6 ms·

The worst part of these accusations is that your reputation is tarnished whether you are guilty or not. This instilled a sense of fear in every person even if

The worst part of these accusations is that your reputation is tarnished whether you are guilty or not. This instilled a sense of fear in every person even if they are innocent because you can still be targeted and your career ruined. If this scientist was just stating out, rather than already established, he would likely have had to quit science. There should be some penalty for false accusations that can compensate for these people.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lordnacho 5y ago
They are also accusations of nothing specific. "Association with China" doesn't seem like it's specific enough to warrant sanction, all it can do it make people suspicious, which it does regardless of whether you've even done anything with China. I accept the US is having a power struggle with China at the moment, but this is not the way to win it. People who aren't actually in favor of freedom will welcome this "record who associates with China" thing, but it goes against the high ideals of the US and makes it look like many unsavory countries.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Errr... pretty sure the allegation is more specific than you suggest. The allegation was that he was being paid by China and did not disclose this on grant applications.
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    Case was closed, allegation was rejected. Witch hunt begins when allegation holds more weight then the verdict, and when it becomes the verdict, you can say goodbye to all semblance of rule of law, which surprisingly many here will condone depending on the subject.
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      The really, really important thing about witch hunts is that witches don’t exist. Allegations that turn out to be wrong can be really harmful, agreed there. Pretty unclear how to do anything about that without infringing on 1st Amendment rights, especially when it’s not a criminal allegation (i.e. indictments should IMO be sealed til verdict, but not all allegations are indictments).
    - eecc 5y ago
      Here, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Allegations can still be alleged even if they are later found to be unfounded.
- coliveira 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - mc32 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - dang 5y ago
    Please do not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to predictable, tedious, and nasty flamewar—the opposite of what we want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bsenftner 5y ago
The worst part is he spirit has been crushed; he can no longer work for fear of irrational and frankly random political views and actions detrimental to his health, his research, and his family. If he is to continue and regain an amount of his former life, I wager it can only occur after leaving the USA permanently.
- posterboy 5y ago
  Honestly, this is the type of response someone in the government (which?) would possibly pay good money for to mislead the prossecution – sounds like a good spy vs. spy movie except it's not funny.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  - kragen 5y ago
    He'll probably move to a top-20 research university in Europe if he doesn't stay at MIT. (I sure wouldn't.) We're talking about the former head of MIT's mech eng department here, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and an academician of Academia Sinica. The "necessary pedigree and web of connections to really kick ass" at research don't come from your parents; they come from your advisor and your research. His advisor was Chang-lin Tien, the Chancellor at Berkeley. Your insulting comment is shameful and does not belong on this site.
  - kevinventullo 5y ago
    He’s tenured, why would he leave MIT? Has there been any indication the university didn’t support him?
Schiendelman 5y ago
He can certainly sue the US government for accusing him publicly without enough evidence to prosecute, and the resulting loss of compensation. Now, it's not exactly affordable for him to do so. But that's a separate problem we should solve.
- perihelions 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    It depends. From that article: “However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions.”
- ISL 5y ago
  He can clearly document harms, too. A top-flight research group takes a lifetime, reputation, and resources to assemble.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  For a successful academic, making a bunch of money in a lawsuit is the polar opposite of what they want to do with their life. If you value doing science and inventing things and mentoring students and the prestige that comes along with it, simply getting a payday isn't anything like justice. Of course, such lawsuits serve more than simply attempting to actually get justice (which is usually impossible) but to dissuade the state from doing it again to others. Which is cold comfort when all you wanted to do was play with heat transfer. He said he doesn't even want to apply for grant funding anymore, and I can't blame him. You don't become a professor studying heat transport because you're psyched to go toe to toe with the department of justice over made up nonsense that already wasted a year of your career directly and screwed up decades of accumulated talent and reputation.
  - 5y ago
perihelions 5y ago
