Way back in October of 2021, Jazz wrote about this controversy. That was before the James Webb telescope, named after the man who led NASA prior to the moon launch, had itself been sent into space. The basic outline of the controversy is that a group of mostly younger scientists had demanded NASA change the name because Webb was allegedly homophobic. NASA launched and investigation and concluded that there were no grounds to change the name of the telescope.

Naturally, the social justice warriors were not happy about this outcome. One non-binary astronomer who’d worked as an adviser for NASA quit her job over it. Then in April of this year, there was another round on this story after emails relating to the NASA investigation were revealed. But again, there was really nothing that connected James Webb to any specific acts of homophobia. Today the NY Times reports the battle is still ongoing.

Hakeem Oluseyi, who is now the president of the National Society of Black Physicists, was sympathetic to….critics. Then he delved into archives and talked to historians and wrote a carefully sourced essay in Medium in 2021 that laid out his surprising findings.

“I can say conclusively,” Dr. Oluseyi wrote, “that there is zero evidence that Webb is guilty of the allegations against him.”

Here’s a bit of what Hakeem Oluseyi concluded when he wrote about this in January of 2021:

I have no idea what was in his heart and mind. But what I can say conclusively is that there is zero evidence that Webb is guilty of the allegations against him.

Rather than exposing a bigot — as Webb was described in two popular articles reporting this story in 2015 — my research suggests that the purveyors of these allegations wrongly accused an innocent man who was, among more well-known achievements, a hero of diversity and inclusion in American government. He worked with Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy to use NASA facilities in America’s southern states to promote racial integration and equal opportunity in employment.

As described here, here, here and here, NASA was widely recognized as the leading federal agency in racial integration prior to the passing of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and throughout the duration of Webb’s tenure.

Specifically, Oluseyi looked into some homophobic congressional testimony and one specific quote that had been attributed to Webb. With regard to the quote, he found that it was part of a report written by two committees that Webb was never on. As for the congressional testimony which was attributed to him, that never happened either.

Webb never testified before a Senate committee in 1950 about gay people removed from federal service for “moral turpitude” as his Wikipedia article has said from the day it was written in 2004. As far as I can tell, James Webb never played a role in the Lavender Scare at all. It was a case of mistaken identity.

If that weren’t enough, NASA Chief Historian published a report last month which basically backed up Oluseyi’s conclusions. Here’s the conclusion from the executive summary: “In conclusion, to date, no available evidence directly links Webb to any actions or follow-up related to the firing of individuals for their sexual orientation.”

Having been presented with clear and undeniable evidence that the allegations against Webb were false or at best unsupported by any evidence, you would think the activists would take a step back. But as anyone who has seen social justice warriors operate could tell you, that’s not what happened next. Instead, the SJW’s turned their fire on Oluseyi personally, accusing him of unspecified misconduct:

While not always naming him, opponents in tweets and texts have assailed Dr. Oluseyi, bringing up unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct from his time as a professor at Florida Institute of Technology.

Dr. Oluseyi, 55, rose from abject poverty to obtain a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, the first in his family to graduate from high school. Many students at Florida Tech described him as an inspiring teacher, with a booming voice and an outsize personality.

But the last few years have offered a rough ride. He emphatically denied that he behaved badly as a professor and repeatedly urged a reporter to ask any question about his past.

“The revolutionaries,” Dr. Oluseyi said in an interview, “have become the prosecutors.”

And there doesn’t seem to be much doubt that’s what is happening here. The 2015 Forbes article that got a lot of this rolling cited astrophysicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein as the person who tipped the author off about Webb’s alleged homophobic past. Dr. Prescod-Weinstein tweeted the article out after it was published. Once it was discovered that the allegations in the article were based on a misidentification the article was simply scrubbed. If you try to visit the page now, an editor’s note pops up saying it is no longer active. But again, none of this has caused Dr. Prescod-Weinstein to hesitate. When Dr. Oluseyi got a new job last year at a university, Dr. Prescod-Weinstein took the opportunity to attack him.

