Dec 022010
 

Remember all the fuss here?  People making every sort of prejudicial comment possible against Dylan Evans, who offended a fellow lecturer by showing her an academic, if rather ridiculous, article?

Well guess what?  The High Court has overturned the punishment he received from UCC.  Describing the proposed two years of monitoring and counselling and the subsequent decision not make him a permanent lecturer, as “grossly disproportionate, the judge said that Evans should have been admonished.

The judge pointed out that the offending  article  contained nothing or graphic, and that it had won an Ig Nobel prize for being funny.

Translating this into the real world, UCC has been told that it went over the top in an absurd display of PC prudishness, when all it should have done was wag a finger at Evans for being silly.

The lecturer was awarded his costs in court, but UCC, in a display of petty-minded viondictiveness has decided to take disciplinary action against Evans for wahat it calls “breaches of confidentiality”.

If the PC Taliban can’t get you one way, it seems, they’ll get you another.

  313 Responses to “Fruit-Bat Sex Lecturer Wins Case Against Punishment”

Comments (313)
  1.  

    Oh do I remember all the fuss. Common sense wins at last.
    Thanks for the update Bock.

  2.  

    Thanks for that good news, Bock.

    Though it is still very unsatisfactory that Dylan Evans had to incur such great risk and stress in having to taking on the might of UCC in court over what was at worst a trivial offence – though I don’t think there was any offence there at all.

    And he still has to go through the ordeal of a disciplinary procedure over the alleged breach of confidentiality.

    Yes, indeed, as you say, this is how they wear the individual down.

    This whole confidentiality thing seems in many cases to be just another weapon of the bosses to keep subordinates in a constant state of ignorance and fear.

    “As quoted by Westhues (2005) mobbing, like a fungus, thrives in the dark, hidden by rules of confidentiality, anonymity and secrecy”. (Internet article, “Workplace Mobbing Syndrome: The ‘Silent and Unseen’ Occupational Hazard”, Dr Kate Hartiz and Jennene Frisch.)

  3.  

    ‘PC Taliban’-i like it:)
    In other news, the management of UCC have poven themselves to be humourless pricks :P

  4.  

    Lou won’t be happy. It’s not so much that the management of UCC are humourless pricks it’s that they are academics. They have never worked a day in their lives and exist on very healthy salaries in their very own precious cocoon full of luvies and PC enforcers.

  5.  

    Some of those commenters tried to twist the High Court case to make it look as though Evans was on trial accused of something. I got very sick of their spinning and dishonesty, and it convinced me that there’s something very rotten underlying the whole ridiculous episode.

  6.  

    Dylan Evans asked the court a) to quash the finding of sexual harassment; b) to quash the disciplinary sanctions imposed by UCC; and c) to prevent disciplinary proceedings for breach of confidence.

    The court affirmed the finding of sexual harassment, declared the sanctions disproportionate, declared the failure to establish his post as grossly disproportionate and permits UCC to conclude the breach of confidence enquiry – i.e. the court gave him b) and his costs, but confirms him as the only Irish university employee to be found guilty of sexual harassment.

    And the judge explicitly stated that he was found guilty of sexual harassment.

  7.  

    And the judge explicitly stated that he was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    The judge said no such thing. He refused to grant an order overturning an external investigations finding that the incident fell within the definition of sexual harassment under duty of respect and right to dignity policy determined by UCC. Not the same thing, at all.

  8.  

    well I’m not convinced. He sounds like a right creep, and he had previous with her, and now a man has judged that another man acted appropriately and now the men on here pounce on the judgement to sneer at PC gone mad. As a victim of sexual harassment it is so subtle and insidious and bullying that it would not surprise me that this arsehole who after all leaked the whole thing when he got caught/charged (delete according to your prejudice) is guilty. And as an ugly looking sad act, its probably the closest he gonna get to sex. A good kick in the goolies would sort him out.

  9.  

    Fortunately for the rest of us in society, you don’t need to be convinced, shellshock. The court needed to be convinced. It appears that it was.

  10.  

    oh yeah the courts, who really and truly and honestly represent my interests as a working class woman? Forgive my scepticism. Your faith in the judiciary is touchingly naive. No doubt you also believe Sean Fitzpatrick is innocent too given the judiciary all embracing support when he appeared there recently?

  11.  

    Unfortunately, the ruling of the High Court yesterday was only a partial victory for Dr Dylan Evans.

    While the court did quash the sanctions imposed on him following the adverse decision of the external investigation, it did not overturn the decision itself.

    In other words, unbelievably, the decision that he was guilty of sexual harassment in relation to the fruit bat article incident still stands.

    Hence the somewhat smug sounding statement from UCC as reported in The Irish Times:

    “In a statement, UCC said it welcomed the court’s decision to uphold its finding that Dr Evans was guilty of sexual harassment.

    “It said it noted the court’s ruling regarding the sanctions imposed on Dr Evans and its disciplinary proceedings against him in respect of “breaches of confidentiality” would now proceed.”

    There is no word of apology here from UCC for what the judge described as the “grossly disproportionate” sanctions that UCC had imposed on Dr Evans.

    That doesn’t seem to betoken a fair-minded impartial attitude on the part of UCC.

    To my mind it suggests the opposite and it doesn’t augur well for Dr Evans’s treatment in the disciplinary proceedings he now has to face.

  12.  

    Ths is starting to lean towards Maeve and her Patriarchal society conspiracy. I don’t hear to many women complaining about the idea of them paying 5% less income tax, how would that sit with you Shellshock as a working class woman?

  13.  

    Shellshock – Where did you get the idea that it was all men here?

  14.  

    @bock

    interesting question, given that my often bullish comments leads many to assume I am male. I am of the view that the commenters who have posted so far are men, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

    @no8

    your use of Maeve and her Patriarchal society is lost on me. Attempt at sarcasm/sneeriing perhaps? To answer your question I would be opposed to such a ludicrous suggestion made by that bastion of feminism the IMF, and that raving loony feminist chopper whose proposal it was.

  15.  

    You are wrong.

  16.  

    well if you say so. I have no proof, but you evidently do.

  17.  

    Proof? I can only take commenters at their word, and if they say they’re women, why would I disbelieve them?

  18.  

    Shellshock, surely cases such as this should be discussed on their merits and not as opportunities for point-scoring in a gender war.

    Your “kick in the goolies” remark seems to suggest such an attitude of point-scoring on your part.

    As does the penultimate sentence of your comment:

    “And as an ugly looking sad act, its probably the closest he gonna get to sex.”

    I would think if a man said something equivalent to this about a woman, he would be condemned by many feminists as a sexist “objectificator” of women.

    In actual fact, there was a photo of Dylan Evans with his fiancée in yesterday’s Irish Times and she looked very attractive I must say.

  19.  

    I think that sort of comment about a man’s sex life is unwarranted, small–minded and a bit ugly.

  20.  

    well if they have said they are women, then they are women.I have not been around this blog long enough to establish anyones gender. I am therefore surprised at the level of vitriol directed at the vicitm of sexual harassment, who everyone seems to want to ignore had previous with him.

  21.  

    Victim? What a weasel word that is.

    The woman was shown an article, in common with several other colleagues. For God’s sake, is everyone a child these days? The judge said that if Evans contravened the regulations he should have been “admonished”. Admonished. Is that indicative of a predatory bully? Admonished.

    Reading said regulations, a person’s culpability depends on how sensitive their “victim” is. If you happen to come across a demented prude, you can be in real trouble.

    This whole case is a joke, and it illustrates how ridiculous our PC laws are. UCC has just cost the State a fortune in legal fees fighting an indefensible argument.

  22.  

    shellshock

    I have seen no vitriol directed at any victim of sexual harassment on this thread, nor on the original.

    Criticism has, quite rightly, been directed at the highly questionable behaviour of UCC, and their apologists.

  23.  

    Doubting the high courts decision on the grounds that they are men, would imply that all men are villains.
    Doubting Bocks word that not all comments were made by men is weird. I mean for all we know Bock could be a luverly curvedly lady. Hmmm. As the great soda cake might say.

  24.  

    yes, and I found your description of Mary Byrne of Xfactor fame as a knacker or something like that a few weeks ago, offensive, so what? Small minded and ugly? I will take that with a good pince of salt coming as it does from your good self, who has form in small minded and ugly (your name calling of Mary being a good example). I also competely expected this reaction so I made my comments bullish as I predict this thread will now fill up with people cheering you on as the case has proved a bit of a totem pole for the pc gone mad brigage.

    @spailpin

    there was a lovely picture of Tim Allen of Ballymaloe fame with his lovely wife after he was convicted, funnily enough it did not make him any less of a paedophile. And rogue solicitor michael lynn also has a good looking wife. I wonder if that makes him less guilty?

  25.  

    My description of Mary Byrne? Quote it verbatim, or else drop it, and then get back to the subject of this post.

  26.  

    victim? yes the term is soooooo untrendy these days. rubbish and trash that which you cannot accept or understand, or which is outside your experience.

    his going public with the case and demanding a petition be made on his behalf is also questionable. I wonder why he did not allow the law to proceed, and why he felt he needed international support for his ‘innocence’

    @longjohnsilver

    yes, I made a provocative post because the whole coverage of this case, not just here, has, in my opinion, diminished the real and traumatic experience of sexual harassment. Why not throw a spanner in the works, to upset the spanners who have jumped all over this case as an outlet for their latent mysoginy. As bock demonstrates there is very little tolerance for such ‘victim’s’ in our society.

  27.  

    Shellshock — Instead of the snide comments, please answer the question you were asked. What copmments about Mary X-Factor did I make? Quote them please.

  28.  

    you decided to pick one sentence out of my post and made a big deal out of it, and you now rubbish my description of her that she was a victim, there’s not much room for debate now is there?

    And I cant remember in which thread you alluded to Mary in that manner. it may have been fat knacker actually, anyway you surely know your opinion of her without having me rummaging in your history.

  29.  

    Well if you can’t remember, don’t quote it. It contaminates your credibility.

  30.  

    and don’t be so cranky bock, are you on your period or something?

  31.  

    Substantiate your points or else don’t make them. That’s the custom here. If you can’t manage that, you can expect to be challenged.

  32.  

    Shellshock, sorry to hear you’ve had a bad experience, but that seems to have prejudiced your opinion in this case. You simply cannot conclude that because he showed an academic article on the sexual habits of fruit bats to his colleague (which was relevant to an ongoing discussion by the way), that he’s a “right creep”.

    In terms of any previous incidents with the claimant prior to the date of the scientific article being shown to her, Evans had email evidence that put ‘serious doubts’ on her claims of harassment up to that point. He claimed he was on friendly terms with her when she showed her the article. There was no finding of harassment prior to the ‘fruit bat’ incident. By the way, I’m a woman last time I checked. I find it very discrediting to women in general, to have the term victim attributed to a person who’s shown an academic article. She’s not a victim Shellshock, and you’re discrediting all genuine victims insisting she is.

    Regarding “its probably the closest he gonna get to sex”. Evans is engaged apparently. So that’s kind of silly. There’s been no vitriol directed at the claimant in this case, but those kind of comments probably fall into that category. You did say that’s the closest he’s gonna get to sex Shellshock…That’s why Spailpin said he has a fiance. It’s irrelevant and spurious comparing convicted pedophiles who had wife’s to Evans., the only reason it was mentioned that he has a fiance is because you said he’s not getting sex.

    Lou, yet again you’re full of crap. Nothing yourself or Val(iant) said could be believed by the end of the previous post on this.

    No.8. I wouldn’t fall into the trap of getting into a tit for tat, men versus women argument. It’s irrelevant.

  33.  

    contaminates my credibility? I don’t have any credibility, and I don’t expect to have any engaging in debates like this. The avalanche of hate against women who fight back will be fully directed at me, that is why I can’t take it seriously. any woman who makes a stand against sexual harassment, or anyone who supports her can fully expect to have their credibility rubbished and attacked, as you so elequently demonstrate.

    And I wont take it back re Mary, you did say it. And I remember it because I was surprised at your outburst.

  34.  

    Quote examples of the avalanche of hate and please quote what you claim I said about Mary. Or else, don’t expect anyone to take your arguments seriously.

  35.  

    @fme

    funnily enough, when I eventually told someone after months of lechery, the reaction I got was exactly as Bock just reacted.

    Don’t be a victim, it’s not serious, you will damage your credibility as a worker in this firm etc etc. It’s like deja vue reading the comments here, hence my reaction that the posters must be mostly men. But it doesn’t really matter does it. No one cares about whether the woman was harassed or not, only that the man was proved right.

    And the snidey showing of an article about oral sex in animals is exactly the type of shit such men engage in. Enough to be creepy, but not enough to prove harassment, that is why this one particular incident should not be seen in isolation, but as part of her claim of previous harassment.

  36.  

    My God….Are you implying that all women are cranky during a period?
    I would be very offended to see that written on a post, if I was a woman.

