Pamela Gay was in San Francisco on Friday for a board meeting of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the day the BuzzFeed story about Geoff Marcy broke.

By the end of the day, I was done with reality. I was ready to go back to my hotel room and just play Carcassonne on my iPad and wish for something I thought was impossible – a world that that didn’t hurt. But as we were packing up and sorting rides, I was offered a sweet distraction. Fellow board member Chris Ford offered me a chance to take a ride with him in his Tesla Model S over to his offices at Pixar.

What I didn’t know was he was asking me if I wanted a glimpse at the way academia could be reimagined if only people were valued.

It’s beautiful there, she says, but that wasn’t what impressed her about it.

What impressed me on this tour, what shifted something inside me and forced my thinking into a new configuration, was the way Chris described the work environment at Pixar.

As we moved between color boards and characters’ test sketches, this brilliant programmer painted a verbal picture of a work environment designed to protect and cherish the creative and inventive mind. From building in a myriad of collaborative spaces and play spaces, to teaching classes for employees that make it possible for anyone with a will to rise from the mailroom to the illustrator’s table, Pixar strives to foster its employees’ personal growth.

Teaching classes for employees – so anyone who wants to can go from a scut job to a creative one.

He went on to explain that the kinds of hate speech, harassment, and constant belittling that is just part of being in academia are not tolerated. After all, if you’re trying to get the best out of people, why would you allow an environment of bullying? If you’re trying to be innovative as you advance your field of research and all related technologies, don’t you want to create as healthy a workplace as possible? He explained that by having an at-will work environment where people are nurtured, Pixar has created a place where people want to do their best and protect the secrets of the worlds they are inventing on paper and in software.

As Chris spoke, and as we walked through this campus of sports facilities, theaters, collaboration rooms, and server rooms, Chris said that they work very hard to foster an environment like academia, and I found myself correcting him, saying that what they are creating is the ideal that people often imagine must be life in the academia.

And as I corrected him, I wondered, what would life be like if universities did everything they could to support the physical, emotional, creative, and intellectual well being of their faculty, staff, and students? What if we had resources and support and what if there was an atmosphere of kindness instead of competition?

Imagine what life would be like if all workplaces were like that. I know, it’s utopian, impossible, ridiculous – but all the same, imagine it.

Today, many of the brightest minds in science go through life constantly struggling for funding as they work in environments that often have them surrounded by crumbling infrastructure, crammed into insufficient space, and dealing with colleagues who on the best of days are simply unprofessional and on the worst of days are abusive physically and verbally. It’s contagious, as the “why do I bother?” attitude sweeps you in. It is hard to be polite when it seems that all you hear is impossible demands to do more and more with less and less and less.

But what if? What if we were resource rich and hatred poor? Think of how much more we could accomplish if women never had to spend time warning one another about the men who molest? What would we discover if every man and woman of color faced no discrimination? How much more would we have already solved if only hate was put down and a desire for mutual success was lifted up?

Wouldn’t that be a beautiful thing?

News from New Zealand: the ban on Ted Dawes’s novel Into the River has been lifted.

The New Zealand Film and Literature Board has lifted the ban on Ted Dawe’s controversial teen novel Into the River.

That little word “controversial” is a bit of cautious well-poisoning. Surely the fact that it was banned was enough of a cue to readers that it was in some way “controversial.”

In a decision that was far from unanimous, the president of the board expressed the collective felt the actions of the censor were “illegal”.

Board president Don Mathieson delivered a dissenting minority report but the remainder of the board voted to allow the book to be sold without restriction, saying a previous ban on under-14s was no longer justified.

The conservative campaign group Family First are outraged at the decision, with national director Bob McCoskrie describing the ruling a “loss” for New Zealand families.

Whence comes this idea of the whimpering fragility of “families”? Why are “families” as such so vulnerable and in need of protection from “controversial” books along with same-sex marriage? Why aren’t families understood to be as various as the people who constitute them?

Dawe, who branded the views of Family First “wrong-headed” and “repressed” explained: “It’s not Family First’s job to parent other people’s children, that is a parent’s job. I was quite surprised this kind of thing (banning of books) is still going on, even today.”

