The Sexual Misconduct Case That Has Rocked Anthropology (sciencemag.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Sexual Misconduct Case That Has Rocked Anthropology (sciencemag.org)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 9, 2016 @11:15AM from the digging-up-bones dept.

sciencehabit writes: An investigative report in Science describes allegations of sexual misconduct against noted paleoanthropologist Brian Richmond, as well as the field's response. The story highlights a major shift in how academic communities deal with sexual misconduct, going beyond delineating rules on paper to striving to change the culture of the field at the institutional level. This shift – "a long time coming," according to many researchers – was spurred in part by recent high-profile cases in astronomy and biology. Now, as Balter notes, "paleoanthropology is responding to its own complex case." The first public allegation against Richmond, the curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, inspired a cascade of other allegations about him. This in turn motivated several senior paleoanthropologists, including one of Richmond's key mentors, Bernard Wood, to explore the allegations with peers. "As I talked to more and more current and former students at [George Washington University]," Wood said, "I became more concerned and alarmed about what I heard." In light of their findings, Wood and others in the field of anthropology are now tackling sexual misconduct head-on. The article details additional institutional efforts to stop sexual misconduct in science while trying to balance the rights of victims and accused, and provides the latest update on investigations into Richmond.

264 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What? by softnewsit · 2016-02-09 11:17 · Score: 5, Informative

This is one of the most vague summaries I ever read here... #wtf

--
Go away!
1. Re:What? by Tailhook · 2016-02-09 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  One for the reeducation camps.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
2. Re:What? by UnknownSoldier · 2016-02-09 11:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Your're forgetting this is another fluff piece by timothy.
  Nothing to see. Move along.
3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  What are you talking about????
  I'll summarize the summary for you:
  The summary clearly describes a report of an investigation of an allegation of some conduct that one person accused of another person to a reporter at a tradeshow which happened in a public place where some people overheard some details and it spread like wildfire throughout the conference.
4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  There's my paranoid nutcase! Good boy! Barking on command like your masters trained you! Arf arf!
5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  I come here because of the comments where we make fun of the Dicevertisements.
  Please don't remove the comments.
6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  There's nothing vague about TFA, however. CAPTCHA: expelled
7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, but there is. "unwanted" could mean a deliberately misinterpreted phrase that offended someone looking for a chance to be offended. It could mean a pattern of deliberate sexual advances. "Inappropriate behavior" might be consensual kissing, it might be rape. There's lots of vagueness in the article. No way of telling whether that's to protect the victims, shield the publisher from what would otherwise be a blatant lie, deliberate doublespeak, or just dancing around the subject.
8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  One for the reeducation camps.
  Can't we just put the real crazies in the camps ? You know the women ?
9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Only when they're on the rag. Menstrual camps sound like a great idea.
10. Re:What? by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2016-02-09 12:59 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Almost a generation of the finest minds in world anthropology were forced to submit to overtly sexual humiliation and/or have their career's destroyed, and you think it's a fluff piece?
  Fuck you.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
11. Re:What? by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2016-02-09 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  ...and/or HAD their...
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
12. Re:What? by jedidiah · 2016-02-09 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  No. It sounds like a bunch of cry babies whining that they got hit on. Some of it sounds potentially genuine and a lot of it sounds like the re-introduction of Victorian prudishness. Either way, excusing victims for not coming forward serves no useful purpose. Empowering their victimhood only adds to whatever problem you seem to perceive.
  You are contributing to the culture of victimhood that women are indoctrinated into. It's this culture of being prey (social and otherwise), that's at the heart of this situation.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
13. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  I do wonder about the implications though.
  On the one hand, we are told that student/professor (and several others) relationships are unconscionable due to the power dynamic, yet there are millions of other relationships with similar or worse power dynamics (young/old, rich/poor, abled/disabled) that are seemingly approved if for no other reason than there isn't a mechanism to enforce a particular moral standard.
  It would seem that everyone should have an instant identification of intelligence, wealth, influence, etc. to ensure no abuse can take place.
  Then again, as was seen in the Duke Lacrosse case, that power differential isn't quite clear-cut, and those boys had their lives ruined and one man lost his life due to a power imbalance.
  So why is this particular situation special, except that someone gets to impose their own brand of prudishness, which in and of itself is a power imbalance?
14. Re:What? by bricko · 2016-02-09 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Thats why we try to keep women out of our work place now. To messy to deal with all the drama, bs and hr crap.. Just dont go there any more.
15. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Careers. No apostrophe. Why would you use one?
16. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  If every woman who's husband was an incorrigible dog were punished for their husband's sins, the world would be even more fucked up than it already is.
  Hillary stayed with Bill, I'm sure, mostly because that position/relationship was her springboard to the bigtime; beyond that I could care less whose the politicians screw, as long as it's not US.
17. Re:What? by Darinbob · 2016-02-09 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  Being continually hit on at work or by your boss/professor is not acceptable. If it happens once and discontinues then there's not a problem. But when it continues and is causing even your friends to wonder what the hell is wrong with you then it's time to clean stuff up.
  It is often difficult to speak up. Everyone around may acknowledge that some professor is a troglodyte but may not feel able to say anything about it, because it's a senior professor or the like, and it can hurt your career even if it's not your own professor. If it's your professor and you speak up then you know you have to start your graduate work from scratch with a new professor, even finding a new field if it's impossible to avoid the lech in the future.
18. Re:What? by Darinbob · 2016-02-09 15:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The power dynamic is inescapable though. If you're stuck with that professor, or have to put up with the boss if you want to get a paycheck, then that's totally different than the power between rich and poor and the like. If a billionare started rubbing himself against women in a poor neighborhood he'd be punched and arrested. But if it's your boss and you're struggling to make ends meet, or your professor who is deeply involved in your research thesis, it's much harder to retaliate or get away. The downside is that no one will believe you without evidence, you can lose your job or career or even marriage, you'll be laughed at and told to grow a thicker skin, you may start getting nasty tweets from the anti-women crowd for daring to make a fuss, and so forth. This is nasty stuff and not to be taken lightly or brushed off as "men will be boys" or just another power dynamic.
19. Re: What? by OutlierBabe · 2016-02-09 15:20 · Score: 2
  
  Absolutely. An excellent parallel is the way black Africans subjugated themselves in the Americas. Shame on them, too, for not leaning in, out, and around enough.
20. Re:What? by Darinbob · 2016-02-09 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Hillary gave any support or tacit approval. I think Bill was sleeping in the dog house for several years. I know some people assume that because she didn't divorce him that she must have approved but that's just bizarre and assuming that everyone will act the same way if rational. A married couple that have invested much of their life together will sometimes divorce after such an incident but sometimes they will genuinely reconcile, there is never one and only one way to resolve the problem.
  Hillary in no way acted like those wives who stand meekly two steps behind their politician husband while admitting the affair in front of reporters. That's a strange crowd in itself, pay attention to those women's faces. Some appear to be just sticking it out with as passive a face as they can manage, others feel resigned to it, others have glares they just can't hide. But for some reason they're always up their with the bastard instead of staying home or watching the apology from a bar. It is sort of a strong Christian right sentiment too, that divorce is deeply frowned upon and the wife must always be subservient. Or it could just be that some want the bastard to get reelected before they ask for alimony.
21. Re:What? by FirephoxRising · 2016-02-09 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't forget this happens to both sexes. I had three fellow students have this happen and they didn't come forward as no one would believe them. Campus security laughed at one for raising the issue.
22. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  No. It sounds like a bunch of cry babies whining that they got hit on. Some of it sounds potentially genuine and a lot of it sounds like the re-introduction of Victorian prudishness. Either way, excusing victims for not coming forward serves no useful purpose. Empowering their victimhood only adds to whatever problem you seem to perceive.
  You are contributing to the culture of victimhood that women are indoctrinated into. It's this culture of being prey (social and otherwise), that's at the heart of this situation.
  The problem exists, but victimizing goes both ways. I think that if anyone is going to play the victim card they should have to be able to objectively prove damages that are something more than a bruised ego. If a guy hits on a woman and she likes it it is accepted behavior.. If a guy hits on a woman and she doesn't like it it is a crime? There is something wrong with any world where that kind of duplicitousness is ok.
  Not that I can't handle the situation, but thinking it is any kind of vexed issue that requires community involvement.. unless a crime has been committed, people need to learn to act like adults and learn at the same time how to deal with humor and not try to be backstabbing jerks. (women included)
  Forgive me for judging everyone else using the same measuring stick I use to judge myself.
23. Re:What? by sumdumass · 2016-02-09 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Your correct. Hillary in no way just stood there. She participated in and in some ways headed up the attacks on Bill's accusers. I think it was Rush Limbaugh who called her the head of the bimbo eruption squad because of her obvious and public participation in the degradation and attempted discrediting of his accusers.
24. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  Completely disagree.
  You have situations where one party is completely dependent on another, whether financial or being infirm, where the situation is a lot more complex than changing schools or jobs. Not to mention some students pursue and are physically engaged with their instructors. It's hard to argue how they are not being abused while others are strictly on power dynamics.
  And those same arguments of power dynamics are used to justify keeping a married Alzheimer couple from having sex due to the possibility of abuse, manipulation such as with Anna Nicole Smith, etc.
  So again, what makes this particular imbalance so special?
25. Re:What? by Maxo-Texas · 2016-02-09 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  If your summary isn't vague then someone will find out some way it's wrong.
  lol.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
26. Re:What? by Maxo-Texas · 2016-02-09 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's clear he was an idiot.
  He was above her in the chain of command and sex with someone you have power over has been a no-no for at least 10 years.
  That being said, they were BOTH drunk- we have no idea how it started. For all we know, she started with him while sloshed and he went along since he was so drunk as to behave like a idiot. For all we know, he got her drunk and tricked her back to his room.
  The only think we know for sure is that he was her supervisor and that he shouldn't be making out or having sex with her.
  It's common custom in many countries (and still at many businesses in the U.S.) for subordinates and superiors to drink socially. It's a way of opening lines of communication and getting a safe place to speak frankly. However, when you mix people who are sexually attracted to each other, it can turn messy. Women are starting to be caught abusing their power too.
  And it's only abuse when it goes badly. In the cases where it goes well, the subordinate is promoted over more qualified peers. So it's going to continue. And there will continue to be scandals.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
27. Re:What? by bytesex · 2016-02-09 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that we want your marks at the end of the year to be somewhat objective. In the same way that you can 'bribe' your spouse to do something in the house that you don't like doing, but you're not allowed to bribe your professor. Granted, this should be a private issue, not a legal one.
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
28. Re:What? by jellomizer · 2016-02-09 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  While we shouldn't dismiss problems ranging from rape to unprofessional behavior as just being prude.
  Academia is very hierarchical in structure, so there is a pecking order in power there. So having men who are in a higher power position hitting on women in lower power positions puts them in a disadvantage. While they can go forward, it will still mark them as being "Miss. Woman's Lib" and isolate them from working up the power command of academia.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
29. Re:What? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-09 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, excusing victims for not coming forward serves no useful purpose.
  
