to matter little today (to the accuser anyway) the price of being outed as a liar or someone who regretted having their tryst. (I suppose the lust for money and fame can trump common sense.) Yes, I do realize there are truly valid accusations out there. Until we know more, I have to withhold my judgment on this particular case.

This reminds me of the big to-do involving some female who has a website called Skep-chick or something like that. She was a regular panelist on a science podcast and took the time to make a nasal whine about being approached for sex while in an elevator some years ago. The bold male had invited her to his room and she got all insulted by the gesture. As far as I know (and remember) there was nothing lewd about his behavior - just that she was offended.

I liked how they debunked fringe claims but it was the overall high-minded intolerance for anything outside the bubble of the show's panel that drove me away. It's likely that the same haughtiness is what made a non-issue such a big issue with her.

It's become far too easy to sully a person's reputation these days. It can be over a legitimate claim as easily over a misunderstanding. But as is the case so many times, it's a money-grab meant to, at the very least, destroy a reputation. I wonder if Shermer's accuser could be a fringe theorist or a knob sent by one to get at him.

Mike

9/16/2014 02:57:05 am

You have an odd definition (based on your language and statements) of "withholding judgement".

9/16/2014 05:03:12 am

BillUSA being inconsistent and insensitive?! Well I never!

BillUSA

9/16/2014 12:14:00 pm

Like the other half of the blog's clean-up crew, you read too much into what I wrote. I meant withholding my judgment in Shermer's case. As in, "did he or did he not act according to the accusations".

BillUSA

9/16/2014 12:24:09 pm

EP -

I see you are still teething on that BillUSA chew toy, eh? Perhaps you should start a BillUSA Fan Club?

Speaking of inconsistency, it has occurred to me that for someone supposedly so open-minded as yourself, you seem reluctant (or unable) to detect open-mindedness in others. I'm sure you realize what I'm talking about, so no need to fill this hull with more bilge water trying to spell it out for you just for the sake of your entertainment.

Nice to have made your day once again. You know, those who are familiar with me would advise you not to feed my ego, but if you must...

9/16/2014 12:25:53 pm

BillUSA, when I took issue with you talking about "Hollywood power homosexuals" enabling gays to invade your privacy, was I also "reading too much into what you wrote"? Because I suspect you genuinely fail to see how your posts are naturally construable in most unsavory ways...

9/16/2014 12:29:42 pm

"for someone supposedly so open-minded as yourself, you seem reluctant (or unable) to detect open-mindedness in others. I'm sure you realize what I'm talking about"

I have no idea. Honest.

psCargile

9/16/2014 04:14:02 am

Remember back in the 90s the Navy's Tailhook scandal where women had to run the groping gaunlet? Now that was sexual misconduct. I don't think nothing topped it since. These conventions are a sterling example of decency in comparison.

9/16/2014 05:46:42 am

That's like saying that the KKK rallies are sterling examples of tolerance in comparison to the Holocaust. What's the point of making the comparison?

psCargile

9/16/2014 07:46:35 am

For the sake of sexist snarkiness.

Jrovsd

9/16/2014 05:17:43 am

I think it's more than likely he done the deed especially I remember his older site had a entire page of anti-feminism which that right there is proof there. Well I always knew that something was fishy about him...

9/16/2014 05:43:55 am

So anti-feminist = rapist? Otherwise, what do you mean by "proof", exactly?

Only Me

9/16/2014 07:19:00 am

Brilliant!

By your twisted logic, Jrovsd, your entire comment is all the proof I need to declare you mentally incompetent.

9/16/2014 07:21:25 am

Some would argue that you didn't need to say "By your twisted logic"... :)

Steven Carr

9/30/2014 09:02:59 pm

Rape is really bad.

I've heard that it can two long months of pain, hurt and torment before you are ready to pose once more for publicity pictures to put on your blog of you, your boyfriend and your rapist.

Those two months of hurt are only relieved for a short while as you find time to write about what a great time you had at the event you were raped at.

I wouldn't wish those two months of torment on my worst enemy,