…in August 2021, George Mason University recruited Dr. Oluseyi as a visiting professor, and Peter Plavchan, an astronomy professor, offered a tweet of welcome to the man he played a role in recruiting.

Dr. Prescod-Weinstein objected. In a stream of tweets, she said Dr. Oluseyi had championed “a homophobe.”…

“It continues to be the case that academic institutions play pass the harasser,” she wrote in a veiled reference to Dr. Oluseyi in August 2021.

True to form she has posted a long thread about it today.

We are potentially going to be seeing a lot of things like this today, so let’s talk about this (reported) op-ed by Michael Powell, which is masquerading as an article.
1. Naming Matt Francis and his Forbes piece but not Dan Savage and his Stranger piece, the original source. https://t.co/NnSgFogpc3

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

3. In what is classic NYT form, Powell completely misrepresents the position @RocketToLulu @niais and I took. It says we “reframed” our argument after NASA released their report. FALSE

Last year we argued Webb was responsible for homophobia on his watch. https://t.co/vcvmn74Wzf

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

Not sure why it matters if Dan Savage was the original source. If the information he had was wrong then it’s still wrong and that should be easy to admit.

4. The claim that my tweets are about someone who has not been named in them without evidence? That’s literally conjecture being reported as fact. Opinion.

The bad news: multiple scientists who have appeared in the press have Title IX stories following them around

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

I think that’s what you call a non-denial denial. She’s not saying her tweets weren’t about Dr. Oluseyi only that the NY Times can’t prove it. Seriously, if the tweets weren’t about Oluseyi why not just say that plainly?

5. NYT’s own actual science reporter (Powell isn’t a science reporter) invoked Lord Voldemort when reporting on this but that’s notably not addressed or noted in the article. He ignored his colleague’s work, how charming. https://t.co/NSPvhItzyi

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

This isn’t a science story. It’s a history of NASA/social justice story. It has nothing to do with the design or work of the James Webb telescope that would require any scientific background.

So we are going to see tweets like this today from people who are seeing a selective rendering of facts — including that a trained historian dug up info counter to Oluseyi’s *original* claims — and not asking questions while also invoking elitism. https://t.co/ejyZlBvEzP

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

Here’s their argument which again is not a scientific question, though they try to make it one:

…all evidence points to the suggestion that Webb continued to be in positions of power specifically because he was highly competent. In context of this, it is highly likely that he knew exactly what was happening with security at his own agency during the height of the Cold War. It is hypocritical of NASA to insist on giving Webb credit for the exciting things that happened under his leadership — activities that were actually conducted by other people — but refuse to accept his culpability for the problems. NASA is engaging in historical cherry picking, which is deeply unscientific in our view.

She goes on to attack Michael Powell, the author of the NY Times story.

He wanted me to agree that Matt was wrong, that I was wrong. He wanted me to agree that Webb was a civil rights hero who stood up to George Wallace and thus merited a $10 billion monument.

I said I had a long list of Black children who were owed that first. He didn’t print it.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

The $10 billion monument is the telescope of course. Sounds like Powell presented the facts and she didn’t like that very much.

It’s clear to me that Powell had a personal view on this, and his goal was to produce an “article” that reflected his position that a white man who could have been worse shouldn’t be evaluated as someone who should have done better. It’s very tepid and cynical, frankly.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

Powell’s personal view in this case aligns with the facts, i.e. the allegations initially made against Webb, allegations which Dr. Prescod-Weinstein helped spread (by tipping off a writer and tweeting his story), were false and she seems not to care about that.

In talking with other people about their experiences being interviewed or contacted by Powell, there was a pattern: he tried to get each of us to say something bad about each other. In my case, it was Matt. In another case, it was me.