  That's only true if you think that treating humans like people and not like robots is useless. Me, I tend to think that recognizing that they are people with feelings and emotions and their own internal logic which can be damaged by trauma leads to making superior decisions than being totally intolerant of anything less than perfection from others so that you can make excuses for rapists.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  What on Earth are you talking about? The fact that a power dynamic can be abused doesn't mean that every such situation is an abusive situation. Only an idiot would reduce it to that.
  What makes this particular imbalance so special is that the power dynamic was abused. It's really not very hard to understand, but even if it was, your problem figuring it out doesn't translate to a problem with the basic premise.
  The long and short of it all is just that this small number of socially clueless professors who use their role to try to sleep with undergraduates need to stop doing that, and everyone else needs to stop acting like it's OK if they do that.
31. Re: What? by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 22:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Instead of hitting on you, your boss may simply be a jerk, or hate your guts, or be incompetent. There is no rational reason to make more of a big deal out of one of these reasons over the others. And the way you can deal with any of them is the same: you quit.
  Suing over it just is an admission that you think your field/company dispenses power arbitrarily and that you want your cut. If you believe that your work and your contributions are valuable, leaving is the best punishment you can hand out.
32. Re:What? by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone around may acknowledge that some professor is a troglodyte but may not feel able to say anything about it, because it's a senior professor or the like, and it can hurt your career even if it's not your own professor.[...] It is often difficult to speak up.
  
  What your reasoning about professors, careers, and powers reveals is that academia has become a fairly arbitrary playground of power and influence, instead of a meritocracy. In a meritocratic world, professors need good students in order to succeed, so if you are a good student, the biggest cost you can impose on your professor is to leave. But we don't live in that world. The world we live in is, in fact, the world you imagine we live in, namely a world in which professors do wield arbitrary powers and in which the next generation of academics is decided more by personal favors and connections than by merit.
33. Re: What? by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 23:30 · Score: 2
  
  Your cynicism reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of slavery. The defining feature of slavery is not that the working conditions sucked or that slaves were subject to sexual harassment (some were, others were not), the defining nature of slavery is that people couldn't leave their jobs when they were being abused at work. When you're not a slave, working in a job or being a student is a voluntary choice. If you don't like the conditions, you quit and go somewhere else.
  Your cynical remark trivializes slavery, and that is offensive.
34. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  You're either poorly trained or too autistic to pick up on subtle satire or a professionally offended jerk.
35. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  And there's the feminazi douchebag. And now the anon troll. Yay everyone's here and we can all start having fun.
36. Re:What? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-02-10 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Given the idea that all consensual sex is ok, and that just about anything is consent (as opposed to the old way, where the only consenual sex occurred within a witnessed marriage and everything else was rape) the definition has gotten murky at best.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
37. Re:What? by Lotharus · 2016-02-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  If a guy hits on a woman and she doesn't like it it is a crime? There is something wrong with any world where that kind of duplicitousness is ok.
  Anonymous Coward for president! I can't agree more with this statement. The subjectivity of defining harassment, etc., is untenable.
  
  --
  http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
38. Re: What? by Darinbob · 2016-02-10 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you just quit, the boss keeps doing his reprehensible behavior on someone else. Maybe the difference is between people who only care about their own welfare and those who care about others.
39. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-02-10 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's certainly not true. What we know is that several women have reported this one particular guy for unwanted sexual advances. He should not have made them, for sure, but it doesn't seem like he did anything to harm their careers when they inevitably said no and left. As such, your characterization "Almost a generation of the finest minds in world anthropology were forced to submit to overtly sexual humiliation and/or have their career's [sic] destroyed" is inaccurate. Again - I'm not condoning his actions. I will say that when one is intoxicated, it can be pretty hard to know how intoxicated someone else is. He may have thought the woman in Italy was not incapacitated. Intent matters in cases like this, but it's so hard to prove. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
40. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-02-10 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for pointing that out.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
41. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Ladies, just offer up a blowjob.
  Then at the appropriate time pull out a large pocket knife and hold it firmly under his balls.
  Then say "if you EVER make advances towards me again I will have your balls pickling in a jar in the lab, get it?
  And if somehow my career even sneezes in a negative direction where you are concerned, your dick will join them."
42. Re:What? by wyHunter · 2016-02-10 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a woman but as a white man I can also say "Thank God I was smart and didn't go to work in academia 30 years ago." The amount of BS there is amazing. Corporate work is far easier.
43. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  >I'm not sure what the right answer is
  Except that you are apparently willing to let this one slide, is that your implication?
  This person fouled up the legitimate academic process in a high-quality department for years.
  But I guess that's OK with you?
  Or am I missing something?
44. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-02-10 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  When you say "let this one slide", which specific alleged incident are you referring to? I think he should get in trouble for the incidents with the undergrads, but less trouble than if he'd tried to hurt their careers afterwards. I'm not sure if the incident in Italy is something he should be in trouble for. What I am sure of is that using the phrase "let this one slide" is bad, as it implies that something bad definitely happened but I (and others) are failing in a duty to be mad/try to get him in trouble. I also think that putting the responsibility for behaving well entirely on him is sexist (against both people involved, in fact) and does nothing to help prevent future things like this from happening.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
45. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-11 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  And some of them SHOULD have been discredited because their stories were junk and they were being put forward by the Great Right Wing Noise Machine.
  Some.
  Many others were legitimately victimized.
  But do you really think that a whole lot of those other pigs aren't getting their knobs polished by 20 YOs up there in DC? If you think that, you are a naif. Jesus God, two out of the three main GOP senatorial attackers were forced to drop off the committee or leave the Senate when THEIR sexual peccadilloes were revealed. This is not to absolve Bill Clinton of being a pig, but keep some perspective here.
46. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-11 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  s/b "married pigs" and "20 YOs not their spouse"; sorry, moving too fast today.
47. Re:What? by david_thornley · 2016-02-11 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  The first year I went to grad school, there was literally a story every day in the campus newspaper about the program I was in, including one day when they couldn't get anything but printed it anyway. It may have been a good thing that I washed out of grad school because of depression.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
48. Re:What? by david_thornley · 2016-02-11 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  When someone in a position of power is hitting on you, how much do you want to depend on the possibility that the person will not trash your career? Nor is it a matter of inevitably saying no, because some people will put up with whatever crap they have to to get through. Keep hitting on subordinates that way, even when you let them go when they tell you "no" (and you're going to give them a lot of anxiety no matter what), and you're going to wind up with one determined to put up with whatever form of sex you want, even if he or she hates it, and not knowing he or she could just walk away.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
49. Re:What? by sumdumass · 2016-02-11 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I see..
  So was changing the focus from Hillary maliciously attacking victims of Bill's sexcapades to Bill and everyone else having affairs supposed to distract from the issue of Hillary or do you just like talking about people having sex? I mean Bill cheating on Hillary doesn't really matter outside of her not being able to satisfy Bill or that he tried to escape often. And that could explain her being bitter but i don't think it excuses her.
  Oh, and speaking of sex and they all do it. Did you know that the Watergate break in was claimed to be about gathering evidence on a prostitution ring run by the DNC in attempts to get donations by 2 of the 5 convicted participants? This was before the funding from Cuba story and G Gordon Liddy used to tell of sex parties at DNC fundraisers on his radio show which segmented into his claims about the prostitution ring.
50. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-02-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, them trashing your career is always a possibility, and that does introduce a lot of potential for harm.
  
  When I said "inevitably said no", I was referring to the cases mentioned in the article. All the women in those cases said no.
  
  Again, I said he shouldn't have made those advances, but I don't think he should get the same punishment as someone who actually kept pushing the issue, destroyed careers, etc.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
51. Re:What? by david_thornley · 2016-02-12 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Inevitably: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
  Anyway, yes, he should get credit for taking "no" for an answer and not destroying anyone's career, but putting anyone in a position where he or she could think he or she has a choice between losing a career or allowing unwanted sexual advances is not good. If he'd hit on women who he had no particular power over, I wouldn't consider that a problem.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
52. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. This is one of the sicker attempts at reason I have seen.
  Here is news for you. Some people in positions of influence over others don't care. They just don't care about their field, their community or anything other than themselves. They are not in any way punished by anyone leaving. In fact they may desire it as competition is a threat to them.
  Here is more news. There is no great sea of opportunity where we can go to offer our contributions. Things are scarce. I'm surprised anyone can think otherwise.
  Suing as an "admission" of anything is a truly sick and reprehensible statement on your part. I see no moral or ethical basis for your bizarre notion. Exactly the opposite. There is a concept called "redress." I believe you would benefit from becoming acquainted with it.
If only... by Harold+Halloway · 2016-02-09 11:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

...it had been paleontology or geology that had been 'rocked' by this case. But I'm struggling to understand why such a story is relevant to a science/technology news website?
1. Re:If only... by Tailhook · 2016-02-09 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What science/technology website? This is a place for cubicle trolls to air their political and cultural grievances.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
2. Re:If only... by quantaman · 2016-02-09 11:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ...it had been paleontology or geology that had been 'rocked' by this case. But I'm struggling to understand why such a story is relevant to a science/technology news website?
  Because one of the big questions about the science and technology fields are why women are so under-represented.
  Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
3. Re:If only... by MightyMartian · 2016-02-09 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But only if you believe there is such a thing as sexual misconduct. It's pretty clear that on /. the number of posters that think such a thing as "inappropriate behavior" below the level of "unwanted penis insertion" even exists.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  If this is part of the answer, then I guess we can go back to public flogging and dunk tanks in public squares to set things right. Oh, and scarlet letters for both men and women.
5. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do women flood into the medical industry because of the overwhelming respect and lack of inappropriate male behavior in those industries? What about all the women in marketing - did all of the sexists vanish? Women don't need the insult of being treated as an economically protected class because you think they're too stupid to choose the right careers - they're happier in their career choices than men.
6. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  The most sexism I've encountered while attending university was in the economics department. Flagrantly sexist jokes that would get a computer scientist crucified, shown to a an auditorium full of freshmen students, the majority female. You've fallen for a smear campaign.
7. Re:If only... by Sklivvz · 2016-02-09 12:12 · Score: 2
  
  Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.
  Only if stories like these happen in the science and technology fields and not elsewhere. It seems banal enough, albeit tragic, that it could have happened in any field.
  A person in senior position trying to get their subordinates to bed? Shocking! I would never have imagined such a thing!</sarcasm>
  
  --
  My Stack Overflow user
8. Re:If only... by Alypius · 2016-02-09 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well yeah, the Internet Outrage Machine generates clicks and income. An article about an obscure Linux kernel? Not so much.
9. Re:If only... by Alypius · 2016-02-09 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you think we haven't been publicly flogging and issuing scarlet letters, then you haven't been paying attention.
10. Re:If only... by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-02-09 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  Because they think you are all potential evil fart rapists, rather than just a aspy nerds with no people skills and a bad diet, therefore they feel a compulsion to try and "cure" you vial social engineering despite the fact that your are probably a victim of your genetics as much as anything and therefore their actions are discrimination.
  