In a statement outlining their decision to lift the initial ban, the majority decision outlined: “We respect and understand those concerns and readily accept that there are aspects of this book that many will find offensive and many will regard as entitled inappropriate for children.”

Whilst many parents may choose not to allow their children to read such material, there are no grounds to restrict the book from teenage reader”.

In stark opposition board president Don Mathieson’s minority vote voiced that “no responsible parent of a 17-year old, let alone of a 12-year old, would want this repetitive coarse language normalised.”

But the state isn’t supposed to act as the universal parent. Parents are supposed to do that. There’s also the fact that one book by itself is not likely to normalize any particular use of language, and it’s not the state’s business to worry about that in any case.

It would be safe to assume Dawe however, can still see the light and the end of a very long tunnel.

“From what I’ve read, Family First have said some dreadful things about my book. Dreadful things,” he said.

“In a way I suppose it’s all backfired on them. Now more people than ever will read it, it’s all publicity and for a New Zealand book, nonetheless.”

A “controversial” New Zealand book at that.

H/t Rob.

Azeen Ghorayshi, who broke the Geoff Marcy story on BuzzFeed, now reports that faculty and students at Berkeley are steaming.

The astronomy faculty at the University of California, Berkeley, released a statementlate on Monday saying that famed astronomer Geoff Marcy should no longer be a professor at the university.

…

“We urge the UC Berkeley administration to re-evaluate its response to Marcy, who has been found in violation of UC sexual harassment policy,” the 23 faculty members said in the statement. “We believe that Geoff Marcy cannot perform the functions of a faculty member.”

They’re pissed off that the university has done nothing about Marcy.

Grad students and postdocs want him to be put under restrictions.

“The University’s failure to impose meaningful consequences on Geoff Marcy — offering instead vague threats of future sanctions should the behavior continue — suggests that Berkeley’s administration values prestige and grant money over the well-­being of the young scientists it is charged with training,” they continued.

Doesn’t it sound just exactly like Randi talking about Shermer? “If he does it again, I might have to speak sharply to him” sort of thing. But he already has done it again; why is it always jam tomorrow?

The graduate students were particularly upset over the leadership of the department’s interim chair, Gibor Basri. On Saturday, Basri sent out an email to the department.

“This has been a day of drama and difficulty for many of us, each in our own way and with our own context,” Basri wrote. “It is hard to process for those who know Geoff well.”

“Of course, this is hardest for Geoff in this moment,” he continued. “I ask that those who have the room for it (now or later), hear him out and judge whether there is room for redemption in all that will transpire.”

Ohhh…wow. Hardest for Geoff. You incredible fucking asshole.

They include a pointed tweet by Katie Mack at that point:

Katie Mack @AstroKatie
In case you’re wondering if the rest of the e-mail somehow makes things better, no. No compassion for victims.
12:00 AM – 10 Oct 2015

Wow.

Maryam has a piece replying to David Shariatmadari in the Guardian today…eleven days after she asked them for a right of reply. They heavily edited her piece, so she published the unedited version in a post. She introduces it:

On 8 October, the Acting Editor for Comment is Free wrote to say a “very light edit” had been done on my article including “a few tweaks for flow, house style, and to make the piece as accessible as possible for non-expert readers.”

Shockingly, the “light edits” included substantial changes, including the removal of references to Ali Shariatmadari and CAGE prisoners as well as all the relevant links, which would have helped “non-expert readers.”

Moreover, where I mentioned Islamism as a killing machine with an example of Bangladesh, Islamism was changed to “violent jihadis”. After asking that it be kept as is (since even those not deemed violent jihadis by the Guardian are killing people via “Sharia” laws for example), it was changed to “violent Islamists”, which I again challenged. The sentence was then tweaked to what it is now.

Despite my insistence, however, references to Ali Shariatmadari and CAGE were not included (which meant I had to remove the Emwazi reference as it was linked to the CAGE example). I was told: “The line about CAGE and defensive jihad was removed on the advice of our lawyers” and that “the description of the Islamic cultural revolution as “Ali Shariatmadari’s ‘Islamic cultural revolution’” would be confusing to readers.”

Clearly, the problem is not just David Shariatmadari’s but the Guardian’s editorial line in favour of the Islamists.

