Slashdot Mirror


Politically Correct Zoology

flynny51 writes "Dr. Dylan Evans of the School of Medicine, University College, Cork, Ireland, has had a two-year period of intensive monitoring and counseling imposed upon him and as a result his application for tenure is likely to be denied. His offense — sharing an article from a peer-reviewed journal on fellatio in fruit bats."

28 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Details by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Details by Securityemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Silly. If a person lies in such amounts about something like this, the "case" should just be dropped. If he has evidence, he should sue her for slander, or whatever the equivalent legal process is in Ireland.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    2. Re:Details by sznupi · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...slander, or whatever the equivalent legal process is in Ireland

      Blasphemy.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  2. Fuck Puritans. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, grow up. As the paper in question demonstrates, the animal kingdom clearly has at least as many kinks as us humans do. It's not "sinful." Far from it -- if you believe in a deity, it seems obvious that this deity heartily approves of sex in all kinds of variety.

    Or, if you can't deal with that, fine, believe whatever you want -- but stop retarding scientific and social progress with your puritanical ideals.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Fuck Puritans. by sznupi · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you're going to hell.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Fuck Puritans. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me and all the fruit bats, apparently!

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Fuck Puritans. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

      Me and all the fruit bats, apparently!

      And yet you only ever seem to hear about bats leaving there...

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:Fuck Puritans. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you actually bothered to RTFA, or even just TFFirstPost, you'd realize that this has nothing to do with any puritanical impulse to censor. The matter at hand is an accusation of sexual harassment, one element of which is the article mentioned in the summary. In fact, the article is the only alleged action which appears to have actually taken place. If you want to get your panties all in a wad about something here, make it be that people are far too quick to punish on allegations of sexual harassment, without stopping to check whether or not any harassment actually occurred first. But no, you jump to the conclusion that this is somehow to do with sexual repression and religion and overbearing moralists. Stop, think, then post (maybe).

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  3. Re:It is university.... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He wasn't even lecturing about it to students, if his protest letter is accurate. He was sharing it with a colleague, which I assume means another professor, a research scientist, or some other variety of non-student researcher, in the context of "an ongoing debate with the colleague in question about the relevance of evolutionary biology to human behaviour, and in particular about the dubiousness of many claims for human uniqueness". Seems rather relevant, and strange to object to.

  4. Standard. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Funny

    If nature facts don't agree with your moral beliefs... the worse for the facts.

    Next Vatican will be sending missionaries to teach the bats about properly moral sexual practices.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. Re:It is university.... by linzeal · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not everything that he has been accusing of.

    " According to her statement, these include over-enthusiastic hugging and cheek-kissing, unwanted compliments about her physical appearance, lying to her about his qualifications, and spreading rumours about the special nature of his relationship with her and her husband. "

  6. Re:He's a Jerk by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

    He contends that the paper wasn't a joke at all but that others classed it as such.

  7. Re:It is university.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read on he was cleared on everything except showing her the article.

  8. Re:Misleading article by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

    keep reading: he was cleared on everything except the article.

  9. Re:It is university.... by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For which she provided no proof, and which were only mentioned in passing at the end of the complaint letter as an attempt to bolster her case. It also notes that the external examiners decided that the email exchanges between them that followed cast doubt on these allegation and did not uphold them.

    In fact the only part of the complaint that was upheld was that he showed her a published peer-reviewed article in part of a debate on biology.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  10. Re:Ireland: In the dark ages by Securityemo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do you argue that violence is inherently bad?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  11. I read the documents: Not guilty by Flambergius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the complaint, replies and rest of the documents. Made me miss the first period of Montreal @ Philadelphia.

    The lack of evidence is staggering and mind-boggling. Who knows what really has been going on, but what I do know that the investigators or the president don't know anything that would be warrant a two-year monitoring and counseling period.

    Let me repeat: not guilty.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
  12. Re:It is university.... by SoVeryTired · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to this, she laughed and asked him for a copy when he showed it to her. Sounds like there's some sort of personal vendetta going on here.

    http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ifut.pdf

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
  13. Catholic Furries by linzeal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just what we need flying furry priests who enjoy fellatio.

  14. Re:It is university.... by linzeal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is not the point in these cases unfortunately. HR departments esp ones with affirmative action offices can often take unilateral action against you without any proof at all. The amount of power alloted against individuals in institutions by these and other offices on campus that are answerable to no one is unbelievable.

    We had a case here that involved a woman getting a man's disabled parking permit taken away because he honked at her once in a parking garage, which she claimed was harassment.

  15. Re:Misleading article by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

    He provided evidence such as emails which didn't match with her account so they went with his account.

    Read the material.
    There's links to the various letters back and forth in TFA.