  Ladies, and lads, if the prof tries to grab your giggly bits just kick him in the balls and walk away, because I can guarantee you that he will never try it again and the sight of him on the floor will make you feel much better, as well as symbolise who really is the Alpha.
11. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  Bill Clinton's behavior shows why there are so few women in politics.
12. Re:If only... by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2016-02-09 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  anthropology is not science?
  fuck you igoramus
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
13. Re:If only... by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2016-02-09 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  >just kick him in the balls
  And then see everything you gave you life to for almost two decades to in order to get into an amazingly difficult and competitive program taken from you, after which you would be blackballed from any other such program?
  fuck you.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
14. Re: If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  The comments section provides further explanation why
15. Re:If only... by Immerman · 2016-02-09 13:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps it is a matter of degree? Consider:
  People who dedicate themselves to the science and technology fields tend to be somewhat lacking in social graces, prone to "blunt instrument" conversational skills. Contrast that with other fields, especially in management, where "people skills" tend to be some of the most valuable assets to acquiring positions of authority.
  I would imagine that the inappropriate socialite boss is more likely to be skilled at "not crossing the line", gauging their victims tolerance for their unwanted advances and backing off before things escalate to the point that might drive them away or invite repercussions. Contrast that with a geek attempting the same thing - for the same level of inappropriate intent, most will be far less graceful about pursuing their goal, which is likely to make things more unpleasant for the victim. Up to and including the issuing of ultimatums where a more skilled predator might bide their time or seek less recalcitrant prey. I know which predator *I* would prefer to have to tolerate every day.
  And then of course there's positive feedback aspect which doesn't create the problem, but does intensify it: sci/tech are currently abnormally male-dominated fields, which means there's likely a higher ratio of predators per woman. That would tend to make the fields less appealing for women even if predators were no more numerous or unpleasant among geeks than in the general population.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
16. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Stop sexually harassing people by saying "fuck you" all the time.
17. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, baby, wanna come upstairs and see my Homo Erectus?
18. Re:If only... by tsotha · 2016-02-09 14:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The way the tenure system works you really, really don't want to make an enemy out of the powerful people above you. From what I can see it's much worse than getting hit on by your boss at a job - you can always quit an office job and get another. But in academia if you just up and leave a tenure track position or don't get tenure because you've alienated someone important, your career is pretty much over.
19. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
20. Re: If only... by phorm · 2016-02-09 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on how hard the kick is, it might be the prof that ends up "blackballed"
21. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  What you describe is relatively uncommon because it doesn't make sense from the point of view of game theory. In a situation where the junior professor clearly deserves tenure and the senior professor is threatening to block it unless sexual favors are provided, it's a simple matter for the junior professor to record the conversation and go to the university administration. What usually happens instead is that the junior professor is not good enough to get tenure on their own - but then a senior professor on the tenure committee offers to put a thumb on the scale, so to speak, in exchange for some sexual favors. In that case, the victim has little to gain from going to the university administration other than some broader sense of integrity or justice - i.e. they will still be denied tenure.
22. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  The most sexism I've encountered while attending university was in the economics department. Flagrantly sexist jokes that would get a computer scientist crucified, shown to a an auditorium full of freshmen students, the majority female. You've fallen for a smear campaign.
  That is what I was saying above, it is not that there is not legitimate sexual harassment behaviors that go on every day, but you can tell the ones that play the "sexual harassment card" because it keeps coming up for them again and again and again and again and AGAIN, and even for reasonable professional adult people somehow get ensnared in their crap, unless of course they have the people skills to shut that game down. Often this involves getting an ombudsman within HR involved and the records are looked at, and yes the guy might have said something that could have been misinterpreted as inappropriate in a specific context, however you find in that one case it ended and nothing else happened and with her though, (not blaming all females, not by a long shot so don't go there and get off track here..) with her you find that someone saying something that she interpreted as "window licking" as a default knee jerk reaction, her filing a complaint , starting rumors and getting all in a kerfuffle is a daily occurrence and HR is hopes she will just quit already so they can get on with their jobs.. that is where the system is abused. Fortunately it is not a vexed issue to know how to shut that kind of childish crap down quickly and decisively. It is funny though how some men rise to the executive level and still have this kind of crap happening all around them again and again.. I remember a corporate vice president I used to work with who on a company outing, would get drunk and be all talking to the female employees about how he was going to bet his jaguar on this or that.. and everyone is just sitting around thinking "What a moron!" and then when he gets an HR call against him , 99% of the company is not surprised at all.. it is usually a short balding guy with a chip on his shoulder with everyone around him.. you have to consider the personality types involved.
23. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it is a matter of degree? Consider:
  People who dedicate themselves to the science and technology fields tend to be somewhat lacking in social graces, prone to "blunt instrument" conversational skills. Contrast that with other fields, especially in management, where "people skills" tend to be some of the most valuable assets to acquiring positions of authority.
  I would imagine that the inappropriate socialite boss is more likely to be skilled at "not crossing the line", gauging their victims tolerance for their unwanted advances and backing off before things escalate to the point that might drive them away or invite repercussions. Contrast that with a geek attempting the same thing - for the same level of inappropriate intent, most will be far less graceful about pursuing their goal, which is likely to make things more unpleasant for the victim. Up to and including the issuing of ultimatums where a more skilled predator might bide their time or seek less recalcitrant prey. I know which predator *I* would prefer to have to tolerate every day.
  And then of course there's positive feedback aspect which doesn't create the problem, but does intensify it: sci/tech are currently abnormally male-dominated fields, which means there's likely a higher ratio of predators per woman. That would tend to make the fields less appealing for women even if predators were no more numerous or unpleasant among geeks than in the general population.
  A lot of what you bring up is true, but a lot of it are stereotypes and you would be surprised how many women there are that try to game that system and how many high level executives that do not have the people skills or grace and integrity to know when to quit.. and the number of technical geeks who do have the people skills and insights to not step in that pile of shit.. like a friend of mine used to say "Assumptions are the mother of all really bad fuck ups."
24. Re:If only... by Immerman · 2016-02-09 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  I quite agree that my argument is based on stereotypes. But those stereotypes only have to be valid on average for the argument to be sound.
  Would you really care to argue that geeks are, on average, at least as socially skilled as the larger population?
  As for women who game the system, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I imagine even most of them would rather deal with the more socially sophisticated predators - I suspect such sophistication tends to make more profitable marks as well.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
25. Re:If only... by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-09 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's rather sad that you aren't shocked, and shows we still have some way to go.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
26. Re:If only... by N1AK · 2016-02-09 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ladies, and lads, if the prof tries to grab your giggly bits just kick him in the balls and walk away... , as well as symbolise who really is the Alpha.
  If only that solution was available to deal with immature trolls channelling the kind of douche who uses 'Alpha' non-ironically.
27. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  The elephant in the room here, Daniel, is that the aspy nerds with no people skills and a bad diet are living with a great deal of resentment inside. You can see this from all the comments on this article, and on every other article that dares to touch on this subject. Once they get into a situation puts them in contact with a lot of attractive undergraduates (a resentful nerd's wet dream) they see a way to get over it. These undergraduates look up to them. THEY CAN GET LAID!!! This is the nerd fantasy everybody is defending here. The aspy nerds are like "how dare you destroy my dream?"
  Telling the aspy nerds that this is not appropriate behaviour for a professor may well create more anger and resentment, but it's not "discrimination".
  You and everybody else needs to get over themselves. The issue here is that even aspy nerds are expected to behave like decent human beings. Being an aspy nerd doesn't free you from that basic life requirement. So stop pandering to this crowd and use the brain cells God gave you to figure this out, because that's a gift not everybody has - although they manage to behave like decent human beings anyway.
28. Re:If only... by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because one of the big questions about the science and technology fields are why women are so under-represented.
  That question has largely been answered, it's just that feminists don't like the answers: women statistically are less concerned with status and high income, and women have babies and biological clocks.
29. Re:If only... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-02-10 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  ...it had been paleontology or geology that had been 'rocked' by this case. But I'm struggling to understand why such a story is relevant to a science/technology news website?
  The anthropologists were saddened and shocked an esteemed colleague had behaved this way, but were exited to watch cultural behavior shifts in progress as they shamed him according to tumblr rules aborning.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
30. Re:If only... by PRMan · 2016-02-10 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  "Women who game the system" = "Women who sleep there way to the top"
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
31. Re:If only... by invid · 2016-02-10 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Assumptions are the mother of all really bad fuck ups
  I've always preferred "When you ASSume you make an ASS out of you and me".
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
32. Re:If only... by Kythe · 2016-02-10 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  ...it had been paleontology or geology that had been 'rocked' by this case. But I'm struggling to understand why such a story is relevant to a science/technology news website?
  Because one of the big questions about the science and technology fields are why women are so under-represented.
  Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.
  Perhaps, but I suspect that's a significant oversimplification. Gender interests in various topics are generally "dialed in" by mid-high-school age or before -- college major gender preferences reflect high school preferences. I strongly suspect high schoolers aren't choosing topics of interests based upon expectations of future harassment in related careers.
  
  A much more viable theory revolves around "caste effects" -- we tend to internalize the perceived characteristics of groups with which we identify. This effect has been posited as an explanation for disparities in IQ scores that break down along socially-identified racial groups (even when the underlying genetics and socio-economics are much more complicated). In the context of this topic, males or females see what they think men or women are "like" and what they "do", and tend to develop interests accordingly.
  
  As for harassment and the sciences: Obviously, it's a problem for those already in fields where (most likely) one gender or the other is significantly under-represented, and it could tend to reinforce such under-representation. But I think it's more a symptom than a cause.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
33. Re:If only... by Immerman · 2016-02-10 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  If so, I would say that's a completely different subject. A mutually beneficial exchange of favors is a far cry from sexual predation.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
34. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-11 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Statistically less concerned? You can't just stop there. You need to ask why are they less concerned. Feminists believe it has something to do with our cultural upbringing, something that is really quite changeable.
35. Re:If only... by saforrest · 2016-02-11 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The most sexism I've encountered while attending university was in the economics department. Flagrantly sexist jokes that would get a computer scientist crucified, shown to a an auditorium full of freshmen students, the majority female. You've fallen for a smear campaign.
  So, just so I understand here, you're saying that there is worse sexual harassment outside science and technology, therefore harassment within science and technology doesn't exist / is not a problem.
  Do we really have to spell out how that is not an argument?
36. Re:If only... by david_thornley · 2016-02-11 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  For this particular case, I'm going to disagree.
  I'm in software development. I've worked as full-time employee and contractor, in public and private sectors, and so forth. I've been laid off before, and left jobs because I couldn't take that BS any more. However, I was always able to get another job (except for shortly after I was laid off in 2002), and have had a good career.
  Now, suppose I was trying to become an anthropologist (and for convenience, in this post I play a hetero female with a hetero male hitting on me) (also, I don't know that well what goes on in anthropology, because all my experience is computer science and physical sciences; please correct me if I get something too wrong). Undergrad studies aren't a problem; if one guy's a jerk either you can avoid that class, or there will be enough sexual harassment complaints against him that something will get changed. Grad studies are a problem, but if I know about the jerk I can probably manage to keep him off my committee. (I'm drawing from my experience, so this may not always be the case.) If the jerk winds up on my committee I may have serious problems.
  So, I just got my Ph.D., and am looking for a tenure-track position. Visual equivalent of crickets. I need to stay productive in the field if I want a career, so I take a job as a slave^Wpostdic. I need to publish to keep an academic career, and a jerk running my project is a real danger to my career if I don't keep him happy (possibly wink wink). Then a tenure-track position opens up and I apply, along with a few dozen or hundred colleagues. At this point, my publication list is critical, and it's also critical that nobody involved in selection process is ticked at me. If I miss out on a tenure-track position, it isn't over, but the next such is not going to be any easier to get. Then I become an assistant professor for a few years, and need to keep my publishing up, and then I have to convince the senior faculty that I should be an associate professor, the alternative being that I'm that one who couldn't get tenure.
  At almost any point in this process, if I fail, my career is over. If I succeed, then I can start looking at the cute male anthropology students, because my job and career are pretty darn safe.
  There are a lot of times when I'm dependent on the actions of one or more people senior to me, and any of them can make sure I don't get to work in my desired field. Academia is weird. Some current practices are sufficiently old and traditional that they really should be of significance only in the history department.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:24 · Score: 1

