UCC Punishes Academic for Showing Research Paper to Colleague
By Bock May 17th, 2010 | | Category: sexuality
If I told you that fruit-bats have oral sex, would you be offended?
I don’t know.
Would I care if you were offended?
I would not.
However doing this very thing has cost Dr Dylan Evans his good name, his promotional prospects and his dignity.
Evans is a behavioural science lecturer in the School of Medicine, University College Cork. His particular specialisation is evolutionary psychology.
In the course of his research, when he received this peer-reviewed article about fellatio in fruit-bats, he was intrigued. The article was covered widely in the press because this was the first time such behaviour had been observed in animals other than humans, and therefore, the indication was that it must provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.
Evans showed the article to a dozen colleagues, including one woman who held a similar lecturing position in the college. The woman subsequently asked him for a copy of the article, which he provided.
The article was directly relevant to their academic relationship because they had been debating whether certain behaviours were unique to humans or not.
Two weeks later, the HR department informed him that his female colleague had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against him for showing her the article. She was offended — very offended — but she didn’t say this to Dylan Evans. Instead, she chose to take the official route.
An inquiry took place, which determined that Dylan Evans’s previous behaviour towards his colleague showed no sign of sexual harassment, and it concluded furthermore that he had not intended to cause offence by sharing the details of the research.
There is considerable conflict of evidence in relation to interactions between the parties. Dr Evans has produced email evidence that casts serious doubts on some of the evidence of Dr Blank.
We find on the balance of evidence that Dr Evans did not ever intend to cause offence to Dr Blank. He was not aware that he may be causing offence by visiting her office and Dr Blank admits she was not sufficiently assertive at making clear her displeasure his visits to her office or other behaviour. We cannot therefore find that any of the actions of Dr Evans up to 2 November 2009 constituted sexual harassment and do not therefore uphold those complaints.
Despite this finding, inquiry stated that although Evans didn’t intend to cause offence, the complaint was upheld.
However, on the 2 November 2009 it is a fact that Dr Evans showed Dr Blank an academic article which Dr Blank claims was inappropriate and offensive and which made her feel hurt and disgusted. Dr Evans was emphatic in saying that Dr Blank showed no such signs and on the contrary was amused by it and requested a copy. The questions for us is whether Dr Evans’ action can reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating to Dr Blank. We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for Dr Blank to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone. We therefore find that the complaint on this action is upheld though it was not Dr Evans’ intention to cause offence.
So, Evans was found guilty, at worst, of telling a dirty joke, something that nobody has ever done, anywhere, ever in the history of humanity. I know people, both men and women, who would have been fired a hundred times over if they worked in UCC.
Because he was found guilty of making a joke, without intending to cause offence, the university then ordered Evans to undergo two years of counselling and close monitoring. His application to be made a permanent member of staff has been denied as a consequence and a record of sexual harassment will be placed on his file.
Why?
Because the female colleague was offended. According to the investigation report, she found the academic article inappropriate and offensive, and felt hurt and disgusted.
How offended?
As offended as she decided to be. Evan’s guilt depended entirely on how touchy this woman was, and you can form your own conclusions from the fact that a lecturer in a university department of medicine found an article on the biology of an animal hurtful and disgusting. In my opinion, anyone that squeamish isn’t fit to be there in the first place.
It seems that Evans’s article triggered some sort of unresolved sexual conflicts in this woman and these conflicts became everyone else’s problem.
Mostly they became a problem for Dylan Evans.
It appears that the whole thing may be based on religion. The woman seems to be a fundamentalist Catholic who objects to the teaching of evolution in the psychology courses, while Evans is a cheerful atheist.
Obviously he presented the complainant with an open goal by showing her this article. She saw her chance to retaliate and the subsequent inquiry findings ruined his career.
Christians 1 Atheists NIL
Ironically, given their debate about behaviours, it seems to be a uniquely human thing to hold our colleagues to ransom for fear they might step over some secret unmarked line, which nobody defines, and offend against our private craziness.
The thing that determined Dr Evans’s guilt was not whether he intended to cause offence. The determining factor was how touchy his colleague was, and it seems to me that this woman is as crazy as a fruit-bat, and a bully as well.
It seems to me that this is emotional manipulation and childishness of the worst sort on the part of the complainant. At the same time, it looks like abject cowardice on the part of the university’s president, who didn’t have the balls to stand up and call the charge what it is: horseshit.
