Eccentric does not equal being a dick

Much is made in an article in Wired about the 'eccentricity' of Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama in Huntsville scientist who shot and killed three of her colleagues. Reading about her behaviour, however, makes one rather wonder about the definition of eccentric that is being used. 

Academia is, on the whole, tolerant to those that deviate somewhat from the norm, and a good thing too (although it is, by all accounts, far less tolerant than it once was, and getting worse). With its entire purpose being the advancement of knowledge, discriminating against those who are not content to accept that which is currently held as normal would be fatal. Thus I had an anatomy lecturer who would flit through the streets of Glasgow, academic's cloak streaming behind him; or the astronomy lecturer who could not countenance the use of the phrase "the naked eye", it being in his opinion "too rude". Different, certainly, but also two of the best teachers that I had. 

The manner in which Amy Bishop is described as habitually acting in could not be further from that of these benign and brilliant characters. Rather than having innocent quirks that, if anything, improved their teaching, she is described as being arrogant and abusive to a degree that interfered with her ability to do her job. 

Being obnoxious most definitely does not equal being eccentric, nor would anyone in academia ever be inclined to confuse the two and tolerate the abuse. This is reflected in the fact that she was not kept on in a number of positions, and was not awarded tenure in Alabama. 

What is more telling from the point of view of why she was tolerated and not flagged up as a potential risk  is the description given in the article of the response of the Ipswich community to her behaviour (not that I particularly believe that we should be going around flagging people who aren't very nice as being in some way a risk). By the other residents' accounts, she treated them in an equally obnoxious manner as she did her academic colleagues and students, yet they too tolerated this behaviour for five years. They may have held a spontaneous party upon the departure of the Bishop family, but there seems to be little evidence of them coming together to confront the bully in the midst of their suburban harmony. (Bringing to mind the points made about suburban living made by, for example, Eric Fromm  and Richard Sennett.)


Thus, this sad case does not represent an example of academia tolerating an eccentric, and should in no way be seen in that light. Instead what it represents is an apparent society-wide tolerance of bullies and bullying, or at least an unwillingness of society to work together to confront and ameliorate such individuals - either being a far more disturbing and telling conclusion than those being drawn by the majority of commentators.