×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Politically Correct Zoology

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the cover-all-the-naughty-bits dept.

Idle 218

flynny51 writes "Dr. Dylan Evans of the School of Medicine, University College, Cork, Ireland, has had a two-year period of intensive monitoring and counseling imposed upon him and as a result his application for tenure is likely to be denied. His offense — sharing an article from a peer-reviewed journal on fellatio in fruit bats."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

218 comments

It is university.... (-1, Flamebait)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#32230986)

The main problem with this is he is a university professor. This isn't elementary or even high school it is university. If you don't like what a professor is teaching ask to be transferred to a different class, take the class at a different college, or just change universities.

Let university professors do what they want. Or, if you are going to try to tell them what they can and can't do can you at least start with the ever-so-common "I'm going to lecture for 2 hours about nothing on your test and most of the time won't say a single word related to the class" professors wasting my valuable time.

Re:It is university.... (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231032)

He wasn't even lecturing about it to students, if his protest letter is accurate. He was sharing it with a colleague, which I assume means another professor, a research scientist, or some other variety of non-student researcher, in the context of "an ongoing debate with the colleague in question about the relevance of evolutionary biology to human behaviour, and in particular about the dubiousness of many claims for human uniqueness". Seems rather relevant, and strange to object to.

Re:It is university.... (4, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231086)

This is not everything that he has been accusing of.

" According to her statement, these include over-enthusiastic hugging and cheek-kissing, unwanted compliments about her physical appearance, lying to her about his qualifications, and spreading rumours about the special nature of his relationship with her and her husband. "

Re:It is university.... (4, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231242)

For which she provided no proof, and which were only mentioned in passing at the end of the complaint letter as an attempt to bolster her case. It also notes that the external examiners decided that the email exchanges between them that followed cast doubt on these allegation and did not uphold them.

In fact the only part of the complaint that was upheld was that he showed her a published peer-reviewed article in part of a debate on biology.

Re:It is university.... (3, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231492)

That is not the point in these cases unfortunately. HR departments esp ones with affirmative action offices can often take unilateral action against you without any proof at all. The amount of power alloted against individuals in institutions by these and other offices on campus that are answerable to no one is unbelievable.

We had a case here that involved a woman getting a man's disabled parking permit taken away because he honked at her once in a parking garage, which she claimed was harassment.

Re:It is university.... (2, Insightful)

dasunt (249686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231982)

This is not everything that he has been accusing of.

" According to her statement, these include over-enthusiastic hugging and cheek-kissing, unwanted compliments about her physical appearance, lying to her about his qualifications, and spreading rumours about the special nature of his relationship with her and her husband."

I read that part, but bear in mind that the investigation does not show any collaborations of these claims.

He strikes me as a doctor who is overenthusiastic in his field, and doesn't understand that others may not share his same interest in behavioral psychology.

She strikes me as someone was was deeply offended by the article, decided his interest in it was creepy, and recast any prior experiences with him in that light.

But I could be wrong. All I have is the letters that were posted.

Ireland: In the dark ages (2, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231210)

This government is demonstrating it is still in the dark ages, where idiotic canned morals and ethics based on superstitious and largely fictional books still dictate the rules of state.

It's going to be a long, long haul getting rid of the "Sky Daddy" moralizers. Everywhere. In the meantime, the religiots will continue to look for contemporary alternatives to burning at the stake. Ruining one's career, and to some extent one's life... a fairly effective replacement, I'd say. A lifetime of suffering coupled with loss of ability to teach what one knows in an atmosphere of respect and personal and professional growth.

Fellatio in bats. What should be extremely interesting, is instead a hair trigger for idiots.

Sometimes I can go days without having to realize just how much I despise religion. And then something like this happens.

By the way, IRISH MORONS: Sex is good. Violence is bad. Imposed government/social censorship is MORONIC. Freedom for people to view what they CHOOSE and make their own decisions is the ONLY correct path through this mess. Is that convenient for everyone? Will everyone feel good about it? No. But it is still the BEST path. Because freedom of knowledge for everyone totally trumps anyone's moral qualms.

Teach your kids what you want to teach them. What you think is right. But don't attempt to sanitize the rest of the world in the shape of your morals and ethics. My kids are not your kids and you have NO right to impose your morals and ethics upon them. That's MY job. And I teach my kids that sex is good, and violence is bad. I'm not in the least interested in your goat-age, superstition-driven stupidity. Thanks.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (4, Interesting)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231258)

How do you argue that violence is inherently bad?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231372)

How do you argue that violence is inherently bad?

