I also have a PhD. There's a major asymmetry in US academia that public accusations can address, if done tactfully, truthfully, and specifically enough to allo

I also have a PhD. There's a major asymmetry in US academia that public accusations can address, if done tactfully, truthfully, and specifically enough to allow a defense. In US academia, subordinates need positive references to get jobs. That leads many to be quite deferential to their supervisors, even allowing abuse. Nominally this is supposed to highlight strengths and weaknesses of a job candidate, but it also can serve to warn potential employers away from a particular job candidate. However, in contrast, there is no formal mechanism to warn others about bad supervisors. Given that, I am okay with tactfully, truthfully, and specifically going public about negative experiences with academic supervisors. To be clear: I don't advocate defamation. Keep good records, and if you choose the go public, be tactful and stick to what can be easily corroborated. Also: My experience is that subordinates are rarely given the opportunity to reply to defamatory claims made by academic supervisors when providing references. So if your focus is on the ability of someone to defend against defamation, I don't think you can defend the status quo.