The “if you don’t like it then just leave” position really doesn’t work for something other than buying commodities, and especially not for public institutions that are at least somewhat expected to act in the interest of the public good. Switching costs are enormous, and any other school will also have its bad apples. Rather than to encourage leaving, it’s better to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen by acting to prevent it from happening.
So it is okay that he harassed four women (that have come forward), but five would be over the line? These guys KNOW what they are doing is wrong. Sorry, a bigger “contributor” should not be cut slack compared to anyone else. Young women should not have to put up with this even once, even if the guy was Newton or Einstein.
I’ve seen much more egregious abuses of power, and the sad truth is that most people are not capable of doing the right thing when given the power to do so. And yet those people are often important to the world and losing them would do a lot of harm to society as a whole.
In that light, I believe that high-quality contributors should be given a chance to reform and to have a bit more forgiveness than the average person. It’s not entirely fair, but it’s a token of appreciation that we should extend, as a society, for past contributions. He shouldn’t receive a mere “slap on the wrist” and he won’t - the damage to his reputation will take at least a decade to repair. And beyond that, I think that media frenzies don’t represent the interests of justice by any means, and that these matters should be decided by those with proper judicial authority (in this case, it seems that UC Berkeley is that authority).
Nothing he did was okay - I just don’t think it was so egregious that it is beyond any form of forgiveness.
The damage to his reputation was not something that Berkeley inflicted on him, because Berkeley did not publicize their resolution of the claims against him. Buzzfeed did, and Buzzfeed didn’t get their information from Berkeley, but from the victims. Berkeley did nothing to make this story public.
Moreover, “We shouldn’t punish him because when people find out the disgusting things he did they will think he did disgusting things, and that’s punishment enough” is bizarro logic.
Nor should they have. These matters shouldn’t be handled publicly. I’m sure Berkeley did much more than they say publicly, and it is in the interest of professionalism that they punish their staff on their own terms and keep the public out of it. If they didn’t, that is a massive demerit to the school as a whole, but in my eyes that is a different issue altogether.
Organizations like Buzzfeed thrive on hype, not facts or fairness. Runaway speculation is one of their tools of the trade. It’s not particularly honorable or helpful for them to do so. This is not to defend the professor’s actions, but simply to say that two parties were in the wrong here.
So is “I’m not happy with how severe his punishment is and I’m out for blood.” These things should not be decided by the court of public opinion (though they may very well end up being decided just that way). It’s a matter of justice, not vengeance.
I disagree. Strongly.
Just as a basic starting point, if harassers aren’t publicly outed as such, then we’re putting potential future victims at risk.
I could offer other reasons, but I’m having trouble being polite in the face of claims that past brilliance should allow past and present crimes to be effectively ignored—and yes, if there was sexual harassment, particularly if it involved unwanted touch, there’s crime involved—so I’ll bow out of this for a bit.
The investigations should be handled privately, but professors who have been determined to be serial harassers don’t deserve that their offenses be hushed up. Just the opposite; their victims deserve to know that the university takes the complaints seriously. Not that Berkeley does appear to take these particular complaints seriously, since Marcy’s punishment was: nothing. Not even a slap on the wrist. Nothing.
A bunch of people keep going on about tenure. I believe it has nothing to do with tenure. He’s a superstar. The article said people were expecting him to get the Nobel Prize this year. The article said his name will be prominent in all the science literature of this time period. Of course, Berkeley doesn’t want to get rid of him.
Could they have handled it better? Of course. Is it a wake-up call? One can only hope.
But there it is. Unfortunate, but not something, frankly, that bothers me that much. He’s a jerk, but I’m really tired, as well, of women always taking on the victim role. Everything destroys them. (He massaged my back, so now I need therapy.) Every woman my age had some d*ckwad put an unwanted move on them. I don’t remember getting therapy. I just shoved them way, or shot them the evil eye, and forgot about it. As @drgoogle said, just don’t take a class with him.