Can you think of a situation where violence is not inherently bad? I can think of many where it is the lesser of two evils, or just punishment, an understandable response, etc., but not any where it's actually something I would consider "good".

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231382)

And everything has to be "good" or "bad"?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1, Insightful)

scotch (102596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231428)

Way to move the goal posts.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231466)

No, I was actually going for violence being amoral in the first post. I was rather unclear, admittedly; it's a bit late over here.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231464)

Hitting my printer until it starts working again.
It's violent but achieves something good- being able to print my document.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231528)

Self defense. Killing a murderer who deserves it (sometimes they don't). Violence is pretty damned good in those situations.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231536)

But does it really make violence "inherently not bad"?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231702)

Is restraining someone against their will a violent act?
I'd say it is.

unless you can do that then

1: many mental patients couldn't really be helped.

2: enforcing punishment for laws against harmful but non-violent crimes becomes almost impossible.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231904)

That's a necessity, a small amount of violence to prevent larger amount of violence. Still doesn't make it "inherently not bad" (and was often overused btw...)

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (2, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32232034)

no true scotsman.

that's not *true* violence!

The mental patient isn't necessarily going to hurt anyone, he may just not want to take his medication.

The damage you might want to prevent by restraining someone need not be violent itself. merely harmful.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231722)

A serial rapist comes for your daughter. Is killing him wrong?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231882)

> A serial rapist comes for your daughter. > Is killing him wrong? Is my daughter "Captain Crunch"?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231884)

I'll bite. Not killing him is wrong if killing him is the only way to stop him. If you can stop him through lesser means and get him arrested and tried, then perhaps that's better. Letting a serial rapist, serial molester, or serial killer just go after people is what'd be wrong.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231950)

Understandable, yes, but it is still 'wrong'.... Ideally, you'd just disable him somehow and wait until the police show up and take him away. I'm not saying that I would have the self restraint needed to do this in the example you give, but it is the 'right' thing to do....

Vigilante justice can't be allowed in any case, since your average person isn't qualified (or impartial enough) to make a rational judgment of guilt and appropriate punishment. Again, I'm not saying that I'd have the self restraint not to kill the rapist in question, but I would expect to be charged with the killing, and convicted if it was shown that my motive was to kill and not simply to stop the attack.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231850)

Is eating fish or deer evil? What about farming cattle for meat? For milk? Swatting a mosquito is a sin to you? What about larvacide in your local decorative fountains and ponds? We really need to know what level of violence you consider alright before we can even discuss all violence. Are you just talking about human-on-human violence? Is human-v-human sport violence evil? I'm sure boxers, wrestlers, MMAs, football players, and paintball players would say that some level of violence is just clean fun.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32232068)

How do you argue that violence is inherently bad?

Can you think of a situation where violence is not inherently bad? I can think of many where it is the lesser of two evils, or just punishment, an understandable response, etc., but not any where it's actually something I would consider "good".

CPR is a very violent, lifesaving act. When done correctly it usually breaks ribs.

Also, slicing people open with a knife is usually a bad idea, and yet some very smart people have distinguished careers doing just that.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231504)

Are statistics enough? Places where there is the least amount of violence are also generally the nicest to live all around (not only in regards to possible violence-related safety).

Accidentally, very often also with the least amount of religion. And vice versa.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (2, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231294)

this is about office politics, not government.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231484)

Really, different areas of politics/where religions try to hatch on permeate each other. Or don't you remember quite recent story about new(?) Irish blasphemy law?

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231588)

Sure but in this case this really has about has much to do with the church as it has to do with my old socks.
unless you class every time someone gets offended at something to be related to the church.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231650)

Well, what is the most notable organisation in Ireland condemning masturbation?

OTOH I can see why that would be certainly unrelated in any way; after all that organisation surely doesn't influence any people, doesn't manage to make some consider masturbation to be something "bad".

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231734)

the article was about fellatio, not masturbation.
For the love of god put some effort in and read TFA.

And quit grinding that axe.
The church does not run UCC.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231858)

It does not "run" it, sure. But attitudes can get carried over.

Hey, certainly the church doesn't run Irish legislature, right? You know, the one which would never pass blasphemy laws. It also certainly doesn't run law enforcement and pedagogical control institutions; it couldn't hide child abuses for few decades...