What does that even mean today? "You look nice today?" "Would you like to go for lunch sometime?"
1. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Its gotten to the point where you can't even give some a friendly smack on the buttocks with a rubber dildo anymore without them taking it the wrong way.
2. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Alan+Shutko · 2016-02-09 11:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  RTFA. It means: "kissing her and groping under her skirt" while the woman wakes up from blacking out. It means "Dr. Richmond smiled and grabbed P1[’s] breast,”. It means "put his arm around me, and plunged his hand down the back of my skirt all the way to my thighs, and forcefully grabbed my posterior,". And all of this happened while Richmond was an instructor in the program and had a position of authority over the women involved.
3. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by dasgoober · 2016-02-09 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Seems like alcohol played a role in these accounts, he stopped and didn't take it further, and the girls weren't persecuted for saying "no".
  You wanna run him out of the field for thes???
4. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  If I ruined a career every-time I woke up (after getting blackout drunk) in the middle of doing (or after having done) something regrettable my college nickname would be "cold fusion".
5. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  What does that even mean today? "You look nice today?" "Would you like to go for lunch sometime?"
  This is why these stories keep showing up. Tone deaf geeks don't understand the difference between harmless socializing and stalking/harassment--so they then blame it on a "SJW" conspiracy. The comments in response to these stories epitomizes the problem.
6. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by SirSlud · 2016-02-09 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  What part of sticking your hand down somebody else's pants is complicated to you?
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
7. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by dskoll · 2016-02-09 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Jesus, yes. What do you think is necessary for someone to be fired?
8. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Seems like alcohol played a role in these accounts,... You wanna run him out of the field for thes???
  I'm sure I'm far in the minority, here, but having actually read the article, I found the heavy drinking to be more troubling than the sexual messing around.
  My own PhD experience (biomedical research) was that everyone understood that there was too much at stake professionally to risk getting drunk with one's PhD supervisor. Even leaving aside risks of sexual misunderstandings, the risk of getting drunk and saying or doing something offensive or insulting to one's supervisor was an unthinkable risk. Even under the best of circumstances, it's very very difficult to land a long term position doing biomedical scientific research. And the good will of one's PhD supervisor is critical. Why risk throwing that all away with a single night of drunken stupidity?
  If there was pressure on the subordinates to get drunk in order to maintain their relationship with their supervisors then that's a huge issue. Even if there wasn't pressure, it still shows poor judgment on the part of the supervisors to get drunk with their subordinates.
  Having said that, if going out together for a night of heavy drinking was completely voluntary then the subordinates who did get very drunk should understand that some bad choices are inevitably going to get made - leading to awkwardness between subordinates and supervisors and all the various spouses and significant others.
9. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  Although one difference here was that apparently the partying occurred out in the field...or at least out of the country.
10. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by murdocj · 2016-02-09 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  Well, let's think about it. Very powerful person who can ruin careers has a pattern of making unwanted sexual advances on very junior subordinates. Gee, do we
  a) let the guy continue?
  b) get him out of his position of authority that he's been abusing?
  Wow, what a tough moral dilemma...
11. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by murdocj · 2016-02-09 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  Yep... there is a difference between "you look nice today" and sticking your hand up a woman's dress. Apparently some people here don't get that.
12. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by jedidiah · 2016-02-09 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Suddenly it occurs to the SJWs that perhaps the standards we impose on minors should now be imposed on people that are supposed to be adults.
  I can understand the power issues with letting adult students consort with teachers. Although banning such relationship has not been the rule previously. It simply wasn't the standard.
  Now the standard is changing.
  So things that were once thought perfectly fine are now suddenly "illegal".
  Perhaps a memo should be distributed to everyone regarding the new rules.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
13. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by alvinrod · 2016-02-09 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it didn't go farther, that's a pretty open and shut case of sexual harassment on its own. If something like that happened multiple times, it's pretty obvious that something should have been done a lot sooner.
14. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-02-09 14:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The waistband, usually.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
15. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Even if it didn't go farther, that's a pretty open and shut case of sexual harassment on its own.
  If it happened as the woman stated then yes, it absolutely is sexual harassment. The problem is that there seems to be zero evidence to support her statement of events and if all it takes for someone to get vilified is a single accuser with no supporting evidence then we live in dangerous times.
16. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Well first of all, the article isn't about a "single accuser", it's about multiple accusers.
  Second, yeah, that's why there'd be an investigation.
  The disturbing thing is people claiming this isn't a problem even if it happened as stated.
17. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by quenda · 2016-02-09 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA. It means: "kissing her and groping under her skirt" while the woman wakes up from blacking out.
  They were kissing, and she claims she was too drunk to remember what happened before that. There is no evidence that she was passed out.
  By itself, it proves nothing, however other women since reported similar stories.
  When work colleagues are away from home, drinking heavily, and in one of the most romantic cities on Earth, things are bound to happen.
  Some of them will be regretted. There is a simple old-fashioned way to avoid such problems: chaperones.
  If the university does not want such encounters, ban the assistants from being alone with their bosses after hours or after drinking. If they stay in groups of two or more, they are safer. And it protects the professor from change-of-mind allegations.
  A fact of life is that middle-aged men are extremely vulnerable to approaches from young attractive women. They need protecting, just as young employees need protection from those with power over them.
18. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  Make a song and dance about undoing it. They love that.
19. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Jesus, yes. What do you think is necessary for someone to be fired?
  Letting the encounter or the affect someone's career path or grades. That would be dickish and deserving of a firing.
  Two adults getting drunk on a trip with the consequences being in the normal range of consequences for that normal pattern of behavior, is not grounds for firing.
20. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by nbauman · 2016-02-09 20:19 · Score: 2
  
  If it happened as the woman stated then yes, it absolutely is sexual harassment.
  The way the woman stated it, they went out drinking, she got "way too drunk," she couldn't find her way back to her Air B&B, she doesn't remember anything after that until they wound up in bed together with Richmond kissing her and groping under her skirt.
  There's a lot of things that could have happened between the time her memory blanked out and the time it started again. Like she could have made advances at him.
  When she goes to a man's hotel room, it may not imply consent to have sex, but she should be prepared for him to make an advance to find out if she is consenting.
  He might be one of those guys who would make an advance at a woman if they wound up in a hotel room together. There are an awful lot of guys like that.
  She's supposed to be an anthropologist, for crying out loud. Didn't she ever learn about sage grouse leks?
21. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently, yes. The official line that gets parroted is that "If it makes you uncomfortable, it's harassment." - which implies that any of the above, or even a mumbled "hi" in the corridor, are harassment if you want them to be. But only if you're a woman, and the perpetrator is a man.
22. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by nbauman · 2016-02-09 20:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It means "put his arm around me, and plunged his hand down the back of my skirt all the way to my thighs, and forcefully grabbed my posterior,".
  If you gave the whole quote, it would mean something else:
  
  This witness, who admits that she was "properly drunk," wrote that she put her hand around Richmond's waist while he "continued to fondle my bottom." Shortly afterwards, she related, Richmond "pulled me away from the circle" and "kissed me quite passionately," asking her to go to a more remote spot and have sex with him. But she was not interested and declined, slipping away to her friends.
  They were standing around a bonfire, they were drinking, she was drinking a lot, he made a pass at her, she responded favorably, he continued, she declined, and he left her alone.
  This is normal sexual behavior in modern western cultures.
  These are fucking anthropologists. They're supposed to understand mating rituals.
23. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-02-09 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  without them taking it the wrong way.
  Well, if they move when you're trying to do it, accidents will happen.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
24. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  SJWs
  Drink!
25. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  the subordinates who did get very drunk should understand that some bad choices are inevitably going to get made
  If you think this is "inevitable" given drinking, than I understand why you're so disturbed about the drinking aspect of this story.
  Having a few drinks doesn't put one above the law, I'm afraid - legally, morally or ethically - nor does it make bad behaviour on anyone's part "inevitable". I drink a lot - a hell of a lot - and I don't go around sexually assaulting people. It is reasonable for the subordinates to assume that no matter how much was being drunk, their supervisor wouldn't assault them.
  If this was all men, and you were the subordinate, and I punched you in the face, would you argue that it was reasonable because everyone had been drinking? It's about time we recognized that putting your hand down a girls' pants is equivalent to punching a guy in the face. Once you get that, everything else about this topic is fucking straightforward.
26. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-10 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  If she was so drunk she couldn't remember how she got the room, that's a clear sign to Richmond that she couldn't consent and he should have stopped. Even if she was making advances to him, being that drunk is an automatic "no" because the capacity to consent does not exist.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  If she was so drunk she couldn't remember how she got the room, that's a clear sign
  A clear sign? So can you tell if I'm posting this drunk (or high)? You can tell if I'll remember this post later?
28. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Enigma2175 · 2016-02-10 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  If she was so drunk she couldn't remember how she got the room, that's a clear sign to Richmond that she couldn't consent and he should have stopped. Even if she was making advances to him, being that drunk is an automatic "no" because the capacity to consent does not exist.
  Maybe it was Richmond who was sexually assaulted in that instance. He was very drunk and she engaged in sexual activity with him. If they are both so drunk that neither one can consent why is the onus upon him to stop and not upon her?
  
  --
  Enigma
29. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by russotto · 2016-02-10 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  This is why these stories keep showing up. Tone deaf geeks don't understand the difference between harmless socializing and stalking/harassment
  Of course we do.
30. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, from your version, the only impropriety is that he holds a position of power over her, so sexual advances could be construed as ultimatums.
31. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Drugged = voluntarily got drunk and lured him on.
32. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  These are fucking anthropologists. They're supposed to understand mating rituals.
  No noo! These were clearly non-fucking anthropologists.
33. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-10 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's entirely possible that is the case, which is why there needs to be an investigation... Which there is.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
34. Re:"sexual misconduct"? by david_thornley · 2016-02-11 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I've been working at a fair number of places in my life, including academia, and I have seen a few parrots in zoos, and I never heard that line. When I was a TA, they made some things clear. Me hitting on a student would be sexual harassment, but a student hitting on me would not be. Victims should be encouraged to report harassment to the appropriate office, on the grounds that a lot of independent reports had more credibility than one individual one. If it was determined that I was doing things that could be sexual harassment (such as asking for dates or whatever), and the student claimed it was harassment, the University would believe the student. This did not mean that the University would automatically believe the whole accusation, but if I was sexually or romantically involved with a student it was the student's call as to whether it was harassment or not.
  All I had to do to avoid successful harassment charges was behave halfway professionally towards the students, so that worked fine.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
New Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:32 · Score: 1

