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.
This is one of the most vague summaries I ever read here... #wtf
Go away!
...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?
What does that even mean today? "You look nice today?" "Would you like to go for lunch sometime?"
Same as the old Slashdot.
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
This is one of the accusations against him. Sounds like a real monster.
See that "Preview" button?
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.
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).
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
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.
>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.
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.
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
'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.
.. charged that her boss .. had “sexually assaulted” her in.. She requested that her name not appear in this story to protect her privacy.) '
'a research assistant
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.