6 ms·
A testimony of “guilt-by-association” harassment in astronomy
- rasse 3y agoThe will to punish certainly reflects the civility of a society.
- NotGMan 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoPlease don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It's repetitive and tedious, and therefore against the site guidelines: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." I realize the OP contains provocations in that direction, but you don't have to take the bait. That's why the guidelines also say: "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." Usually the "something interesting" has to do with the specific details of the article, not some ideological abstraction skimmed off the top.
- JohnMakin 3y agoHe was investigated by the university and found guilty of groping and harassing students: https://www.science.org/content/article/astronomer-geoff-marcy-booted-national-academy-sciences-wake-sexual-harassment https://www.science.org/content/article/astronomer-geoff-mar... Seems perfectly reasonable people in academia would no longer wish to associate with his work. The author of this article is saying this should not be the case because it was never criminally investigated, but I'm very certain you can find plenty of real world examples of people's careers being ruined without incidents being criminally investigated, or even the incidents being criminal themselves - that seems like a complete strawman on her part.
- amluto 3y agoThe OP says “It is … a basic human right to be rehabilitated into society even if one has ever been found guilty of a crime.” One may reasonably debate whether someone who did something bad in the past should be ostracized, but I think you are rather mischaracterizing the author’s argument.
- JohnMakin 3y ago> The allegations were never investigated by a court of law, only internally at Berkeley. This is what the OP literally said in the opening paragraph.
- mcpackieh 3y ago"Even if" != "only if" On the contrary, having never been found guilty of anything, the bar for forgiveness / rehabilitation should be even lower. If it is a basic human right to be rehabilitated back into society even if they have been criminally convicted, it should certainly be a human right if they were merely "convicted" by an academic kangaroo court.
- comrh 3y agoThat a decision everyone is free to make for themselves. If you want to forgive him feel free but that has no bearing on how others might feel. Society hasn't exiled him into the woods, people are just rightfully exercising their right not to be associated with him.
- ipaddr 3y agoPeople are acting fearful the mob will come for them.
- mcpackieh 3y agoI wouldn't claim otherwise.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
- _dain_ 3y agoWhy does a university have the power to find somebody guilty of sexual assault, and not the actual courts? EDIT, I am rate limited so I can't reply: The specific phrase was "found guilty" and the specific wrong being alleged is sexual assault, which is a criminal offense for which people can go to prison. University HR can fire him if they like, but they cannot find him guilty of a sexual assault any more than they can find him guilty of fraud or manslaughter. People are innocent of all crimes until they are proved guilty in a fair trial, in a real court with a real judge and a real jury. > Did the university send him to prison, or are you collapsing multiple different connotations of "guilty" into one? Excuse me, am I collapsing multiple definitions here? It seems to me the parent commenter is pivoting on two different connotations of "sexual assault" and "guilty", so as to have it both ways: ostracize this person as one would an actual sex offender, without needing to go through the awkward formality convicting him of a sexual offense.
- JohnMakin 3y agoDo you think HR isn’t real or something? If you grab your coworker’s ass, do you think they’re not legally able to conclude this happened and then fire you?
- CraftingLinks 3y agoActually, not sure you can in Europe?
- Talanes 3y agoDid the university send him to prison, or are you collapsing multiple different connotations of "guilty" into one?
- add-sub-mul-div 3y agoAre you asking why people and organizations have the power to decide whether to associate with or employ someone, while the government has the power of criminal justice? Are you mixing up those two things?
- 3y ago
- johnnyworker 3y ago> Seems perfectly reasonable people in academia would no longer wish to associate with his work. The author of this article is saying this should not be the case No, the author isn't saying everybody must work with this person, they are saying someone who is working with the person should not be harassed for that. > I'm very certain you can find plenty of real world examples of people's careers being ruined without incidents being criminally investigated So what? As if that makes it okay, this medieval going after the totality of one's person and livelihood. Any and all people involved in such mobs are guilty of worse than whatever they use as excuse for their stonings.
- ethanbond 3y agoName one point or place in history where a person’s reputation didn’t mediate how people treated them.
- Mordisquitos 3y agoIn the context of international relations both Barack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump were treated equally regardless of their personal reputations in their official capacity as heads of state.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat’s not true lol. They obviously still had to deal with the leader of the most powerful economy and military in the world, yes, but if you don’t think Trump’s reputation as an untrustworthy lying clown didn’t color those interactions (both official and personal) then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. He was openly laughed at (not with) during addresses to the UN, for example. More officially, the EU has been in crisis about building its own security since it became clear Trump seemed to hold a different meaning for “ally” than every president before him.