Masturbation was simply used in some other post, big deal. You really think it makes any difference?...

I could consider igoring all this if some people want to be stupid in private, without harming others. But that's not the case even now, and certainly wasn't; and since I don't focus on it, repaying the debt will take some time.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32232018)

Is there any way that you wouldn't blame any negative situation in existence on religion?

The church is irrelevant in this case.

If the church was in charge they'd have made sure the woman was utterly ignored in favor of the male.

Re:Ireland: In the dark ages (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231826)

Someone doesn't have to believe in a "Sky Daddy" to accuse someone of sexual harassment nor to impose sanctions on someone for it. That may be the reason in this case. Really, though, the "fictional book" to which you're most likely referring is really horrible for feminist activists to cite. Women in it are generally objectified and even referred to as property. It's often the buckled-down religious zealots who are okay with men subjugating women and women accepting it in both Christian and Muslim societies. This sort of humanist egalitarian railroading of a guy for showing a scientific paper that shouldn't even be considered offensive is most likely just that: humanist, not deist.

And the Bald Eagle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32231000)

Now the Follically-challenged Eagle.

Details (5, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231004)

For copies of the letters sent back and forth along with far more details:

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c1.jpg [felidware.com]
http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c2.jpg [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/reply.pdf [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/report1.jpg [felidware.com]
http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/report2.jpg [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/reply_report.pdf [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/reply_reply1.jpg [felidware.com]
http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/reply_reply2.jpg [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/letter_2_pres.pdf [felidware.com]

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ifut.pdf [felidware.com]

best guess but going mostly from rumor and reading between the lines: the woman who lodged the complaint is quite likely the wife of one of the VP's in UCC.

Re:Details (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231176)

On reading the accusation and Evan's reply, if neither party is misrepresenting what happened or their view of it, Evan's has clearly acted inapproperiately but might not have realized this. Most of "her" complaints that do not concern the physical "hugging" and so forth are clearly unjudgeable without perceiving the tone of the situation. A case of Aspergers, perhaps?

Re:Details (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231206)

from the report-Apparently he provided evidence such as emails etc to the external investigators which didn't match very well with her account so they cleared him on everything except showing the fruit-bat article.

Re:Details (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231236)

Silly. If a person lies in such amounts about something like this, the "case" should just be dropped. If he has evidence, he should sue her for slander, or whatever the equivalent legal process is in Ireland.

Re:Details (4, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231302)

...slander, or whatever the equivalent legal process is in Ireland

Blasphemy.

Re:Details (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231380)

Only equivalent if you have a serious ego...

Re:Details (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231416)

You could perhaps pull it off long enough for the courts to consider it, if you where a really, really dedicated follower of some of the denominations of satanism.

Re:Details (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231694)

Not really, those laws are a legal fiction anyway (using literary term here, not judgical one); otherwise pretty much most religious group would have to be immediatelly prosecuted against...most of the other.
Such laws serve mostly the dominant faith. Or generally are brought over only when it's convenient.

Re:Details (2, Informative)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#32232016)

> Silly. If a person lies in such amounts about something like this, the "case" should just be dropped.

It really depends on *who* that person is (or who she is married to).

From the paragraph 15 in the IFUT letter:

"On the one hand she seems to be complaining that Dr Evans was manipulating her to establish himself in a good light with her husband. Yet on the other hand she accuses Dr Evans of sexual harassment. Such a combination is surely unlikely to say the least. The complainant's repeated references to her husband's position in the University is discomforting. It suggests that she may feel that such reminders might get her a more favourable outcome than might otherwise be the case."

http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ [felidware.com]

This whole thing is just politics.

Re:Details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231518)

"best guess but going mostly from rumor and reading between the lines: the woman who lodged the complaint is quite likely the wife of one of the VP's in UCC."

I'm guessing she was afraid her husband would get ideas.

Fuck Puritans. (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231030)

Seriously, grow up. As the paper in question demonstrates, the animal kingdom clearly has at least as many kinks as us humans do. It's not "sinful." Far from it -- if you believe in a deity, it seems obvious that this deity heartily approves of sex in all kinds of variety.

Or, if you can't deal with that, fine, believe whatever you want -- but stop retarding scientific and social progress with your puritanical ideals.

Re:Fuck Puritans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32231320)

WITCH!! WIIITCH!!!

Standard. (4, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231042)

If nature facts don't agree with your moral beliefs... the worse for the facts.

Next Vatican will be sending missionaries to teach the bats about properly moral sexual practices.