You can see a side by side comparison of the two here.

Ross Andersen at the Atlantic is also underwhelmed by Geoff Marcy’s notpology.

In Marcy’s account, he was just moving through the world, giving unsolicited massages to undergraduates, according to the complaints, without the slightest inkling that his actions were causing pain and distress. But in practice, Marcy had leveraged his considerable fame and power in the world of astronomy to build a nearly consequence-free bubble around himself, so that he could avail himself of pleasures that rightfully require the consent of others.

That’s one reason this story is so familiar – the way that fame and power can create that bubble.

Given that reality, Marcy’s intentions aren’t that important. The important intentions here belong to the women he victimized, and by all accounts those women intended to go about the demanding work of astronomy without being touched inappropriately by someone who was supposed to be mentoring them.

But he wanted to grope them, so he did. That’s science.

From the Guardian:

The children of a British man have called on David Cameron to intervene to save their father from being subjected to 350 lashes in Saudi Arabia. Karl Andree, 74, faces being publicly flogged as part of a punishment imposed after bottles of homemade wine were reportedly found last year in his car by Saudi police enforcing strict laws prohibiting alcohol.

The family of the oil executive, who is being held at Jeddah’s Briman prison, say he is already weak as a result of cancer and fear that the flogging will kill him.

Once again, words fail me. The guy is 74 years old and has cancer. He had some wine – and for that they want to hit him with a whip 350 times. What can possibly be the point? The motivation? The justification? Why does someone else’s consumption of wine matter so much that it’s worth whipping him to death?

“He is 74 years of age, has had cancer three times and his wife is dying in a home in the UK. He now needs medical care for his cancer and asthma, and there is no doubt in our mind that 350 lashes will kill him. We implore David Cameron to personally intervene and help get our father home. The Saudi government will only listen to him.”

The Foreign Office said: “Our embassy staff are continuing to assist Mr Andree, including regular visits to check on his welfare, and frequent contact with his lawyer and family. Ministers and senior officials have raised Mr Andree’s case with the Saudi government and we are actively seeking his release as soon as possible.”

And yet Jack Straw said a few years ago that the UK and the KSA rejoiced in “shared values.”

Middle East Eye says it has evidence that the death toll from the Hajj disaster is much higher than the Saudis have said.

We have seen evidence suggesting that at least 2,432 people were killed on 24 September when pilgrims were crushed to death at a crossroads in Mina, inside Mecca and not far from the holy city.

Photos displayed at the Muaism Medical Emergency Centre in Mina, where people are being permitted to search for missing relatives until 30 October, appear to reveal a numbering system of those killed.

A Saudi source travelled to Mina on 30 September and spent four days visiting the centre, where he covertly took photos of what he found and sent them to Middle East Eye, requesting anonymity for fear of being arrested.

The bodies are numbered.

Photographs seen by Middle East Eye show a row of bodies laid out in the morgue, each of which has been attributed an ascending serial number.

The source sent Middle East Eye more than 50 photos of the dead, demonstrating the sequential numbers rising.

And there are more from hospitals who haven’t been counted yet.

This would bring the death toll to at least a potential 2,432 people, which would make it easily the worst disaster ever to hit the annual pilgrimage, surpassing a stampede in 1990 that saw 1,426 pilgrims killed.

The source said that they believed the toll to be significantly more than the potential 2,534, claiming that a large number of people had been transferred to hospitals in the city of Taif, where a list of the dead has not yet been released.

It’s horrific.

And it’s the usual problem with “revealed” religions. The hajj was workable at the time it was started, when people couldn’t travel far and there weren’t huge numbers of people anyway. Now we live in a world of 7.5 billion people, perhaps a billion or more of them Muslims, and the technological ability to go to Mecca. The hajj is a “requirement” for people able to go. Result? Far too many people in one place, and they crush one another. Not very merciful.

Edinburgh University Student Association is holding an election. The EU Feminist Society interviewed the candidates for the Women’s Liberation Group Convenors.

We also sent this email to the candidates for Women’s Liberation Group Convenor to ask them some questions. Before you read their replies below, we’d like to remind everyone that FemSoc passed a policy stating we support sex workers’ rights, which means we back the decriminalisation of sex work and condemn all forms of whorephobia.