  37.  

    as I said, the avalance of hate was not on this blog but across the internet. And I do not expect anyone to take my arguement seriously. That is why I have not approached it in a serious manner. if I thought I could have an intelligent discussion on sexual harassment I would have written an intelligent post, but given the tone of your thread, it is clear this is not going to happen.

    And let it go re Mary, I can’t find the piece, I am not such a sad act myself that I would make that up. And if I found it and quoted it, so what? It would not be any less offensive.

  38.  

    ….any woman who makes a stand against sexual harassment, or anyone who supports her can fully expect to have their credibility rubbished and attacked…

    Any person who claims sexual harassment, be they male OR female, can quite rightly expect to be expected to substantiate their claim. Do you agree?

  39.  

    @boldpilot, yes totally!

    @longjohn
    it was meant as a bit of a troll. Im assuming bock is a woman, geddit?

  40.  

    I got it. I get it. I just found it to be a strange comment.

  41.  

    @boldpilot, yes totally!

    So, following on from that..

    Where an accusation of sexual harassment has been tested in open court, with the independent oversight of the Judiciary, and all witnesses heard and cross-examined, and the claim is not found to be substantiated, you would accept that as a fair and equitable outcome , yes?

  42.  

    @boldpilot

    sexual harassment like rape is notoriously difficult to prove, especially when there are no witnesses. And especially when confronted with the sneery attitudes towards victimhood and pc gone mad as demonstrated here, it is doubtful that many cases even make it to court, or the managers office. but I thought he won the challenge to the sanctions imposed on him, not on the finding of sexual harassment?

    I have a friend whose son was sexually harassed by his female teacher, can you guess who won that case?

  43.  

    I think I saw Mary on the X Factor once, when I was flicking through the channels. I’d have to say, she’s a little rough around the edges all right.
    Shellshock, you did say “And as an ugly looking sad act, its probably the closest he gonna get to sex. A good kick in the goolies would sort him out.” That’s where the ugly reply came from it seems.

    I do genuinely care if I thought the woman was harassed though Shellshock. I don’t know if she genuinely felt harassed or if there is something more sinister going on here. And even if she did feel genuinely harassed by being shown the article, it seems a little prudish to me. I’ve no problem with prudishness even, but to ruin a man’s career due to this seems unjust to me.
    Any previous incidents up to being shown the article were disproved with email evidence. Again, I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience. I would agree the onus is always on the claimant and should be to prove their claims.

    There’s a grey area between taking offence and the intention of offence being given. Not to say your experience wasn’t genuine, but a claimant of harassment will always be second guessed it seems due to the seriousness of the claim, the intention of the “perpetrator” versus the sensitivity of the “victim” and the damage such a claim can do to a person’s career.

  44.  

    @fme
    Im not interested in Mary Byrne,or whether you find her rough around the edges, is this a covert way of agreeing that you too think her a knacker? i just find it funny that someone who characterises her as a (fat) knacker should be so offended by my reference to a mans sex life, or lack thereof. Anyway as i said, I delivered a ranty stupid post in the spirit of the thread itself being ranty and stupid. Stupid is as stupid does etc.

    As to the woman in question, we have heard nothing of her side of the story. He made it into international headlines, and has seen to it that she has been publicly humiliated all over the world. His views and opinions have dominated the coverage, and few seem willing to question his guilt, which was upheld. She made a previous complaint about him, so the article was not an isolated event.

  45.  

    shellshock

    When you replied, you appear to have overlooked the question that I put to you.

  46.  

    I didn’t mention Mary Byrne, so don’t try to put words in my mouth. Quote exactly what you claim I said. Luckily, I’m in a position to respond to silly smears. Put up or shut up.

  47.  

    @boldpilot

    i think I did. I said that when there are no witnesses, how can you prove it? In my case, my perp did it when I was in a car alone with him, or in the office alone with him. My case would have been thrown out of court for lack of evidence. And I do not believe in the independence of the judiciary. So, whilst yes, in principle, your ideal scenario would be lovely, but the concept of justice is a moveable feast as you have shown by not accepting that the charge of sexual harassment against him stands.

  48.  

    Shellshock – You don’t get to cherry-pick the questions you answer. Please reply to what I asked you.

  49.  

    what did you ask, and and I do get to cherry pick, it is your blog and you can kick me off it if you want, but you are not the boss of me!

  50.  

    I asked you to quote precisely what you claimed I said about the X-Factor contestant. You invented something I did not say to make a point on this thread, and I would like to hear precisely what you think I said about this woman. Produce the quote or retract it. It’s a simple request.

  51.  

    you slagged of Mary Byrne in a previous thread as a knacker. If you are saying you did not do that, then I would have to trawl back through all previous threads to find it. your obtuseness could be easily solved by actually denying you said it, which I note you have not done. Either way, you chided me for going off the subject, and know you will not let it drop, mmmmm.

  52.  

    You raised the example as a point on this thread, not me. The onus is on you to quote it.

    Produce it.

  53.  

    shellshock

    So far you have offered the opinion that I am…

    …touchingly naive, that I… believe Sean Fitzpatrick is innocent… and that I {don’t accept} that the charge of sexual harassment against him {Evans} stands…

    …all of which have completely without foundation.

    You’re employing the reasoning skills of a six-year-old on a school playground. Can you not see that?

  54.  

    Life is too short to be inventing something and putting words in your mouth. I am not that interested in you bock. but as it evidently means so much to you, I will retract it, as I said, I cant be bothered going back through your prodigious output to find it. Anyone would think, you had no form in insulting people, the way you are carrying on.

  55.  

    “…if I thought I could have an intelligent discussion on sexual harassment I would have written an intelligent post…”

    Well Shellshock, in my humble opinion there is a distinct lack of intellectual rigour in anything you have written thus far.

    In your initial post here (8) let’s examine your second sentence –

    “He sounds like a right creep, and he had previous with her, and now a man has judged that another man acted appropriately and now the men on here pounce on the judgement to sneer at PC gone mad.”

    In your opinion, he is a ‘creep’, fine, it’s your opinion. You flatly state that he “had previous”. This is false. The fact that the High Court judge is a male is utterly irrelevant but manage to draw the conclusion that his considerations in the case ignored the law due to male bias and that this whole incident is part of a gender war.

    It is nothing of the sort.

    What you describe as “…an ugly looking sad act..” could at most be described as childish or maybe puerile however, his action was found to be harassment by the college authorities.

    As FME pointed out to you by labeling the woman in question a ‘victim’ you are discrediting the genuine victims out there (as I believe yo to have been).

    In any debate, if you used the facts to substantiate an argument you might be taken more seriously. All you have proffered are opinions, hearsay and innuendo.

  56.  

    Thanks for retracting the accusation. Now perhaps you might answer the other responses to your statements. For instance, could you please give examples of the vitriol on this site directed towards the complainant?

  57.  

    @boldpilot

    I responded to your posts, in the style in which they were written. Yes, I do believe it is naive to consider the judiciary infallible, you mention the fiance for reasons known only to you, you fail to acknowledge there may not be witnesses, you do not acknowledge that being found guilty or innocent in court is not the same as actual guilt or innocence, and you accuse me of childish reasoning?

  58.  

    Words fail me. It’s not often that happens.

  59.  

    Shellshock – Our comments must have crossed. Could you please provide examples of the vitriol directed towards the complainant, as mentioned by you?

  60.  

    no, Im not interested. You accuse me of inventing things to support my case, i think that level of debate is petty and pathetic, especially as I said, given your form for daily insulting people. You got your retraction, simply because you will prove me right, if not tonight, then certainly soon.

    You do not address any of the issues I have raised, instead you pounce on one or two things that I have said to pursue your characterisation of Evans’ harassment of his collegue as: “an absurd display of PC prudishness, when all it should have done was wag a finger at Evans for being silly.”

    You have no problem with him internationally humiliating his victim, you sneer at the notion of her being a victim, and you characterise people who uphold a womans right to work unmolested as PC taliban.

    Continuing engaging with such exchanges may be fun for you, but will elicit nothing for me that makes it worth my while.

  61.  

    Ok. Let me quote you.

    I am therefore surprised at the level of vitriol directed at the vicitm of sexual harassment, who everyone seems to want to ignore had previous with him.

    Are you saying you won’t substantiate this statement?

  62.  

    This exchange seems to speak for itself. I couldn’t really add more.

  63.  

    I have already said that this was in relation to the internet as a whole and not this thread per se. but it doesn’t really matter does it? You will just keep at it, because you just do not like or agree with any of my views on this issue. Of my many posts here, you are only interested in pursuing particular words and sentences which you think you can hang me with. Hang away, I’ve been beaten by bigger and better. You are clearly not interested in discussing the actual case, or any of the issues raised. So pursue me until you are ‘proved’ right, what it will prove, I don’t know, but you clearly need to prove something that has nothing to do with your thread, so knock yourself out.

  64.  

    As I said already, this exchange seems to speak for itself.

  65.  

    Dylan Evans showed a scientific article on the sex life of fruit bats to a female colleague, among others, in the context of an ongoing professional scientific dialogue between them to which the article was relevant.

    There was no physical contact alleged or made.

    There were no suggestive remarks or gestures alleged or made.

    So how could Dylan Evans’s action be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?

    That simple question, as far as I am aware, has never been answered.

    In post # 5 above, Bock, you state the following:

    “I got very sick of their spinning and dishonesty, and it convinced me that there’s something very rotten underlying the whole ridiculous episode.”

    As indicated in post # 2 above I agree with you on that.

    I think the following extract from today’s Irish Times report is very relevant here:

    “[According to the judge the sanction of requiring Dr Evans to undergo counseling and two years of monitoring] was disproportionate.

    “A subsequent decision by the head of the school of medicine, arising out of those sanctions, not to recommend Dr Evans as an “established” lecturer made the sanction “grossly” disproportionate, he added.”

    It seems reasonable to deduce from this that this whole imbroglio was fabricated in order to victimize Dr Evans and prevent him from being appointed to a permanent position.

    If the initial sanction of having to undergo counseling was deemed by UCC to be appropriate and sufficient, there were no legitimate grounds, as the judge ruled, to punish Dr Evans further by blocking his appointment.

    That further and “grossly disproportionate” sanction exposes the sinister agenda of UCC.

    The whole thing stinks of mobbing.

    Otherwise why would the head of the school of medicine pile in behind the original (disproportionate) sanction and add his own further (grossly disproportionate) sanction to the punishment?

    Unfortunately, this kind of persecution is all too common in Irish workplaces.

    And it has nothing to do with gender as it happens to men as well as women.

  66.  

    Shellshock RE: 44. I believe you brought up X factor Mary. I also don’t care if you don’t care that I thought she was a bit rough around the edges. I can’t say that’s a covert way of agreeing with Bock or not as I don’t know what he really truely thinks of X Factor Mary.. It mightn’t be nice all right to call her a big smelly knacker, if she’s only a bit of a minger. Who the fuck cares really.

    In terms of the previous complaint you mention, that was disproved with email evidence. Because someone claims something doesn’t make it true. The facts are the findings of harassment were solely based on the article being shown to the colleague in question and the judge found that the punishment handed down to Evans for this was not proportionate to the incident. I happen to agree with that, as do a lot of rational people. I’ll tell you if I was shown the article in question, I really don’t think I’d bat an eyelid at it regardless if there was a joke to go along with it. Oh and did I say I’m a woman.

    In terms of you saying we haven’t heard her side. Well she said she felt hurt and disgusted from being shown the article. She’s a tough life ahead of her if she genuinely found that to cause hurt and disgust.

    Spailpin, in terms of victimizing Evans. I’d say you’re right there. In the previous thread on this, Valiant linked to a student blog at UCC which basically said Evans winning an award for the article won’t do him any favours. The student got it wrong that it was Evans who even won the award. But my point is, why are UCC allowing their students to write up nasty unsubstantiated bias articles online against Evans. I’d say there’s a breach there in that myself. Hypocrites.

  67.  

    On the fruitbats matter you have been vindicated, Bock. I hope you are walking around in the snow with an I Told Yuz All So glow around your wintery body.

  68.  

    I think Dylan Evans was vindicated. This whole episode has been shown up as a petty-minded charade. The orchestrated efforts to malign Evans by commenters on this site and elsewhere are now exposed for what they really are: bullying and attempted harassment.

  69.  

    Hi Bock, could you elaborate on this point please –

    “orchestrated efforts to malign Evans by commenters on this site and elsewhere are now exposed for what they really are: bullying and attempted harassment.”‘

    That’s a fairly bold statement, and I’m wondering what you know, that I don’t, that leads you to conclude a campaign of bullying is underway? Or is this just your opinion?

    The aim of bringing this case to the High Court (as stated by Dr Evans in many many different places to be found with a click of the google) was to have the findings of sexual harrassment overturned. If you go to the transcript of the High Court case, written in black and white is the finding that this charge still stands. The sanctions were indeed overturned and deemed to be ‘grossly disproportionate’ and these will now be reviewed. I know that they were put in place as a result of ongoing harrassment by Dr Evans against the complainant and concerns for his behaviour towards staff in general (again documented all over the net) however the charge of harrassment did centre on the showing of the fruitbat paper, so it was naive of UCC to be so sloppy when doling out the recommendations as they were so out of proportion with the one incident.