Re:Standard. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231318)

Next Vatican will be sending missionaries to teach the bats about properly moral sexual practices.

Newborn bats grow too fast for that.

This is silly. (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231046)

Science is science; what little simple-minded cretin made this decision? Someone should dig up the name and contact details, so we can mock him/her properly.

Re:This is silly. (2, Funny)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231092)

Science is science; what little simple-minded cretin made this decision? Someone should dig up the name and contact details, so we can mock him/her properly.

AND THEY WILL KNOW OUR NAME IS THE HIVEMIND.

Re:This is silly. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231260)

So if I were aggressively courting a woman in a psychology or sociology department against her wishes and randomly gave her the complete research works of Dr. Kinsey [wikipedia.org], that would be kosher?

He's a Jerk (0, Troll)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231052)

By all indications the guy is a jerk. In any setting there are expectations of a professional level of behaviour, and he chose not to abide by them.

These are not the 1960s. No one in academia can claim not to understand where the line is drawn when interacting with other colleagues.

"It was just a joke" has long since ceased to be an adequate excuse for offensive behaviour.

Misleading article (1, Informative)

SnapperHead (178050) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231112)

Read the actual complaints and you will see that this guy was being very creepy. This is more then just showing the article to a co-worker.

Re:Misleading article (4, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231170)

keep reading: he was cleared on everything except the article.

Re:Misleading article (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231508)

What does "cleared" mean in this situation? Did the disciplinary body decide the accusations were untrue? Did they decide they were true but did not rise to the level where legal action or official sanctions would be taken? That this was a case of "he said/she said", and that the best they could do is say, "We'll let this go, but we'll keep an eye peeled?"

Re:Misleading article (4, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231602)

He provided evidence such as emails which didn't match with her account so they went with his account.

Read the material.
There's links to the various letters back and forth in TFA.

It's just a personality clash (2, Interesting)

questionsaddict (1277150) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231364)

keep reading all of the letters and you'll see that she failed to report the guy about the fact that she found it creepy, and maybe even exaggerated some of his behaviour.

the only thing that makes me vote for the guy is the fact that she refused apology and counselling when it would've been best. In my opinion, that girl is as shy as a mouse, and the guy is a bit of a jerk, but that ain't a reason to apply a formal complaint without trying to resolve the issue by their own means..

Re:Misleading article (2, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231410)

Is there some objective definition for "being creepy" in the workplace?

Creepiness is in the eye of the beholder. And absent a documented violation of some code of professional conduct, it's just the opinion of the accusor. So if such accusations are taken too seriously, it enables the least tolerant individuals to define the culture of the workplace. That's not a good thing, in my opinion.

Re:Misleading article (0)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231716)

That's why most professional offices define the culture of the workplace extremely explicitly: don't be a creep, don't be a dick, don't be a bully. The penalty for failure is termination.

So, feel free to talk about fruit bat sex in a public arena, give talks on it if you want, send email about it and ask for responses, just don't go into someone else's office uninvited and start showing them pictures of bats having vaginal+oral sex.

Magic claims about "academic freedom" don't cut it either: you are in a position of power, not a position of absolute power. Screwing your undergrads is not an exercise in freedom, it's an exercise in coercion. Showing physics profs bulletwound pictures (because it's just physics in action) can just be you being a dick.

Re:Misleading article (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231936)

1:He wasn't screwing the person.
2:This wasn't an undergraduate or student of any kind.

This was another academic at the university.

And the medical faculty at that.

If a professor in the School of Medicine can't walk into another academics office and show them a peer reviewed paper about fruitbats that pretty much rules out showing them more shocking papers about anal warts and STD's.

He also showed it to a few other people on the way over and the other person in the office at the time.

You can shit on academic freedom all you want but if doctors can't talk about peer reviewed scientific papers which might embarrass the fragile sensibilities of someone where they work then they're not going to be able to do their job for fear of being accused of destroying the mind of the office wallflower.

Re:Misleading article (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231974)

Accusers are often no better people than the accused, and can just as easily cherry-pick facts or outright lie. To call the guy a creep because she made a complaint shows a bit of a bias in her favor. I'm not sure why she'd make a false complaint, but I know it can be done and has been done against other people who turned out to be innocent of any wrongdoing. In same cases, the accused didn't even do anything that most people would consider offensive. Since offense is in the mind of the offended, it can happen even if external events don't necessarily warrant it. False offense for whatever reason (jealousy, revenge, power trip, politics, dickishness on the part of the accuser, maybe more) is even worse than a strange and overactive sense of offense.