Here’s a case where a person made a complaint which was found to be without basis, and yet managed to inflict harm on a colleague by throwing a temper tantrum and playing the gender card. The more offended this woman decided to be, the worse Dylan Evans’s fate.
Now the university has arrived at a situation where an academic is unable to refer research to a colleague in case that colleague turns out to be a quivering time-bomb of unresolved hang-ups and decides to be very very offended indeed.
Anyway, even if he had tried his damnedest to cause offence, so what?
Here’s a question for you: what exactly is wrong with offending people? The world is full of nutcases just lining up to be offended by the slightest little thing. Should they all be listened to — every last lunatic one of them, or are some people more entitled to be offended than others?
What the university has done offends me. Where can I lodge an official complaint?
If UCC proceeds with this, it doesn’t deserve the right to call itself a university.
___________
Papers.
Here is the complaint lodged by Dr Blank.
It makes a number of allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Evans prior to the 2nd November 2009. The investigation report stated as follows:
We cannot therefore find that any of the actions of Dr Evans up to 2 November 2009 constituted sexual harassment and do not therefore uphold those complaints.
This is important in the context iof the final paragraph in Dr Blank’s letter, where the accusation of harassment occurs.
In that paragraph, the complainant says:
I want reassurance that action will be taken in the School so that harassment of this type does not recur.
The question is harassment of what type? The investigation dismissed Dr Blank’s complaints about alleged harassment up to 2nd November, and found that the fruit-bat incident did not constitute harassment.
Therefore, since nothing else was complained about, Evans has no case to answer.
________________________
Here’s an extract from the Universities Act 1997. It appears to me that the university may have committed an offence.
14 (2) A member of the academic staff of a university shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the university, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions and shall not be disadvantaged, or subject to less favourable treatment by the university, for the exercise of that freedom.
___________
Elsewhere: Huffington Post
Geary Behavioural Economics Blog
Was there any mention of the UCC President [deleted]? I’m just wondering how an apparently highly educated and sensible person can do this to Evans in light of the findings of the court. There has got to be somewhere [deleted].
How else is this even remotely possible.
p.s. On-Line Petition link is bust.
Defamatory comments deleted.
Please. Give me a break, will you?
sounds like the complainant was one of these under-utilised and unfulfilled persons with too much time available and envious of anybody trying to produce original thoughts and rational arguments.
“If I told you that fruit-bats have oral sex, would you be offended?” I’m very fucking offended.. the fruit bats are getting it and I’m not.. Not fair!
Ridiculous horseshit is right.. I mean it’s not like he said to her ‘lets do it like the fruit bats baby’, is it? Even so, I’m regularly asked for fellatio in work by some male colleagues.. all in jest of course – I think :)
On a side note: RE:
‘The article was covered widely in the press because this was the first time such behaviour had been observed in animals other than humans, and therefore, the indication was that it must provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.’ Would it be an evolutionary advantage to be happy as a pig in shite.. :) Maybe they just like it… happy fruit bats are healthy fruit bats and all that..
It`s just another case of society taking things too far, and as for him being found not guilty and then still being punished???? He should sue them. WTF?
Complainant most probably has deep rooted psychological issues about fellatio, with possible, inferiority performance anxiety complex. Why would she ask to see the article discussed, and then make a complaint? If she holds a position as researcher she should resign, as she clearly has no clinical platform for objective thought processes and analysis. If Evans was in a pub and spoke about fellatio in a manner intimating he desired her to perform said fellatio on himself or fruit bats, or other lewd remarks, then of course it would be inappropriate. If he intimated anything other than clinical research, in an office environment then of course he should be punished.
But he was found not guilty and still has this on his record, with other punishments? I am trying to work this one out but it escapes me…..
It appears from the complainants actions that she has other unresolved issues, and wishes to vent her frustration and anger at the man, or possibly men in general. She may have been kicked into touch recently and want revenge by punishing the male species. Who knows?
From a research viewpoint I would be most interested in finding out why fruit bats perform oral sex. Maybe they are dehydrated and that is a convenient method to re-hydrate? Any ideas anyone??
Will the bra burners be on to defend the matriarchy which looms large over all aspects of Irish life? Dylan Evans should appeal this as far as is necessary / possible, this is sexual discrimination. Perhaps he could claim to be very upset by the University’s findings
Is there any wonder that there are misogynists among us.
Just thought about the ‘two years of counselling and close monitoring’..
Therapist: ‘Repeat after me : Thou must not talk about fruit bats with crazy fruit bats..
