4 ms·

It's 2022, and we're throwing away researchers at the cutting edge just because of Internet articles, tweets and outrage over stories we were never a part of. (

It's 2022, and we're throwing away researchers at the cutting edge just because of Internet articles, tweets and outrage over stories we were never a part of. (but, ironically, I haven't heard of this guy's story until today)

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
your logical pressure is harassing me, if you keep arguing you will be cancelled /said someone in an incoming dystopian world
- akomtu 4y ago
  I suspect that using irrefutable logic to disagree with your opponents is covert toxic masculinity.
withinboredom 4y ago
It’s important to realize anyone can say whatever they want. You don’t have to act on it. If I were “the boss” I would separate them and encourage the complainant to go to the police. If he/she were found guilty, then I’d do what I had to do. But I would never fire someone just because someone said some shit. This is probably why I’m not “the boss”…
- tsol 4y ago
  If you don't, and suddenly you find huge crowds of angry protestors organized on Twitter around your facility, would you still not act? How about if they start contacting your funders and put pressure on them? Unfortunately it's not just about how you react to the situation, if everyone else believes the story you'll just be viewed as an 'enabler'.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    Yeah. I stand by anyone can say whatever they want. Just because there’s a lynch mob, doesn’t mean it’s right.
    - tsol 4y ago
      Then you might find yourself jobless soon. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a reality many people have had to deal with.
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        Maybe. Maybe not. But I’m not going to make decisions out of fear. That’s just stupid.
      - dethos 4y ago
        That line of thinking only exacerbates the problem.
gamblor956 4y ago
Note that the underlying cause for his termination was that he had a relationship with a "coworker." As he was head of the lab, it is clear that this "coworker" was actually a "subordinate." That relationship violated MIT's policy on employee relationships (and generally would violate most workplaces' restrictions on employee relationships), and he would have been fired from MIT on those grounds even absent any claim of sexual harassment. (It's not clear what Whitehead's policy on this was and it's not clear whether the relationship or the alleged harassment was the driving force behind his termination there.)
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  If you read the article, you'll find out that the coworker was not a member of his lab. She was actually the head of a completely different lab.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    This was not an article, it was a blog post retelling events entirely from Sabatini's perspective. EDIT: massive edits. For starters, it names the alleged victim of sexual harassment, which journalism organizations do not do in the U.S. And then gets personal about her sex life, including allegations of promiscuous sex. And then claims that she was actually sexually harassing him. (Yeah, sure. A twenty-something with multiple partners is sexually harassing her fat 50-year-old boss for...reasons. Uh huh. And Elvis is still alive in Las Vegas selling condos.) And this "article" actually gets a lot of things very wrong, which I didn't realize until I read other reporting: the alleged victim of the sexual harassment was not "the head of her own lab" as this article claims, but was a fellow (i.e., the lowest paid position) at the institution and left the fellowship early due to the alleged harassment. And the relationship actually started before she was a fellow/coworker; it began while she was a student applying to the fellowship and he was in a position to have input over her getting the fellowship. Also, this "article" fails to reveal that the woman was not at Whitehead at the time of the investigation and did not initiate the investigation. Other sources note that the investigation was actually prompted by the new director initiating an institute-wide survey on sexual harassment which uncovered multiple allegations against Sabatini by multiple women. The woman named in this "article" was merely interviewed as part of that investigation. And here's the kicker: this article conveniently leaves out that multiple subordinates reported being threatened by Sabatini not to participate in the investigation. All in all, Sabatini may be a genius, but he's also a disgusting pig, and the investigation found multiple things for which he could have been terminated, and there's a reason 3 separate organizations terminated him and his own companies chose to publicly dissociate themselves from him.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

your logical pressure is harassing me, if you keep arguing you will be cancelled /said someone in an incoming dystopian world

akomtu 4y ago
I suspect that using irrefutable logic to disagree with your opponents is covert toxic masculinity.

withinboredom 4y ago

It’s important to realize anyone can say whatever they want. You don’t have to act on it. If I were “the boss” I would separate them and encourage the complainant to go to the police. If he/she were found guilty, then I’d do what I had to do. But I would never fire someone just because someone said some shit. This is probably why I’m not “the boss”…

tsol 4y ago
If you don't, and suddenly you find huge crowds of angry protestors organized on Twitter around your facility, would you still not act? How about if they start contacting your funders and put pressure on them? Unfortunately it's not just about how you react to the situation, if everyone else believes the story you'll just be viewed as an 'enabler'.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  Yeah. I stand by anyone can say whatever they want. Just because there’s a lynch mob, doesn’t mean it’s right.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Then you might find yourself jobless soon. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a reality many people have had to deal with.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      Maybe. Maybe not. But I’m not going to make decisions out of fear. That’s just stupid.
    - dethos 4y ago
      That line of thinking only exacerbates the problem.

gamblor956 4y ago

Note that the underlying cause for his termination was that he had a relationship with a "coworker." As he was head of the lab, it is clear that this "coworker" was actually a "subordinate." That relationship violated MIT's policy on employee relationships (and generally would violate most workplaces' restrictions on employee relationships), and he would have been fired from MIT on those grounds even absent any claim of sexual harassment. (It's not clear what Whitehead's policy on this was and it's not clear whether the relationship or the alleged harassment was the driving force behind his termination there.)

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
If you read the article, you'll find out that the coworker was not a member of his lab. She was actually the head of a completely different lab.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  This was not an article, it was a blog post retelling events entirely from Sabatini's perspective. EDIT: massive edits. For starters, it names the alleged victim of sexual harassment, which journalism organizations do not do in the U.S. And then gets personal about her sex life, including allegations of promiscuous sex. And then claims that she was actually sexually harassing him. (Yeah, sure. A twenty-something with multiple partners is sexually harassing her fat 50-year-old boss for...reasons. Uh huh. And Elvis is still alive in Las Vegas selling condos.) And this "article" actually gets a lot of things very wrong, which I didn't realize until I read other reporting: the alleged victim of the sexual harassment was not "the head of her own lab" as this article claims, but was a fellow (i.e., the lowest paid position) at the institution and left the fellowship early due to the alleged harassment. And the relationship actually started before she was a fellow/coworker; it began while she was a student applying to the fellowship and he was in a position to have input over her getting the fellowship. Also, this "article" fails to reveal that the woman was not at Whitehead at the time of the investigation and did not initiate the investigation. Other sources note that the investigation was actually prompted by the new director initiating an institute-wide survey on sexual harassment which uncovered multiple allegations against Sabatini by multiple women. The woman named in this "article" was merely interviewed as part of that investigation. And here's the kicker: this article conveniently leaves out that multiple subordinates reported being threatened by Sabatini not to participate in the investigation. All in all, Sabatini may be a genius, but he's also a disgusting pig, and the investigation found multiple things for which he could have been terminated, and there's a reason 3 separate organizations terminated him and his own companies chose to publicly dissociate themselves from him.