Two candidates have answered so far. The first to answer gets a trigger warning at the top.

Magdalen Berns

TW: whorephobia

“Whorephobia”? Really? She expresses hatred of prostitutes in her reply? No, of course  not.

3. EUSA and Femsoc both passed policies supporting sex-workers. What is your opinion on this?

I think we all agree that those who sell sex for money should be decriminalised and safe from harm, which is the most important thing. With that said, I have not yet seen any credible evidence produced by Scot-PEP (or their associates and the mainstream media narrative), a self described campaigning and lobbying group established with the express purpose of campaigning for full decriminalisation of all aspects of the sex trade, which remotely suggests that decriminalisation of pimps and buyers of sex would in any way make women and children impacted by the sex trade safe from sexual violence. Since evidence does suggest that the main perpetrators of sexual violence towards prostituted people are actually the demographic of men which Scot-PEP have been lobbying to fully decriminalise, it deeply concerns me to find that so far female students have not seen fit to scrutinise the motives, background, associations or the unrepresentative sex demographic of the leadership of this organisation, before assuming good-will and deciding to collaborate with them.

The facts speak for themselves: women in prostitution have been more comfortable in reporting sexual crimes committed against them in Nordic countries and they are not being murdered there; in stark contrast to full decriminalisation regions, where prostituted women are still being killed and reports of indigenous victims being trafficked into sexual slavery are still not being taken seriously by the authorities.[2,3]

As women, we are not stakeholders in the systemic sexual commodification of the female sex which is the very core of the rape culture we all of us experience in our lives. Feminists who oppose the gendered exploitation of the sex trade do so because:
* We recognise there is nothing inevitable about prostitution or its associated male sexual violence
* We understand that the worth of a woman should no longer be measured by patriarchal standards
* We see that women must no longer be defined by patriarchy
* We value sexual consent such that we see it as too priceless to be taken away via social, economic, psychological, chemical or physically coercive methods.

Buying or selling access to a woman’s body is not a right: it’s male privilege. I do not stand for the role of Women’s Liberation Convenor to pander male entitlement, I stand for women’s human rights.

How does any of that qualify as “whorephobic”?

It’s explained on the EU Feminist Society Facebook page.

[Person 1] Where was Magdalen Berns being whorephobic??

[Person 2] I think it was the fact that she doesn’t support the prostitution industry, which like… I don’t think that’s ‘whorephobic’ at all? Like, let’s face it most women in the sex trade don’t /want/ to be prostituted. They do it because they don’t have a choice.

IDK how it’s “””whorephobic””” to ensure that exploited women don’t get in trouble for their circumstances, while making sure that the men who are taking advantage of their situation /do/ face consequences.

[Person 3] “Buying or selling access to a woman’s body is not a right: it’s male privilege.” This part is, I think, and another quote slightly above which says something similar, because this sentence takes all the agency from sex workers and puts it into the hands of their clients? It is the SW’s body, and it is her who is choosing to use her body how she wants, and this is really framed as if the SW is a piece of meat on a table and men come and take a part when they want.

She’s choosing it. She’s choosing it, just as she might choose to be beaten, or raped, or imprisoned in her house. She’s choosing it just as she might choose to stay married to and obey a man who told her she could not get a job outside the house, could not get further education, could not meet her friends for coffee, could not travel without him, could not talk on the phone without his supervision.

By the same token, workers choose to work in poultry plants, in mines, in seasonal fruit-picking; workers choose to work in dangerous conditions, for long hours, for bad pay.

They all have agency, and if you say those choices are not wholly free, you are framing them as pieces of meat, and you are a dangerous Phobe.

Person 1 disputed what Person 3 said, and the EUFS stepped in.

Edinburgh University Feminist Society Our members who are sex workers are entitled to a safe space, so they have the right to be warned about statements that deny their bodily autonomy

Person 3 amplified.

As not-a-sex-worker, you don’t have the right to decide if something is not sex worker phobic.