Same as the old Slashdot.
Let me show you my bone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:33 · Score: 0

heh heh
1. Re:Let me show you my bone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Where did you dig that tiny thin up? Go bury it someplace else, obviously you have small hand... Bones...
TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Male, therefore guilty.
1. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  This is probably a case of "giving good degrees by asking for sexual favors"...
  If you really think it's about "male => guilty by default", you are a dumbass.
2. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Well, my Dad thinks so...
3. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Bane him from working forever! Can the strong independent woymen tar and feather him too???
4. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  But what kind of shirt was he wearing?
5. Re:TL;DR by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-09 12:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "If you really think it's about "male => guilty by default", you are a dumbass."
  No, it's more like "male and not particularly attractive, hence guilty by default."
6. Re:TL;DR by quantaman · 2016-02-09 12:50 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Male, therefore guilty.
  Yeah I'm sure it's just a bunch of women with no obvious connections engaging in a giant conspiracy for no apparent reason like they did to Bill Cosby.
  Most importantly your automatic assumption that the man innocent and is only being persecuted for his gender, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, is in no way evidence that you might be sexist.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
7. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Just pointing out that he got fired and ostracized without even a police report being filed. The only corroboration is that one woman told 3 other women a similar story about her saying stop and him respecting that. Two other women said he was an ass automatically guilty, fired, subject to a whisper campaign and never again employable in the field.
8. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  Feeling resentful that you're ugly and girls don't like you?
9. Re: TL;DR by OutlierBabe · 2016-02-09 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  You said it! Same way females are guilty of all rape. F*ckin' broads--am I right?!
10. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  You response implies that you believe he is innocent simply because he is male. However, this isn't the courts. We can feel free to declare him guilty or not guilty no matter our prejudices. That's fine.
  There is exactly one problem with the overall case, and it is that the accused was not allowed to remain anonymous as well. Identity of accuser and accused should both be held in the strictest confidentiality, especially by the accuser. Once the accused becomes known, it poisons any investigation and drastically reduces the chances that they will be dealt with fairly (whether by people who don't like them lying or exaggerating, or people who do like them falling all over themselves to defend the accused). HR training should involve being able to interrogate co-workers without revealing any identities.
  Basically, no one should ever have known the accused was male to begin with.
11. Re:TL;DR by phantomfive · 2016-02-09 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  No. Supervisor, therefore guilty.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't you be on PUAHate? Oh wait...
"Wanna bone?" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:35 · Score: 0

(hip thrusting motions ensue)
captcha - condom
Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Ormy · 2016-02-09 11:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why does the area of academic research matter? Including it in the headline implies there's some causation when there is very likely none at all. Should be more like "academic research/educator sexual misconduct etc etc". Giving his profession, gender, nationality, all possibly (if remotely) relevant; if he was an electrician would we care if he was freelance or worked for a national company? If he was a doctor would it matter if he was a neurosurgeon or an obstetrician?. If there is some causation, maybe explain a little? If not, irrelevant at best, inflammatory at worst.
1. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Krishnoid · 2016-02-09 11:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Anthropology covers human behavior; maybe some relevance in mis/applying domain knowledge?
2. Re: Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Stoutlimb · 2016-02-09 11:52 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  It's inflammatory by the second paragraph. Woman in bar shouts she was raped. If she hasn't called the police first, this is base character assassination. A woman's allegations should not automatically be believed despite all the PC rhetoric to the contrary.
3. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  and why didn't the individuals who believed they were assaulted go to the cops after it happened? This "he said/she said" bullshit months or years after it happened is pathetic. Not to mention that these institutions didn't really have any sort of sexual harassment policies in place is also kind of ridiculous. Most businesses have had to put these in place since the 1990s.
4. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Why does the area of academic research matter? Including it in the headline implies there's some causation when there is very likely none at all. Should be more like "academic research/educator sexual misconduct etc etc".
  
  Did you read the article?
  The events (allegedly) happened out in the field because this guy supervised undergrads at field schools for anthropology. Astronomy was also brought into it because its another classic opportunity for senior supervisors to be isolated with young females when out observing.
  So yes, the area does matter because they were suggesting that such things are more likely to happen in academic branches that involve old professors in dark places with young undergrads than areas of academia where people work regular office hours in public.
5. Re: Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't automatically believed...
6. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-09 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Did you bother reading the article? Hint: when your supervisor who is extremely powerful and can ruin your life does this kind of thing to you, you think twice before blowing the whistle.
7. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by jedidiah · 2016-02-09 13:30 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  ...and so YOU help feed the beast with your excuses.
  At a certain point "unwilling victims" need to start sharing some of the blame.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
8. Re: Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-09 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  After all the high profile rape hoaxes we've had in recent years, in general I'm willing to say "Hey, if you didn't think it was rape enough to go to the cops, you probably weren't raped." But if his old students and colleagues are coming out of the woodwork making similar accusations it does lend some credibility to her story.
9. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-09 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  So fine, you think twice and then blow the whistle. The problem is when you wait long enough for all the evidence to be gone it becomes a he said/she said story in which the truth is unknowable by anybody else.
10. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-09 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Because, yeah, lots of different women telling pretty much the same story is a "he said, she said' kind of thing.
11. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-09 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is. If you're going to prosecute someone for a crime, you need evidence, not a witch hunt.
12. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the area of academic research matter?
  This. A thousand times this. And besides, am I the only one that get baffled when reading this:
  
  Balter notes, "paleoanthropology is responding to its own complex case."
  Excuse me? Why the hell does paleoanthropology have to respond to what is, in essence, a criminal case? Are paleoanthropologists now an independent community with their own laws, different from, say insurance sellers and car mechanics? Does the field of supermarket cashiers need to make a like response?
13. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  you think twice before blowing the whistle.
  Or just blowing.. too much? Or too little? ;) All those dig sites with young research assistants crouching over the remains will make a middle-aged, badly married man's head spin. It's hot and dirty work but somebody has to do it. Ban badly married, "middle age crisis" suffering department heads from attending the dig sites during summers! Lets also push the self-defense threshold little higher so that the women in these situations can defend themselves with force without fearing prosecution.
14. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  Each of the multiple claims is itself evidence. More claims means more evidence.
15. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Hashead · 2016-02-09 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  He can ruin her life? Is that how it usually goes? Because as far as I can tell, any accusation of sexism, wether it's true or not, means academic death for the accused. Remember Tim Hunt? Donglegate? Feminism is a cancer.
16. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the area of academic research matter? ... if he was an electrician would we care
  Electricians tend not to behave inappropriately towards their customers because they lose business and because people will report any illegal conduct to the police. That is why politicians have to be extra nice to their customers.
  The fact that it is academia matters because academics are exempted from such mechanisms. Merely being elevated to the position of a tenured professor gives people massive power and influence, and it means that the person in question doesn't have to worry much anymore about whether their "customers" (students) like them. And it's worse in soft fields like anthropology than in engineering and the sciences.
17. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Buddy, your logic is hurting people's feels.
18. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  WHAT A CONCEPT!
  Get outta here you, with your fancy due process and assumption of innocence and so on.
  Whaddaya think this is, a fair and just universe? You're born, pay your taxes (if you're not rich) and die.
  Damn young whippersnappers, comin' in here with their starry-eyed idealism...
19. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-10 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't. More claims means more claims.
20. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Did YOU bother reading it? The girls showed initial interest and then said "No" as he advanced, and then he didn't pursue them after that. There's no whistle to blow when they:
  1. showed interest
  2. were comfortable enough to say "no" to his advances
  3. suffered no retaliation
21. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-10 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Just what "proof" do you expect to find? A bunch of people over a period of time tell roughly the same story WITHOUT collaborating. It's not like the guy is going to molest them in front of a camera. Guys have been convicted of murder on less.
22. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-10 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  So over a period of years a bunch of different people tell essentially the same stories of a pattern of behavior, and you just... sweep it under the rug? Yeah, that sounds like "justice" to me.
23. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-10 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  so the guy gets a pass because he didn't actually commit forcible rape? Times have changed since the 17th century, my friend.
24. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-10 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  No they haven't. Find one case where someone was convicted of murder purely on the basis of people making separate accusations, with no physical evidence. Particularly if they waited years to go to the cops. If you find it you've found a travesty of justice.
  And how do you know there's no collaboration? And even if there isn't, how do you know other women weren't just "piling on" because they didn't like him? At the very least I expect victims of this kind of stuff to go to the cops and get their story down in black and white. To come along years later with an accusation is just pointless.
  And if it's rape there will be physical evidence. Anyone who waits until the physical evidence is gone shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. We've seen altogether too many fabrications in that department.
25. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by murdocj · 2016-02-11 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  um... you have heard the Serial case, right? Adnan Syed will be shocked to hear he wasn't convicted, after all, he's been in jail 15 years.
26. Re:Irrelevant, inflammatory. by tsotha · 2016-02-11 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  um... you know there was a body, right?
Misleading headline. by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-09 11:50 · Score: 3, Funny

When I read "The Sexual Misconduct Case That Has Rocked Anthropology" I was thinking that it would be something about neanderthals and apes having sex or whatever. Sexual misconduct among modern humans in positions of authority is still shocking?
To the tune of "when the moon's in your eye, like a big pizza, pie, thats's a-mor-e
When the local priest does it
And then the pope hides it
That's a-mor-e
When the cellmate you call Bubba
Says "on your knees, sucka"
That's a-mor-e
When the guy at the bar
Slips you ludes, goes to far,
That's a-mor-e
When the cop says "Let's say"
"We can make this go away."
That's a-mor-e
Humans are really, really f*cked up
Say it's not rape, you're a slut
And claim its a-mor-e
Burma shave

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Requisite... by Virtucon · 2016-02-09 11:50 · Score: 1

He probably just wanted to show her his large fossil pelvic specimen.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
All anthropologists are PERVERTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:51 · Score: 0

Arrest them all.
It was the patriarchy with the candlestick by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:53 · Score: 0

News at -11
Damn it by rmdingler · 2016-02-09 12:06 · Score: 3

Sexual assault is a horrible, horrible thing when it happens. However and to whomever it happens. If a man (or woman) in a senior position forces himself on an underling in a way that is uncomfortable and disturbing, he should be run out of town on a rail.
But.
I think it is ultimately likely that if we persecute every reported affront before due diligence has its day in the courts, we are increasing the probability someone will exploit the system.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Damn it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  Sexual assault is a horrible, horrible thing when it happens.
  I disagree. The way that sexual assault is defined nowadays, it often attempts to criminalize ordinary human sexual behavior. In many of the so-called sexual assault cases, there is nothing horrible at all. Here's one example:
  http://www.cotwa.info/2015/07/california-courts-decision-rips-off.html
  The 'assault' in this case is described in the article as follows:
  