- Mordisquitos 3y agoThose responses were in reaction to his relevant prior and concomitant actions as a head of state — not in reaction to his personal reputation as an individual.
- mcpackieh 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geoffrey_Marcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geoffrey_Marcy
- scythe 3y agoOne of those talk pages that makes you appreciate the thicket of bureaucratic brambles standing between the angry and the consensus version of Wikipedia pages on controversial topics. It's not perfect, but it's clearly better than nothing.
- fishtoaster 3y ago> It is also a basic human right not to be condemned without legal due process No it's not. It's a basic human right not to be formally condemned by a government or government-like body without legal due process. It's not a basic human right to be free from all judgement by your peers without due process. If I think my neighbor's a dick, I don't need to hold a trial by jury to decide if I'm allowed to disinvite him from my BBQ. In this case, it seems like a number of people in this community think Geoff is a first-rate asshole for publicly-known reasons. I have no knowledge of whether that's true or not - I've not reviewed the evidence. But a lot of people believe it, and those people don't want papers authored, co-authored, or believed to be authored, by Geoff in their conference. That seems reasonable, at least for people who believe the original allegations against Geoff. (Disclaimer: there's some other bad stuff mentioned, like harassment of the author and some shitty assumptions that her own work was secretly Geoffs, and that's to be condemned, but that's separate from the main thrust of this post.)
- _dain_ 3y ago>It's not a basic human right to be free from all judgement by your peers without due process. True, but libel is also a civil tort.
- EA-3167 3y agoLets be realistic about this, if Marcy tried to bring a suit over this, he would not prevail. A lot of people have a very reasonable belief that he's a sex-criminal of some description, including his former employers and a number of former co-workers.
- slibhb 3y agoIt seems clear that Marcy has been "condemned by a government-like body" (with or without due process -- I don't know). At any rate, this isn't simple freedom of association. And according to the article, the blacklist doesn't only affect Marcy, it affects people who continue to work with him. I would say that's going too far. Finally, I'm not sure what we gain by systematically excluding Marcy from astronomy research. Maybe a 5 year ban would be enough or perhaps we could go with a restorative justice approach here.
- readthenotes1 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dventimi 3y ago> I think the author must have a very good sense of humor to post her photo last as if to say "he must be reformed to resist this". Do you honestly believe that's why the author self portrait appears at the end?
- readthenotes1 3y agoWhy do you think they put it there? I don't believe it is normal to put a full body shot, and I'm not even sure that I noticed mugshots that happen. The picture is certainly irrelevant to her written arguments.
- dventimi 3y agoI have no Earthly idea. I especially have no special insight into the mind of the author and I'm not persuaded you do, either.
- csours 3y agoFor the past several thousand years, people have generally been able to get away with being an asshole (both criminal and less than criminal) as long as they are very productive in some other way. Very recently, some people have stopped getting away with this. It's very very good to hold people accountable. I also think that it is bad that there is no path to rehabilitation. Well, there is no single path to rehabilitation, because the world contains many people with a variety of points of view. But remember that it is bad to harass and assault people. That should not be ignored. The linked post does not seem to cover that very much, or to show any action that the person has taken that would make them more welcome in a professional setting. > History has many examples of the negative impacts of excommunicating individuals according to questionable standards that are analogous to what happened to Geoff Marcy. Over the past century we have seen numerous such examples across the political spectrum, in the name of moral virtue. I must disagree in the strongest terms to this section. This does not acknowledge any harms or any balance of responsibility on the part of Marcy. ----- Also, the title is just plain wrong. It is not guilt by association, it is disgust at including a person who has caused harm. Every objection listed from the scientific community was because Marcy was directly attached, either to a paper, a group, or a meeting.
- _dain_ 3y ago>It's very very good to hold people accountable. Passive voice. Who watches the watchers, who accounts for the accountability-bringers?
- csours 3y agoWell, the organizations that employ and empower them would be a good place to start.
- Planktonne 3y agoThat's not passive voice. Passive voice would be "It's very, very good for people to be held accountable".
- tlb 3y agoI don't know anything about this situation, so this is hypothetical. Suppose that the editors who refused publication are personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, perhaps because they know one or more of the victims personally. In that case, I think they have the moral right to refuse to have anything to do with him, like publishing work that he's a co-author of. There is a (very small) number of people I refuse to have anything to do with, despite them not being convicted of anything. I mean, I'd still hit the brakes if they stepped in front of my car. But I wouldn't invest in a startup they were a co-founder of, which seems analogous to publishing a paper they're a co-author of. Scientists sometimes talk as if certain journals have such a monopoly on a field that being banned from them is fatal to their career (and even to The Science.) But IDK, I've never felt like I can't read a paper if it wasn't published in a prestigious journal. The author should upload the paper to their website and email the link to colleagues, who can decide whether to read it or not.