It’s not clear how Person 3 knows that Person 1 is not-a-sex-worker, but who knows, maybe they know each other. Then again it’s also not clear that Person 3 is herself a sex worker, and if she’s not, how does she have the right to decide if something is sex worker phobic? How does anyone? Is whoever put the trigger warning at the top of Magdalen Berns’s reply a sex worker? Do we know that? Is the EU Feminist Society a sex worker? How does the EU FS get to decide if something is or is not whorephobic if it’s not a sex worker? The epistemology of all this is very confusing.

Michael Eisen is pissed off at Berkeley, his university.

On Friday, Azeen Ghorayshi posted a story about Geoffrey Marcy, a high-profile professor in UC Berkeley’s astronomy department. It reported on a a complaint filed by four women to Berkeley’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) that alleged that Marcy “repeatedly engaged in inappropriate physical behavior with students, including unwanted massages, kisses, and groping.”

Unusually for this type of investigation, the results of which are usually kept secret, Ghorayshi’s reporting revealed that OPHD found Marcy guilty of these charges, leading to his issuing a public apology in which he, in all too typical PR driven apology speak, acknowledges doing things that “unintentionally” was “a source of distress for any of my women colleagues”.

There’s not much to say about his actions except to say that they are despicable, predatory, destructive and all too typical. It defies even the most extreme sense of credulity to believe that he thought what he was doing was appropriate.

Welllll, except that people are so good at thinking what they are doing is appropriate even when no one else in the universe would think the same.

But, unlike so many other cases of alleged harassment that go unreported, or end in a haze of accusations and denials, the system worked in this case. An investigation was carried out, the charges were substantiated, the bravery of the women who came forward was vindicated, and Marcy was removed from the position of authority he had been abusing.

WAIT WHAT? He got a firm talking to and promised never to do it again????? THAT’S IT???

It won’t do, Eisen points out. Not even a little bit.

It is simply incomprehensible that Marcy was not sanctioned in any way and that, were it not for Ghorayshi’s work we wouldn’t even know anything about this. How on Earth can this be true? Does the university not realize they are giving other people in a position of power a license to engage in harassment and abusive behavior? Do they think that the threat of having to say “oops, I won’t do that again” is going to stop anyone? Do they think anyone is going to file complaints about sexual harassment or abuse and go through what everyone described as an awful, awful process, so that their abuser will get a faint slap on the wrist? Do they care at all?

He concludes that they don’t.

Then he talks about a state-mandated online course on sexual harassment he’d just taken and how bad it is, with an example. The example is about…a male professor whose female graduate student just won’t stop asking him out.

What’s his name? Dr Randy Risktaker.

I swear, I’m not making it up. Look for yourself.

So there are people who actually think it’s a serious mark against Julie Bindel that she said in an interview last month:

I mean, I would actually put [men] all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans.

Oh come on. Really? That’s obviously not a serious statement.

Let’s look at it in context. The interview is with radfem collective, so she’s talking to fellow radical feminists – not “radical feminists”as in the hostile stereotype, but radical feminists as in feminists who think we need to get to the root of things. They asked her:

will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?

And she replied:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

Does anyone really need to be told she’s not talking literally there?

Yes, anyone does, because people are including that in the list of Reasons Bindel Must Be Shunned From Everything Forever. A commenter here took it seriously.

And far-right hate-mongers take it seriously. Google came up with an all-far-right list for me. Eagle Rising for instance:

Julie Bindel is an English writer, feminist and co-founder of the group Justice for Women, Her primary areas of interest are lesbian rights, opposition to the sex industry, modern anti-trafficking campaigns and defending female victims of domestic violence. . . . As a lesbian, she has shared her views and been quoted regarding sexual identity and sexual orientation issues and refers to herself as a political lesbian feminist.

Bindel is anti-men and anti-heterosexuality. While the war on women is a myth concocted by liberals to get women to vote for Democrats, there is a real ideological war against men, and Bindel is a perfect example of one of its militant soldiers.

In an interview with the website radfem collective, “Bindel says that she would ‘put … all [men] in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans’…

It’s appropriate, in a way, that the No Platformers are aligned with the far right. They think they’re progressive as fuck, but alas, they’re not.

So Ariana Huffington and the Huffington Post empire are promoting Islamism via their new website, from what the Independent says:

The refusal of Western news organisations to involve Islamist voices in the debate on the future of the Middle East is acting as a recruitment driver for Isis and al-Qaeda, one of the region’s leading media figures has claimed. The accusation that global news groups are “pushing people to become extremists” was made last week to The IoS by Wadah Khanfar, the former managing director of the Al Jazeera network.

