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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
If you gave the whole quote, it would mean something else:
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.
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.
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.