Major theories in physics are predominantly associated with white male scientists, often celebrated as unquestioned heroes. This can make it challenging for students from underrepresented backgrounds to see themselves in the field. Additionally, the serious ethical and personal failings of some of these scientists raise questions about how to reconcile their contributions to science with their problematic behaviors. Ignoring these flaws can perpetuate a sanitized and unrealistic view of scientific history. Michael Baker, an Assistant Professor of Physics, addressed this issue thoughtfully in his graduate-level Physics course by openly challenging the dominance and unquestioned "hero" status of these figures and problematizing the traditional narrative. By acknowledging their problematic behaviors and creating space for student discussion, Professor Baker encouraged students to critically consider the implications of these behaviors and the impact they have on science today.

Why was it important to you to directly address the controversial pasts of noted theorists in your field, Physics?

In my graduate level course on Quantum Field Theory, I had just finished a section where everything was named after Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, and for the rest of the course I was going talk about different things named after Richard Feynman.  I’ve found that these physicists are often presented as “heroes” or lone geniuses.  The implication is that you should aim to be like them if you want to make important breakthroughs, too. The “hero myth” is (i) that they did this alone, and (ii) that only a genius could make these breakthroughs.  The reality is that they were heavily supported by a wide range of figures (colleagues, partners, families, luck, etc.) and I want my students to know they could, with similar support and the same passion, make similar breakthroughs.  
Additionally, while these physicists made important breakthroughs in physics, they all have troubled pasts: Heisenberg worked on the Nazi nuclear weapons program while Feynman and Schrödinger had inappropriate interactions with women.  I feel that ignoring their flaws further alienates people, in particular those who don’t happen to be privileged, straight, white men, and those who have suffered from some of these behaviors. Since physics has a persistent problem with diversity, equity and inclusion, and many of my students came from underrepresented backgrounds, I felt that openly discussing some of this could let them know that they are welcome in my classroom, acknowledge the challenges that they have faced to get there, and give them the confidence to know that in the future they can make breakthroughs of their own.


What was your approach to addressing it with students, and how did you decide on this approach?

I had these ideas circulating in my mind for a week or two, and then started writing something down, and then edited and re-edited several times, checking details and thinking carefully about what to say about these physicists’ behavior and how it all relates to my classroom, until I was happy with it.  
I decided that it would be best to read out a prepared statement, so I could be as thoughtful and constructive as I could about this difficult topic.  I included the prepared statement in my lecture notes, a document shared with students that contains all notes for the entire semester and that is updated weekly. For week 4, the following statement appears in my notes in a section titled “Historical Interlude and Problems in Physics”, and I read it out verbatim in class.

3.11 Historical Interlude and Problems in Physics

We have just been discussing Schrödinger and Heisenberg and we’re about to say Feynman’s name a lot, so it seems like an appropriate place for a historical interlude.

I’m going to read out a short statement, and then we can have any discussion you like.

While physics is one of the more objective human pursuits, and many of its problems can be solved with the right maths, it is still done by people, who are complex, and this creates some problems in physics that are harder to solve.

Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Feynman all made great contributions to physics, and quantum physics in particular, but Feynman had questionable views of and interactions with women, Heisenberg was a principal scientist in the Nazi nuclear weapons program and Schrödinger’s behaviour bordered on (or possibly crossed into) paedophilia.

Not unrelatedly, physics has a serious and persistent problem with diversity, equity and inclusion. Physics was, and still is, dominated by straight white rich men. Other groups are significantly under-represented and face many obstacles to entering and progressing in the field.

In this context, what do we do with the Schrödinger’s, Heisenberg’s and Feynman’s of physics?

I would advocate for acknowledging their contributions to the field, but at the same time pointing out their serious flaws and the harm they have caused. People are complex, and flawed, and supporting the hero myth does a disservice both to our field, and to the people who have historically been excluded from it.

In the end, this seemed to be a concise way to capture the important themes, to clearly give my view on the subject (but to acknowledge that it’s just my view), and to give the students space to agree, disagree or expand as they would like. In addition, I waited until around 1/4 of the way through the course before introducing this discussion, so we could get to know each other a bit first.  I think, though, that at that point this kind of discussion helped increase trust and mutual respect in the classroom.  

What did you notice about the impact that this discussion had on students?

Initially, the classroom was quiet for a few moments after I read out the statement, while the students reflected on what I had said.  
Interestingly the first comments were about how the discussion I was trying to initiate struck the students as novel, in that they hadn’t had this kind of discussion in a classroom setting before, and as important, in that they didn’t know why they hadn’t had it before.
There seemed to be a tacit agreement with how I had put things, and the students started to put forward other examples of behaviors they found troubling from the “heroes” of physics. After three or four examples, and before it just became another re-telling of salacious anecdotes, I wrapped up the conversation and we moved on with the course.
After this, I didn’t really raise the issue again during the course, and the students didn’t bring up the topic again either, so it’s hard to gauge the impact.  However, in the end-of-semester Forward FOCUS survey 80% of students said they “almost always” felt included in the class, while 20% “frequently” felt included. 

What did you like about this approach? Is there anything you would do differently next time? 

One approach that is often used in my field is to point to the few famous physicists from under-represented groups, such as Marie Curie, Emmy Noether and Chien-Shiung Wu.  While this is important, and I do this too, I feel that it can put too much responsibility on members of the under-represented groups to fix the problems in my field.  Many of the barriers have been created by (and are often, consciously or unconsciously, maintained by) privileged, straight, white men, who now have a responsibility to help break them down.  I felt that showing that “problematic heroes” could and should be held to account for their actions and behaviors brings them down from their pedestals and allows for a more equitable dialogue where everyone can and should contribute to improving our culture.
One thing I think could be improved is facilitating the discussion after reading the statement.  In the future, I would continue to let the students openly respond initially, but then prepare some aspects to discuss further, such as the ‘hero myth’, the data of current under-representation, the barriers faced by different minority groups, etc., so the conversation can become broader and so that it doesn’t become too gossipy.
Initially I was unsure about how the class would react to this discussion, but the response was wholly positive, both for me and my class, and I will certainly be doing it again.