To really know whether the guy was creepy to her probably takes a lot more information than we have. Determining whether he would have been creepy or offensive to some random individual other than her would also be difficult without more info.

Misleading Summary.. kind of (2, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231460)

Apparently I am really lenient guy. I read the summary real quick and thought he got fired for blowing fruit bats in front of other people and felt it was a bit extreme of a punishment.

Of course that might have something to do with the fact "two-year period of intensive monitoring and counseling imposed upon him" and "fellatio in fruit bats" happened to be on top of each other (no pun intended) in bold and italics.

Inaccurate summary by submitter. (0)

t0rkm3 (666910) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231200)

The actual case was for sexual harassment. The accuser made the error of thinking that the fellatio article would be the strongest piece of evidence, rather than the coworker's repeated complaints about unwelcome touching and comments.

The attack on the article is ludicrous. If the guy who wrote the article is a creep, then he should probably be censured.

Re:Inaccurate summary by submitter. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231230)

No. If all they could come up with was showing her the article, a scientific article... then the court is wrong, not him. He was cleared of the other charges. The only thing left was NOT creepy.

You know, it really pisses me off when people assume someone is guilty because they're in court, no more. Sure, there were charges, but they were NOT found to apply; and the only thing left was the COURT being creepy.

Re:Inaccurate summary by submitter. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32231266)

You need to read the detail - an investigation cleared him of sexual harrassment. The action taken against him is based on a paragraph in the investigation's findings where it states that the investigators found it reasonable that the complainant was offended by being shown the article as a joke when alone with the accused. The accused claims that they were not alone and the article was shown in the context of an ongoing acedemic debate.

The fact that the complainant's husband seems to be a high ranking official at the university makes me think that this guy could well be being treated unfairly.

Re:Inaccurate summary by submitter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231692)

An investigation? I just read the "Report of External Investigators" and part of it is unbelievable.

From Dr (redacted)'s letter of complaint:

On many occasion he used unwelcome patting, hugging, kissing on the cheeks and touching behaviour with me; he also used to make compliments on my beauty or the way I was dressed.

From the "Report of External Investigators":

We find on the balance of probability that Dr Evans did not ever intend to cause offence to Dr (redacted). He was not aware that he may have been causing offence by visiting her office and Dr (redacted) admits that she was not sufficiently assertive in making clear her displeasure at his visits to her office or other behaviour. We cannot therefore find that any of the action of Dr Evans up to 2 November 2009 constituted sexual harassment and do not therefore uphold those complaints.

Seriously? Just because they feel he didn't intend to cause offence and because "she was not sufficiently assertive in making clear her displeasure" they can't find that any of his actions prior to showing her the bat fellatio paper constituted sexual harassment? Un-frickin'-believable.

I'm left to wonder exactly what would Dr Evans have to do to constitute sexual harassment? Teabag Dr (redacted) in front of an assembly or something? And if that left Dr (redacted) so stunned she was unable to make clear her displeasure would the "External Investigators" conclude that behaviour did not constitute harassment as Dr (redacted) would not have made clear her displeasure in a sufficiently assertive manner?

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment whether or not the victim objects sufficiently.

Re:Inaccurate summary by submitter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32232004)

You're sexually harassing me through your post!

Yes you didn't mean to cause me this offense but it's only what I feel that's important.

Censure of science (-1, Offtopic)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231214)

I posted this on facebook. I think it says it all:

They went by the names Stan and Can. At first they were friends, respecting each other. But after a while, Stan started hooking up with this girl. Can Hated that Stan was getting something done, so he walked up to Stan and punched him in the face repeatedly. Stan is a huge guy, and nows a lot about pretty much everything, and refused to hit back. Can just kept on wailing on Stan until Stan is bloody and bruised. The people in the bar generally rooted Can on, even though he was 6 times the size of Stan. In reality, Can didn't know the slightest damn thing about Stan, but beat him up anyways, like some kind of middle school bully. As Can beat Stan, he got a crazed look in his eye and kept beating him harder when asked why he was doing it, and almost to death when asked to stop. Then Stan dies, and Can kills everyone, and lights the bar on fire.

By the way, replace Stan for S-man For Science-man, and C for C-man for Christianity-man, and bar for the United States. So far it is accurate, but Stan is not dead yet. Maybe Stan should grow some balls and punch Can right in the fucking nuts. Hell yea. I said it.