This case went beyond false accusations. According to the professor's lawyers [0], the government possessed exculpatory evidence and knowingly withheld it from the defense -- a theoretically-illegal Brady violation [1]. >" As my team of lawyers argued, Bonavolonta and his agents ignored basic exculpatory evidence, failed to interview critical witnesses until after I was arrested, and dramatically embellished facts in various official documents. Exculpatory information that, under the Constitution, the prosecution was required to turn over — such as a witness saying that I never was in a talent program, a Chinese government initiative to provide funding to researchers and scientists, which was one of the government’s key allegations — was withheld for months until demanded by my lawyers. While I am relieved that my case has been dropped “in the interests of justice,” I respectfully request a thorough review of this matter by Congress and the US Department of Justice to hold individuals accountable for this glaring misconduct." [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/21/opinion/i-was-arrested-under-dojs-china-initiative-congress-must-investigate-program/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/21/opinion/i-was-arreste... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  As I said in another thread, you cannot expect groups to self police. The legal system will never hold these people accountable because it works against their interests to. This is basic human nature and true everywhere. This is why companies don't admit to wrong doing for dumping waste. This is why the fia doesn't admit it fixed the f1 championship. And this is why dirty cops don't go to prison. You want change? Make a 4th branch of government who's only power and purpose is to arrest members of the other three branches when they break the law. Of course it ain't that simple. How do you keep them from getting corrupted and arresting people they don't like? Food for thought.
  - stronglikedan 5y ago
    self-policing aside, we've become so entrenched in crony capitalism, that we can't even get checks-and-balances right anymore between branches
rayiner 5y ago
That's true and that's unfortunate. At the same time, how do you balance national security versus avoiding situations like this one? One of my takeaways from studying the McCarthy era was that there really were a lot of spies and communist sympathizers in America at the time. It wasn't some figment of someone's imagination. Likewise, I think we have good reason to proceed under the assumption that China is trying to infiltrate our institutions. Because they are.
- blackguardx 5y ago
  I’m not sure that is the right takeaway. The US espouses freedom. Unless someone is actually spying, their personal beliefs and political affiliations shouldn’t be subject to government scrutiny.
  - posterboy 5y ago
    That statement is nigh ungrammatical, anyway illogical. "is actually spying" is a present tense. "shouldn't [unless]" is either a past tense, thus an illogical consequent to the present tense, or it is a hypothetical, irrealis or desiderative subjunctive in which case it merely implies that someone should not be "spying", in effect. This offers no objective criterion for the government's scrutiny, and the article does not point out what has gone wrong. Clearly they conducted a background check and disagreed with the expert whether their findings were valid (fun fact, valid translates German valide or gültig, the latter somehow akin to guilty). This may be well within their rights, eg. if they tried to impose harder interpretation of regulations. It can be criminal if they basicly ignored the expert for wanting to win, or it could be at least negligent if they have fundamentally misinterpreted the law. This is not strictly decidable and rests on the shoulders of the arbiters of truth. (Another fun fact, gain say could be akin to German Gegenrede, as in against, or to French gagner as in win, German Gewinn. See also: Einrede, a legal terminus; sich etwas einreden "to ellude oneself"; -say in that sense must be akin to sake, forsaken, compare Widersacher "antagonist", akin to adv. wither, "contra")
    - jh721 5y ago
      > "shouldn't [unless]" is either a past tense, thus an illogical consequent to the present tense, or it is a hypothetical, irrealis or desiderative subjunctive in which case it merely implies that someone should not be "spying", in effect. Could you explain this a bit more to a non-native speaker like me? I'm assuming it's not a past tense for certain. From the second definition in [1] (used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency) and the examples, it seems to me "shouldn't" here could mean that "be subject to government scrutiny" is the opposite of "obligation, propriety, or expediency". I understand the sentence as: if someone is not spying, subjecting their personal beliefs and political affiliations to government scrutiny is not the correct thing to do. Then why would it > implies that someone should not be "spying"? [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
N1H1L 5y ago
Yeah, this is like HUAC Vol 2. Hopefully, we do not repeat that shameful period again.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It's a difficult subject to discuss. How do you prevent humans from harboring unconscious biases against people who are accused of a crime but found innocent? How do you prove that you are harmed? How much compensation would OJ Simpson be owed?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lordnacho 5y ago

