Having read the article I fail to see how she was "Punished" by Tufts. She made an accusation of alleged wrongdoing. Tufts investigated and while the investigat

Having read the article I fail to see how she was "Punished" by Tufts. She made an accusation of alleged wrongdoing. Tufts investigated and while the investigation was ongoing they briefly delayed awarding her Ph.D. Seems appropriate under the circumstances and they did ultimately award her two Ph.D.'s. An accusation was leveled against her of wrongdoing. Tufts investigated and she was cleared by Tufts of the allegation. The professor still works there but we have no idea if the professor was censored in some means other than firing or if the investigation failed to produce the hard proof the university felt was needed to fire the professor without facing a wrongful termination suit or other legal ramifications. If the university continued to employee the professor with proof that they had falsified data this would speak poorly of Tufts but isn't something the complainant should somehow be financial compensated for. The article reveals no evidence that the complainant not getting a position following has been the result of any defamation or effort by either Tufts or the accused professor. Whether right or wrong knowing that you have previously filed such a complaint will make most employers avoid hiring you. Why take on the slightest risk when there other candidates which don't present such risk. Maybe there is more that has not been revealed but what is int the article doesn't seem to support a financial payout to the complainant.