Close monitoring.. what would that entail I wonder? Escort him everywhere? Check in on him at night to make sure he’s not performing any self indulging mortal sins on himself.. fricken Country.
Down and out..
Just wondering what kind of punishment would you suggest .. where you say
“If he intimated anything other than clinical research, in an office environment then of course he should be punished.” Just lookin for ideas.
“Inferiority performance anxiety complex.” That sounds facinating.. Is that like you’re useless in the sack maybe?
“Maybe they are dehydrated and that is a convenient method to re-hydrate? Any ideas anyone??” Probably just bonding with each other.. like a kind of kinky grooming.
Found this article – http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lecturer-fights-sanctions-after-showing-colleague-batsex-article-2182555.html
“The article about how fruit bats prolong copulation via oral sex was published last year”. They do it for fun. There is no evolutionary reason to prolong copulation except for fun!! Get over it feminazi’s.
an interesting thought experiment: swap he and she in the text. Would we make the same arguments?
Down with that sort of thing! Careful now (P.S) think I am a fruit bat
I just say my dog licking his dick is this unusual? I nearly broke my back trying to see how he does it.
I must write a paper on it as I’m really offended…Do I need to remove or add discs to my back?
She’s going to come out the worst for it, whether that is right or wrong. She should have told him to get lost and that would have been the end of it.
King’s Bard.. This will be your paper..
Title.. Why does a dog lick his balls?
Answer: Because he can.
Finding: Dogs display potential human characteristics.. in that if we could, we too would.
Ellie — I don’t think telling him to get lost was on this lady’s agenda.
now it’s really confusing. Is he actually a she and herself himself. Or are we talking about the fruit bats?
I wonder what exactly was on her agenda. Most worrying is how exactly Dr. Murphy came to the conclusion that Dr. Evan was investigated for two complaints of sexual harassment instead of one and that the second one was upheld. The complaint that was not and could not be classed as sexual harassment. I’m glad Dr. Evan put the documents into the public domain. It’s all very fishy.
Another take on it here:
http://demurelemur.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/stop-creepos-setting-up-petitions-against-laws-that-protect-women-in-the-workplace/
I don’t know the whole story, so I won’t pass judgement, but it seems to me the situation is a strange one. I don’t like the manner in which people are attacking this woman though, without knowing the whole story. Surely the head of medicine wouldn’t have recommended counselling if there was no reason for it?
You saw the decision of the inquiry board.
He was punished because the complainant felt offended.
None of us has any control over the way someone else feels. That’s their private business and we shouldn’t be punished for it.
I also have problems with the investigating committee describing the article as ‘smutty’. Fools.
I must have missed that.
Are you saying that the investigating committee applied this judgement to a scientific paper?
“None of us has any control over the way someone else feels. That’s their private business and we shouldn’t be punished for it”
I don’t know if I agree with this; in a case where somebody is grossly and deliberately offensive, or where they are breaking workplace/academic guidelines, then I think they should be censured. Being abusive and then defending those actions with the statement: “how you feel is your problem, not mine. I’ve nothing to answer for” wouldn’t be acceptable in my book.
That’s all theoretical by the way, I’m not saying it applies to this case, just taking issue with that comment.
Getting back on topic, if this woman was upset on religious grounds, then I would have no time for it, especially as the field involved is medicine.
Peple can be as upset as they want. Do you think there are some things we should prohibit so that people wouldn’t feel upset? Is it a matter for law?
Yes, I do think there are some things we should prohibit so people wouldn’t feel upset. Sexual harassment, for instance. Bullying. Racism. Although in these cases, I don’t feel comfortable describing it merely as “upset”. “Undermined” perhaps, or “attacked”.
I’m not talking about slagging, or being perceived by somebody else as insensitive. I’m talking about deliberate attempts to hurt, or undermine. In a professional environment or otherwise, these type of actions should be censured.
Would you make it illegal for Salman Rushdie to write the Satanic Verses in case Muslims might feel upset?
No I wouldn’t. Not at all. I said in a previous comment that if somebody was upset on religious grounds, then their complaint had no merit. You’re not directly answering my comments by the way, so much as asking more questions. Would you make sexual harassment legal? How about bullying?
I think that criticising somebody’s faith/belief system can be separated from harassing somebody based on gender, sexuality, or skin colour.
Believing in angels is your choice, and that choice should not be above criticism, or ridicule. However, you do not choose your ethnicity, or your sexuality, and a person shouldn’t be able to deliberately undermine you on those grounds without being pulled up on it.