    It’s a shame they have to pay costs as if they had gone about dealing with Dr Evans affectively, instead of perhaps ‘lording it up’ as university’s tend to do, they might not be out of pocket to the tune of 400,000euro.

    However, they were also granted sanctions lifted in relation to the confidentiality issue, and this may well be where Dr Evans meets his maker, if UCC don’t f*ck it up that is. I’m afraid on this point-plastering the womans name and personal documents all over the net, and yes the trail can still be found as this is the internet, permanant and traceable-is where he has lost many sympathisers.

    The relentless PR spin and lies, as they can only be called lies, and blatant malice towards fellow workers and students have not placed Dr Evans in any better a light. Several students took to twitter etc when the allegations surfaced to say how he followed them (all young female students) after lectures, tried to coerce them to meeting him alone for coffee, and offering to DJ at their parties. His response was to tell them he ‘knew them’ and that they were well known for trouble/jealousy/being mad (seriously). Again folks, it’s all out there on the wonderful web, UCC are not the only one’s to have been foolish in the way they have conducted their campaign.

    Be careful who you’re supporting, or at least have a good look at all sides before taking to the web and punching the air with victory for academic freedom and/or PC madness. It is most definitely a case of neither.

  70.  

    Aha, my interpretation of the pieces of the jigsaw referred to in previous posts as indicating a mobbing operation against Dr Evans by UCC seems corroborated by the following information that I’ve just come across on the internet. (I hope you don’t mind, Bock, if I copy this amount of text here – I’ve pasted the link to the source containing further information below.):

    Random Irish News

    Dylan Evans, Rossana Salerno-Kennedy and the sex life of flat-nosed fruit bats

    Posted in News by Neil Michael on May 23, 2010

    But the MoS [Mail on Sunday?] has discovered that the issue raises more than a few questions that have little or nothing to do with the sex life of flat-nosed fruit bats. Rather, it appears Dr Evans’s problems may not be entirely unrelated to his insistence on calling for greater transparency about the commercial interests of UCC academics and doctors involved in research.

    And, in particular, his attempts to establish a publicly viewable register of the interests of UCC staff.
    Dr Evans has been trying to champion the notion that academics who carry out research at the university should declare which – if any – firm has funded that study and how much money was received, a subject that would – or should have been – of particular interest to Professor Peter Kennedy, UCC’s vicepresident of research and support.

    One can only assume that Professor Kennedy would be expected to have some direct input into attempts to force academics to reveal their outside interests and funding sources to the public.

    Indeed, that it would be a matter for Professor Kennedy to deal with would later be highlighted by a comment by Mairéad Loughman, UCC’s risk management officer in the office of corporate and legal affairs. When asked what she thought about the idea of a UCC conflictof-interest policy, she said in November 2009 that it was ‘a matter for the VP research’.

    However, Dr Evans said on Thursday that none of his attempts to engage Professor Kennedy in his ideas for greater transparency came to anything.

    Indeed, an email he sent in April 2009 was not replied to – although Professor Kennedy had regularly replied to previous email correspondence from him. However, Professor Kennedy cancelled a scheduled meeting to discuss research ethics with Dr Evans just a week before his wife, Rossana, formally lodged her sexual harassment complaint with the university’s human resources department.

    randomirishnews.com/…/dylan-evans-rossana-salerno-kennedy-and-the-sex-life-of-flat-nosed-fruit-bats

  71.  

    Unfortunately for you, fairlyshocking, my post crossed with your scurrilous hatchet job on Dr Evans.

  72.  

    Fairlyshocking — I deduce it from a thorough reading of the comments on the previous thread, from those I could not publish because they were defamatory, and from your transparent attempt to raise matters that are neither demonstrable nor connected with the original complaint or the subsequent High Court case. If you attempt to blacken someone’s character again, you will be excluded from further comment.

  73.  

    If you go to the transcript of the High Court case, written in black and white is the finding that this charge still stands.

    Fairlyshocking

    Lou made a similar unfounded claim earlier in this thread. I find your choice of words interesting – I’m not normally given to conspiracy theories – however, I find it curious that both you and she(?) make similar claims. Since the full written judgement is not yet in the public domain, I have to ask myself how you two can claim to quote it with such apparent authority.

    Have you had sight of the full written judgement of the court?

  74.  

    This commenter previously posted under a different name, as follows:

    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.

  75.  

    @fme
    you say that if she felt offended that this is a little prudish. You could have also added humourless, uptight, etc all terms regularly used by bullies who cannot coerce women into accepting the use and abuse of female sexuality in pursuit of their aims.

    your use of the term is enlightening because it is commonly used against women defend themselves against sexual objectification, etc, oh don’t be such a prude etc etc. It is clear here that people think the the woman made up the sexual harassment allegation. Well if she had a vendetta against him, and thus decided to play a dangerous game of accusing him of sexual harassment then she has paid a very high price for her gamble.

    As we can see here, and all over the internet the mob has decided she is s prudish, devious female who set out to wreck an innocent mans life, if that is the case then she well and truly fucked up then didn’t she? Not so devious and cunning after all. But then no one has questioned why she would do that. And no one has questioned why the gimp is wandering around with an article that shows that the fruit bat which showed that sexual intercourse in the bats lasted for longer if the female had fellated the male beforehand. (snigger snigger). She also said that he regularly and inappropriately raised sexual subjects with her, and she objected. It was also external investigators who decided the sanctions so everyone gleefully slagging of UCC seem to have hold of the wrong end of the stick there as well. But who cares about facts, s long as she has been given a good metaphorical kicking you can all sleep well tonight.

    What we do know is that his taking the issue online and internationalising it, and garnering the type of sneery hateful coverage which has been regurgitated here means that she has been bullied now on a far larger scale than anything he could ever have achieved alone. if she is indeed a sensitive prudish little flower then her life is well and truly fucked by the bullying antics of that arshehole. This is one of those cases where when you are running with the mob you have to really question your motives. Of course this is a gift to anyone who views respect for women as PC taliban. Its neanderthal.

    And you are a woman? Good for you, and good for you that you are are a liberal broad minded broad who can handle man in the workplace in a non prudish manner. When I was sexually harassed, it was so subtle, and drip drip that I too would have construed being shown an article like this as harassment. That is the cleverness of such bullies, they are cunning enough to make their harassment look like innocent fun,just a bit of a laugh, and makes the woman look like a freakish harpy. And the critical mass of non thinking dupes can always be guaranteed to jump on such a band wagon.

    It did toughen me up though, especially after being told, dont be a prude, get a sense of humour, your credibility in this workplace will be questioned, sneering and ridiculing me as an oversensitive eejit etc etc. It is uncanny to see the same sentiments being expressed here 20 years later. The upside is though, if it happened to me now, I would deliver a swift kick to the goolies, and not bother with complaints, and going through the system, as comments here show, some cases are lose lose whether you are in the right or not.

  76.  

    Shellshocked — This isn’t about your case, and I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

  77.  

    Bock, I’m not attempting to blacken anyone’s character. I have been transparent only in trying to lay out all the pieces of this story that have arisen since it hit the headlines in May. Dr Evans is actually a very brilliant man and has written extensively on subjects such as evolutionary psychology (which is why the fruitbat paper was of interest to him) and emotions which I among thousands others have found fascinating and continue to watch with interest. However, is is my opinion (though yes the transcript IS out there) that he has fairly serious issues personal issues to address.

    I think it’s pretty sad and disappointing that I’m being accused of a ‘hatchet job’, if anyone would like to dispute any of the facts stated in my previous posts, I’d love to hear them. For those too lazy, or bewilderingly utterly convinced of Dr Evans stance as nothing other than a ‘done wrong by’, here is one-of very many-places where he states he posted the confidential documents online. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bat_sex_is_not_protected_by_ac.php

    I would link to twitter or similar social networking sites to show examples of his responses to students and his general opinions on women, but I wouldn’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence here. Any further.

    By the way Bock, what point are you trying to make exactly when you copy and paste something I posted before? Is that not allowed? If I can’t remember the username I used back in whenever it was and use one that comes to mind today after coming across your hysterical rantings on a subject you clealy know very little about, then er, sue me.

    My previous point still stands, though you seem to have dug little.

  78.  

    Also ‘blacken someone’s character’? What of Dr Kennedy?

    This really is a bit of joke.

  79.  

    Goodbye.

    And seriously, good luck.

  80.  

    I gave two out of six paragraphs to my case in my post and this is the only issue you choose to comment on? You just don’t want the issue of sexual harassment raised at all. This thread is being used by you to further bully this woman, and i am a thorn in your side, by actually raising issues related to the topic. You told me last night to stay on topic whilst you keep going off it yourself. You are excellent at leading the braying mob, and quite often I agree with you, so quite why you have to try to keep shutting down debate on this issue is a mystery to me.

    I gave you the last word last word last night as you consistently refuse to engage with any of the issues raised. Anyone who uses the term ‘taliban’ in relation to political correctness and pc prudishness clearly has issues with equality and fairness. But it is your blog and you can cry if you want too.

    Oh, and shellshocked, ho ho ho, in four years of using the moniker that alteration has only ever been made about a trillion times before. Nul pointe for originality.

    We don’t agree. Get over it.

  81.  

    Shellshocked, like fairlyshocking (as well as Lou and other anti-Evans commenters on this and the “UCC punishes academic” thread) you’ve posted a lot of verbiage on this site denigrating Dylan Evans.

    However, none of you has answered the very simple and most pertinent question I posed in post # 65 above:

    How could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?

    Could any of you answer that simple question please.

  82.  

    BoldPilot, I have neither seen nor claimed to have seen the judgement, which will be available at http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/Webpages/HomePage in anywhere from 1 to 7 months. My statement was that the judge refused to quash the sexual harassment finding, e.g. The Examiner: “Mr Justice Kearns yesterday declined to quash the investigation findings but said he was quashing the sanctions imposed on foot of those findings.”

    Justice Kearns also said that the behaviour was “at the minimal end of sexual harassment” and “a silly thing to have done”, but those probably will not make it into the written judgement – Irish courts do not publish transcripts.

  83.  

    @spailpin

    “Thanks for that good news, Bock.

    Though it is still very unsatisfactory that Dylan Evans had to incur such great risk and stress in having to taking on the might of UCC in court over what was at worst a trivial offence – though I don’t think there was any offence there at all”

    Given that you do not believe there was any offence even though he was found guilty of one, It does not seem like anything would convince you. So stop trolling, you have no interest in the issue of sexual harassment.

  84.  

    It appears that fairlyshocking has declined to answer my question before flouncing off.

    Lou

    I’ll quote you verbatim:

    The court affirmed the finding of sexual harassment, …..

    …. confirms him as the only Irish university employee to be found guilty of sexual harassment.

    And the judge explicitly stated that he was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Can you substantiate any of that with credible references, or not?

    I’m well aware of where to look for written judgements. I’m also well aware that prior to a judgement being placed into the public domain, it is available only to parties in the proceedings.

    Are you such a party, Lou? Are you connected to one of the parties?

  85.  

    Shellshock, you haven’t answered the question I put to you in post # 81.

    Could you answer it please.

  86.  

    Shellshock. Firstly can I just say that its courageous of you to be open here regarding your personal experiences, A response to that openness from FME @ 32 ” Sorry to hear you’ve had a bad experience, But that seems to have prejudiced your opinion ”
    Please be assured that ” Our personal experiences ” do colour the views and attitudes we adopt from such experiences, Its a human consequence, However in your own interest and with total respect , It will benefit you to take ownership of such experiences as a ” memory ” and to take only what you need from that to formulate your views and attitudes for the ” Present ” Hope you dont mind me saying that ?

    It looks from the comments etc that DE is probably very driven, very interested in all aspects of his Profession and is possessed of an Ego as big as the black hole which is our Banking system, That is his choice.

    The judgement issued from commenters regarding the female who felt she was ” Sexually harrassed ” that she reacted prudishly, thin skinned, etc, That too was her choice, It may well be of more benefit to her to ” Set out her stall ” regarding her personal boundaries, But that is unlikely to be a criteria for the workplace, For either her or DE, personally I would have no issue in being upfront about my boundaries, But thats not for everyone.

    I do agree with Spailpin about the ” Mobbing ” @ 65 and his /hers comments are apt all round.

    I do think you have a very strong point regarding ” Sexual / non sexual harrassment, intimidation/ bullying ” As it is always ” Secretive / devious / insidious ” All manifestations of same stem from childhood bullying, being either perpetrator or victim, Bullying however does manifest in many forms.

    Whereas you did introduce the whole ” Mary from Xfactor debate ” I do think that particular reference was seized upon in a very negative way, I will not , like yourself spend time trying to find exact quote but to my recollection, In fairness Bock never mentioned her by name, I wont use italics because im not being accurate but he did write something along the lines of ( When a check out person from Tesco……Not that I have any issue with a check out person from Tesco ) Of course that alluded to Mary Byrne as I think she is the only Xfac contestant to fit that description, But he didnt name her and the comment is fairly open to intrepretation.

