Yeah, I agree that this is probably true. After over a decade knowing someone, you would probably realize if they have some form of major character flaw. But political strength is not in the favor of professors who probably would not be able to win the tenure-track lottery twice unless they are well-known experts in their field (and even then, it would either require a cross-country move or a downgrade from UCB, or both).
It’s said that grudges last for decades in the tenured world - probably because neither party can feasibly leave if things are unpleasant lest they sink their careers.
This is misleading. Apparently, there was a probation type of punishment given, where he waived some process in a future dismissal procedure. Understandably, many people view it as too light a punishment (probably tainted by workplace political considerations), particularly since if there is too much leniency now, there may be too much leniency in a future incident that may fall under the probation terms.
Yes, workplace political influence is likely strongest within the department. Unfortunately, it is probably expected that the result depends less on whether the complaint against the accused is valid than on what the workplace political standing of the accused in the department is.
According to the campus paper, faculty knew of the conduct. Some knew of the investigation. They did NOT know that the investigation was concluded and that the only disciplinary action against Marcy was that he was on a sort of double secret probation.
When the story broke, Marcy posted a public “apology” saying he was unaware that his conduct had been unwelcome by some of the women who had complained. Then, the acting chair of the department called a meeting via an email. In that email, part of which I quoted above. He said nothing about the women who had brought the complaint, but said that, without condoning Marcy’s action, his colleagues should reach out to him because he was suffering. Ironically, the acting chair is the Vice-chancellor for Equity and Inclusion. Following that meeting, 20 faculty members signed a letter demanding additional discipline.
The chair of some major conference also sent Marcy an email asking Marcy not to attend. He was quoted online saying that Marcy’s conduct had major impact on the attempt to attract women to the field. Other than Marcy, he seems to be the biggest name in the exoplanet field and had co-authored several articles with him. Marcy agreed not to attend.
Meanwhile, the NYTimes published an article quite sympathetic to Marcy. The author apparently is a friend of Marcy’s. 250 astronomers sent a letter to the Times demanding the article be withdrawn and a more objective article be written. Marcy’s wife then sent a message to the Times saying essentially that the women made much ado about nothing; her husband just has an especially “warm” manner which they misconstrued.
A change.org petition supporting the women was drawn up. 2,500 astronomers signed. Plus, one of the young recipients of a major prize in the field sent an open letter to all the other young major prize winners in the field, asking them to join him in boycotting the Berkeley department by not interviewing for any jobs or fellowships there. Several other prize winners responded agreeing not to apply.
One of Marcy’s former grad students, a Harvard prof, said Marcy had been harassing women since at least 2007 but that he was afraid to say anything until he got tenure in 2013.
Ironically, if Marcy had been subjected to SOME punishment and had written a more sincere apology, he probably would still have a job.
After over a decade, maybe sure—but it might well take longer than you’d expect. I was a tenure-track faculty member a while back in a large department where there were a couple politically-powerful men with really, really bad behavior, and I’ll note that it took years before I knew about it—first of all, I’m male and their behavior was directed toward women in the department (and they apparently acted that way in one-on-one situations, and so not in front of me), and second of all, it took years before any of the female faculty who were subjected to such unwanted attentions* trusted me enough to even hint that there were problems with certain individuals in the department.** (Or maybe I was just socially blind, but I like to think I’m a bit more aware than that.)
And I was told (but not until I was leaving for another institution!) that their attentions went to students, as well—but I never had a student hint anything like that to me.
So some people at a university (Marcy’s, mine, other people’s) may certainly know about individual bad actors, but it being widespread knowledge, even within an academic department? Maybe not.
Never physical, and always with plausible deniability, according to what women in the department told me. Some people are properly slimy, particularly if they have intelligence to go along with it, you know?
** I’ve wondered since if some sort of heads-up warning would have happened earlier if, say, there’d been moves to pair me with one of them in a mentor-mentee relationship (which were pretty tightly codified in that college). No way to tell, though, since that didn’t happen.
Dfbdfb, are the bad actors still around behaving badly at your former school? What do you think other faculty members could/should do about them? If you’d stayed, what avenues would have been available to you to protect students and junior faculty from the predators?