What kind of offence would you permit?
I have no idea if you agree with anything I say, because you’re not addressing my comments at all. Largely ignoring my points and asking question after question, without giving an answer back, is a pathetic form of debate. Could you answer mine at all? Would you make sexual harassment legal? Or bullying?
I think deciding what type of offence is permissible, and what is not, is something that is decided by society as a whole. Furthermore, these type of things evolve. For instance, it’s not that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. That which is acceptable to society is always changing. So I think it’s a difficult one to answer.
On my part, I would censure any abuse which is based on ethnicity, sexuality, gender, age etc. In other words, those aspects of ourselve that we have no control over. I’ve probably missed something there, but everything else then is fair game for criticism/ridicule. For instance, somebody’s behaviour, work performance, religious beliefs, the team they support etc.
Any chance of an answer this time?
Conor — Your questions are so loaded with assumptions that I can’t answer them easily.
I certainly wouldn’t condone harassment of any sort, whether sexual or otherwise. And neither would I condone bullying.
However, I think that cases like this devalue the concept of harassment and bullying. I think this particular instance is ludicrous and does a disservice to people who are genuinely abused.
Conor, while I agree with your sentiment I think the issue is how is offence defined. What is the criteria for legitimate harassment?
I think there is an over sensitization in society to take the approach of offence to innocent or sometimes even not so innocent remarks when offence is not the intent. I think intension is the key.
In the last few comments I wasn’t actually discussing this case, it was more of a general debate. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. Apologies.
Could you point out where my assumptions prevent my comments from being pertinent? I have to admit, I don’t see how they are “loaded with assumption” either.
If you wouldn’t condone harassment of any sort, or bullying, as I have been arguing, then why would you oppose censuring somebody for that kind of behaviour?
Read the judgement. The inquiry found that Evans did not intend to offend anyone. However, they decided that because the woman was subjectively offended, they would uphold the complaint.
This puts control in the hands of anyone who wants to make a complaint, legitimate or otherwise.
Neither you not I have the slightest influence over how offended another person decides to feel.
FME, I agree with you there. I said in previous comments that being perceived as insensitive by somebody is not enough to consitute harassment; there must be a deliberate attempt to undermine.
When it comes to deciding what it abuse, and what isn’t, I also said that society seems to adapt certain standards, which most of us adhere to. For instance, most of us oppose racism and homophobia, whereas those (for instance) who argue that snails deserve the same treatment as humans would lie in a minority, and their claims would be ignored.
I had a nice looking pear on my lunch tray recently. Whilst having lunch with the boys one of them said, nice pear you got there.. I was subjectively delighted. :) Someone else could subjectively feel sexually harassed..
Maybe I should have put in a complaint.. He said I had a nice pear.. whaaaa.
In the link provided by Conor @17 it states that she was particularly upset by been shown the fruit bat article ” while she was alone in her office ” Would she have been less ” offended ” had she had company or was in a public place ?
Did her ” fundamentalist Christian ” beliefs make her uncomfortable being alone in a room with a male ? that and the revelation of fruit bats having some extra curricular ? That degree of sensitivity cant be countenanced by a University, can it ?
Sometimes you just dont know that someone is taking offence, I remember once referring to an elderly farmer, for some reason, cant recall , but i used the word “guy ” instead of man or farmer or whatever, He went totally ballistic, I subsequently discovered that in his head a ” guy ” was a beggar, he was extremly offended, I had never heard of that and did’nt intend any offense, but he hated me forever more regardless.
In this case though UCC are remaining very quite on the detail which seems very wrong, the attatchment of ” sexual harrassment ” could damage this mans career forever and if its not the case he needs to be exhonorated by UCC.
According to Evans, there was another person present, and this person was not contacted by the inquiry.
I think I’ll sue Superquinn for having Chopped Swede in their freezer. Racists!
Bastards. How did that make you feel?
There is a very big difference between ” harrassment ” and being ” offended ” but being ” subjectively offended ” !
I think i have been ” subjectively offended ” by the bank !
Bock – I agree with post 31.
Where we are disagreeing (at least from my end of it) is that you don’t believe harassment should be censured. I’m phrasing that badly – you don’t agree with how I classify harassment, or what we would punish for being unacceptable, and what we would allow. At least that’s what I was getting from you at the beginning of our debate (to paraphrase – “People can be upset as they want, we shouldn’t be punished for it”). Later you said you don’t condone what we both regard as legitimate harassment i.e. sexual harassment, bullying etc.