    Now any ref to MB of Xfac didnt have any relevance as pointed out by FME, who when reintroducing MB from Xfac at comment 43 stated her to be ” A little rough around the edges ” While going on to state ” I do genuinly care if the woman was harrassed ” Contradictory use of language ?

    And while FME mounts further defence of DE , While yet again reintroducing MB @ comment 66 ” I dont care if you dont care that I thought she was a bit rough around the edges ” From there reminding you that it was you who initiated the introduction of MB, Yet again continuing to reintroduce MB for the 3rd irrelevant time, To state ” It mightn’t be nice all right to call her a big smelly knacker, If shes only a bit of a minger, Who the fuck cares really ” Well maybe MB cares about such ignorant name calling that perpetrates little intellectual debate but provides an outlet for vitriol that serves no purpose.

    As you Shellshock are the person here with a personal experience of ” Sexual harrassment ” I for one would like to hear your views as to how people, Both men and woman can be more effective in dealing with and defining what constitutes such behaviour.
    For the record, I worked in a very male dominated preserve for several years, Now I did feel the pressure to prove myself, I viewed what would have been defined as ” Sexual harrassment ” As some asshole underestimating me and never left anyone in doubt as to where I stood and would’nt have made any issue of it, But respectfully that was my capacity and that may not suit everyone.

  87.  

    It seems that people are unable to understand what this post is about, so I’ll have to clarify.

    This post is about Dylan Evans succeeding in having a grossly disproportionate punishment overturned in the High Court. The judge also expressed the view that Evans’s transgression was at the silly end of harassment. He could not overturn that finding because of the ludicrous regulations that give a complainant’s feelings — however prudish — absolute priority.

    This post is not about Dylan Evans’s character, or anything else unconnected with the case. It is not a vehicle for people with an agenda to attack his character, and it will not be allowed to become such a thing. I have already said that I personally don’t find him particularly likeable, but I think that’s entirely irrelevant.

    It seems even UCC academics are well able to confuse an issue when it suits their purposes, and I recommend this post on critical thinking to all such commenters.

  88.  

    Actually, Bock, I’m not sure that the judge was precluded from overturning the original finding of sexual harassment, for reasons I referred to in post # 261 on the “UCC punishes academic” thread.

    The phrases “clear and convincing evidence of misconduct” and “reasonable person standard” in the relevant code imply an objective standard of proof by which the subjective response of the complainant must be judged.

    If I am correct in this then I can’t see why the judge could not have reviewed the initial finding of sexual harassment by reference to this objective “reasonable person” standard of proof.

    I may be wrong in this and if I am I would appreciate it if you or anyone else could correct me.

    If I am not wrong, then I believe the judge may have “bottled it” by not completely overturning the initial finding of sexual harassment as well as the subsequent sanctions.

    Because as things stand the judge appears to have left Dylan Evans in a terribly vulnerable situation at the tender mercy of the UCC mobsters.

    The “reasonable person standard” is the basis of the question I put to Dylan Evans’s detractors in post # 81above, to which question I am still awaiting an answer.

  89.  

    I’d be very surprised if you get a straight answer. The last thread was characterised by evasion and innnuendo from the anti-Evans claque, and I see signs of the same modus operandi happening here.

  90.  

    BoldPilot, when you ask “Lou … Can you substantiate any of that with credible references, or not?”, there are adequate sources for all my statements except the claim that Evans is the only Irish University employee to have been found guilty of sexual harassment.

    It is unfortunate that ALL Irish Universities fail to comply with the spirit (“should”) of the legislation – “8. Monitoring. The policy should include a commitment to monitoring incidents of sexual harassment and harassment. The only way an organisation can know whether its policy and procedures are working is to keep careful track of all complaints of sexual harassment and harassment and how they are resolved. This monitoring information should be used to evaluate the policy and procedures at regular intervals, with changes recommended when something is not working well.” (S.I. No. 78 of 2002). UCC had a specific commitment to annual publications of anonymized statistics through a named equality officer, but has never delivered on the commitment (FoI, anyone?) – I have the policy document somewhere, but not at hand.

    However, I believe the statement to be accurate – the closest incident to a precedent that I have found is one case at TCD halted immediately prior to the finding. I had high hopes that counsel for Evans would raise this issue, because I am sure everyone is aware of sexual harassment that is far from “the minimal end of sexual harassment”, and far more humiliating than “a silly thing”.

  91.  

    In my opinion, valid complaints about sexual harassment are undermined by nonsense like this extreme reaction to a puerile joke.

  92.  

    Lou, you have ignored the question I put to you in post # 81 above.

    Could you answer it please.

  93.  

    Spailpín Fánach, I have tried to explain this previously, but if my replies are interpreted with the preconception that Evans was not found guilty, and as an attack on Evans, then they make little sense. I am not making any pretence at impartiality in this informal setting, but I am really just a sour old bitch with little interest in denigrating Dylan Evans.

    The legislation (that is the EE Act and the SI above) define a process, not a standard. An employee alleged exposure to offensive conduct. Two “reasonable people” accepted the employee’s feelings as reasonable, and that the behaviour fell within the definition of sexual harassment. The offence is in the behaviour (an unwelcome sexual joke) and not the paper.

  94.  

    I’d better be careful about introducing my native American friend to Dr Kennedy.

    Hi. I’d like you to meet Two-Bears-Fucking..

  95.  

    Spailpín Fánach

    It will be interesting to read the judgement on publication, and to see if Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns gives his reasons for refusing Evans application to have the findings of the external investigation overturned. I’ll venture an opinion that he took the view that it was not in his gift to do so. Had it been a question of overturning the decision of a lower court, matters may have turned out differently. Time will tell.

    It is disingenous in the extreme to suggest that he in any way endorsed the UCC sponsored findings. It is clear that in overturning the sanctions of UCC, and awarding full costs to Evans, he was sending a very clear message.

    To re-iterate, no court has found Evans guilty of sexual harassment.

    The UCC-sponsored report by Clohessy and Horgan found that the complaint

    ….on this action is upheld though it was not Dr Evan’s intention cause offence

    Their terms of reference:

    The investigation will be conducted in accordance with the University’s Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy

    Lou

    Since, once again, you have avoided a direct answer to my question, I am led to believe that you cannot offer substantiation. You are offering speculation and ask us to accept it as fact. There’s a yawning credibility gap here, Lou, and it’s not showing you in a good light.

  96.  

    You see that comment 94 is what makes a big nonsense of what you purport to represent. Yes Bock, I’m sure that if you told her that ‘joke’ she would run screaming from the room shouting sexual harrassment, I’m totally confident that yes he walked into the room and showed her the paper in absolute earnest and without any innuendo and that he had never approached her previously. I raise no eyebrows that she made the complaint and subsequently chose to leave the country – before this all hit the public domain by the way – simply because she was shown a paper on oral sex in fruit bats. Keep telling yourselves that.

    How can you type with your fingers in your ears going ‘lalalalalalalala’?

    Come to Bock’s website and argue about academic freedom and the like, but if you disagree in any way with my own opinion and perceived version of events you’ll find yourself on the sharp end of my acid ‘wit’.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414495&c=1

    Now I’m definitely off.

  97.  

    At the moment, that accusation has the status of innuendo. Produce evidence and we’ll discuss it.

  98.  

    I love acid wit. Had a really good belly laugh reading 94. I think a little “lite relief” is a good thing on a post where all the anti evans crew just cant seem to give straight answers to very simple direct questions. Its like reading comments from a group of people suffering from Fianna Fail syndrome.

  99.  

    The document that I did not have to hand earlier was the UCC Harassment Contacts Programme, which commits to “PROGRAMME REPORTING: Harassment Contact Persons will report only the number of people who have contacted them and the number of meetings they have held. They will report these statistics to the Equality/Welfare Officer annually for use in the assessment and review of the Programme and for analysis of complaints handling under the Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy. ” (http://www.ucc.ie/equalcom/HCP.htm)

    The context of the Dylan Evans case (i.e. the numbers and outcomes of similar complaints, through both the informal and formal procedures) seems relevant.

    You might also be interested in the exemptions under “iv) Accommodation of Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom” and “vi) Social Relationships” of previous policy, the “Harassment (Staff) Procedures, Interim Procedures” (Revision A approved on this the 15th day of December, 1999, by the President of University College Cork, Professor Gerard T. Wrixon).

    Perhaps the chair of the Equality Committee (http://www.ucc.ie/equalcom/), Professor Helen Whelton, could shine a light on these issues, especially the omission of specific “reasonable person” guidance.

    For reference, the Interim Procedures stated:

    iv) Accommodation of Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
    a) As an intellectual community, UCC recognises that a balance must be struck between preserving the freedoms of expression and intellectual enquiry so vital to a University and ensuring that those freedoms are not so abused as to leave members of the University community feeling harassed. Investigations involving allegations of harassment concerning teaching materials, debates, exhibitions or performances will be conducted with regard to this recognition.
    b) The frank discussion of controversial ideas, the pursuit of controversial research, and the study and teaching of material with controversial content, and the free and fair pursuit of one’s rights and duties as a member of the University do not constitute harassment provided that these activities are conducted in a manner which is not harmful to individuals or groups represented in the University community.
    c) The Universities Act, 1997, enshrines the rights of academic freedom in law as follows: “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 subjected to less favourable treatment by the university, for the exercise of that freedom.”

    vi) Social Relationships
    This policy is not intended to interfere with ordinary social or personal relationships among members of the University community.

  100.  

    Shellshock. RE: 75. I’m really not trying to undermine how the complainant genuinely felt. If she was hurt and disgusted by being shown the article, I’d take her word for it. However it’s my opinion that that is a little prudish, in terms of that particular incident. Seriously, to be hurt and disgusted by that seems a bit much to me. I’d like to just say, if a woman was being harassed on an ongoing basis, I’d never take the view that she was humourless or uptight. I simply don’t see the complainant in this case as a ‘victim’. The independent enquiry stated that email evidence put “serious doubts’ to her claims of harassment prior to the incident of being shown the fruitbat article. Their words- “serious doubts”. And that part of the complaint was not upheld.

    You mentioned rape being difficult to prove.. I’m not sure why you mentioned rape, but I have to say this case is no where near in the same league as rape. My personal view on this Shellshock is that it doesn’t do women any favours if we’re seen to be made of glass – (please understand, I’m referring to this case only) and that extra caution has to be taken around us with anything of a sexual nature. We’re big girls. We can let someone know what we’re comfortable with or not in terms of innuendo or jokes.

    Norma, Regarding x factor Mary, sincerest apologies to x-factor Mary.
    She’s not the only minger on the show, definitely not.

  101.  

    Lou, in post # 93 addressed to me you refer to the “preconception that Evans was not found guilty”. I have never disputed the fact that Dr Evans was found guilty. (Straw man argument, logical fallacy)

    Regarding the second paragraph of your post, you say “Two “reasonable people” accepted the employee’s feelings as reasonable …”

    This is another logical fallacy, begging the question (petitio principii) or assuming what is to be proved. The question is whether in fact these people were reasonable in their finding against Dr Evans.

    On a more general level, are so called “independent investigators” really independent or are they compromised by the fact that they are unilaterally hired and paid by the institution – an institution that in this case seems to have been engaged in mobbing Dr Evans.

    As the old adage goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Many of these investigators depend for their livelihood on delivering “satisfactory” results for the institutions that hire them. I know somebody who deals in a professional capacity with some of these investigators and this person is highly sceptical, to say the least, of their independence.

    In any event, in this case you yourself on the “UCC punishes academic” thread said you consider the report of the investigators to be flawed and incomprehensible, so it’s hardly tenable for you to now cite the report as infallible.

    You’ve pasted a lot of stuff up there in post # 99 “around” (to use a term that has become fashionable in recent years) the question I put to you but it doesn’t answer the question.

    Boldpilot, in post # 95, I suppose you’re right about having to wait for the written judgement to see the reasons the judge relies on. I know there was a concept known as “Curial Deference” whereby judges used to be very reluctant to interfere with the decisions of specialist statutory tribunals such as the Labour Court, the Equality Tribunal, Rights Commissioners etc. I don’t know if that applies to the kind of investigation concerned here.

    However, the whole scope of judicial review was considerable broadened about a year ago in a refugee asylum case and that may have been a factor in the judge’s overturning the sanctions in this case. We’ll wait and see.

  102.  

    I am sure that Dylan Evans would see the amusement in making it into The Standard (the other one, Uganda Christian University’s community newspaper http://www.ucu.ac.ug/thestandard/news.html):

    Saturday, 04 December 2010
    Court upholds findings of ‘fruitbatgate’ investigation

    The Irish High Court has ruled that the findings of an investigation by University College Cork into the academic at the centre of the “fruitbatgate” affair should stand.

  103.  