  Ms. Roe stated that petitioner kept 'trying to finger [her] and touch [her] down there.' Also, Ms. Roe did not object to sexual contact per se, and only explained that it was not pleasurable for her at that time.
  Additionally, Ms. Roe admitted that she voluntarily continued consensual sexual activity with Mr. Doe later that very same day.
2. Re:Damn it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  So... I'm deeply concerned about the treatment of sexual misconduct on campus and in academic settings. It's turned into a witchhunt, and it's sexist.
  I will be the first to condemn any case where there's aggressive sexual behavior, from rape to sexual harassment.
  However, the boundaries of what constitutes sexual harassment have become incredibly vague, to the point where anything unwanted, even if reasonable, constitutes sexual harassment. Someone respectfully expressing feelings for someone, and it not being reciprocated, becomes sexual harassment. Consensual sex that is later regretted becomes rape.
  I'm speaking out of personal experience, from watching colleagues go through ridiculous accusations.
  Notice this quote from Ackermann, someone pursuing action against the individual in question: "“With undergraduates especially, there can be no consensual acts on the part of the women, who have no power.” Essentially this woman is arguing that an autonomous adult is incapable of consent by virtue of the relationship differential. Not that consent issues can be unclear or difficult, but that the women are as good as mentally impaired, or are essentially children.
  This is inexcusable and unacceptable as an argument, and extraordinarily dangerous. In fact, one might argue that the power of these women is blatantly obvious from these cases.
  I don't know what happened in the case, in question so maybe I'm picking a poor example to react to, but I've seen time and time again cases where women are all too happy to initiate things with colleagues, and then later, when they feel like a cliche or regret things for whatever reason, cry sexual harassment or assault. It's manipulative fraud and slander that plays on sexist male stereotypes.
  It's tricky, because I know of old school harassment and assault that was grossly inappropriate. What I see, though, is increasingly a trend where regret after the fact becomes harassment, or outright manipulation and fraud is used vindictively. It essentially amounts to female colleagues or students using sexist stereotypes to avoid responsibility for their own behavior.
3. Re:Damn it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Assault is horrible. Sex is sex. IDK why sexual assault is considered a thing. I mean, what can hurt worse? A fist or an erect penis?
Remember People by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sexual misconduct is a TERRIBLE crime, and we must confront it vigorously wherever it appears.
Unless you're running for President as a Democrat. Then it's OK and Gloria Steinem will endorse you anyways.
1. Re:Remember People by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see where this man ever exceeded his 'one free grope'.
2. Re:Remember People by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA
3. Re:Remember People by phantomfive · 2016-02-09 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see where this man ever exceeded his 'one free grope'.
  You don't get a free grope, you nut-head.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Remember People by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  No, you buy her a drink first.
  Really, feminazi need to lighten up. He squeezed her ass, she rejected his advances, it ended, get over it.
Scholar of cavemen busted for acting like caveman. by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-02-09 12:33 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
woke up hours after blacking out? by JesseEnjaian · 2016-02-09 12:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is so flamebaity. I think men and women tend to conflate sexuality and amorous intent because the latter includes the former for most. It becomes sexual misconduct (under Title IX and VII which governs most school/university claims) when it's physical (rape, touching, etc.) or talking about doing those things to someone. There's absolutely no facts in the article beyond describing they were both drunk, she is married, and she claims she blacked out while he claims she was awake. I find it a little suspect that she claims he was kissing her incapacitated mouth -- that seems pretty boring even when drunk. One plausible explanation is that, like most, she got a little horny when drunk, felt guilty about it, told her husband, they fought, then she claimed she was incapacitated to him. If you're blackout drunk, you aren't waking up several hours after you passout, dude. But there's no facts just troll bait and arriving at the legal conclusion of "sexual harassment" happened.
1. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that is still rape. Rape is such a serious allegation that certain things that aren't rape really are rape.
2. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2016-02-09 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you cannot understand that your sexuality has no place AT ALL in the workplace (unless you're a prostitute), then you are mentally defective. Male or female, LGBTmnopxyz, same thing.
  wise the fuck up before you wind up getting fired.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
3. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  If you cannot understand that your sexuality has no place AT ALL in the workplace (unless you're a prostitute), then you are mentally defective. Male or female, LGBTmnopxyz, same thing.
  wise the fuck up before you wind up getting fired.
  http://images.mic.com/a2uvnp24nafabnd9qbjm3s12fmwlqmwzatwacclsawq0e6c2tmp3bsknrwbl3gm8.jpg
  Your are a blatant idiot, something like one in five people met the person they are fucking at work.
  The difference is interested vs uninterested, clearly evoking behavior instead of clearly not interested in behavior.
  Behave like an adult, and sometimes adults want to have sex with each other, and if they meet in the workplace and it is consensual, its none of your damn business.
4. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  In the United States, about 20% of the adult population has romantic relationships with their co-workers and half of those end up in marriage.
5. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:25 · Score: 0
  
  If you cannot understand that your sexuality has no place AT ALL in the workplace (unless you're a prostitute), then you are mentally defective. Male or female, LGBTmnopxyz, same thing.
  wise the fuck up before you wind up getting fired.
  http://images.mic.com/a2uvnp24nafabnd9qbjm3s12fmwlqmwzatwacclsawq0e6c2tmp3bsknrwbl3gm8.jpg
  Your are a blatant idiot, something like one in five people met the person they are fucking at work.
  The difference is interested vs uninterested, clearly evoking behavior instead of clearly not interested in behavior.
  Behave like an adult, and sometimes adults want to have sex with each other, and if they meet in the workplace and it is consensual, its none of your damn business.
  Indeed. Where I work (A large US corporation), consensual fucking between colleagues is entirely acceptable, provided one is not within the management chain of the other. In cases where people found themselves in such a manager-managee relationship, people were allowed to move around in the company to make it not a problem.
  Employing both halves of a relationship that is sufficiently established to warrant a joint tax filing saves a bucket load on health insurance costs.
6. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  And if you engage in that behavior at or through work, believing you have found your soul mate, don't be surprised if you get hammered some time.
  If you are screwing a colleague, that's one thing (equal power ratio) and often OK by company policy, but it can still go WAY south if somebody decides to change the game (seen it happen).
  If you are screwing a subordinate, it is really really stupid. If you are screwing your boss, it is really really really stupid.
  Get it through your heads; in any company with a functioning HR department, sex is going to be a huge hot button and you will get dropped like a hot rock if it even LOOKS like you might cost the company millions in a sex harassment suit.
7. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-11 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  if it's not with a subordinate or a boss, it's not illegal, it's just stupid.
  because if it goes south, you've eposed yourself to amazing shit.
  seen it happen.
  happened to me.
  be very careful.
8. Re:woke up hours after blacking out? by david_thornley · 2016-02-11 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  There was a very simple way for him to avoid all charges. He did not need to have sexual contact with her. No sex, no sexual harassment. SImple as that.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This crap again? by Orgasmatron · 2016-02-09 13:14 · Score: 1

In late September 2014, less than 2 months after Richmond had begun at AMNH, he and the research assistant attended a meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution (ESHE) in Florence. The research assistant says that on the last night of the meeting, she, Richmond, and several young European researchers were out on the town, visiting bars and drinking red wine and shots of limoncello, an Italian liqueur. She recalls âoewalking around Florence and realizing that I was way too drunk.â The next thing she remembers, she says, is waking up on the bed in Richmond's hotel room in the wee hours of the morning with him on top of her, kissing her and groping under her skirt.
The research assistant says that she immediately told Richmond to stop, and left the room. Because she was not a guest at the hotel, the reception desk in the lobby, perhaps concerned that she was not supposed to be there, would not let her leave without authorization. She had to call up to Richmond and get him to vouch for her. Still in shock, she says, she allowed Richmond to accompany her to her Airbnb nearby. With just a couple of hours before her flight back to New York, she quickly packed and made her way to the airport.
This is one of the accusations against him. Sounds like a real monster.

--
See that "Preview" button?
1. Re:This crap again? by phantomfive · 2016-02-09 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  Relationships between boss and underling are always problematic, (gender notwithstanding), even if both parties seem willing, because the power gradient isn't equal: the underling might feel pressure of losing the job if she/he doesn't relent. So if you're a boss, don't hit on your underlings. Find somewhere else to hit on women, you don't need to mess up your work environment (and the consequences of messing up are heavier).
  
  According to the survey, 73% of women had no unwanted physical contact, so it's most people are ok. Still, 28% is higher than it should be. Alcohol is an enabler: I think most women realize if you're at a bar or in a drinking situation, you need to be on guard against gropers.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:This crap again? by rmdingler · 2016-02-09 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  A drunk woman in the presence of men gives tacit permission to sexual intercourse in the same manner as a guy flashing cash in a public venue gives tacit permission to an armed robbery.
  However.
  If she should wind up drunkenly in the room of an equally intoxicated senior colleague, his ability to misunderstand intent must be considered as an extenuating circumstance.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
3. Re:This crap again? by KingOfBLASH · 2016-02-09 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  Except standards are different in Europe. When I worked in the Netherlands, everyone was screwing everyone else at work. Well known but no one talked about it. One manager who was high up ended up leaving his wife for his secretary. He was promoted along with his secretary.
4. Re:This crap again? by phantomfive · 2016-02-09 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you make Europe sound like such a liberal paradise :/
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re: This crap again? by phorm · 2016-02-09 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  "she was not supposed to be there, would not let her leave without authorization"
  Ah, sounds like the hotel is guilty of forcible confinement. You can tell somebody to leave, but you can't force her to stay (not legally, anyhow).
6. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  ...a guy flashing cash in a public venue gives tacit permission to an armed robbery.
  But if a guy gets falling down drunk and drops a bunch of cash on the sidewalk and someone comes along later and takes it, it's definitely not armed robbery - not even necessarily theft.
7. Re:This crap again? by swb · 2016-02-09 16:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why can't she say she was drunk, going to his apartment seemed like a good idea and they became intimate until she had second thoughts?
  The story has too many holes in its timeline for this not to be a plausible explanation. You can create worse scenarios from the same facts, but it seems questionable that Richmond carried her passed out to through the streets of Florence to his hotel. She most likely agreed to it and was self-ambulatory even if she was intoxicated.
  The sexual contact was probably ill desired, but it sounds like it stopped when she wanted to stop and again, we have no good explanation what put her on the bed in that situation to believe in unless you're subscribed to the idea he brought her home in a passed out state and put her on her bed.
  The worst you could say that Richmond was opportunistic and a cad.
  My belief is you can't call buyer's remorse sexual assault and you don't get a pass for getting intoxicated and making bad decisions that result in unwanted circumstances. It doesn't justify forcible assault, but it doesn't condemn sexual advances when you've willingly gotten into bed with them or agreeing to have sex for that matter.
  Too many women are making bad decisions and having cognitive dissonance about it afterward and then seeking absolution through blame because they can't live with their mistakes.
8. Re: This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure about Italy, but shopkeeper's privilege and related laws are a real thing in many jurisdictions.
9. Re:This crap again? by arth1 · 2016-02-09 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why can't she say she was drunk, going to his apartment seemed like a good idea and they became intimate until she had second thoughts?
  Because she's married.
10. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you make Europe sound like such a liberal paradise :/
  Western Europe/Old Europe is compared to the conservative cesspool that is the US of A.
  Eastern Europe though, it's a different matter. They're about as crazy as your craziest republican candidates.
11. Re: This crap again? by guruevi · 2016-02-09 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  If someone's drunk you may not even be permitted to let them go. If someone is visibly incapable of going anywhere safely, then you can confine them until they either get better or get medical attention.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
12. Re:This crap again? by superdana · 2016-02-09 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  I hate it when I drop my vagina on the sidewalk!
13. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  >even if both parties seem willing, because the power gradient isn't equal
  There isn't a universal law that power gradients have to be equal. They never are. They never will be. No amount of attempting to regulate who can screw who is going to alter that.
  The irony of this is that anthropologists should know all about that.
14. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  her to her Airbnb nearby.
  My God, the gist of the matter is right here! The local renter violated the rent regulations!
15. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  Mod up.
  Which is why certain civilized countries have degrees of 'non-rape' where 'but you got drunk, and entered his bedroom consensual like' Now it is the he said she said game, but everyone assumes 'touched underwear, touched me' well he's gotta be guilty even though its one word against the other. Difficult. Alcohol involved - thin ice. Forget about being adults - its exploitation, yadda yadda.
  I know of small towns where there are no Doctors. The (single) doctor said he must treat all his patients with respect (which is the whole town and outlying areas), yet he is not a sexless monk, so the town gets no doctor. Yeah, great outcome. Not. For the married doctor, the spouse or GF hates the town as it is too small and or no top quality school.
  I think females should autograph red, yellow or green cards at the start of pre-drinking frivolities, and certainly before entering a guys bedroom.
  Then the issue of intent would be much clearer.
  And if I was a professor, all the 'red' girls would only succeed strictly on merit, and no chance of blackmailers running to lawyers.
16. Re: This crap again? by phorm · 2016-02-10 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Which is not the case here, so does not apply. Also, just because somebody is drunk does not mean they're driving, but in the event that they intend to do so you can only hold them until the authorities arrive (you can't just lock them up overnight until they sober up).
  In this case, the woman was not a threat to herself or others, nor does it appear the authorities were contact. The hotel thus had no legal basis for her detention and was acting against the law
17. Re:This crap again? by KingOfBLASH · 2016-02-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes, different countries have different standards. I can remember a company outing to build morale to a ski slope, and most people ended up in the sauna afterwards (fully nude). In the US, anybody getting naked in front of a coworker, or suggesting to go to such a place would be sacked immediately, but there it was quite normal.
18. Re:This crap again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  DINGDINGDING give this Slashdotter a prize!
  "But, but, but... you know I love you and only you, my husband, the love of my life... I was... I was... RAPED!"
Who got what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:15 · Score: 0