Where we diagree then is how harassment is defined?
I said that deliberately undermining somebody on grounds outside their control is harassment, and should be censured. Anything else is fair game. I think I answered your questions re Rushdie or what I would permit.
Ah listen, I’m too tired now, and I’m not doing justice to my argument, or even making sense. Ignore this comment, I’ll try to make sense another time.
Many things offend me.
Where can I lodge a complaint?
Conor — I don’t support oppression either, but I sure as hell detest bullshit, and that’s what this case looks like to me.
Sexual harassment at the workplace has become one of the sins of the new civilization ushered in by the sexual and secular revolution that started around the 1960s. A male colleague who cheerily asks of a Monday morning: “Did you bag a guy’s jocks over the weekend, Maggie?” is inviting a trip to the civil courts. Stolen kisses in corridors have become expensive jocks too, whereas in the good old days of starchy manners and righteous indignation an unpremeditated slap on the puss was the only outcome.
I think the PC culture has ratcheted up the concept of male-against-female offensiveness. Maybe the female academic was offended because she saw no connection between the physical habits of fruit bats and human sexuality. Maybe what the bats get up to is “vulgar” when taken out of the context of the science laboratory. Yes, my opinion in this strange case is that the offended woman was shocked by the surreal context.
Can the habits of fruit bats, bored dogs or South Pacific crabs tell us much about human nature and social behaviour anyway?
The woman is a professional lecturer in the faculty of medicine. The article is about the biology of bats and is published in a scientific magazine.
Hence, we have a professional in a medical faculty who finds a scientific biology article disgusting.
In my opinion, that’s a woman with one serious problem.
What I don’t get in all of this is.. I thought bats were blind.. How do they find each others nether regions to perform these disgusting acts on eachother. I suppose where there’s a will there’s a way.
FME Fruit bats have daylight vision, also moonlight vision, no fumbling in the nether regions, maybe they are even romantic !
haha Norma.. maybe the offended lecturer could learn a thing or two from fruit bats. The auld bat.
I wonder what she’d think of this article.. seems a lot of animals are up to all kinds of “disgusting”, “inappropriate” acts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html
Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let’s do it, let’s fall in love
I’d just like to stress that it was 2 weeks later this crazy bat decided she was offended and went to the HR dept. which took it from there and started this fiasco. That there is what I don’t like about this situation.
Bock mentioned in post 31: This puts control in the hands of anyone who wants to make a complaint, legitimate or otherwise.
From the link below:
The “unwanted conduct” includes spoken words, gestures or the production and display of written words, pictures and other material. This includes offensive gestures or facial expressions, unwelcome and offensive calendars, screen-savers, e-mails and any other offensive material.
from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/equality-in-work/harassment_at_work
Note the first paragraph under How to apply, this clearly did not happen here, the women went direct to H.R. to lodge a complaint after requesting a copy for herself of a published article.
This is also the problem, you are automatically guilty if some one claims he/she doesn’t like what you said or offended by the content of what you present. Guilty straight away. A completely stupid rule and typical of Ireland to rush in such a rule which has the potential to destroy lives and careers just by mentioning you found offence by someone even for pure vindictive reasons. No matter what it is. Although found innocent of the charges, Dr. Evans is still being punished.
Same analogue: you are charged with the murder of someone where it has been verified death was from natural cause’s and cleared of the crime but still sentenced to time in prison… That in effect is what happened as the proverbial murdered victim is still dead.
The fact the “victim” has not made clear or public to what grounds she found offence is also worrying.The whole thing is simply ridiculous and Dr. Murphy and the “victim” should offer an apology immediately instead of putting Dr. Evans the real victim under monitoring for 2 years which in itself is an absurd and ludicrous action. I would like to see Dr. Evans fully compensated for the disparaging actions brought on him by UCC and have his record cleared not to jeopardise his future candidacy of tenure. This sort of thing should not be expectable and not allowed to happen to others, the law needs to be made clearer and less open for abuse by future similar cases.
Rant complete.
re #43 Bock. Not disputing that the article on the biology of bats is scientific and that the woman to whom a copy was shown works in the medical faculty. Her field of research seems to be nutrition and not connected to the biology of fruit bats. Unless the scientific article suggests a relation between the nutritional habits of fruit bats and their sexual habits I see no relevance of the article to the offended woman’s research interests. As I said above, the context of the scientific article may have been seen as surreal and shocked her. He handed her an irrelevant article.