    Well, I just noticed this new post, and there’s already over 100 comments on it, in only two days! And I see that the original post about this has 330 comments!! Sex wins the popularity prize again. Just see which are the most viewed videos at You Tube. (it will take me a while to read thru this to comment…)

  104.  

    Meanwhile, of course, the question I asked in post # 81 remains unanswered by anti-Evans commenters.

    Quelle surprise, as Del Boy would say.

    It is also interesting that none of these commenters has denied the accuracy or significance of the content of post # 70 which would explain the motivation for UCC’s mobbing operation against Dylan Evans in the context of which the sexual harassment case was apparently contrived.

  105.  

    Spailpin, re your 104 paragraph three. It is neither interesting nor significant. If I say – Dr Evans is actually the devil himself and no-one comments on it, me saying it’s interesting and significant that no-one has commented on it would surely be met with derision and mockery.

    Your question in post 81 was answered many times. You’re choosing to ignore anything which doesn’t fit with your own idea of what the whole issue is centred on. The question – ‘could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?’ will not be answered to your satisfaction here as you, right off the bat (no pun etc) accused myself for one of a ‘hatchet job’ and it would be safe to conclude that you therefore consider me ‘unreasonable’ as you seem to do of anyone else here who has raised questions about this case.

    If you yourself feel that there is no way one person could show that paper to another person and make that person uncomfortable by they way they present it/talk about it/how close they are to the person etc, then I imagine you can’t have had/do have much social interaction with other people. The point is, if someone is sexually harrassing someone else, it matters little what material they use or don’t use, it’s perfectly possible to be a complete lecherous creep in any context. So in answer to your question, yes it’s perfectly possible.

    Mange tout.

  106.  

    Also, meant to ask, what makes you so confident of a ‘mobbing operation’ by UCC?

    Gosh, there’s a few of you who seem to just instantaneously believe without hesitation anything Dr Evans puts forward..

    Dr Evans has stated that this has been a case of..
    1. Academic Freedom
    2. PC Madness gone er..mad.
    3 Jealous husbands.
    4. Pharmacuetical cover up. (really)
    5. Vested interests..

    I’ve possibly left one or two out..

  107.  

    I haven’t read thru everything on this yet, but the whole sexual harrassment question seems to little me to be a moot point. From Bock’s original post on this:

    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.

    She ASKED him for the damn article – so how could she later claim harrassment when he gave her what she asked for??

  108.  

    Fairlyshocking — under the university’s policy, as has been pointed out by others, a person can be found guilty of sexual harassment even if they never intended to harass anyone. How do you feel about that aspect of the policy?

  109.  

    Fairlyshocking, because your first paragraph in post 105 is syntactically confused, I don’t know what you are trying to say there.

    Regarding the second paragraph, contrary to what you claim, my question in post 81 has not been answered.

    Your comments in post 69 were indeed a scurrilous hatchet job on Dr Evans that was irrelevant to the topic of this thread and it does indeed show you as an unreasonable person. And the fact that you have not even attempted to answer my question in a rational manner is further proof of your unreasonableness.

    Your third paragraph is all in the conditional “if” or hypothetical mode. It is concerned with what might have happened. It does not refer to what actually happened and how that could be reasonably construed as sexual harassment.

    In summary, your commentary in post 105 is another example of the filibustering diversionary verbiage that the anti-Evans commenters constantly indulge in.

    It is appalling that you and your ilk persist in demonising Dr Evans while at the same time fail to present a rational defence of the sexual harassment finding against him.

    That kind of irrational malice is typical of the scapegoating, mobbing mentality.

  110.  

    I meant to deal with a comment made earlier by Shellshock

    well I’m not convinced. He sounds like a right creep, and he had previous with her

    And another (sarcastically) by Fairlyshocking:

    I’m totally confident that yes he walked into the room and showed her the paper in absolute earnest and without any innuendo and that he had never approached her previously.

    The inquiry report states 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.

    Is that clear enough? No “previous”.

    Of course, if you’re attempting to introduce evidence that was not considered by the inquiry, that’s another matter.

  111.  

    Fairlyshocking, there are a couple of further points that have occurred to me since I looked again at your post 105.

    I think I now know what you’re trying to say in the first paragraph. It’s more evasive verbiage by you that doesn’t deal with the point, viz., the accuracy and significance of the information indicating the motive for an apparent mobbing operation by UCC against Dylan Evans.

    In the second paragraph you have misrepresented, deliberately or otherwise, the question I asked in post 81 by omitting the first word of the question, “How”. The omission of that word allows you to slide into the hypothetical, conditional mode in the third paragraph and thus avoid the point of my question.

  112.  

    Spailpín Fánach, you are absolutely correct when you say “I have never disputed the fact that Dr Evans was found guilty.” I am sorry that I read several statements that Evans had not been found guilty in the previous thread, I mentally attributed the same view to yourself and consequently I have misinterpreted the meaning of some of your posts. There are similar claims in this thread, which I am sorry that I also assumed you agreed with, which somewhat derailed the discussion.

    My answer to your question “How could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?” is in 93 – the university followed the policy.

    As Bock says in 108, the intent is not relevant and the complainant decides what behaviour is offensive, and the investigators determine whether offence is “reasonable” (this is Irish statute, not just UCC policy).

  113.  

    Woah – this is getting pretty legaleesy!

    I can understand how the policy could be that a person is guilty of harrassment even without intention – it would make people think a little more about what the effect could be from what they unintentionally do. I don’t know if I would go that far, but I understand it.

    I’m curious – were there other women among the 12 colleagues, who didn’t feel harrassed by Dr. Evan’s sharing? And if there were, was it because Prof. Blank was cuter, and therefore more harrassable?

    FME – excuse me for this, but, did anyone notice that “harrass” sounds exactly like “her ass”? (hope my girls never see this!) : o

  114.  

    The Evans case is important because it illustrates a more general issue.

    The Statute referred to is a regulation issued by the Minister without reference to the Oireachtas. Such Statutory Instruments are commonplace in giving flesh to the bones of primary law, but are also a convenient way of implementing a government’s policy without being subject to questioning in a democratic forum.

    Thus, while it may sound reassuring to describe the underlying law as Statute, the reality is that it was drawn up by one Minister or his subordinates, according to whatever pressures were being applied to him through lobbying.

    I find the policy and the underlying regulations disturbing. If a person can be found guilty even though they never intended to offend anyone, where is the natural justice?

    In regard to the fruit-bat incident, the report states as follows:

    “We therefore find that the complaint on this action is upheld though it was not Dr Evans’ intention to cause offence.”

    So Evans is guilty even though it’s acknowledged that he had no intention to cause offence. Anyway, if it was always wrong to give offence, none of us could survive. The world is full of people waiting to take offence, and I don’t see why such attitudes should have a veto over all our actions.

    In my opinion, this policy something that could be used to create quite an effective Star Chamber.

  115.  

    Maybe the unintentional offence law is only applied in specific cases like sexual harrassment. Not anytime anyone offends someone.

  116.  

    Perhaps, but is that logically consistent?

  117.  

    It doesn’t have to be consistent, if sexual harrassment is deemed to be a particularly serious form of offence. Like the difference in America between a misdemeanor and a felony perhaps.

  118.  

    Evans wasn’t convicted of anything. This was an internal investigation by the university.

  119.  

    I was just giving that as an example of different levels of severity in crimes and offences.

    BTW, how do I put an avatar on? It feels like I should have a visual as well as textual response to that beautiful face.

  120.  

    The avatar isn’t connected to this site. It’s to do with your web signature. I can’t really remember how it works.

  121.  

    So that’s how you look everywhere you go online? You must startle a lot of fragile people out there.

  122.  

    God, I hope I don’t unintentionally offend any UCC academics.

  123.  

    With that picture, don’t worry about sexual harrassment!

  124.  

    Snail-pen, If you could not understand what I am saying then I would be surprised by your presence here, but I know you do so cut the bullshit. I mistakingly missed the paste for the word ‘How’ at the start of your question, why the f*ck you’d imagine I might have done it intentionally I have no idea. I did however answer your question-the point of which –
    ‘How could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?’ has been addressed, as it has been in many other places on this thread, and pointed out to you as such. Unless you’re asking a question about a hypothetical situation which is ridiculous.

    Again I’ll say Small-pun, you have consistently ignored and distored whats been said here by anyone who has not sided with your delusional, ill informed and lazy opinion on the whole issue and for that reason, ta ta.

    Bock, re – ‘under the university’s policy, as has been pointed out by others, a person can be found guilty of sexual harassment even if they never intended to harass anyone. How do you feel about that aspect of the policy?’

    I feel that it’s unfortunate but is has to be the case. I take the point that someone could find themselves in an awful situation, but there is a reason why this has to be. Why do you think this is?

  125.  

    Fairlyshocking — There’s no point turning the question back on me. It goes against anything I understand as natural justice, particularly when the person’s guilt depends on how offended the complainant chooses to be.

    Incidentally, let me give you a small reminder about etiquette. It’s customary in internet conversation not to distort whatever handle a person chooses to use, and I’d ask you to respect that please.

  126.  

    Maybe there’s a minimum level of offendability that everyone is supposed to know about and be careful not to violate, even unintentionally. And maybe it even depends on being able to make a quick analysis of the potential offendee.

  127.  

    Perhaps that’s true, but the evidence is that he showed the article to a good number of people in what was obviously a juvenile attempt at snarff-snarff humour.

    Let me confess something here. I myself am occasionally guilty of childish, juvenile, silly, scatological humour as is just about everyone I know. Most of Evans’s victims somehow managed to survive the experience without feeling shocked or disgusted.

    The judge, incidentally, pointed out that Dr Kennedy had to go to quite an effort to read the paper which shocked and offended her, because the print in the article is so small.

  128.  

    Jesus, I’m not turning the question back on you-you asked me a question which entailed me giving you my opinion, I did so. I then in turn asked you a different question.

    I don’s see it as depending on how offended someone decides to feel. I don’t subscribe either to the notion that just because you’re offended by something gives you absolute right to put a stop to that behaviour/way of being. I think it has to be in place partly for reasons given in post 115, and partly because sometimes someone CAN sexually harrass someone without necessarily meaning to offend that person. Would you agree that one example might be a-hootin and a-hollerin workmen by the side of the road/top of the scaffold? I’m quite sure the interest there in actually offending the woman is nil, and more in line with ‘willy waggling’.

  129.  

    To take your example of the workmen on the scaffold, which is rather hypothetical in the current economic climate, it can be regarded as harassment by some people. However, other women I know take it in their stride, and some even get a kick out of it. Clearly, the best solution is to ban hooting and hollering, to prevent anyone being offended. Yes?

    Precisely the same intellectual rigour was used in a case I encountered, where an environmental health officer banned sizzling cast-iron plates in a Chinese restaurant for fear some child might some time get a burn from one. Better safe than sorry.

    I can’t accept that the feelings of an individual can dictate another person’s guilt. Too many people out there are living on a hair-trigger, ready to kick off at the first sign of what they perceive to be sexism or harassment. We lived through decades in this country where the sexual hang-ups of one religion dictated how an entire nation lived, what it could read and what it could view, and therefore, by nature, I’m extremely wary of giving such powers of veto to anyone.

  130.  

    Hey I too know women who would take it in their stride, and in fact quite like it. The solution is not to ban it no, but with behaviours like hooting and hollering etc, comes responsibility, as with ALL our behaviours-and if some women ARE offended then that has to be taken into account and dealt with. It doesn’t mean that everyone has ‘powers to veto’, each case as with so much else, must be looked at individually. But if, as in the ‘hypothetical current economic climate’ example (ok yes..) women have the right NOT to be offended, then ergo they have the right TO be offended aswell.

    Yes?

    (sorry for caps not shouting, don’t know how to bold on this)

  131.  

    I think if we start passing laws to prevent people being offended, political correctness will finally have ended all normal life on this planet.

    Everything we do will offend someone. There’s nothing we can do about it. The most we can hope is to pass laws making sure that people are protected from oppression.

    What is wrong with offending people? If the Catholic hierarchy were deeply offended by things I write here, should a law be passed preventing me from hurting their feelings?

    I recall reading about an incident in TCD, and you’ll have to forgive me if I can’t give you a link. It was a while ago. The authorities decided to cancel the wine at a formal dinner in case any of the Muslim guests were offended.

    Where does this fear of offending people stop?

  132.  

    I completely agree!

  133.  

    Wonderful. We have found a basis for agreement.

  134.  

    I don’t agree. I think that hooting and hollering is a good example of where the sensitivity of one group should be respected in spite of the indifference and even appreciation of other groups. It’s worth it to ban it so as not to offend the easily offendable, since it is understood to be offensive to them. It’s not the same as wining Muslims. Sexuality is a very sensitive thing, and it’s hard enough to be modest in today’s immodest world – those who try to be should be supported. Modesty is actually one of the few things that I still like about religion – as long as it doesn’t get to the point of prudity.