They are also accusations of nothing specific. "Association with China" doesn't seem like it's specific enough to warrant sanction, all it can do it make people suspicious, which it does regardless of whether you've even done anything with China. I accept the US is having a power struggle with China at the moment, but this is not the way to win it. People who aren't actually in favor of freedom will welcome this "record who associates with China" thing, but it goes against the high ideals of the US and makes it look like many unsavory countries.

ethanbond 5y ago
Errr... pretty sure the allegation is more specific than you suggest. The allegation was that he was being paid by China and did not disclose this on grant applications.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  Case was closed, allegation was rejected. Witch hunt begins when allegation holds more weight then the verdict, and when it becomes the verdict, you can say goodbye to all semblance of rule of law, which surprisingly many here will condone depending on the subject.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    The really, really important thing about witch hunts is that witches don’t exist. Allegations that turn out to be wrong can be really harmful, agreed there. Pretty unclear how to do anything about that without infringing on 1st Amendment rights, especially when it’s not a criminal allegation (i.e. indictments should IMO be sealed til verdict, but not all allegations are indictments).
  - eecc 5y ago
    Here, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Allegations can still be alleged even if they are later found to be unfounded.
coliveira 5y ago
[flagged]
- mc32 5y ago
  [flagged]
- dang 5y ago
  Please do not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to predictable, tedious, and nasty flamewar—the opposite of what we want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bsenftner 5y ago

The worst part is he spirit has been crushed; he can no longer work for fear of irrational and frankly random political views and actions detrimental to his health, his research, and his family. If he is to continue and regain an amount of his former life, I wager it can only occur after leaving the USA permanently.

posterboy 5y ago
Honestly, this is the type of response someone in the government (which?) would possibly pay good money for to mislead the prossecution – sounds like a good spy vs. spy movie except it's not funny.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
- kragen 5y ago
  He'll probably move to a top-20 research university in Europe if he doesn't stay at MIT. (I sure wouldn't.) We're talking about the former head of MIT's mech eng department here, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and an academician of Academia Sinica. The "necessary pedigree and web of connections to really kick ass" at research don't come from your parents; they come from your advisor and your research. His advisor was Chang-lin Tien, the Chancellor at Berkeley. Your insulting comment is shameful and does not belong on this site.
- kevinventullo 5y ago
  He’s tenured, why would he leave MIT? Has there been any indication the university didn’t support him?

Schiendelman 5y ago

He can certainly sue the US government for accusing him publicly without enough evidence to prosecute, and the resulting loss of compensation. Now, it's not exactly affordable for him to do so. But that's a separate problem we should solve.

perihelions 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  It depends. From that article: “However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions.”
ISL 5y ago
He can clearly document harms, too. A top-flight research group takes a lifetime, reputation, and resources to assemble.
neltnerb 5y ago
For a successful academic, making a bunch of money in a lawsuit is the polar opposite of what they want to do with their life. If you value doing science and inventing things and mentoring students and the prestige that comes along with it, simply getting a payday isn't anything like justice. Of course, such lawsuits serve more than simply attempting to actually get justice (which is usually impossible) but to dissuade the state from doing it again to others. Which is cold comfort when all you wanted to do was play with heat transfer. He said he doesn't even want to apply for grant funding anymore, and I can't blame him. You don't become a professor studying heat transport because you're psyched to go toe to toe with the department of justice over made up nonsense that already wasted a year of your career directly and screwed up decades of accumulated talent and reputation.
- 5y ago

