Mathematician Claims New Yorker Defamed Him

An anonymous reader writes, "Last month the New Yorker ran the article 'Manifold Destiny' (slashdotted here), by Sylvia Nasar, author of 'A Beautiful Mind.' Now a renowned Harvard mathematics professor, Dr. Shing-Tung Yau, is claiming the article defamed him. His attorney wrote the New Yorker a letter (PDF) threatening that Yau will have 'no choice but to consider other options' if Nasar, her co-author, and the New Yorker fail to undo the damage done."

Nash unhappy with Sylvia too

[peter303]

He complained she wrote too much about his sex life, with some of it exaggerated. If you believe Sylvia's book he had lots of girlfriends and few boyfriends too.

Whats Nash up to these days?

Re:I'm not totally surprised

[gatzke]

Reminds me of

"The competition is so fierce because the stakes are so low."

Re:Defamation

[rca66]

While the New Yorker article was not particularly favorable to Dr. Yau, it didn't seem to me that it could be called defamation. Indeed, to the extent that it says negative things about him, they seem to be coming from his peers in mathematics - and not from the writer of the article. Is that a sufficient defense against a legal claim of defamation? I guess that is for the courts to decide.

The article painted a very negative picture of this man. According to the lawyer's letter this article is already used as ammunition by people in China against Yau. So, if this article is not true or can not stand a proof, it is surely defaming. And regarding those quotes: as the letter says several of the quotes were made as a reaction to a fabricated quote.

More importantly, by suing for defamation, Dr. Yau appears to be manifesting exactly the kind of behavior that he was described as having in the article.

I absolutely do not agree. Assume the content of the letter is correct, and the article is indeed garbage, it is absolutely comprehensible, that the man asks that the magazine takes action to make this point clear. Yau's first reaction was not: "we sue you", but he asks for adjustment and apology. He sees it only as a last ressort, and the letter makes this very clear.

Re:Sigh... as usual, Slashdotters don't ever rtfa.

[greppling]

Whee... I love Slashdot readers! As usual, nobody feels obliged to read the original article, or the response, before blasting thier commentary. Dr. Yau isn't just some Harvard mathematician; he's heavily connected into Chinese politics and education. The article, if true, suggests that he's built that base on stealing the work of others.

Maybe you should read the article. Yau has done magnificient work. It's just that recently he has tried to claim a little more credit (even when it's on behalf of his students) than appropriate, and that he is more ambitious about getting political influence than what's the norm in the math community, and maybe more than his peers are willing to accept.

Some of what he did is wrong, but it's not like he doesn't deserve his job at Harvard or his Fields medal.

Brilliant piece of journalism

[greppling]

I agree with you halfway, for example some of the dementis are so lukewarm ("Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you with that remark.", another more or less saying "Sorry, we know both it's true but I was REALLY trying to persuade here to leave this out from the article."...) that they pretty much emphasize the point...

However, what I find more interesting is the light it shed on how Nasar did her excellent research for this article; it's not like it is easy to get scientists speak openly about one of their most famous and influential peers. Giving them some quotes by Yau, etc. (Yau's claim that she misled them is baseless, IMO -- nobody makes a statement to a journalist about someone he has know well for 30 years just based on a single reported quote; it's just that she got them to talk openly.)

I found it funny how Yau believed she would be captivated by being able to talk with Hawking - something many uninformed journalists would get excited about, whereas Nasar knew well that Hawking didn't have any insights relevant to her article. I just loved to read how she cleverly played along with the cliche... (I don't know why journalists, and slashdot included, still blow Hawking so much out of proportion, but that's another story...)