I’m not trying to make light of it, just trying to put it in perspective. Only four women reported him. FOUR. Maybe others felt uncomfortable doing so, but in a way that’s their issue, if they decide to remain silent. There also doesn’t appear to be any repercussions that affected the women moving forward. At least not noted. He’s an uncouth pig. That seems to be the gist.
He certainly won’t do it again. And no Nobel Prize for him.
So now I’ll wait for the blowback… 
It took several years for several women who were raped by Bill Cosby to come forward.
You may be used to men putting moves in you and think women should just deal with it, but when those men control your future ability to work in your field, it is not the same thing as some guy hitting on you at a frat party. There is a power imbalance and an abuse of their position to try to get sex or give themselves a sexual thrill. Slap the guy at the frat party and call campus security and/or the police – you may have some social discomfort with members of the frat. Slap the prof and make the call, and kiss your grad school options goodbye. Hardly comparable, and a reason why these adult men should be held to an equal if not higher standard. They are abusing that position of power that they have earned. Pay 'em in money, award them Nobels, but they have not earned the right to sexually harass women and have their employers and society look the other way.
If there’s crime involved, let the police/courts deal with it (and if they don’t, then that’s because the proof isn’t there). I’ve seen too many instances of mob justice go horribly wrong for me to really be willing to accept that as a reasonable means of dealing with these kinds of problems. I won’t say that it’s not our business, because as a public figure and an instructor it does become our business. However, it’s not our place to decide the punishment, or the extent of guilt.
As an aside, an interesting comment from the article that I wanted to share (on the issue of evidence and things being kept quiet for years):
Edit: Looking at the comments, it seems that it may not have been the first time he got in trouble for sexual misconduct. If that’s true (which I’ll believe when there’s confirmation), then I’d change my opinion and say that the punishment is definitely too lenient and unfair. In general I prefer to lean towards forgiveness for first offenses, but not repeated ones.
@NeoDymium I don’t like public “witch hunts” either, but this does not appear to be one of them. In my view, Marcy was given his chance to “reform” back in 2004 when the student representative to the Berkeley astronomy faculty spoke to him about the numerous complaints from women. He acknowledged the conversation in an e-mail and thanked her. But apparently he really didn’t give a damn.
And while I agree that all the facts in this case have not yet come to the surface, to me the October 12 petition signed by over 20 of his male colleagues speaks volumes. Marcy’s inappropriate behavior was obviously very well recognized in the department, and who would know better than those who worked directly with him? Their knowledge of the situation led them to this conclusion:
That is not a “witch hunt”, that is over 20 people who would have direct knowledge of the situation concluding his behavior was so egregious that he can no longer perform the functions of a faculty member.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/13/science/berkeley-astronomy-faculty-statement.html
I agree that it’s pretty telling that his own department’s faculty is siding against him, and that such a petition does warrant looking into more severe disciplinary action. But it should be based on evidence of actual wrongdoing rather than accusations alone.
UC Berkeley conducted a 6 month investigation and Marcy was found to have violated campus sexual harassment policies between 2001 and 2010. It’s the lack of any meaningful punishment for his digressions that are causing the uproar.
So I’m unclear on the situation… did the young women go to the actual police? Or just the campus services? It seems that if their accusations are true, the actual police and law would do something more. But if it’s only UC Berkeley handling it…
That he violated policies is known, but specific violations matter as well. And unfortunately these things are hard to prove because it’s hard to be caught if you aren’t foolish enough to leave a paper trail.
@albert169 the hearing was a Title lX hearing. The complaints were presumably brought to Berkeley’s Title IX coordinator who then investigated and conducted a hearing. Marcy would have attended that hearing. This is the process mandated by the federal government in cases involving sexual harassment.
Sure he will. He may lay low for a while, but if there’s no real punishment, then he will gradually go back to doing what he wants to do.
I find it interesting that large companies would fire this guy yet in academia he is given a “sternly worded letter”. I am not big on convicting someone without evidence and strong proof but when you have his peers coming out finally stating their concerns…give me a break.
You think companies fire them? Hah. Not very often.