    —————————————————————————–

    There seemed to me to be something missing here – it’s just too cut and dried a case against Dr. Blank (I thought she was supposed to remain anonymous). So I read her hard-to-read Formal Complaint that you brought in the original post.

    Did anyone here care to read it? According to her, this article incident was not an isolated one. She specifically said that “this is not the first time that Dr. Evans raised sexual subjects with me”. Described are:

    1. Life of Cassanova book – sleeping with hundreds of women.

    2. Seven Deadly Sins – dressed like the devil.

    3. Hugging and kissing her strongly in front of her husband.

    4. Regular, uninvited morning visits, where he misrepresents himself.

    5. Frequent “petting, hugging, kissing on the cheeks and touching behavior”. (!)

    6. Compliments on her beauty and dress.

    Maybe the article incident by itself was explainable, especially since she was one of many, but combined with all of the above, I would call that sexual harrassment, wouldn’t you?

  135.  

    The inquiry took all those allegations into account and found that there was no basis for finding Evans guilty of any previous harassment. I can only conclude that they did not find the complainant’s allegations compelling.

  136.  

    Well that’s just amazing to me. Do they think that she made it all up?

  137.  

    I don’t know what they think, but this is what they said:

    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.

  138.  

    You think that they thought differently than they said? That the judgement was just to be JC (that’s Judgementally Correct, not the other JC)?

    And what do you think? Apparently, if you’re accepting their judgment, you agree with it.

  139.  

    I can only base my comments on what they said. The inquiry did not accept the complaint that Evans had previously harassed the complainant, and they were quite categoric about that.

  140.  

    Dropping wine off the menu is nothing compared to the sycophantic kowtowing to the Saudis in February 2006, when President Mary McAleese walked four paces behind her male envoys (who shook hands on her behalf), with her head covered, and spoke to gender-segregated business audiences, condemning the Danish prophet cartoons.

    On an important note, Dylan Evans appears to have an article in the Sunday Times on extreme feminism: http://twitter.com/Jburns43/status/11160823053422592

  141.  

    It might be of a different order, but I think it’s the same obsessional fear of offending people’s sensitivities, even when those sensitivities are bullshit.

  142.  

    Why can you only base your comments on what they said? You say in the comments Policy that

    Any prejudicial comments about a current court case will be taken down.

    meaning, that they’re not acceptable here. But is this a current case? If not, why can’t you say what you think about it? (I don’t understand why we couldn’t even when it is). You can dissagree with them, can’t you? Was it a unanimous decision?

    BTW, this is a good example of “one man’s joke is another woman’s harrassment”. Even though it was only meant as a joke to his other colleagues, for her, it was the untolerable culmination of a history of tolerated harrassment.

  143.  

    All I’m saying is that I can’t read their minds, and in any case I don’t need to. Clearly they did not accept the allegations that Evans had previously harassed the complainant.

    I don’t know why you say there was a history of harassment. Do you have access to information the inquiry didn’t see?

    In fact, this leads to a neat summing up of the findings.

    A man unintentionally offends a work colleague who is of equal status. He has never harassed this woman, and yet as a consequence is denied a permanent appointment by his employer.

  144.  

    What a second – you’re avoiding my questions! Of course I don’t have access to any other information! Unless they deny or Evans challenged the validity of her accusations in that letter, I (I emphasize that I) think that they definitely constitute sexual harrassment. Her accusations clearly describe a history of harrassment – doesn’t it at least seem that way to you, at least at face value? I respectfully suggest that you’re resorting to a Fallacy of Authority argument, falling back on the court’s decision instead of saying what you think, or admitting that you agree with them.

    Your summing up would indeed be very neat, if it were true. After reading her letter, though, I would just change “unintentionally” to “intentionally”, “never” to “continually”, and “yet” to “therefore”.

  145.  

    The finding of harassment was not made by a court. It was made by people the university hired.

    I don’t know what went on in their minds and I don’t know what they think, so I’m not going to speculate.

    This thread is about the consequences of the inquiry’s findings and Evans’s case in the High Court. That’s where it will stay. I have no power to read minds and I respectfully must decline your invitation to talk nonsense.

    As you seem to have access to additional information, could you please let me know what it is.

  146.  

    Bock, I’m afraid I agree that you are indeed avoiding the questions. I understand your point about this being about the court findings etc, but you can’tin one breath make smart remarks about ‘ucc academics’ and pc madness etc and then in the next say the background to the case is not pertinent nor welcome here.

    The black and white arguement can’t stand one minute and be muddied the next. Either you’re/we’re going to look at all facets of this case and discuss it in it’s entireity, or not.

    ‘Leads to a neat summing up of the findings’? I strongly disagree.

  147.  

    Sorry now. Hold on one minute. I’m avoiding no question.

    I was asked to read the minds of the inquiry members, and I’m not going to do that. They didn’t accept the evidence of Dr Kennedy regarding previous harassment, and you can read their findings for yourself if you want to.

    PS. I repeat: the inquiry is NOT a court.

  148.  

    On reflection, and looking again at your mention of ‘additional information’ this is where I must wade out.

    I do have access to just that, and without wishing to appear cryptic, or plain malicous, I’m hesitant to go any further as I fear it may be pointless, as because as you might rightfully point out, it’s ‘heresay’ to you or anyone else reading this.

    So I leave you with a thanks for the interesting, though at times frustrating due to some posters inability to discourse, back and forth. Last point I want to make again though, which I made originally the other day when I came acros this was-Dr Evans sanctions were quashed as they were deemed too harsh. I agree, in line with ‘just the fruitbat incident’ they would be, but they were not just about this, and that was UCC’s cock up. The finding that Dr Evans sexually harrassed Dr Kennedy was UPHELD by the court.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414495&c=1

    Goodnight all.

  149.  

    Very shabby of you to leave that innuendo hanging in the air.

    Despite what you might wish, you do appear cryptic, and plain malicious

  150.  

    OK – I hope you have the patience to read thru this whole response.

    Thank you Fairly. I thought that I was about to continue defending my position alone. But why are you backing out based on “additional information”? I’m not resorting to any such information – just what Dr Kennedy wrote in her Formal Complaint that everyone, including Bock, has access to, and can have an opinion on. And who, may I ask, is unable to discourse?

    Now Bock, I don’t understand what you mean. What innuendo – cock up? Upheld? That wasn’t Fairly’s main point at all. The main point was that the Court agreed with the Inquiry Panel regarding the crime, but not the punishment. (OK, so I was originally confusing the panel with the court – sorry about that.)

    In 36 and 38, I did ask you what you think they thought. But in that same 38 (and from then on), I asked you what you think, to which you replied “I can only base my comments on what they said”. No – you can also base your comments on the evidence that they saw, and disagree with them if you want. So you are responding only to my first question, but avoiding the second, more important and answerable one – what do you think about it?

    I didn’t ask you to read minds – I asked you what YOU think about it. But that’s clear, I see, from your post here – you obviously agree with the court’s overturning. But again, they only overturned the severity of the punishment.

    (I wrote most of this before Fairly’s last post) Even though they overturned it, they still judged that “the incident fell within the definition of sexual harassment under UCC’s “Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity” policy.”

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/biologist-prevails-in-case-of.html

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1201/breaking66.html

    They apparently only disagreed about the proportionality of the punishment, not the actual punishment itself.

    In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns noted the scientific article complained of, dealing with experiments undertaken in China, was a very technical document, written in very small print with nothing or a lurid or graphic nature or anything photographic. The article was awarded an “Ig Nobel” award for papers which may have humorous content as well as serious scientific material and that was the case here, the judge noted.

    I would say (merely my unqualified opinion, of course) that all of the points mentioned – China, technical, small print, non-lurid or graphic or photographic, and Ig Nobility – are all irrelevant to what actually went one between the two Drs. He knew that it would harrass her, and it duly did. The judge and other regular people might need big letters and lurid pictures, but Drs. can get the point even in what would be a dry techy paper to anyone else. I’m really surprised at this judge.

    Like I said, I don’t have access to additional info – I’m commenting based on the info that everyone else saw.

    Also from the Times article:

    The print in the paper was so small that, when Dr Kennedy was shown the article, she said she would need to get her glasses before she could read it, the judge said.

    So what? She said herself in her Formal Complaint that she gave the excuse that

    “I couldn’t read the paper because I didn’t have my glasses with me, (so) I asked him to leave the paper with me. He agreed, and then left.

    So I guess that the judge didn’t accept that excuse. Doesn’t seem right to me.

    Whatever the motive Dr Evans had for producing it, he had also produced it to a number of other people that day, the judge said. Dr Evans’s case was that Dr Kennedy greeted the showing of the paper with amusement and he was unaware of any offence having been taken, the judge said.

    Again, just because it didn’t offend 12 other people, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t offend her. And he seemed to know that it would, and wanted it to, even if he claimed to be unaware that it did. Maybe he even showed it to everyone else just to cover up his real desire to harrass her!

    And what does he mean “whatever the motive Dr Evans had for producing it”? Does he mean (asking this rhetorically Bock – don’t worry) that even if his motives were lurid, it wouldn’t make any difference, because he did the same action to 12 other people? Not very sensitive to personal differences there, Judge!

    the judge said he did not believe Dr Evans had realised how serious the situation was and that the “roof was about to fall in on him” as far as his career was concerned.

    Well, that’s just too bad, Doc! Now you know what a no-no workplace sexual harrassment is. So because he didn’t know, the sanctions should be removed?

    And finally, what nonsense, please, am I inviting you to talk about? That sounds a little Ad Hominemic to me, Bock – I’m pretty dissappointed in some of your attack strategies that avoid the issues. But I appreciate you letting me continue arguing – good that you don’t back out of a good, friendly fight!

  151.  

    P.S. – So the title of this post really should be

    Fruit-Bat Sex Lecturer Wins Case Against Severity of Punishment

  152.  

    I think you’re confusing the court with the inquiry. They are two different things.

    First and foremost: Evans was NOT convicted of any crime. Can we get that clear please? I must ask people to stop suggesting he was.

    The inquiry found that there was no previous harassment, and I don’t see any ambiguity in that, even though you invited me to say what I really thought. What I really think is that the inquiry did not find Dr Kennedy’s evidence compelling. You, of course, are free to think otherwise, but this post is about what the inquiry and the courts decided because they were in a better position to weigh all the evidence than you are. If you disagree with the inquiry’s findings, that’s entirely up to you, but you didn’t hear all the evidence, and Evans was formally cleared of any intention to harass, whether you wish that to be so or not.

    The innuendo I refer to is when FS hinted that he has access to additional information. That’s not good enough. This discussion is about what is in the public domain, not what people claim to know privately. I have no intention of letting people re-run the inquiry or the court case here, and they can’t have it both ways.

    I think I’ve already explained my position on offending people, so I won’t bother repeating it. SInce your points on that refer to things I have already said, I can only refer you to earlier comments.

    There’s nothing ad hominem in my replies to you. I simply will not agree to your suggestion that I should speculate on the private thoughts of the inquiry. I’m not qualified to do that.

  153.  

    PS The title of this post is whatever I decide it should be.

  154.  

    Of course I know that! But it is a little misleading.

    OK – let’s leave the question of whose thoughts you are speculating on or know about.

    I’m not confusing the court with the inquiry any more. Where does it seem like that? The inquiry decided that he was guilty of sexual harrassment and gave him a harsh punishment; the court upheld the inquiry’s decision, but overturned the punishment, although not going as far as eliminating it.

    Fine – it’s not a “crime”. Minor point. He was found “guilty” though. If sexual harrassment is not a crime, then what is it?

    You say in the original post that all that the UCC was told that all that it should have done was “wag a finger at Evans for being silly”. I think that it’s more than that – he still was guilty of sexual harassment under the university’s “dignity of respect” and “right to dignity” policies. That’s more than just being silly. You’re ridiculing the rule because you don’t agree with it.

    Now, in your favor, I must admit that I’m reading the actual Inquiry Report for the first time (!), and I see that “Dr. Evans has produced email evidence that casts serious doubts on some of the evidence of Dr. Kennedy”, and that she was “not sufficiently assertive” to let him know that she didn’t like what he was doing.

    First, I would say that it only casts doubts on some of the evidence – what about the rest? Did they bring his other friends who went on that dinner party, who may have seen his alleged hugging and kissing her in front of her husband? And if she wasn’t sufficiently assertive, then he must have done something for her to be sufficiently assertive against.

    But in the end, if they didn’t uphold her past complaints – and she didn’t appeal that in the court case – then I guess that that’s that. Unless you could say that she was intimidated by the panel. I mean, the whole thing is pretty embarrassing. But that should have come out in court, or maybe it will in a future appeal.

    I think that she’s been very brave to go thru with this – I mean, she must get a lot of sly grins now from people that she doesn’t even know.

    I believe that she was harrassed even if the court didn’t judge his so. A guilty person can be judged innocent based on insufficient evidence – and that’s what I think happened here.

    Now I understand the innuendo – sorry about missing that.

    OK – I think that we can stop now. Thanks for the ride!

  155.  

