Slashdot Mirror
The Sexual Misconduct Case That Has Rocked Anthropology (sciencemag.org)
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.
...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?
Male, therefore guilty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From TFA:
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.
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.