That’s not curiosity. That’s bias.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

She’s really digging for things to complain about.

9. So let’s also return to this part that Ralph highlights because I do think it’s the heart of the article. At base: “everyone working in government was just following orders” is the heart of the article. Even if you buy this… a $10 billion monument for doing so? LOL https://t.co/NnSgFoy0AD

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

She insists on leaving out that he was a leader of NASA during its heyday leading up to the moon shot. That’s why he’s being celebrated. Her complaints get thinner and thinner as we go on.

11. I don’t want to dwell on this but I do think it is factually relevant: both Hakeem Oluseyi and Jim Gates have been open in front of others, for years, about their dislike of me and my activism. Context. Hakeem has directly said to me what his problem is. Jim never has.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

We haven’t hit rock bottom yet.

13. Couldn’t find a woman to agree with you, eh, Michael? That’s interesting.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

More whining that he didn’t mention her awards:

(tangent: Of course this has me wondering how often Powell railroads people in his writing who don’t have a low six figure Twitter following platform to push back)

I won four awards for my research and advocacy in 2021, in case we are counting out “what is her claim to fame” https://t.co/0ga8tNa1ba

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

Hey, why not bring up a completely unrelated issue as a reason not to celebrate Webb.

16. Powell also left out my mentions of Webb’s involvement in promoting psychological warfare, which is another factor in my views on him. https://t.co/w3R0V80V91

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

One more time, this was not a science story. Powell relied on the fact that false allegations about Webb’s past were behind the push to rename the telescope.

That said, I hope scientists don’t punish NYT science writers for this. They had no involvement and AFAIK were not consulted in the process. Powell’s failings should not be blamed on them.

Also @NYTimesGuild still deserves a fair contract even if they represent problematic ppl

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

She keeps rambling, eventually accusing Powell of transphobia.

20. It was anonymously pointed out to me that Powell has a history of writing articles that are transphobic and this piece should be seen in context of those prior pieces. https://t.co/HXI5L5bAaUhttps://t.co/axIYzs76z1

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 19, 2022

Anyway, I think you get the idea that we’re dealing with someone who likes to level allegations at anyone who doesn’t toe whatever line she wants them to toe.

Update: I ran out of time but there are some good comments on this story. Here’s the top comment (upvoted nearly 700 times).

I worked at NASA during this controversy and was very close to some of the decision makers involved in retaining the name. Three points. First, NASA is a data-driven and scientifically-minded organization, one of the most data-driven on Earth. Following rigorous scientific and human spaceflight protocols based on evidence and data, and then making decisions based on that impartial data, is drlled deep into NASA culture. The agency approached this situation in the same way: follow the data, evaluate impartially and scientifically. Second, the agency found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that James Webb corroborating the allegations against him. The only crime the agency was able to find in its own records and the National Archives was Webb’s date of birth, in a time less progressive than our present. Thirdly, based on the integrity of NASA’s decision-making process on this matter, practically every single one of my diverse colleagues was happy with their decision to hold strong. The detractors will remain the loudest, but this agency follows the data, and makes their decision accordingly. I was proud of NASA as were nearly all of my colleagues.

And here’s the second most upvoted comment.

It seems that facts and truth are inconveniences for Dr. Prescod-Weinstein. A shame, as there are no shortages of real historical injustices to correct. Slandering a colleague who, in the scientific tradition, challenges your narrative is beyond the pale.

I couldn’t agree more. She’s clearly an ideologue who doesn’t have time for admitting error but has lots of time for making unsubstantiated allegations. One more comment.

I’m a proud gay man and had initially been sympathetic to the chorus calling for renaming the telescope. But, having read this article, I have changed my mind. I agree that it is meaningless to expect a man to make decisions over half a century ago based on very modern sensibilities. I believe in the principles of science: that you gather and consider evidence and are willing to change your position based on the outcome.

If SJWs were capable of following the evidence they wouldn’t be SJWs.