Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnMakin | Hacker News Reader

He was investigated by the university and found guilty of groping and harassing students:

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Name one point or place in history where a person’s reputation didn’t mediate how people treated them.

In 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.

That’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.

Those 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.

Yeah sure, because True Intelligence is disregarding information you have about a person’s character when you engage with them…

A serial workplace or school sexual harasser affects many people's livelihoods, their own livelihood is very far down my list of concerns. Beware isolated demands for compassion.

There seems to be a reading comprehension challenge here. Commenters are struggling to understand the distinctions between being a sexual harasser, being accused of being a sexual harasser, being harassed for being an accused sexual harasser, and being harassed for working with an accused sexual harasser, while not being a sexual harasser yourself.

I understand the distinctions quite well, thank you. I spent around half an hour reading about the context of what he has been accused of doing before commenting.

> and [making accusations of] being harassed for working with an accused sexual harasser, while not being a sexual harasser yourself.

Why 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.

Do 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?

Actually, not sure you can in Europe?

Did the university send him to prison, or are you collapsing multiple different connotations of "guilty" into one?

Are 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?

Are you asking why "found guilty" means found guilty in a court of law and not some other private person or org asserting a perogative of association? Are you mixing up those two things?

The 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.

> 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.

"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.

That 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.

I wouldn't claim otherwise.

People are acting fearful the mob will come for them.

> people are just rightfully exercising their right not to be associated with him.

No, they are harassing a person who is exercising their right to associate with whomever they want.

To associate with, that is the part that matters. Not "to be associated with", which is what people in a mob think is what matters, even though it does not, certainly not enough to give them license.

> No, they are harassing a person who is exercising their right to associate with whomever they want.

Harassing is carrying a _ton_ of load, way above its capacity, in the essay. I'm very curious for your perspective on what incidents were harrassment.

There's a certain motte-and-bailey aspect in my read, the narrow claims are their talk on Geoff's work was not accepted at an academic conference and someone removed Geoff's name from their paper.

The broader claims range as petty as the conference added a non-standard tricky clause to harrass them and engineer the denial of their proposal, before their proposal was made (?, also, it's a bog-standard morals clause in my read) and as vast as you must allow anyone to associate with you & it's immoral to decide who you associate with unless they've been convicted of a crime by a jury in the United States.

It suffers from its rigidness and righteousness.

In my opinion saying "women support rape culture" in reference to the author approaches that high load. If I had said it, I would be worried about a slander suit: calling a person a supporter of rape culture seems like slander per se, unless the author has done something worse than work with an academic pariah.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com