Before reading the comments, I got the impression this male person had been the victim of sexual misconduct, and was thinking "WTF?".
That said, enough about this crap. If a people can't respect the privacy of others, the deserve to be sent on a reeducation trip - this is applicable to all, gov't agencies and muslim rapists should not be excluded.
1. Re:Who got what? by TechyImmigrant · 2016-02-09 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  >Before reading the comments, I got the impression this male person had been the victim of sexual misconduct, and was thinking "WTF?".
  It happens a lot. It just isn't reported as much as when it's the other way around.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Read the article, people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:18 · Score: 0

Here's a summary: she is stupid and he's stupid and a creep. Par for the course for this kind of situations, that start with grins, giggles and alcohol, and end up in tears.
1. Re:Read the article, people by guruevi · 2016-02-09 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  If both were drunk, aren't they both guilty of sexual misconduct? Legally, they would both be rapists; when you give someone the "privilege" of being accountable for their own actions, these things go away pretty quickly.
  Either way, it's not up to other researchers/scientists to investigate this kind of crap, go to the police and/or sue if you think you were raped.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I'm struggling . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:24 · Score: 1

to understand why people keep posting, "why such a story is relevant to a science/technology news website." Some people find it interesting. Some people find it news. Just because _you_ don't, why are you posting "why is this news?" Seriously. Don't click on it and move on. Plenty of things don't interest me here either. Just don't read things that don't interest you, but please don't comment.
They had attempted sex by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:31 · Score: 0

And it is so abhorrent to her that the whole culture of Anthropology needs to be changed, and in no way is it natural for men to try to initiate sex with women and get pushed back.
It's basically the culture of "sex is vile, hence you need written permission to even touch someone" sickness that pervades much of western society.
1. Re:They had attempted sex by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  And it is so abhorrent to her that the whole culture of Anthropology needs to be changed, and in no way is it natural for men to try to initiate sex with women and get pushed back.
  It's basically the culture of "sex is vile, hence you need written permission to even touch someone" sickness that pervades much of western society.
  As a man I can say this, when a woman acts like that she loses my interest 100% of the time. She has nothing to worry about if it is not consensual. Any guy who acts like a retard and tries to pretend that she was asking for it or "Playing him" need to be prosecuted but the point is that there is a clear, yes this is abuse, no that is just someone playing the victim card for personal gain.. way to tell the difference. Usually when people are that mentally challenged, they fail to realize that the only person that is fooled is themselves. Everyone else sees them for what they are.
2. Re:They had attempted sex by Maxo-Texas · 2016-02-09 18:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  All you really need is a non-intoxicated, non-coerced "YES" between two people of legal age.
  It's not really that difficult.
  It's not sex that is vile. It's risking forcing someone to have sex they don't want that's vile. (sometimes it's full on rape, other times it's sexual harassment).
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
3. Re:They had attempted sex by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  "All you really need is a non-intoxicated, non-coerced "YES" between two people of legal age."
  That's not the law. She *can* consent despite drinking alcohol, she does not need to give a verbal yes before any physical contact. There is no such law. You do not need written or oral consent before every hug, squeeze peck, kiss. Body language is sufficient to initiate sex, and sex requires cooperation, its not accidental when a rapist pulls out a knife or other weapon!
4. Re:They had attempted sex by Maxo-Texas · 2016-02-10 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is in new orleans, lousiana.
  An ultimate frisbee buddy of mine came back with a story about a hot three way in new orleans with an enthusiastic girl and her boyfriend.
  Three weeks later he's contacted for by the DA about raping her. The reason was she had been observed drinking that evening and so her consent wasn't valid. (Obviously she had changed her mind after the fact - perhaps because her boyfriend changed his mind but he never found out).
  He was lucky to not be convicted but it cost him thousands of dollars, his promising job at a law firm, and a lot of mental anguish.
  I've looked it up since then and it's not just new orleans. Many areas (and many college campuses) are headed to a position that intoxication means you can't give consent. And they usually apply it unequally in favor of females to boot. So if an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman have sex- he's the guilty party.
  It's a mine field out there and the rules are changing all the time.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
5. Re:They had attempted sex by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-02-10 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the double standard of "men can consent while drunk but women can't" is a bad one. It's also hard to judge someone else's level of intoxication (especially if you yourself are intoxicated) - I have a female friend who looks stone-cold sober right up until she blacks out. And in undergrad I had to monitor a buddy of mine; he'd seem fine at parties but not remember things the next day. I eventually figured out that I could roughly gauge his sobriety by asking him thermo questions.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
The moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 14:26 · Score: 0

Men should not engage in any kind of interaction with a woman, especially in a school or with a student or employee of educational institutions. There is currently a social trend to vilify any such interaction unless the man is agreeing with the trend itself, or is merely engaging in a business transaction (preferably with witnesses involved). This is simply not a time for men to risk anything else.
1. Re:The moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  Men should not engage in any kind of interaction with a woman, especially in a school or with a student or employee of educational institutions. There is currently a social trend to vilify any such interaction unless the man is agreeing with the trend itself, or is merely engaging in a business transaction (preferably with witnesses involved). This is simply not a time for men to risk anything else.
  The answer is to segregate. Establish men's schools/universities, and women schools/universities.
  It's already bad enough that giving a compliment to a woman might be interpreted as sexual harassement/rape. Kick them out of academia I say. Feminism/politically correct bullshit has gone too far.
New owners, same bias by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:05 · Score: 0

Don't even need to RTFA when the summary states: 'while trying to balance the rights of victims and accused.'
Bias much - the accuser becomes 'the victim'. At least there is some progress; the accused didn't become 'the perpetrator.'
Good thing this wasn't in California, the 'Yes Means Yes' gender-neutral law would have both of these people put away for rape.
Of course this brings up the question, why is it that a man who has had too much to drink still retains the full responsibility and consequences in any situation while a woman who has had too much to drink does not?
This sounds like a typical situation, people go out and party - people have too much to drink - people have sex - people regret it the next day. In the past this was just chalked up to bad decision making all around; in our feminist utopia it's turned into an intoxicated man raped an intoxicated woman.
specific rules, please! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:23 · Score: 1

As a young and male Ivy league professor, I basically can't be human at work. I have no desire to hit on any of my students or co-workers, but a careless joke or seemingly innocent innuendo can get me into enough trouble for the school to fire me. And I don't mind blanket prohibitions of romantic relationships (as prudish as I think that is), but the fact that you can be persecuted for vague concepts like "creating uncomfortable work environment" is demoralizing. You're guilty by default. By that token, I would be better off avoiding any professional interactions with women altogether, but that ends up being picked up as a discrimination (rightfully so, perhaps, but it misses the point).
What is this doing on the front page of /.? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:38 · Score: 0

Almost none of us came here for SJW pieces on alcohol laden trysts professors and their students.
Why os this on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 15:42 · Score: 0

Has this got anything to do with the actual science of anthropology?
and how do you pronounce SJW
Because... patterns. by denzacar · 2016-02-09 15:52 · Score: 1

Why does the area of academic research matter?
Humans love patterns and "big things" more than insular and isolated cases.
Article quotes heavily the Survey of Academic Field Experiences which was featured here at Slashdot at least twice.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Both times it was presented as a science-wide issue - though the survey only covered anthropological fields.

Nearly half of the study participants self-identified as anthropologists from several subfields (applied, biological, linguistic, medical, physical, psychological, and socio-cultural) (N=319/666, 47.9%).
Nearly a quarter of the sample self-identified as archaeologists (N=159, 23.9%).
The rest of the sample comprised biologists (N=68, 10.2%); zoologists (N=31, 4.7%); geologists (N=29, 4.4%); other life, environmental, and agricultural scientists (N=22, 3.3%); and other social scientists (N=12, 1.8%).
This time on the other hand, that survey actually CAN be used to show that this particular case is a part of a PATTERN of sexual harassment in anthropology.
Only problem is... that survey is JUNK as its methodology is crap.
This is how sexual harassment was defined:

A majority (64%, N=423/658) of all survey respondents, stated that they had personally experienced sexual harassment: i.e. inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other such jokes.

PDF version defined that a LITTLE differently:

Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at a field site?
This is what kind of data was gathered:

A majority of survey respondents reported that they had directly observed or been told about the occurrence of other field site researchers and/or colleagues making inappropriate or sexual remarks at their most recent or most notable field site (N=448/619, 72.4%).
I.e. Literal hearsay was accepted as data.
Also, while the study claims that "Men were more likely to report that comments never occurred, whereas women were more likely to report that comments occurred frequently" - graphs representing that data show something else.
First off... by using "proportion of respondents" as a y-axis of the graph, 50 males who answered "never" (as well as 50 who answered "rarely") is depicted as MORE than 117 females who answered "never" AND 180 females who answered "rarely".
In other words, 100 males and 297 females answered "never" or "rarely".
While 20+12 males and 94+90 females answered "regularly" or "frequently".
I.e. However you look at it - that line about women being more likely to report "frequent" comments IS BULLSHIT.
Also, while on the side of "sexual harassment" survey was rather broad in defining sexual harassment, definition of "sexual assault" was rather vague.

Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at a field site?
I.e. On one side "other jokes" are sexual harassment.
On the other, no definition of "unwanted sexual contact" or "physical sexual harassment" is given, while it is implied that it is something different from "sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent".