perihelions 5y ago

This case went beyond false accusations. According to the professor's lawyers [0], the government possessed exculpatory evidence and knowingly withheld it from the defense -- a theoretically-illegal Brady violation [1]. >" As my team of lawyers argued, Bonavolonta and his agents ignored basic exculpatory evidence, failed to interview critical witnesses until after I was arrested, and dramatically embellished facts in various official documents. Exculpatory information that, under the Constitution, the prosecution was required to turn over — such as a witness saying that I never was in a talent program, a Chinese government initiative to provide funding to researchers and scientists, which was one of the government’s key allegations — was withheld for months until demanded by my lawyers. While I am relieved that my case has been dropped “in the interests of justice,” I respectfully request a thorough review of this matter by Congress and the US Department of Justice to hold individuals accountable for this glaring misconduct." [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/21/opinion/i-was-arrested-under-dojs-china-initiative-congress-must-investigate-program/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/21/opinion/i-was-arreste... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

thereddaikon 5y ago
As I said in another thread, you cannot expect groups to self police. The legal system will never hold these people accountable because it works against their interests to. This is basic human nature and true everywhere. This is why companies don't admit to wrong doing for dumping waste. This is why the fia doesn't admit it fixed the f1 championship. And this is why dirty cops don't go to prison. You want change? Make a 4th branch of government who's only power and purpose is to arrest members of the other three branches when they break the law. Of course it ain't that simple. How do you keep them from getting corrupted and arresting people they don't like? Food for thought.
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  self-policing aside, we've become so entrenched in crony capitalism, that we can't even get checks-and-balances right anymore between branches

rayiner 5y ago

That's true and that's unfortunate. At the same time, how do you balance national security versus avoiding situations like this one? One of my takeaways from studying the McCarthy era was that there really were a lot of spies and communist sympathizers in America at the time. It wasn't some figment of someone's imagination. Likewise, I think we have good reason to proceed under the assumption that China is trying to infiltrate our institutions. Because they are.

blackguardx 5y ago
I’m not sure that is the right takeaway. The US espouses freedom. Unless someone is actually spying, their personal beliefs and political affiliations shouldn’t be subject to government scrutiny.
- posterboy 5y ago
  That statement is nigh ungrammatical, anyway illogical. "is actually spying" is a present tense. "shouldn't [unless]" is either a past tense, thus an illogical consequent to the present tense, or it is a hypothetical, irrealis or desiderative subjunctive in which case it merely implies that someone should not be "spying", in effect. This offers no objective criterion for the government's scrutiny, and the article does not point out what has gone wrong. Clearly they conducted a background check and disagreed with the expert whether their findings were valid (fun fact, valid translates German valide or gültig, the latter somehow akin to guilty). This may be well within their rights, eg. if they tried to impose harder interpretation of regulations. It can be criminal if they basicly ignored the expert for wanting to win, or it could be at least negligent if they have fundamentally misinterpreted the law. This is not strictly decidable and rests on the shoulders of the arbiters of truth. (Another fun fact, gain say could be akin to German Gegenrede, as in against, or to French gagner as in win, German Gewinn. See also: Einrede, a legal terminus; sich etwas einreden "to ellude oneself"; -say in that sense must be akin to sake, forsaken, compare Widersacher "antagonist", akin to adv. wither, "contra")
  - jh721 5y ago
    > "shouldn't [unless]" is either a past tense, thus an illogical consequent to the present tense, or it is a hypothetical, irrealis or desiderative subjunctive in which case it merely implies that someone should not be "spying", in effect. Could you explain this a bit more to a non-native speaker like me? I'm assuming it's not a past tense for certain. From the second definition in [1] (used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency) and the examples, it seems to me "shouldn't" here could mean that "be subject to government scrutiny" is the opposite of "obligation, propriety, or expediency". I understand the sentence as: if someone is not spying, subjecting their personal beliefs and political affiliations to government scrutiny is not the correct thing to do. Then why would it > implies that someone should not be "spying"? [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

N1H1L 5y ago

Yeah, this is like HUAC Vol 2. Hopefully, we do not repeat that shameful period again.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

It's a difficult subject to discuss. How do you prevent humans from harboring unconscious biases against people who are accused of a crime but found innocent? How do you prove that you are harmed? How much compensation would OJ Simpson be owed?