    Wow – I don’t believe how much I wrote about this! Like I don’t have anything else to do…

  156.  

    And one last thing (I hope) – I agree with you about Fairly’s innuendo. If he has some good evidence, this is not the place to mention it – he should have brought it to the panel or court, or at least to Mrs. Kennedy!

  157.  

    SHIT.

    Don’t you just hate when someone say’s they’re leaving and then comes back?

    I just typed TWO very long replys to the last 3 posts and now I am very very tired. In (very short) summary then.

    1. Excellent post 150, well made points which have and will be consistently ignored unfortunately.

    2 In answer to your Q’s in 150, I was referring to an earlier poster in particular Snailpin or called something similiar. Re additional information, this was mentioned by Bock and the reason I opted out, Bock then used this to hit with over the head with though he’s been engaging with it himself (second guessing re overly sensitive ‘ucc academics’ etc) and said ‘This discussion is about what is in the public domain, not what people claim to know privately’ and similiar in other posts, so I attempted to not appear rude and say goodnight. I made no unnuendo and did not submit any information not available to all. I think it was a bit crappy of you Bock to make the comments you did in 149 while, most importantly, completely ignoring everything else.

    3. Post 153 made me laugh. Honestly. ‘This is MY toy and if you don’t like it TOUGH’. Can anyone see why there’s very VERY little point in engaging in further discussion?

  158.  

    Re 156 – I don’t have ‘good evidence’ and I DIDN’T mention what it was. Ok, if it came across as insinuating as such then that is not what I intended.

    Good god do I need to spell it out? I don’t have any other information that hasn’t been available to all parties!

    Yes?

  159.  

    Yes – but it did sound like you insinuated that!

    Thanks a lot for the compliment. I did put a lot of time into this for some reason, and it is nice for someone to at least appreciate it.

    I must say, though, that your posts can sometimes be a little hard to follow – maybe that ‘s why he ignored it. And you did seem to imply that you had “additional info” – were you just being sarcastic? Where was he second guessing?

    About the title – he is right – he can call it what he likes. It doesn’t preclude further discussion, but it does show which side he’s on. Just like what happened could be seen from either Dr’s differing POV, whether Dr Evans won or lost the case, and therefore how this post could be called, depends on how you look at it.

    I think that we all need some sleep. Maybe this is just a bad dream. -_-

  160.  

    FS —

    looking again at your mention of ‘additional information’ this is where I must wade out.

    I do have access to just that

    Clearly, if you are unable to elaborate on this statement, the right thing to do is say nothing about it. Otherwise it just looks like a nod and a wink.

  161.  

    Ok, yes. I guess I did insinuate that. But I wasn’t trying to be cryptic, I honestly thought it was fairly obvious that I did have from the offset, if not, then apologies and yes I could’ve well sounded a tad all over the place in the wee small hours. Re the title, yes of course he can call it what he wants, but when he berates others for deviating in what he seems as any form from the facts as he sees them, he gets antsy. It does show which ‘side’ he’s on as you say, but it seems that anyone who has questioned any other ‘side’ has not been very welcome shall we say. So to quote the great man himself ‘you can’t have it both ways’.

    And I’m surprised if you don’t think Bock has ignored many of your own points. To me that seems perfectly clear, but as you say, maybe typing late into the night has had some hand in that.

    In the interest of being honest in a ‘hands up’ fashion, the second part of post 158 reads like a complete contradiction. Not what I meant to do at all. Honest guv. I’m honely amazed if no-one can read between the lines though at this stage. NOT that I want to elaborate on anything, this is why I opted out in the first place.

    Honestly, seriously, utterly and completely out of here now. And in the same way Bock gave his ‘neat little summing up of the findings’ I give mine-Dr Evans sanctions against him were quashed as they were found to be disproportionate, but the charge of sexual harrassment was upheld by the court. No spin required.

  162.  

    Re 160 – you’re right, reading that back in the cold light of day I have to agree, it looks just like a nod and a wink. I didn’t intend that, though I know that’s not your point.

  163.  

    FS — If you ever find yourself running a site like this, you’ll find it necessary occasionally to be hard-hearted because you will be responsible for keeping it on track. I invite you to share your experiences.

  164.  

    FS 161 – You’ll be right back – I bet.

    FS 162 – see – even before I posted this!

    Very confusing post again (161). Do you have add. info, or not? It’s hard enough to read your lines – what are we supposed to read between them?

    No, I think that he’s open to valid challenges, and will admit being wrong. I already said to his (rather appalling online) face that he ignored some of my points, and I’m leaving it at that.

    I agree more with your summing up than his. I would just add that I don’t agree with the judgement – seems to me that not only was he guilty of unintentional SH, but that it was also intentional, based on her at least somewhat believable claim of a past history of such harrassment. Just my own mostly worthless opinion though, which I still hope I have a right to, and even to express, and even here!

  165.  

    But you see Bock, I don’t think you were just ‘keeping it on track’. I understand you’ve to do this, but I think your own personal opinion came into play too. But I’m guessing you’d disagree.

    And as soon as I start running a blogging site I’ll let you know my experiences. Yes.

    Seriously though how does anyone find the time for this every day?

  166.  

    S1LU — I thought I had dealt with all your points but maybe there were some I missed.

    Logically, if you feel the inquiry made a serious error of fact then all bets are off because there’s no basis for discussion. The post is about the findings and their consequences

    FS — Of course my personal view has to come into it. I see no advantage in posting bland, neutral tracts. At least, even if people completely disagree with me, I might sometimes make them re-examine their opinions.

  167.  

    FS – That’s a GOOD question! I take time from time that really shouldn’t be taken from. : o

    Let’s say that he’s keeping it on track, and trying to direct it towards his own opinion. He has the right to do that. Those of us who disagree with him have to be pretty cleaer and persistant with our challenges to that.

  168.  

    Bock – thanks for the admission of possible oversight. And I like S1LU.

    I just thought that discussing the validity of the findings was also fair game, not just their consequences. I’d imagine that if you disagreed with the findings, you’d question their validity, too.

  169.  

    Re 164 – re being right back ha yes, you were right. But only because Bock seemed to be right behind me! Re confusing post, ok. Here it is, yes I already said I do have additional information, and yes I concede now that I perhaps should’ve kept that to myself, as I said in post 162, and I’m not going to elaborate.

  170.  

    S1LU — I think we’re stuck with the findings whether we agree with them or not. If the inquiry team were so grievously wrong, then the entire investigation is without credibility and would need to be run again. In such circumstances, we have no subject for debate.

  171.  

    I agree that we disagree about th findings. I think that Dr. Kennedy should appeal, but if she doesn’t, either she also agrees, or just doesn’t want to bother. I’m willing to leave it at this. Thanks for holding on until the bitter end.

  172.  

    PS – I see that you deleted your original #170 – but I and I assume everyone else, still have it in our emails. so this must mean that people who get only email feeds don’t every see deletions and or edits. That’s too bad – makes one want to write it right the first time.

  173.  

    That’s one of the hazards of shooting too soon. People will still get the message even if you delete it. In this case, it was just a typo.

  174.  

    I just came across an interesting BBC article on the sex habits of giant pandas. Better be careful who I show it to.

  175.  

    I see that Evans love in with the Daily Mail continues, with his double page spread yesterday. And, his lovely wife is doing the now familiar stand by my man schtik. The only interesting nugget in the puff is that he denies leaking the confidential investigation on tinternet. As the taliban UCC (bastards!) are going to spend more taxpayers (shriek!) money on investigating this breach of procedure, we are going to hear more about this case. Even if Evans had not harassed his colleague (which, as we know was upheld), it will be interesting how this total and complete bullying and humiliation of her will be explained.

    @norma

    thanks for the kind words. The issue of sexual harassment is a minefield, as proven here, anyone can end up being mangled by weasly words. Continuously moving goalposts to ensure that anyone who disagrees with Evans can never compete. And the big hole at the centre of all the coverage is that the received wisdom is that she vilified Evans for reasons evidently known only to herself. I find it odd that no one here is in the least bit interested in just why she would do this, and risk her own position. If only for the notional ‘balance’ that such coverage should include. No doubt the going off topic non sequitur will be thrown around again, when again, it is just moving the goalposts (again).

    @bock

    “Incidentally, let me give you a small reminder about etiquette. It’s customary in internet conversation not to distort whatever handle a person chooses to use, and I’d ask you to respect that please”

    i assume your distortion of my handle was accidental, and not a breach of etiquette. And it was also accidental that you did not also pull spailpin up on it when he/she did the same to me.

    @boldpilot

    in post 42, I told you about my friend whose son was sexually harassed by his female teacher, and asked you if you wanted to know the outcome of the case. Its seems you don’t but I will tell you anyway. The teacher won her case. The allegation was trivialised, the boys claims rubbished. Texts sent by her to him were deemed not to constitute harassment because there was no overt sexual innuendo in them (even though they were sent late at night). His mother was characterised as a domineering harridan, who just wanted to get the (lovely) teacher into trouble. Indeed the allegations were turned around and it and suggested that he was a ragingly hormonal teenager and mistook his teachers concern for his learning to be more than it was, and he was harassing her. Nobody could bring themselves to believe that a (female) teacher could harass a (male) student like that . (Or, my interpretation, no one could believe that a lovely middle class lady could be interested in a scanger from Clondalkin). Anyway with the weight of the schools legal team, their lack of access to legal represenation due to money, the case was lost and he moved school.

  176.  

    Shellshock — There are two people commenting on this thread with the word “shock” in their handles. I apologise to Fairlyshocking for a reminder that was intended for you. It applies to everyone else as well, and if somebody deliberately misnamed you, I failed to notice it. Now do me a small favour and just accept the reminder with good grace.

    Now, I’ll ask you to please explain why the other cases of sexual harassment are relevant to this topic.

  177.  

    Now we’re gonna start all over with Pandas?? (Don’t want to start a new topic about it?)

    Well then, from the article: I’d be turned off by captivity, too. Although I would think that sex would be a good diversion feeling stuck in it. Look, it’s one thing to say that male pandas are proportionally short where it counts (I’d watch out for the ISPCP, though), and quite another to describe fruit bats fellating. There wasn’t even any sex in the video – just a stuffy old British narrator describing scenes of ugly little newborn pandas. Now I understand why the mothers don’t want more than one.

    Pregnancy can be from 11 weeks to 11 months? Wow – what a range! And they sometimes don’t know that there’s a baby until it’s being born? Double wow!!

    It was a pretty anti-climaxtic (pun observed) way that they increased the panda population – just saving the twin babies! Now why would nature make them have twins, if they’ll only care for one of them? Guess Nature also likes to give its creatures some free choice.

    They eat 20 kilos/day of bamboo? And spend 10 hrs a day choosing the best? What a boring life!

    Now if you want to see some really interesting stuff, look up elephants. I’m not going to give a link, not wanting to be directly guilty of sharing such things. But to those who search, they will find….

  178.  

    yes you should be careful, two bears fucking, giant,( ohh missus) pandas, you wouldn’t want anyone to misunderstand your interest in animal sex. After all you do not have the cover of an innocent respected academic doctor in pursuit of legitimate research. You wouldn’t want anyone to think your just a dirty old man.

  179.  

    Shellshock — If you have something to contribute to this discussion, apart from venting your private problems, by all means contribute. But if you want to personalise the debate, you’ll be subject to the same rules as everyone else. It’s your own choice now.

  180.  

    I misnamed no one. you and spailpin misnamed me, and fairshocking misnamed someone else. Sorry if you are confused by two people using the same word in their moniker, but it does look like another goal post being moved again.

  181.  

    Sounds to me like you’re making a big deal unnecessarily. If anything, probably an innocent mistake.

    Animal sex is interesting, because sex is interesting, and we’re just another kind of animal, aren’t we? It’s interesting enough for LOTS of scientists to be studying it.

    You should be careful of the border between friendly joking around and being offensive, especially with the owner of a forum that you want to continue posting on. If you think that goal posts are being moved, then just say so in a nice way.

  182.  

    no I do not have any private problems, no more than you anyway. I am trying to extrapolate some meaning from the case. Pointless of course, as clearly in the race to the bottom you have won with your two bears fucking, and your giant pandas. As this is the level that the debate has descended too, I will you and your ever decreasing circles to it.

  183.  

    Extrapolating from one case to another unconnected case is illogical and pointless.

  184.  

    I highly recommend reading Dr Dylan Evans’ article in the Sunday Times “Fruit bat ruling is a victory for free speech: Dylan Evans, who was censured for showing a female colleague a paper on bats giving oral sex, fears that we are living in a stifled kindergarten”, News Review section, page 5.

    (The Times is behind a paywall, so you will need to read it in the local Spar)

  185.  

    Lou. I read the Times article and whether anyone approves / disapproves, likes / Dislikes , There were some very valid points made.

  186.  

    I’d like to read it, but don’t know how. Which Times are you talking about? Any link?

  187.  

    Unfortunately, there has been an awful lot of filibustering flimflamming by the anti-Evans side since I was last here (post 111). This has left almost the only protagonist for the other side of the argument, Bock, in a difficult position.