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:Because... patterns. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  Can you just break it down in to "p" values for me?... I'm lazy and don't want to dig out my statistics notes.
Not surprising at all. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 16:18 · Score: 0

As a former grad student in an Ivy league Anthro department, I and all of my friends were harassed at least once by a faculty member.
Male, female, same sex, opposite sex, it didn't matter. Nearly all of the professors habitually harassed students. It was just part of the culture and was all too often dismissed as part of the freewheeling sexual freedom that was supposed to go hand and hand with the discipline.
Sadly, my experiences attending conferences and working in other departments have shown that it was the rule, rather than the exception.
Anthropologists vs. Paleoanthropologists by TechyImmigrant · 2016-02-09 17:22 · Score: 4, Funny

It's important to be clear on the difference between anthropologists and paleoanthropologists. Anthropologists get real live humans to anthropologise on. Paleoanthropologists do the same thing, but they avoid grains, legumes and sugar.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Anthropology, my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 18:18 · Score: 0

Sexual misconduct is a human cultural behavior. Anyone who is serious about anthropology would say it should be observed and studied without interference.
'Research assistant' and the free holiday .. by tetraverse · 2016-02-09 20:34 · Score: 2

'Research assistant' is happy to exchange sexual favours for a free all expediences paid holiday in Florence, Italy. Months later after the expected favours dry up, she decides to trash the mans' reputation.

'a research assistant .. charged that her boss .. had “sexually assaulted” her in.. She requested that her name not appear in this story to protect her privacy.) '

Sexually assault is a criminal matter, why not make a formal complaint on the night instead of months later in a roof top bar. As for privacy, Brian Richmond doesn't get to stay out of the media. This reminds me of the Geoff Marcy case, where the original complainents were put up to it by the head of the Berkeley womens group. Who spend months going round trying to dig dirt up on the man. Something very wrong here.
1. Re:'Research assistant' and the free holiday .. by nbauman · 2016-02-09 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sexually assault is a criminal matter, why not make a formal complaint on the night instead of months later in a roof top bar.
  Because if anyone made a criminal complaint that started out with her getting so drunk she doesn't know what happened next, the prosecutors would realize that it would be impossible to prove a case like that in court, file it away and forget it.
  And because if the crime consisted of his lying on top of her and groping her under her skirt, the prosecutors would realize that this isn't a real crime and they have more important things to worry about.
How do you pronounce SJW .. by tetraverse · 2016-02-09 20:43 · Score: 1

Anonymous: 'Re:Why os this on /. .. Has this got anything to do with the actual science of anthropology? and how do you pronounce SJW' link

Judith Shulevitz on the breathtaking inanity of college “safe spaces”
not reported to the police? She can take a runnin by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 20:48 · Score: 0

Any 'victim' or rape or sexual assault who does not report it to the police should be disbelieved automatically.
What about all the women who use sex to advance? by nbauman · 2016-02-09 21:12 · Score: 3

Maybe it's because I went to school in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I'm remembering a lot of women who made their career by having an affair with their professors.
In one case, a friend of mine was the first woman to major in a male-dominated field at a big university. All the guys in my circle of friends really looked up to her for that.
Then she once casually mentioned that she was having an affair with her (married) professor.
People have a right to have sex with anybody they want, but I hated it because it confirmed a stereotype that I hated - - "Women will use sex to advance their career."
Last I heard, she didn't go into the field at all, but got a job as a programmer.
I wonder if anybody else here has seen things like that.
Rebecca Ackermann shows quite a bit of cleavage by nbauman · 2016-02-09 21:18 · Score: 1

Did anybody else think that in the illustration accompanying that story, Rebecca Ackermann had a pretty low neckline?
I know there have been studies of cleavage in women's photos on dating sites, but this seems to be somewhat revealing for a professional setting. Especially for someone who wants to de-emphasize sexuality in academia.
1. Re:Rebecca Ackermann shows quite a bit of cleavage by drinkypoo · 2016-02-09 22:10 · Score: 2
  
  Did anybody else think that in the illustration accompanying that story, Rebecca Ackermann had a pretty low neckline?
  do you mean the photograph? Maybe it's just my ad blocker, but I'm not seeing any illustrations. If you mean the photograph, the answer is no. She's barely showing any boob. Build a bridge and get over it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Halter top and a miniskirt by nbauman · 2016-02-09 21:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA:

Evolving interpretations of Title IX have also played a part, in particular a 2011 letter released by the Office for Civil Rights reminding educational institutions of their obligations to both prevent and respond to sexual misconduct, including sexual violence. "Title IX makes it very clear that a beautiful 19-year-old female wearing a halter top and a miniskirt can go check on her fruit flies at night without being touched or made uncomfortable by her professor," Harvard's Johnson says.
If you're the kind of person who will be psychologically traumatized by having your professor acknowledge your sexual attractiveness, I would think that you would be better off wearing something more professional than a halter top and miniskirt to the lab at night. Maybe you should learn something from those fruit flies.
If this is a problem, then you should have a dress code for female employees.
Actually, I used to work at the American Foundation for [deleted], and we had a temp employee come in wearing a halter top and a bare midriff. She made quite an impression, some of it favorable (on her boss) and some of it unfavorable (on the other women in the office). Somebody talked to her about it, and she covered it up, to some disappointment by the men in the office.
If anybody claims that women never dress in revealing clothes to be sexually attractive, they're denying reality.
1. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by ooloorie · 2016-02-09 23:59 · Score: 2
  
  If you're the kind of person who can't control yourself well enough to avoid touching and/or making sexual remarks about students then perhaps you shouldn't be in a position with authority around students?
  Perhaps the real problem is that our educational institutions are authoritarian to begin with? That students are indoctrinated into believing that the world we live in is one in which people are elevated to positions of "authority figures" and the way to become one yourself is through politics and lobbying? The fact that people are taught that they are so worthless and replaceable that students leaving because their supervisors behaved inappropriately towards them just isn't a big loss?
  
  I thought we'd gotten beyond "slut shaming" / victim blaming women for wearing something more attractive than a hazmat suit but it seems that was naively optimistic.
  Wearing "attractive" clothing in a professional environment should be unacceptable for both men and women, not because of any risk of sexual harassment, but because it is manipulative. Conservative hairstyle, dress, and behavior should be the norm for both sexes and both supervisors and employees.
2. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-10 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is people will always assume the absolute worst, so you have to be incredibly careful with your language and fully enumerate all possible behaviours you are referring to. Or don't, and just rely on the people actually dealing with this stuff to use their judgement.
  When it says "without being touched or made uncomfortable by her professor", it means "no touching, no leering, no standing uncomfortably close and breathing down her neck, no overtly sexual comments etc."
  By constantly mis-interpreting statements like this, and by extension requiring them to be enumerated every single time, it becomes hard to discuss the topic. It's a derailing tactic, even if it is unintentional.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  This bigger problem she'll have is that the dress described wouldn't pass muster with the safety office.
4. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by N1AK · 2016-02-10 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between authority and authoritarian. I'm all for challenging authority, but we're not going to rapidly move from where we are now to a situation where professors don't have a considerable amount of influence over the success of researchers and students; by all means push for it to be changed, but it doesn't mean we have to tolerate abuse of position in the meanwhile.
  
  You can hold whatever position on dress code you like, and that one seems reasonable to me, but it has no relevance to whether the clothes someone chooses to wear justify them being sexually assaulted. Apparently saying people should be safe from senior staff groping them regardless of what they wear is "flamebait" on /. which is a pretty depressing insight into some posters mentalities.
5. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by russotto · 2016-02-10 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  If anybody claims that women never dress in revealing clothes to be sexually attractive, they're denying reality.
  Oh yes, but they have certain people in mind who they want to acknowledge that. Or at least a class of people. If you're not in it, they want you forbidden by law and custom from acknowledging it.
6. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by Orgasmatron · 2016-02-10 05:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We don't trust your judgment, and you did it to yourself.
  SJWs routinely define the existence of the patriarchy as harassment, and males as being part of the patriarchy.
  When we hear vague accusations, we understand that there is a non-zero chance that it is bullshit, because you've been trying to feed us an ever increasing stream of bullshit for the last few decades. We don't trust you any more. We want to know exactly what happened, so that we can use our own judgment.
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
7. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-10 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are saying is that instead of making the most minimal effort to understand what I'm saying, you prefer to just live in your own little world where you don't have to worry about me calling your bullshit.
  Case in point, the patriarchy is a system. Every member of a society us part of it by definition, but that's irrelevant because it's an institutional problem.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  So what you are saying is that instead of making the most minimal effort to understand what I'm saying, you prefer to just live in your own little world where you don't have to worry about me calling your bullshit.
  This post wins the "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" award for the day. Seriously. Wow. Just.... Wow.
9. Re:Halter top and a miniskirt by ooloorie · 2016-02-10 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, you are conflating sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual assault is a violent criminal act and should be treated as such. The crime there is in the violence, not in the sexual part.
  Sexual harassment is unwanted sexual attention. It doesn't make sense to say that you receive unwanted sexual attention when you dress in revealing clothes.
Most of you are sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 02:15 · Score: 0

Almost all the top rated comments are jokes about sexual assault, pleas for the rights of the accused without context, or requests that women change their behavior to stop men's sexual assault ("dress codes" for women, but not conduct codes for men?). None of them appear to have RTFA. Here are scientifically pertinent reasons this article is worthwhile.
1) Training - how we train young scientists matters. If the environment makes women worry for their safety we lose out on a large number of good scientists.
2) Rights of the accused - matter a whole bunch. Without these no investigative process can be perceived as fair. But there's always a trade-off and this is an imperfect question of where to draw the line. If only there were groundbreaking scientifically valid research on the prevalence of sexual assault in the field that could help us figure out where to draw the line, like the SAFE study published in top journal PLOS ONE that the article cites...
3) Ability to redress claims - without an effective enforcement mechanism any oversight policy is meaningless. /.ers are all over this when it has to do with government promises not to spy, but not when it has to do with male scientists' promises not to sexually assault. Yet TFA shows the only reason this guy faced any consequences is because a leading senior scientist in his field - and his former mentor - took it on himself to do his own interviews and then act independently to damage this guy's career. So the exact power structure that results in assault is the only one available to stop it, hmm...
Also, remember rights of the accused? Do you really think vigilante justice is the way to go here?
4) Multiple disciplines and schools - TFA explicitly states that the paleoanthropologists took lessons from previous events in biology and astronomy. It cites different resolutions adopted by Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Law School on professor/student sexual contact, along with resolutions by Columbia and GWU. It seems like all the actual scientists and actual faculty think this is a big deal, it's just your armchair academics here at /. U telling all those hysterical women to calm down and take a joke. And you wonder why tech is perceived as sexist?
5) Matters for specific sciences - specific scientific research places subordinates in more vulnerable positions, like a remote field site dig with few people, no independent supervision, and nowhere to run away to. Pro tip, these remote digs are where the interesting and career-making discoveries happen in paleoanthropology. Specific sciences need to think through the specific conditions around sexual assault on their daily practice. Again, the actual scientists understand this, it's just /. having difficulty.
1. Re:Most of you are sexist by russotto · 2016-02-10 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  Naa, most of us have seen so much bullshit of this sort that the first thing we think of when we see an accusation like this is not "Oh, how horrible, some dirty old professor has been sexually abusing his students" but "Oh, another witchhunt". Not the ones made famous by McCarthy, the ones made famous by Cotton Mather. The Salem witches often had numerous accusers as well.
  Sure, it's possible in this case they've found a real witch. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 03:59 · Score: 0

is there an alternate universe where men are the victims and women are the perps?
so.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 04:24 · Score: 0

how about a survey of people who received *wanted* physical contact?
Re:What about all the women who use sex to advance by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-10 11:01 · Score: 0

Last I heard, she didn't go into the field at all, but got a job as a programmer.
I wonder if anybody else here has seen things like that.
Professional Python dev?