  16. Re:Punchlines and Straw Men by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As you'd imagine he's not crazy about his career being fucked up by "sexually harassed co-worker" on his record with no warning or recourse.

    simply saying that everyone was within their rights is true but at the same time it would also be true if she'd complained about an overly friendly handshake- she'd have every right to avail herself of a standard procedure to file a complaint and the president of the university would have every right to determine any course of action.

  17. Re:Misleading article by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1:He wasn't screwing the person.
    2:This wasn't an undergraduate or student of any kind.

    This was another academic at the university.

    And the medical faculty at that.

    If a professor in the School of Medicine can't walk into another academics office and show them a peer reviewed paper about fruitbats that pretty much rules out showing them more shocking papers about anal warts and STD's.

    He also showed it to a few other people on the way over and the other person in the office at the time.

    You can shit on academic freedom all you want but if doctors can't talk about peer reviewed scientific papers which might embarrass the fragile sensibilities of someone where they work then they're not going to be able to do their job for fear of being accused of destroying the mind of the office wallflower.

  18. I'm confused by yyxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it politically correct to be for oral sex in fruit bats or against it? Could someone please explain?

  19. Re:Ireland: In the dark ages by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sometimes I can go days without having to realize just how much I despise religion. And then something like this happens.

    How exactly does religion enter into a potential sexual harassment lawsuit?

    What should be extremely interesting, is instead a hair trigger for idiots.

    Yes, that would be interesting. Very, very interesting. It's like they all own a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.

  20. Re:It is university.... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess the lesson is, if you really want to harass someone and get away with it, use the HR department as a proxy.

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  21. Re:He's a Jerk by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In any setting there are expectations of a professional level of behaviour, and he chose not to abide by them.

    This guy is a Lecturer in Behavioural Science at a "supposed" School of Medicine!! What do you think his ***profession*** requires of him? What do you think he's paid to do? Is he required to discuss morally safe topics? Is he required to only talk about the Little House on the Prairie and other PG-Safe topics? What would be the point?

    The transmission of diseases rarely limits itself to PG-13 safe topics. Vectors of disease transmissions are rarely that palatable, or clean. A behavioral scientist in a school of medicine is, of course, going to study and lecture about abnormal behaviors. Whatever it is: Eating feces, promiscuity, infections, fellatios, incest, etc. I wouldn't expect anything else from the talks of a behavioral scientist in a "supposed" School of Medicine.

    No one in academia can claim not to understand where the line is drawn when interacting with other colleagues.

    This word "academia", as accurate as it may be in this case, loses the most salient underlying context. This is not an Art School, or even an English Lit School, the Science of Medicine is an infinitely more practical, pragmatic, and less clean professional environment, than what you would normally find in other Ivory Towers. And for good reasons. When someone gets squimish in Art History, nothing bad happens, but when someone gets squimish in Medicine, people die.

    "It was just a joke" has long since ceased to be an adequate excuse for offensive behaviour.

    And yes, the accused is taking issue with the "bad joke" interpretation. He's even taking to task one of the investigators for some of the things he said during the investigation. One would think that a panel of faculty members would be a little more willing to find out the facts, and interview witnesses (which they haven't done yet), instead of just editorializing their personal opinions and rendering subjective interpretations.

  22. Summary failure by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To me it sounds like the good Dr. has done an admirable job of 'spin control'.

    Read her allegations. They are just that, allegations, but dispense with Dr. Evans interpretation of events, and read it for what it is.

    Dr. Evans engaged in what most of us would recognize as relatively sophomoric antics and flirtation - repeatedly engaging the complainant in discussions of a sexual nature, about Casanova, and ultimately showing her (I assume with much Junior-high-school snickering) an article on fellatio in Fruit Bats.

    It IS possible that all of this was just an unfortunate set of coincidences, showing nothing more than an autistic-level of disconnectedness by Dr. Evans in not understanding the context of the repeated discussions.

    Considerably more likely is the Dr. Evans had a serious boner for the alleged victim, and engaged in the sorts of feeble things 7th grade boys would do to try to 'spark' some interest in 'that hot girl' - with arguably similar results...she is shocked, disgusted, and goes running to the teacher crying "GROSS!".

    If the subsequent dinner "double date" was accurately represented in the reportage, as well as a YEAR of such antics, she (and the school administration) are entirely vindicated.

    I congratulate Dr. Evans on his ability to form a groundswell of public opinion in his behalf by mischaracterizing the event as some sort of Puritanical effort to "stifle academic freedom", a message which rings so readily in the ears of the political leanings of so many here on slashdot that its readily believed contrary to the actual reports. I'm sure he can look forward to many job offers from political parties looking for media consultants.

    I'd however recommend to both of them that they perhaps make sure Dr. Evans isn't working with any women.

    --
    -Styopa