4 ms·

Yes, his lectures were not likely to be found offensive. According to the statement, "...She provided information about Lewin's interactions with her, which beg

Yes, his lectures were not likely to be found offensive. According to the statement, "...She provided information about Lewin's interactions with her, which began when she was a learner in one of his MITx courses". Interactions being the key word there. Still, a statement as vague as this allows imaginations to run wild. If they are going to publicly humiliate a respected professor like this, you would think they would be at least a little more specific as to the allegations. They couldn't do any more damage to him than they did here anyway, and the term "sexual harassment" covers a vast spectrum of conduct. This statement paints him as the worst kind of sexual predator, who was so dangerous that he could only be stopped through public humiliation and immediate disassociation from MIT. Since no crime has been alleged, the impression they have created is probably not aligned with the facts.

Steuard 12y ago
It sounds like you want them to add to his public humiliation and announce to the world the full details of why they're cutting ties. Is this your preferred policy for other firing offenses, too? Should companies always make public announcements of why they cut ties with employees? ("Tim Lauffer was fired today for skipping meetings and stealing $328 of office supplies for personal use over the past month." "We let Meg Simmons go last week because she spent several hours each day viewing pornography from her workstation, including content from the following sites...") Why is is not relevant that a bunch of smart people who were friends of the accused looked over the evidence and concluded that the university should no longer be associated with him? I get the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but it feels like a lot of people here are bending over backward to deny that sexual harassment might have happened. And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it? MIT is under no obligation to reserve punishment for illegal conduct. If they have established community standards for their online spaces that go beyond "no illegal behavior" and they want that community to trust that those standards count for something, this seems like a perfectly reasonable action to take.
- downandout 12y ago
  >Is this your preferred policy for other firing offenses, too? No. But I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release announcing the firing of someone based upon an internal sexual harassment claim. I would fully expect to be sued if I did such a thing. Unless the conduct would also meet a jury's definition of sexual harassment, and not just violate the internal policy, it's a perfect libel case. >And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it? In word: no. That is the impression I was left with based upon the actions they took. If it was worth destroying his reputation, as they did here, then in the absence of additional information we are left to assume the worst. They could have easily not made this statement and just removed his classes from the site, or kept his lectures up and had another professor handle interactions. They instead chose to publicly tar and feather him. That may or may not be justified, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment. If his conduct was on the lower end of the sexual harassment spectrum (an "online learner" thought it was inappropriate that he asked her out, for example) then making this statement was uncalled for. They just ruined this man's career.
  - Steuard 12y ago
    As you've said, "we don't have enough information to make that judgment." It is quite striking to see the sheer number of people here who nevertheless seem to think it's reasonably likely that the harassment wasn't actually worth worrying about. Assuming that the accusations were substantiated and did violate the MIT harassment policy (which, just to emphasize this, was the conclusion of a committee led by his own colleagues in the Physics department that did see all the evidence), I think it's clear that Lewin ruined his own career. As it happens, I'm a physics professor myself. And let me tell you, I know good and well that my tenure wouldn't be worth squat if I asked a current student for a date. It's not like this is complicated. Why does the blame so easily get assigned to the university ("They ruined his career") or to the victim ("She got him fired")?
  - davelnewton 12y ago
    He ruined his own career. I doubt they looked at the evidence and made this decision lightly. To be fair, and to your point, we don't have enough information to speak intelligently about this.

Steuard 12y ago

It sounds like you want them to add to his public humiliation and announce to the world the full details of why they're cutting ties. Is this your preferred policy for other firing offenses, too? Should companies always make public announcements of why they cut ties with employees? ("Tim Lauffer was fired today for skipping meetings and stealing $328 of office supplies for personal use over the past month." "We let Meg Simmons go last week because she spent several hours each day viewing pornography from her workstation, including content from the following sites...") Why is is not relevant that a bunch of smart people who were friends of the accused looked over the evidence and concluded that the university should no longer be associated with him? I get the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but it feels like a lot of people here are bending over backward to deny that sexual harassment might have happened. And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it? MIT is under no obligation to reserve punishment for illegal conduct. If they have established community standards for their online spaces that go beyond "no illegal behavior" and they want that community to trust that those standards count for something, this seems like a perfectly reasonable action to take.

downandout 12y ago
>Is this your preferred policy for other firing offenses, too? No. But I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release announcing the firing of someone based upon an internal sexual harassment claim. I would fully expect to be sued if I did such a thing. Unless the conduct would also meet a jury's definition of sexual harassment, and not just violate the internal policy, it's a perfect libel case. >And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it? In word: no. That is the impression I was left with based upon the actions they took. If it was worth destroying his reputation, as they did here, then in the absence of additional information we are left to assume the worst. They could have easily not made this statement and just removed his classes from the site, or kept his lectures up and had another professor handle interactions. They instead chose to publicly tar and feather him. That may or may not be justified, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment. If his conduct was on the lower end of the sexual harassment spectrum (an "online learner" thought it was inappropriate that he asked her out, for example) then making this statement was uncalled for. They just ruined this man's career.
- Steuard 12y ago
  As you've said, "we don't have enough information to make that judgment." It is quite striking to see the sheer number of people here who nevertheless seem to think it's reasonably likely that the harassment wasn't actually worth worrying about. Assuming that the accusations were substantiated and did violate the MIT harassment policy (which, just to emphasize this, was the conclusion of a committee led by his own colleagues in the Physics department that did see all the evidence), I think it's clear that Lewin ruined his own career. As it happens, I'm a physics professor myself. And let me tell you, I know good and well that my tenure wouldn't be worth squat if I asked a current student for a date. It's not like this is complicated. Why does the blame so easily get assigned to the university ("They ruined his career") or to the victim ("She got him fired")?
- davelnewton 12y ago
  He ruined his own career. I doubt they looked at the evidence and made this decision lightly. To be fair, and to your point, we don't have enough information to speak intelligently about this.