- rasse 3y agoLet's say they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Does this constitute a reason to refuse their science altogether? And if so, then for how long (a question indirectly raised in the article)?
- tlb 3y agoI don't know what you mean by "refuse their science". Some editors refusing to publish a paper in their journals doesn't change anything about what's true or not true in nature. It doesn't prevent the authors from disseminating the information other ways, including the way most papers are found anyway: author websites, email, and Twitter. So it's a small perturbation in the flow of information. Science is quite resilient to such things.
- rasse 3y agoI agree that the facts don't change. However the editorial process becomes biased ad hominem and shifts away from scientific facts. Science and the people who benefit from science become the victims. The purpose of scientific journals is to provide an editorial process and peer review, not only to disseminate findings. In this regard, I don't believe author websites and Twitter compares.
- gnull 3y ago> In my country, Sweden, such actions at a state-funded institute fall under the umbrella of “kränkande särbehandling” (victimization) and are unlawful. Does this mean that Sweden is a good place for people who are, like the author, critical of the wokeness and "cancel culture"? I used to think they're the ones setting the trend there. I don't understand anything now.
- bt4u 3y ago[dead]
- DavidVoid 3y agoTo some extent, this just sounds like willfully digging your own grave and then complaining that you're being buried. Sure, a shitty person can still do good research. But people are people, not computers. If you want to sacrifice your own social status by collaborating with a persona non grata then that's your choice, just don't be surprised when you lose friends and professional opportunities because of it. For a rather long take from someone within the astronomy research community, I can recommend Dr. Angela Collier's video on the topic of sexual harassment and assault in Astronomy and Physics [1]. "Here's 26 people who decided it was fine to author a paper with this serial sexual harasser ... How can I see a future in a field where people are just fine working with sexual harassers. They don't care about the women, the victims, they just care about how this person can help their career." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNRBa39Iig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNRBa39Iig She discusses Geoff Marcy at ~35:30 btw. "How can you write a mentoring statement when 66% of your students have left Astronomy directly because of you?" *** For a much more extreme historical example, see the tragic life of Nobel laureate Fritz Haber. A man who arguably saved billions of lives with the invention of the Haber process, but who was ostracized by many fellow scientists for his work on chemical weapons during WWI.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago[flagged]
- ljfp 3y agoDoes she really need to explain the obvious? Are you malisciously avoiding to mention the obvious thing here? This person, the sexual harasser, is an accomplished astrophysicist. He doesn't magically forget everything he knee about physics the moment he became a harasser.
- DoreenMichele 3y agoI'm a woman. An awful lot of people who have expressed interest in "my work"/"working with me" were men looking for an excuse to chat me up. There have been damn few people genuinely interested in my actual work, which is part of why I remain independent and poor. My firsthand experiences of how hard it is to genuinely open doors career-wise is part of what informs my view here. I am well aware I am not supposed to say something like this. I mostly bit my tongue about Elizabeth Holmes because I am quite aware this is not socially acceptable to say. I spent years and years wanting a better explanation for what went wrong with Theranos and why and it's mostly Verboten still to talk about that, even though the company went bankrupt and she is now serving time (or supposed to be -- maybe she continues to put that off, I haven't looked recently at an update). My interest in such topics is because I want an actual career and I continue to fail to have one. And this remains true in part because we can't talk about the social dynamics of trying to work with members of the opposite sex unless someone has already been convicted of a crime and then we pretend it's some kind of statistical anomaly, some bizarre outlier, and not something that's potentially tough to navigate every single day if you are a woman wanting to be taken seriously for your work and not sleep your way into power...until that backfires like it ultimately did for Holmes.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI am curious whether anyone who defends ostracizing this guy similarly thinks it’s reasonable to deny jobs to formerly incarcerated persons.
- wrp 3y agoThis conflict appears to be grounded in two incommensurable philosophies. Say you are editor of a CS journal and receive a valid proof that P=NP. You also get demands that you shouldn't publish it because the author is the worst person imaginable. What is best for society? I believe intellectual creations should be evaluated independently of their origins, and I don't see a way to find common ground with those who don't.
- soco 3y agoAnd then we land into the realm of literature, and the heated discussions about the world views of authors like Lovecraft, Hamsun or Rowling...