She also says in her letter of complaint, that November 2 was “not the first time Dr Evans has raised sexual subjects with me” and on that day she felt his behaviour was “inappropriate and offensive”.
So… he has form, has he? did things like this before…
There seems to be more to this than meets the eye.
She, (in my humble opinion), a very good looking lady , and he her co-worker,
What was he thinking?
Sorry for dropping out before. The smut comment was not in the investigators finding but Dr. Evans states it in his letter to Dr. Murphy, along with the fact that the other person in the office was not even contacted;
It is also very strange that the complainant did not seek to resolve the matter informally in any way. She is also involved in cognitive disorders Benno, could very well be an interest in behavioural studies.
The investigators found that not one of the two complaints were his ‘fault’, how was he to know that article would affend his colleague. So why the punishment?
The link to demurlemur’s blog provided a most enlightening take on this matter. It helps to know a bit more detail.
As for the unfairness aspect of the law, nothing will be done about that.
Bulling, harassment and sexual harassment in the work place legislation comes from the Equality Act 1998. It is the only piece of legislation which informs an employer to take seriously the complaint and to follow a very specific procedure which is clearly written in to the Act. An employer is to assume first that the complaint is legitimate and must deal with it accordingly. It has a very specific procedural lay out. I suspect that UCC are crossing their Ts and dotting their Is simply because of the wording of the Act.
It’s the law.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/equality-in-work/harassment_at_work
The complaint regarding sexual harassment was not upheld, the other complaint I think, was the lady in question being offended by Dr. Evans which was upheld but the investigators noted that was not Dr. Evan’s intention to offend her.
Dr. Murphy seems to think the two complaints were sexual harassment and that one of them was up held. The punishment was the two years observation and therapy. This is on record. Dr. Evan’s, in Dr. Murphys view, in the universities view, was found guilty of sexual harassment and has been given the relevant punishment dictated by the rules of the college. Except that was not the investigators finding, it seems to be Dr. Murphys interpretation of the finding which is very odd.
Benno — You ask if the habits of fruit bats, tell us much about human nature and social behaviour anyway?
I don’t believe anyone suggested they did.
The point was that the article proved this activity was not unique to humans, and therefore had some sort of evolutionary significance.
Are you doubting the legitimacy of the original scientific paper?
Benno, You display utter closed-mindedness! Discussion between cross disciplines is exactly what you want at a good university. At face value Dr. X dose not seem to me to be an adult woman. More probably the whole thing is a hatchet job.
Bock,
Shocked & appalled that you’ve fallen for all this. Can I just BEG you to dig a little deeper? It’s mortifying to see you out here with your ‘down with bullshit’..Fucking hell. This case has as much to do with academic freedom and political correctness as my left testicle.
Some sounds of sense. Finally
http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/fruit-bats-and-the-limits-to-academic-freedom/#comments
There’s a lot more surfacing now actually, but I won’t paste a ream of links. Go look yourself! Doggedly sticking to your line in utter subjectivity is becoming increasingly uncomfortable to watch.
You can be as shocked and appalled as you like. It seems to be all the rage when somebody mentions fruit-bats.
The fact is that the investigating committee stated as follows:
That’s fairly clear, isn’t it?
In the second paragraph of their judgement, they said that what happened was a joke with sexual innuendo, but that Evans did not intend to cause offence.
They also say that email evidence casts serious doubt on the complainant’s evidence.
How much deeper would you like me to dig? Perhaps we should just stick with the old nudge-nudge wink-wink school of condemnation?
If that’s where you’re happy to leave it in terms of actually digging deeper, not looking at one isolated piece of text, then you are indeed risking your own ‘good name’ too.
I’ll talk to you in a few weeks or so, see what your opinion is then.
Looking forward to it.
I imagine the investigating committee were in a better position to dig deep than the rest of us. Are you saying they missed something vital?
As I understand the story Dr. Evans and Dr. Blank were having an informal academic discussion. The article gave “checkmate” to Dr.Evans . On mature reflection Dr Blank it seems decided to destroy his career and life . U.C.C. being a good Politically Correct institution decided to agree.
As always open to correction.
