Seriously though, I think Feynmann would have figured it out and adapted. Some say he was notably nonsexist when it came to teaching or talking physics, but horribly sexist when it came to everything else. Maybe he could just move some of that from one column to another.
Interventions should be appropriate. People are complicated. There are some high profile cases (usually involving "Twitter activism") that collapse all that complexity, which may be good for awareness or motivating institutions, but it's often bad for justice.
In the heat of the moment certain people would have thought it necessary to disregard everything he said, but over time cooler heads would remember that a person is not a monolith. We can appreciate the good and dislike the bad.
You seem to be surprised that a person in the business of selling his public image can't sell it successfully once that image has been irreparably tarnished. (You are aware that popular actors are celebrities, and what they do off screen matters, right?)
> I'm saying that horrible people can make meaningful, positive contributions, but in the current politically charged environment we seem to be acting before we consider that.
Where's the evidence for that? It's always a business decision. Spacey has been discarded because it is profitable to do so.
What a surprise, pissing off a <population group> that contains <the majority of the population> has a negative impact on your career as a public person. Who would have thunk?
These aren't arguments; they're hypotheses. "Pissing off" huh? Because a few jerkoffs Tweet they're upset doesn't mean most of America cares. That's the problem.
"Profitable to do so" in the eyes of his employees. Do you really think these decisions are made to appease Twitter commenters?
Even successful, loved series end up being canceled.
> Because a few jerkoffs Tweet they're upset doesn't mean most of America cares.
Because a few jerkoffs don't care doesn't mean that a lot of people (enough to affect profit margins and public image of the employer) don't :)
What is the purpose of the question? Is there some broader point you are trying to make? The only thing that I can guess is that you are trying to point out that people can make great contributions to human knowledge and also be crappy people in certain respects. I don’t think anyone denies this as being true.
EDIT: If it happened at the beginning of his career then he possibly wouldn't have become a professor and thus not have made his discoveries. If it happened at the end of his career then the discoveries would have already been made and hence nothing lost.
Of course this is not a new idea. Think Wagner, for example, a notorious antisemite. Or consider a utilitarian view. It is to me somewhat alarming, though, the swiftness with which we pass judgment these days, and I think it's worth considering the impact.
When looking at historical figures context is everything. I judge men who sexually harassed women in the 80s way less harshly than men who harass women today, why? Because in the 80s society still told you, 'this is ok, this is normal, feel free' for many forms of sexual harassment. That doesn't exempt them from culpability but given the degree of effort that would have been necessary at the time to understand what was wrong with their actions we should temper our condemnation of them.
The point this leads to is: If Feynman was alive today, sexually harassing women, that's significantly worse than similar behavior in his heyday; making your question hard to give a meaningful answer to.
Basically we're a bunch of crybabies today.
In this more enlightened age, people should call the harrasser out on their behavior before it becomes a big problem, and the harrasser should have enough awareness to stop the damaging behavior, which is not necessary for their work.
Sir Tim Hunt might be a better comparison. One (possibly) out-of-bounds joke and he's kicked out of science, no matter how bad the results for humanity. Not to mention his students, some of whom are women.
See these three letters before his name? The ones that spell out S-I-R? Those three letters, along with other titles and positions he held, come with some very tangible benefits that none of use have -- and also some very tangible responsibilities, which, again, aren't bestowed upon everyone else.
He wasn't forced to be Sir Tim Hunt, the VIP, the public speaker at conferences. He accepted the titles, the positions, and the responsibilities that came with them (unlike, say, Grigori Perelman[1], who, by showing the middle finger to the establishment, has also freed himself from any burdens of the sort - or Alexander Grothendieck[2]).
One of the responsibilities of being Sir Tim Hunt is that you can't be a self-titled chauvinistic pig that cracks stupid sexist jokes.
There is an unspoken contract that Sir Tim Hunt violated, and suffered for doing so.
There is absolutely nothing new here. The rules of the society have not changed. Jim Simons[3] was kicked out of his high position in a crypto lab in the 70's for criticizing the Vietnam war in an interview to a small paper (a well-known story that hasn't made it to Wikipedia yet). One (possibly) out-of-bounds remark.
I am only giving examples of very-high-profile mathematicians here, but they are quite representative.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck
[3]
He literally called himself a chauvinist monster in that joke. Hence self-titled.
My point is that people in his position are held to stricter standards. The standards include carefully choosing what to say.
Sure, he'd make a great babysitter for your kids - he just didn't make a great public person.