30 years later, physics journal retracts paper that blamed feminism for many of society’s ills

For those of you who think that critiques of feminism have no place in journals about physics, the Canadian Journal of Physics agrees. But it took them 30 years to get there. 

The journal has retracted a 1990 article by a notorious male chauvinist who claimed, among other things, that feminism was responsible for an increase in cheating in school, psychological damage in young children and an overall decay in society. 

The case has echoes of the controversy over Thomas Hudlicky, another Canadian chemist who recently lost a 30-year-old paper for sexism and anti-diversity views. 

This time, the author was Gordon Freeman, a now-emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Alberta, in Canada. Its title is one of those science-y-sounding strings of words that say both very little and, on reflection, quite a lot: “Kinetics of nonhomogeneous processes in human society: Unethical behaviour and societal chaos.” 

Although we couldn’t find the paper itself, we found this essay by Morris Wolfe, a Canadian journalist who had reviewed Freeman’s article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Wolfe’s essay — titled “The Sexist Science of Gordon Freeman” — is too long to reproduce here, so go read it. But he gives a thorough run-down of the journal’s handling of the offensive article and Freeman’s offensive views on gender. 

Evidently, Freeman’s article fell behind the proverbial radiator for three decades, but was only recently rediscovered, covered in dust bunnies but still very much alive in the literature. According to the journal: 

The Executive Editor-in-Chief of Canadian Science Publishing, the publisher of the Canadian Journal of Physics, and the Co-Editors-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of Physics retract this article in its entirety. As noted in a 1991 editorial and 1993 comments, the article does not comprise science and has no place in a scientific journal. Information was gathered in an unethical and unscientific manner, data are incomplete, and the conclusions are unsupported. We deeply regret that the article remained part of the scientific record for so long and its role in contributing to sexism against women in STEM. Having been recently reminded that the article was never struck from the literature, we are correcting that now by means of a retraction. This decision is in compliance with the publishing policy of the Canadian Journal of Physics and its publisher, Canadian Science Publishing.

According to Wolfe’s article:

I devoted one of my columns to a description of Freeman’s article in CJP and concluded by saying that, as an individual, Gordon Freeman was entitled to his opinion, however dumb it might be. But when Gordon Freeman, in his capacity as a professor of chemistry, “passes off his prejudices and ignorance as science, and his academic peers review his work and approve it for publication in a scholarly journal supported by public funds, one has to wonder what the hell is going on. If this is what peer review means at the Canadian Journal of Physics, can one trust any of the articles that appear in this journal?”

Evidently, then-editor Ralph Nicholls had not consulted any of the journal’s editorial board members about the article, and the journal shrugged off complaints about it. Those complaints included one from Bruce Dancik, the top editor for the Canadian National Research Council (akin to the United States’ National Science Foundation) — which, per Wolfe, even considered shuttering the journal over the affair.

There were petitions, as well, from the Women in Physics Committee of the CAP, the Women in Scholarship Committee of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Mathematical Society, and more than 500 faculty members at York University.

Freeman, for his part, “continued to delight in the furor his article had caused,” Wolfe wrote:

He loved the spotlight and became a regular on radio and television programs across the country, defending his position, insisting that he’d done nothing wrong. Not once, to my knowledge, did he address the charge that he himself had cheated by publishing a paper that hadn’t been presented at the conference. (Could it be that his mother worked outside the home?) Freeman even had a letter published in Ann Landers’ column. A young woman had written Landers saying she had always been a high achiever; she was about to apply to medical school and was so terrified of being rejected that she’d even thought of killing herself. “Forget about being a super-achiever,” advised Freeman. “Pick another path. Plan to marry and keep your marriage vows ‘until death do us part.’ Then be a stay-at-home mom. Your children will not be, as you are, manic about superficial success and wishing to die for fear of failure.” (Freeman didn’t say what advice he’d offer a young man with similar fears.) 

An unapologetic — indeed, quite proud — Freeman told us in an email: 

The meaningless retraction was made by a male feminist polititian. The article was based on extensive observation, and is solid science. It is by far the most-read article in The Canadian Journal of Physics [Editor’s note: We couldn’t verify that claim, although some articles have been cited far more often, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science]. The bound volume has a fine grey line along the trimmed edge, from fingering of the pages. I was told that the unbound issue in many Libraries, when stood on its crease would fall open at that article.

One of those characters suggested that the Journal mail a razor blade to each subscriber, so they could slice the article out of the Journal.

As for whether he continues to believe that feminism is harmful to society, Freeman had this to say: 

I don’t know about feminism during the last 20 years. But the effects were corrosive in 1990. My wife said, “They are just trying to make it difficult for the rest of us.”  I thank the folks for bringing attention to the article again. After 30 years!

Michael Steinitz, the editor of the CJP, did not respond to our request for comment. 

Meanwhile, we’ve seen several other recent cases of journals purging their pages of articles making racially biased, sexist or otherwise rebarbative claims.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].