“cognitive disorders”, irate chemist, relate to human beings i.e. people with thinking ability not found in fruit bats. (They hang upside down in their caves and don’t have the concepts of dignity and emotional sensitivity pertaining to humans.) So an article on fruit bats, no matter how scientific, is worthless to the offended woman’s research interests. For the same reason, Bock, the cross-disciplinary ideal of academic life that you espouse does not apply in this case. Nothing in that scientific article is going to help her in her researches into cognitive disorders in human beings or the understanding of human nutrition. A scientific study of chimpanzee bowel movements would be just as relevant to the lady medical scientist’s research fields. She doesn’t need to know about chimpanzee bowel movements and she doesn’t need to know about the sex habits of fruit bats. And neither do any posters on this thread.
Are you telling me what I need to know?
Yes, you don’t need to know about the sex habits of fruit bats. There are other important things you need to know about life in general, such as when do the banks and pubs open and close, and…whatever.
I’ll ask you in future before I decide to find anything out.
Sounds like we’d know nothing of the ordeal if Dr Evans had kept his mouth shut. Now it’s impossible to open a web page without being drawn into the squabble. For what it’s worth I think the original report was correct. There was no offence indented but there was offence taken. If some guy at work was discussing oral sex among animals and Casanova’s sex life with my wife I’m not sure I’d be delighted. So the College President decided to keep an eye on the big mouth. Big deal. Nobody would be any the wiser if he kept his mouth shut.
Supposing your wife was an academic and the article about animal sex related directly to a debate she was having regarding evolution? Would you still be annoyed?
I think the report stated. “We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for Dr. ******** to be offended” It also staed “Having considered the complaint we find that the complaint as made by Dr ********* falls within the definition of sexual harassment in the University’s Duty of Respect”. So he wasn’t furthering education but taking the mick.
Benno, so fruit bats do not make decisions of their own? Are they robots? Even so, cognitive science is a highly interdisciplinary field that includes the study of AI. In fact cognitive science is a category of behavioural science.
WCFI — They found that the complaint falls within the definition of sexual harassment, not Evans’s actions.
Bock I’m confused.. (regular occurence I know).
So there isn’t an objective finding that his actions were harassment but rather that the woman in question took offence.. that’s silly. He either sexually harassed her or he didn’t. People get offended by things all the time, you can’t be held responsible just because someone took offence. I mean where would you be if that was the case? :)
In fact Dr. Murphy claims in his letter that Dr.X subjective offence constitutes sexual harassment, to some effect, I think.
Quote from report:
Wouldn’t you love working with these people?
Hurt and disgusted from reading an academic article.. christ the woman needs to get out more.. no on seconds thoughts, she needs to get laid.. badly.
She must feel hurt and disgusted everytime she turns on her telly for crying out loud.
Irate chemist #68, I don’t think bats are robots. They are nonrational instinctive and nonsentient flying rodents, if the German word Fledermaus helps us classify them. Animals, birds, rodents, fish and caterpillars are born with inbuilt genetic codes which govern their instinctual behaviour. Their behaviour is not similar to human behaviour based on thinking about right and wrong. Applying behavioural science equally to animals, reptiles and the rest. and to humans, is like saying that a woman doesn’t need a man because a fish doesn’t need a bicycle. [I'm reversing the 1960s feminist slogan that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.]
If you think human behaviour isn’t governed by inbuilt genetic codes, you’d need to look around you.
Benno, bats are not even remotely related to rodents. Bats are in grouped in the same order as primates. I don’t think they are nonsentient, the paper Dr. Evans was wishing to discuss provides evidence that they are, interpreting oral sex as pleasure? The method of hunting they have developed, using SONAR, is fascinating and I believe it is indicative of an intelligent species, like a dolphin.
It is just as well for Dr. Evans that he did not introduce Dr. Blank to the Bonobo or pygmy chimp. She would really appreciate them. Humans share 98% genes with them but they seem to have more fun.
I see the naming and shaming has begun in a paper today
If this gets you fired up, you might like to revisit that case from a couple of years ago where a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book in public. A book that was anti-KKK and could be found in the university’s own library. Once again, the ‘victim’ was too dumb to read the full title or find out the facts.
There might be some hope for Evans as this case was finally overturned.
::
Ridiculous Darwin.. suppose it gave that woman in the affirmative action office (Marguerite Watkins) something to do for a while. Seems incredulous that even the sight of the letters KKK to a black woman would be offensive. What if it was a book on slavery?
I recently saw a homeless black man in central park, N.Y holding up a sign that read, ‘Niggers killed my wife, I need funds to hire the KKK to hunt them down’. A couple of black people were standing around him laughing.
I laughed in secret..took his photo and gave him a dollar. It’d be racist for me to laugh out loud I suppose.