The university’s statement referred to a three year statute of limitations for punishing bad behavior by tenured professors. On the one hand, three years is a long time and it could be difficult to get accurate recollections of a three year old event.
But on the other hand, imagine a young freshman taking Marcy’s seminar. She’s fascinated by exoplanets and wants to make astronomy her life’s work, and she knows Berkeley is one of the best places in the world for that. Plus, she’s from Fresno and there’s no money to send her to a different school. But Marcy hits on her. It’s going to be over three years before she can graduate and be able to safely lodge a complaint, free from retaliation.
The statute of limitations protects bad actors who are powerful.
171: The two I knew about, one finally got confronted about it and (at least according to people I still know there) has shaped up, and Google tells me that the other appears to have left academia entirely.
What should have been done? Good question. At the time, there really wasn’t much of anything to do, except maybe help pass the word (quietly, since I was still junior faculty, too)—there wasn’t even a venue for anonymous reporting, if I recall correctly. Now, though, complaints to the compliance office would probably be taken seriously. (It’s amazing the difference a decade makes, you know?)
(Edited to make it clearer what I was responding to.)
The statute of limitations (3 years) had definitely passed for some of the acts Marcy was accused of. One was 8 years old, by a person who went into another field. One was 4 or 5 years old. (It happened in 2010.) Several reports said the 2010 event sparked the investigation…though it took a long time to percolate. It happened at a dinner during the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society. There were lots of witnesses, some from Cal and some from other schools. Apparently, according to the articles, Marcy’s behavior escalated during the dinner and became increasingly embarrassing not only for the victim but for the others in attendance.
Reading a bit between the lines…this is the incident that Marcy just couldn’t deny. It was unlikely that ALL of the witnesses would be unwilling to admit what they saw. And, once you’ve behaved that way in front of other people, it becomes easier for them to believe reports of other incidents when only the victim was present.
The comments section on this is enlightening and makes is evident that there is a party at these events, with lots of booze and dancing. Sure sounds like a great way to cause problems.
The policies in question are linked to in reply #165, if you want to read them in their gory detail.
The three year limitation may be to keep long term grudges (as mentioned in reply #160) out of more current disputes. But since that time is shorter than the time frame between hiring and a tenure decision, or entrance of a graduate or undergraduate student and graduation, it also protects a wrongdoer who does something early in the stay of not-yet-tenured faculty member or student (i.e. someone who may, due to workplace political power relationships, may not be in a position to complain until after the major decisions that affect his/her career have been made). Better would be a time frame slightly longer than the usual time to between hiring and tenure decision or student entrance and graduation, so that a victim has a chance to complain after s/he is less subject to political pressure relating to those events.
Of course, since the policies were presumably written by tenured faculty, it is not surprising if they require rather high standards (in terms of process, proof, etc.) to “convict” those accused of wrongdoing.
There was almost certainly a real punishment but it’s really not our job as a community to know the details.
That non-apology was quite cringeworthy though. A sincere apology with some mandatory service requirement would probably be more fair for a “lenient” punishment.
I’ve seen minority/female/both professors get away with pretty egregious violations of proper conduct. This is an issue of power imbalance rather than race or gender.
One thing I don’t get, is that there is a petition going around Change that says “Don’t force survivors of (campus) sexual assault to go to the police”.
How can we argue about “what is right” when we are called victim blamers if we request that victims report the crime to the police in a timely manner?
We are not talking about victims who were not adult at the time of the harassment, are we?
First reason, among many: The police in many jurisdictions have a history of not treating claims of sexual harassment or assault without firm evidence as not worthy of their time. (And, in some cases, sexual harassment may not be a criminal matter but rather a civil one, making going to the police the wrong path, anyway.)
Yes, and moreover even if firm evidence does exist, the police in some places won’t go get it if the accused knows her alleged attacker. They discount any and all accusations of acquaintance rape.
But the case we’ve been discussing isn’t a criminal matter anyway, as dfbdfb points out. The accusers might have a remedy in civil court, if they choose to pursue it.