Mr Khanfar is Arianna Huffington’s partner in the new Huffpost Arabi website, which has been embroiled in controversy since it launched eight weeks ago. Critics have denounced the site for giving a platform to extremists and allowing them to voice comments criticising gays, atheists, and the practice of taking selfies.

If that’s true, what on earth is Ariana Huffington playing at? Aren’t there enough sites giving platforms to theocrats who hate atheists and gays and by the way women?

Khanfar says Huffpost Arabi isn’t just more pesky secular liberal thought translated into Arabic. It’s better than that.

He accused Western news media of failing to understand the complexities of Islamism. “Political Islam is a phenomenon that is about 100 years old – it started after the First World War. The phenomenon evolved and transformed in many ways,” he said. “It became part of the politics of the region and is not outside the politics of the region. You need to deal with all the components of the region and isolating one segment means imbalance in the solution you are introducing.”

Oh? So by the same token the Independent and the Guardian should be publishing opinion pieces by fascists, sex traffickers, doctors who practice FGM?

No. News organizations are allowed to choose among voices.

One National Review – 4chan laughingstock of the week is a “language awareness campaign” at Western University in London, Ontario. It’s a Facebook campaign, the kind with people posing next to sound bites, which frankly makes the whole idea look sillier than it has to. Not all its points are obviously absurd, but they look solemn and self-important in that format, so it’s no wonder that National Review and 4chan are pointing and laughing.

Some of its points are silly though.

Like this one:

I don’t say “White washed” because it presumes “Whiteness” as tied to a certain set of behaviors.

No, it doesn’t, any more than washing white shirts to get them clean does.

Or this one:

I don’t call people “gingers” because a unique hair colour does not make one inferior.

But “ginger” isn’t always a pejorative. It’s one of those liminal words – it can be used as a taunt but it can also be just a nickname or a colloquialism.

And some are just…wut?

I don’t say “ratchet” because it is racist, classist, and sexist.

And then…come on.

I don’t say “that is so ‘depressing'” because depression is a legitimate mental illness that should not be taken lightly.

Well yes, so you also can’t say “that is so sad,” because sadness is sad; you can’t say “that is infuriating” because fury is a legitimate emotion that should not be taken lightly; you can’t say anything emotive at all, because it’s all so desperately serious – oh wait I take back “desperately” and “serious”…

A post at A Mighty Girl on Facebook:

At Leaders Vision Preparatory School in Ndalat, Kenya, one student stands out from the rest — 90-year-old Priscilla Sitienei! The nonagenarian, who attends school alongside six of her great-great-grandchildren, is believed to be the oldest primary school student in the world. Although she never had an opportunity to learn to read and write as a child, Sitienei now hopes that her example will inspire the children of her community to understand just how valuable education is.

Affectionately known as Gogo, which means “grandmother” in the local Kalenjin language, Sitienei has been a midwife for 65 years and she even delivered several of her 10 to 14-year-old classmates. When she first applied to the school, they refused her admission until they realized how committed she was to getting an education. Five years after she began studying, Headmaster David Kinyanjui says “I’m very proud of her. Gogo has been a blessing to this school, she has been a motivator to all the pupils. She is loved by every pupil, they all want to learn and play with her.”

Now a class prefect, Sitienei participates in all of the classes, including math, English, PE, dance, drama, and singing. And, she also teaches her fellow students about local customs and traditions. Expectant mothers still seek her out and she assists with deliveries when needed. Part of her motivation for reading and writing is to pass on her midwife expertise and her knowledge of herbal medicine to further generations.

Earlier this year, Sitienei told BBC News that she will confront children she sees who have left school and ask why. “Too many older children are not in school… I see children who are lost, children who are without fathers, just going round and round, hopeless. I want to inspire them to go to school.” she explained. “They tell me they are too old. I tell them, ‘Well I am at school and so should you.’” She hopes that her example will also inspire children around the world: “I want to say to the children of the world, especially girls, that education will be your wealth, don’t look back and run to your father. With education you can be whatever you want.”