I read the documents: Not guilty (4, Interesting)

Flambergius (55153) | more than 2 years ago | (#32231264)

I read the complaint, replies and rest of the documents. Made me miss the first period of Montreal @ Philadelphia.

The lack of evidence is staggering and mind-boggling. Who knows what really has been going on, but what I do know that the investigators or the president don't know anything that would be warrant a two-year monitoring and counseling period.

Let me repeat: not guilty.

Re:I read the documents: Not guilty (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231486)

Hear ye! Hear ye! The court of slashdot is now in session. The honourable (or closest thing to it) Cowboy Neal presiding. Please commence speculation, declaration of absolutes, judgement, flaming and trolling. Do not, I repeat do not, RTFA. Doing so is just a waste of time and energy.

Climate Change's Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32231304)

I didn't know Zoology and Meteorology were so closely related.

I do not understand (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231430)

He showed someone a scientifically researched and published article, the content is irrelevant.
Sure sex is a touchy area, but this is a doctor, talking to others in his field.

Happened to me, too (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231476)

But my paper topic was, "Fruity bats: population clusters in San Francisco and Provincetown, Mass.?" Academic freedom my ass...

Probably a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231558)

If he felt strongly enough about homosexual fruit bats to publish a scientific paper then his values are questionable and the decision is the correct one. There are always the 'class clown' types who want to push the envelope of what is, and is not socially acceptable. Does this guy have a daughter? At what age does he feel it would be appropriate to read his paper to her?

Re:Probably a good thing (1)

haderytn (1232484) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231696)

There are always the 'class clown' types who want to push the envelope of what is, and is not socially acceptable.

This is not a bad thing.

Punchlines and Straw Men (0)

jarrettwold2002 (601633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231632)

Putting everything aside, I think it's reasonable to assume that this was an attempt for an inside joke in Dr. Evans area of expertise.

After reading the complaint, investigation and responses, the best I can take away from that is that it was very much a "he said, she said" series of events.

I can't fault the President of UCC for kneejerking in response to a possible sexual harassment. Outside investigators or no, afaik, it would be his responsibility to decide a course of action.

So he decided to *not* terminate Dr. Evans' employment. He did decide to keep an eye on the situation. I hardly think a short report every 6 months to check for issues is a huge deal.

I would imagine this would be along the lines of:
  "Hey, he's doing fine, hasn't sexually harassed anyone."

The straw man is demonstrated by an assumption that all discussion about that paper or fellatio is somehow banned at that university.

It's not.

In this case it was a matter of subjective and selective judgement. He showed it to a colleague. The colleague took it a certain way, even not as intended, and filed a complaint. The President decided to act on the complaint.

Depending on locale in the United States, you don't have to notify the perpetrator of sexual harassment or proposed perpetration of sexual harassment that the behavior is harassing.

She was well within her rights to avail herself of a standard procedure to file a complaint.

The President of the University is well within his right to determine a course of action.

Honestly, if it was shit judgement on behalf of the President, perhaps it's time to move on to another University.

Although, this whole thing is going to turn into a punchline. Looks like it sucks for everyone to me.

Re:Punchlines and Straw Men (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231688)

As you'd imagine he's not crazy about his career being fucked up by "sexually harassed co-worker" on his record with no warning or recourse.

simply saying that everyone was within their rights is true but at the same time it would also be true if she'd complained about an overly friendly handshake- she'd have every right to avail herself of a standard procedure to file a complaint and the president of the university would have every right to determine any course of action.

Institutional overreaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32231636)

can't say i'm surprised by this. Last sexual harrassment case I heard about in an irish university involved a lecturer making a pass at a student (just the once). He ended up getting suspended from his job for 12 months.

Remember this is Ireland ... (1, Interesting)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231880)

Remember the law passed not long ago making blasphemy illegal?

So, how long until people realizes that this has gone too far. Censorship IS a problem. religion and corporate interests account for most of the censorship out there. Copyright is nothing but a form of censorship.

Can we finally outlaw religion and copyright? We really need to ban and persecute all forms of religious beliefs. And we really need to get rid of copyright.

Only then we'll be truly free.

Now, go ahead and mod me troll or flamebait, but you all know I'm right.

I'm confused (5, Funny)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 3 years ago | (#32231990)

Is it politically correct to be for oral sex in fruit bats or against it? Could someone please explain?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...