Oh what a surprise to find Bock speaking out against a woman making a sexual harassment complaint. Not.
Why don’t you lodge a harassment complaint against me?
Or alternatively, you could address what I actually said, but that isn’t the feminist way, is it?
Demure Lemur. I have read the link you provided for letter of complaint and the response to same.
The only conclusion that I as a woman can draw is that the man in question is open friendly and very interested in the subject matter he lectures in,
The complainant however seems to have lacked any directness in her unwillingness to respond to the sharing of information or the socialising which took place between colleagues, She could surely have dispensed with any approach or invites to dinner or parties by just being straightforward.
If she did not wish to be greeted by a commonplace display such as a hug or being kissed on the cheek, then why was she not direct about that.
It would appear to me, again as a woman that to claim harrasment out of very commonplace occurances is not only extreme but contains a large degree of subterfuge.
It is insulting to women in this day and age to make this a gender issue, The responsibility of personal bounderies falls to the individual to exert them, If a woman does not want to be spoken to or greeted in a tactile manner it is hardly unacceptable for a woman to vocalise her own bounderies, if the woman in question had done that and those bounderies were then breached that might be a different matter.
Nice close shot of your lips Demure Lemure.. nice colour too.
Always the women who are the most sexually overt who are then offended by sexual innuendo/jokes etc.
Spot on Norma! No Adult should have a problem with setting personal boundaries with others. Many years ago while talking to a colleague at the office in NYC she said to me, “you are standing in my personal space”, I didn’t think I was but I stepped back, why would I not respect her wishes in such a matter?
I found over the years in dealing with sexual harassment cases, at that same NY office, that bad manners were often the problem rather than naked lasciviousness.
I see Kate Holmquist writing in the Irish Times is as big an oppressor of women as I am. I suppose Kate and her editor are honorary men.
Oh, and here’s an other honorary man oppressing women: Antonia Senior.
The sisterhood will not be pleased.
Bock.. I’m convinced journalists are readying your site, especially having just read KATE HOLMQUIST article. I suppose imitation is flattery.
No reputable journalist would be seen dead reading this site..
Ah you’re selling yourself short now Bock.. Kate’s article was after yours. All her points are exactly the same as you put them in your post and from the comments too. I’m convinced. Only difference is, you’re more entertaining.
Does UCC not do common sense?
A typical PC storm in an academic teacup, which serves only to bring the institution into disrepute. As a UCC grad, I am embarassed by this.
There’s a saying about academic rows. The reason they’re so vicious is because the stakes are so low.
[...] may also want to check out: UCC Punishes Academic for Showing Research Paper to Colleague …Obama and The Gays: A Non-Love Story Getting Less Lovely By The …Homosexuality Maybe Linked To Our [...]
It seems there are two issues
1/ What happened in November and the investigation
2/ What Evans did last week on the Web.
1/ Seems like a kerfuffle.
Evans was playing a provocative joke with an online suggestive bat/sex paper, apparently that is his style, as he twittered and article on ogling women s breasts and male life span— nudge, nudge, wink wink say no more– a bit dated, but in the Benny Hill tradition.
Clearly he is twit by current workplace standards.
He should have told HR that it was his fault, a joke gone wrong, I am sorry, will not happen again, I see this class on cultural/gender sensitivity– do you think I should take it?
Like going to traffic school to get out of a ticket– boring– but at least you can flirt with impunity — even with the teachers.
He did not take that route– bad decision!
When Murphy got him on the carpet– he could have apologized and followed a similar route as above or worked with his union to achieve the same result.
He did not take that route– bad decision!
Instead he got self righteous— leading inevitably to—
2/ Nuclear Meltdown
Last week Evans went on the web claiming he had been water boarded by UCC.
He released confidential documents on his Web site and outed the woman complainant— then claimed he was a victim of an international drug company/ UCC conspiracy and defamed UCC, and his students– that is– he went bat -shit crazy on the World Wide Web — for all to see– for ever
Terminally bad decision!
Evans claims to be an expert in decision making?
He is completely out of his mind!!!
He will be lucky if he lands a volunteer post on an all male leper colony island off Tristan da Cunha– if such a thing exists, if not he may as well just donate his organs to science now.
I see he flamed out before after his “Utopia” experiment– but now he has made himself in a terminal pariah
Even worse, he has alienated the whole academic community with his phony petition– Dawkins etc must be really pissed off and those guys have very big egos