Arizona State finds that Krauss did it.
An investigation by Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe concluded this week that high-profile astrophysicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss violated the university’s sexual harassment policy by grabbing a woman’s breast at a conference in Australia in late 2016.
“Responsive action is being taken to prevent any further recurrence of similar conduct,” ASU’s executive vice president and provost, Mark Searle, wrote in a 31 July letter to Melanie Thomson, a microbiologist based in Ocean Grove, Australia, who is an outspoken advocate for women in science. Thomson, who witnessed the breast-grabbing incident, received the investigative reportfrom ASU’s Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) and shared it with Science.
In response to an email asking what specific actions the university is taking, an ASU spokesperson wrote: “Professor Lawrence Krauss is no longer director of Arizona State University’s Origins Project, a research unit at ASU. Krauss remains on administrative leave from the university. It is the policy of the university not to comment on ongoing personnel matters.”
I wonder if there’s still some way Krauss and his buddies can find to blame women.
H/t Dave Ricks
Comments
10 responses to “Grabbing women’s breasts not university policy”
Well, we women will insist on having our breasts on the front of our chests instead of safely in a locked drawer or something. Such protuberances will always present an obstruction that could be accidentally grabbed in the process of having a serious scientific discussion.
My guess: they’ll claim it was just that one time, he’d probably been drinking, maybe it was a misunderstanding, you really want the poor guy to lose his career over this!?
Sam Harris will solemnly inform us all that sexual harassment is bad, but we must be able to make distinctions between a single boob-grab and Harvey Weinstein.
Next up: Has #MeToo gone too far? Dudebros discuss.
Also too: DON’T FORGET ALL THE GOOD HE’S DONE
Well, none of this counts because it was first reported on by Buzzfeed. That makes the University’s findings fruit of the poisonous shrubbery, according to Twitter Law.
Since we’re on the subject of sexual assault — Brock Turner’s conviction was upheld by the California Court of Appeal today in a 3-0 decision. In one disgusting detail I hadn’t heard of before, in one of his statements to police, “Defendant agreed that Jane 1 was more drunk than he was but said ‘“[s]he didn’t appear any more drunk than anybody else I had been with.’” Well, that’s reassuring. (The very next section of the opinion deals with Turner’s character witnesses testifying how he was a good boy who would never ever rape anyone. I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.)
And I’m sure everyone here already knew this, but just in case, the court explained that this was not an instance of the victim being a wee bit tipsy:
Geez, I guess couples can’t have sex after sharing a bottle of wine over dinner any more in light of this draconian decision! I mean, if you can’t penetrate someone who’s incoherent and passed out with a BAC of >.24, they might as well just outlaw all sex, amiright?
Screechy, you’re totally right. Interesting that Brock’s other partners have been similarly incapacitated or worse. totally not lacking in consent though. Hmmm, I wonder if some of them even know they had sex? I wonder if those who did realise they had sex had any idea who they had it with or how? Brock is an attempted rapist, at least. He’s probably a multiple rapist, but will likely spend the rest of his life bemoaning PC bitches and interfering dudes instead of reflecting on that point. Worst thing is, there are going to be a whole bunch of enablers who will keep telling him he’s been hard done by and did nothing wrong.
Seen on Facebook:
Somebody explains that this was not a criminal trial. To which Mr. Skeptical responds:
Love this last bit from the Krauss article:
Who ya gonna believe, me, or the victim, four witnesses, and a corroborating photograph?
Is that gonna be on the test? Because I didn't study that part.
It used to be pics or it didn't happen…now it's pics and it still didn't happen.
I spent a day with a highlighter and printouts of two PDF files: 1) Krauss’s 9-page March rebuttal of the BuzzFeed article, and 2) ASU’s recent letter to Melanie Thomson that includes ASU’s 3-page determination on her complaint. Both PDF files are linked in the Science article that Ophelia linked in her post, but I linked to them on the same page here because they are powerful sources, especially together. To help people read the ASU determination:
• Lawrence Krauss is the Respondent.
• Melanie Thomson is the Reporting Party.
• Mark Searle is ASU Provost and wrote the letter.
My observations on the two PDF files:
• First I was surprised to see this level of dirty laundry in public, but now I see how ASU handled this in two parts: 1) ASU worded their determination carefully to stand by itself, and 2) ASU handling Krauss is an ongoing personnel matter, and is not public.
• For this incident to work out as it did: 1) Krauss traveling on ASU money made the incident their business, 2) The woman he grabbed did not press for the complaint, but that would not change ASU’s problem, 3) I might have thought Thomson lacked “standing” to complain (as she is not an ASU employee), but I’m not a lawyer, so maybe standing is not a relevant concept here, and it would not change ASU’s problem.
• For some details on procedure, the ASU determination has a link to ASU policy P20 (“Prohibition Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation: Complaint and Investigation Procedure”). Section D says, “All parties will be given the opportunity to provide information and respond,” so Krauss cannot complain about “ignoring counter evidence” as he did in his March rebuttal. Section F says the Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) writes a report to the Provost who writes a determination, so the PDF that I linked here is the Provost’s determination (not the OEI report that I assume is internal). And: “The determination is final.”
• Krauss’s March rebuttal said, “I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.” I look forward to that. Logically, if he would confess to the groping, then he would confess that his March rebuttal was bullshit, and make his rebuttal of all the other reported incidents look like bullshit. So I imagine he will stand by his rebuttal, and try a reversal like this one:
See what he did there? When people grope him he’s cool, so everybody just stay cool. Nice reversal, but employers cannot write that into their Policies & Procedures. Employers might have a problem with how cool he thinks he is.
Who the hell asks for a selfie while crying and shaking?