    By not rebutting nonsense it acquires a specious semblance of credibility by default. Rebutting it gives it legs, adds to the general word count and thus furthers the muddying-the-water agenda of the would be defenders of the indefensible.

    By way of illustrating my point, not one of these flimflammers has answered the very simple and most pertinent question I put to them in post 81.

    In post 112 Lou purports to answer the question but doesn’t. In other words Lou’s post is just another instance of the flimflamming I refer to.

    And here I must embark on yet another futile demonstration of the bleeding obvious – the bleeding obvious failure of Lou in post 112 to reply in a logical manner to my question.

    First of all, Lou, thank you for the apology.

    Regarding the question I put to you in post 81, you purport to answer the question in paragraphs 2 and 3 of post 112.

    Paragraph 2 is as follows:

    ‘My answer to your question “How could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?” is in 93 – the university followed the policy.’

    Firstly, you did not answer the question in post 93. As I pointed out in post 101 your arguments in post 93 were fallacious.

    The statement “the university followed the policy.” here clearly doesn’t answer the question I asked either. My question was not whether or not the university followed the policy. Again you’ve adopted the straw man tactic of addressing a point not put rather than the point in question.

    You go on in paragraph 3 to state:

    “As Bock says in 108, the intent is not relevant and the complainant decides what behaviour is offensive, and the investigators determine whether offence is “reasonable” (this is Irish statute, not just UCC policy).”

    This is merely an explanation of how one element of the policy is supposed to be applied. Again, this is totally irrelevant to my question. I didn’t ask you for this information. You have again failed to answer the question.

    In any event, in post 101 I also pointed out that you yourself on the “UCC punishes academic” thread said you considered the report of the investigators to be flawed and incomprehensible, so it’s hardly tenable for you to now cite the report as infallible.

    As I said in post 109 above, it is appalling that anti-Evans commenters persist in demonising Dr Evans while at the same time fail to present a rational defence of the sexual harassment finding against him.

    That kind of irrational malice is typical of the scapegoating, mobbing mentality.

    In that regard, Some1LovesU, we have a fundamental principle of law in this jurisdiction called the presumption of innocence. The investigators dismissed the allegations against Dylan Evans relating to incidents previous to the fruit bat incident. There is every reason to believe, given the inexplicable basis on which they nailed him for the fruit bat incident, that if there were anything substantial in the “previous” allegations they would have nailed him for those also.

    They did not do so.

    The full details of all the evidence relating to these “previous” allegations are not in the public domain. It is prejudicial and wrong to presume that Dylan Evans is guilty by reference to what little is publicly known in this regard, particularly when he was formally exonerated by an official investigation. Yet this is what you are presuming (like shellshock in posts 8 and 35) and it is clear from post 134, for example, that this presumption is colouring your view of the fruit bat incident also.

    I would suggest that you disengage from the mob in these respects.

    Shellshock, in post 175 you say I “distorted your handle” (ie misnamed you in some way). I am not aware of my doing that. If I did it was not deliberate – unlike fairlyshocking who repeatedly (posts 124 and 157) misspelled my soubriquet in an obviously derogatory puerile manner, despite Bock reminding him (post 125) of the etiquette in that regard.

    Fairlyshocking, in post 106 you ask, “what makes you so confident of a ‘mobbing operation’ by UCC?”

    There is a lot of evidence of such a mobbing operation that I have referred to in my previous posts. In the first place there is the inexplicable finding against Dylan Evans regarding the fruit bat incident. As I have pointed out yet again in this post, neither you nor your fellow anti-Evans travelers have been able to rationally explain or justify that finding despite my repeatedly asking you to do so.

    Yet you see no problem with the kind of scurrilous hatchet job on Dylan Evans that you indulged in in post 69. The kind of irrational hatred displayed by you in that post is symptomatic of the mobbing, scapegoating mentality.

    In my posts 11 and 65 I referred to evidence of collectively malicious behaviour and mala fides on the part of the UCC hierarchy that is clearly indicative of a mobbing, scapegoating campaign. In post 70 I presented evidence of the motive for such a campaign.

    Motive, means, opportunity and Dylan Evans’s life destroyed by a baseless finding against him.

    What further evidence to you need?

  188.  

    I referred to Dylan Evans article in the Sunday Times newspaper, Review section, page 5 and I am glad to see that Dylan Evans has kindly uploaded the article on his own website at: http://www.dylan.org.uk/fruitbat_freedom.html

    Spailpín Fánach, I have never stated that I “considered the report of the investigators to be flawed and incomprehensible”. I also do not belong to any brigade of “anti-Evans commenters [who] persist in demonising Dr Evans”. I have not made any statements denigrating or demonising him, and have no interest in doing so.

  189.  

    The article is a bit of a disappointment. It’s not very well written and it contains nothing original.

    However, for some reason, it brought me back to Dr Kennedy’s original complaint in which she expressed hurt and disgust. She also mentioned seeing a colleague looking “visibly upset” after reading the paper on fruit bats.

    Clearly the colleague was not sufficiently upset to lodge a complaint, but I would be interested to know what Dr Kennedy found disgusting about the article.

  190.  

    Re post 87 – ‘irrational hated’ is your opinion. I can only tell you that I have no hatred towards the man whatsoever, and nothing I have said (and in particular my original post) has been irrational, or a hatchet job. Bock made a fair point with reference to a post I made late last night which did, on re-reading this morning, have an element of (unintended) wink winkery to it. That much I will concede.

    You seem to deem anything other than your own opinion on the matters as ‘anti-Evans’ and mobbing. If that’s the case then many early commentators here including yourself would be guilty of the same ‘crime’ against UCC staff and in particular Dr Kennedy. Your question which you persist in banging on about, has been answered many times. When you last said I hadn’t answered, I went and did so (again) You then took me to task re leaving out the word ‘how’, and I again replied. You’ve presented no ‘Motive, means, opportunity’ in any post here Columbo, and as for ‘Dylan Evans’s life destroyed by a baseless finding against him’- you’re kidding right?

    Off with you.

    Bock, re post 89, was there anything else about the Times article that you noticed?

  191.  

    Go on. Enlighten me.

  192.  

    Let me interject with this little response to Spailpin, then I’ll get back to you:

    Spailpin (can I call you that for short?) – I appreciate that you took the time to write such a long response to all of us. I know that it takes a lot of time. I’m only going to respond to my portion – I haven’t even read the whole thread yet.

    Yes, they did dismiss the past incidents, but as they admitted, and as I already mentioned, they only claimed to have email evidence from him challenging some of her charges, not all of them. They didn’t mention any other evidence in their summary decision. And that she didn’t protest strongly enough, implying that there was something to protest.

    I admit, as I already have, that when I wrote 134, I hadn’t yet even read the panel’s decision letter. Even so, I also admit that her complaint letter does still influence my opinion about the FB incident, because I do think that they misjudged the past and therefore latest incidents, just like you think that they misjudged only the later one. I’m not joining any mob (which is a rather Ad Hominemic discription of them anyway) – especially since I don’t even know what they said – I’m just calling it as I see it.

    I find it curious how easy it is for you to accept the panel’s decision on the earlier incidents, while calling their judgement on the fruit bat one “inexplicable”. You can’t have it both ways. If you can challenge to later, than I and others can challenge the former, no?

    Now, looking at 93 and 101 a little for the first time, it seems to me that you are being contradictory again. You urge us to presume the innocence of Dr. Evans, but you without any qualms charge the two panel members with being “compromised” in their ability to render an objective and fair opinion, just because they were hired by the UCC, whom you ALSO assume is out to get the good Dr! So much for presumption of innocence!

    I suggest that you look at it like this – the UCC is trying to defend Dr Kennedy, or at least uphold her claim if they can.

    But more likely, they just want to know what really happened, and want the panelists to determine that. Why do you assume that they’re out for blood? The whole thing is bad exposure enough – you think that they also want to get busted for penalizing the wrong person? He who pays the piper usually wants to hear certain music that he knows the piper can pipe. And it’s likely (and should be assumed to be) like that here too – they pay the panelists to give their honest, researched and well thought out opinion – that’s the music they want to hear from them.

    And now I think that you owe Lou an apology, because he actually DID answer your question, and very well I think (especially since it’s similar to what I’ve said previously!). Although it seems like it’s not the answer that he you – or even he – thought he gave!

    You asked “How could the fruit bat sex paper incident in itself be considered sexual harassment by any reasonable person?”. He says that the 93 answer is “the university followed the policy.” Well, that is a good answer, because whatever the policy is – and I don’t know what it is, and it doesn’t matter – if it was determined that the incident fell within the parameters of that policy, then the policy DOES answer the question.

    But I think that he gave an even better answer: “The offence is in the behaviour (an unwelcome sexual joke) and not the paper.”. It’s the context, not the action. Now of course, it was judged that he had no intention of offending, which was supported by the rejection of the previous incidents. I dispute both of those points, but even if you don’t, it seems to me that the policy basically says that he should have known better, and have been more sensitive.

    OK – I thought that I was thru with this. I’m going to stop now (at least for now).

  193.  

    Bock RE: ” I would be interested to know what Dr Kennedy found disgusting about the article.”
    Maybe the fellatio bit Bock.. or the copulation part. Not sure why though.

    Some1lovesyou: RE 113
    “FME – excuse me for this, but, did anyone notice that “harrass” sounds exactly like “her ass”? (hope my girls never see this!) ” No need to excuse yourself. I’ve heard of the word ass before. I can handle it. :)

    Lou, regarding your comment at 112. There’s no need to repeat the findings of the inquiry or that they followed policy. That’s just antagonising when a person is asking for genuine opinion of their findings.
    RE: ” I have not made any statements denigrating or demonising him, and have no interest in doing so.” Yes you have. I’ve pointed them out in the original post on this.

    Regarding Evans article on his blog/in the Times. I agree with him. There are extreme feminists out there.

  194.  

    FME – I didn’t mean that you’d never heard it before – I just thought that you would be upset that I would say such a thing! ; )

    Bock, I’m sorry, but you continue to judge this based on how YOU feel when reading the article! You – along with many and even most people – don’t think that it’s disgusting, so therefore she shouldn’t, either. You interpret her colleague’s reluctance to file a complaint as meaning that even she wasn’t that disgusted by it; no, it just means that she didn’t want to file a complaint. Don’t you see how you’re telling the story from you’re own POV? Now you must admit that your disgust level is probably somewhat higher than Dr. Kennedy’s. I would even wager that she would be disgusted by your avatar there! The point is, just because you don’t think that it’s disqusting, doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t.

    And this is all besides Lou’s point that it’s not even what the paper said that should determine it – it was how it was presented. OK – now I have to go back to her original Complaint…

    If you look carefully at how she presented what happened, she was disgusted even before she even READ the paper! I can’t copy/paste, and I don’t want to transcribe it out – people have to go look at the original themselves. He came in and sat down uninvited. You know what – I AM going to transcribe it (parenthetical comments mine):

    (He) came to my office uninvited. He sat down on a chair next to me (rightly assumes that he should have stood at the door, or sat on a farther chair) and showed me a paper entitled “Fellatio by Fruit Bats Prolongs Copulation Time”…

    He invited me to read and comment on the subject matter of the paper. I felt harrassed at his behaviour (italics mine – she didn’t even read it yet!) which I consider innappropriate and offensive (I would have, too). I felt hurt and disgusted, and therefore decided to make a complaint.

    I discussed the “excuse” part that follows previously, so I left it out.

    Now you tell me – regardless of what the paper actually said, isn’t that description of the event enough to be called sexual harrassment? Come on! And that’s even without any of the past incidents!

    And it doesn’t take an “extreme feminist” to call it that.

  195.  

    S1LU — You’re reading meanings into my words, which is rather unfair of you.

    Let me repeat what I said.

    I would be interested to know what Dr Kennedy found disgusting about the article.

    That’s a true statement. I would be interested.

  196.  

    And you’re not implying that you expect not to agree with her?

    Just like she was not basing her offense only on that last incident, I’m not basing my meaning reading only on your last statement. Here’s how you describe the article in this original post:

    An academic, rediculous article.

    Quoting the judge mentioning that it won the Ig Nobel award for being funny.

    UCC was just being prudish and Talibanic.

    Evans was just being silly.

    That’s without mentioning any other comments here, or the original post altogether. No mention here at all that there might be a smidgen of something that might justifiably disgust a reasonable person.

    You still want to say that you’re just “interested?”

  197.  

    Jesus Christ, plenty of people have pulled up a chair next to me in work. It’s not harassment.

    It seems to me any previous incidents couldn’t have been too offensive to Ms. Kennedy, otherwise upon seeing him enter her office, she would have told him to leave, wouldn’t she?

    She was alone. So what? That speaks volumes to me. Is he supposed to somehow read her mind and know that because she’s alone, she feels vulnerable . I’ve never felt vulnerable in a room alone with a male colleague. Ever. And I know that if something happened, I’d be well able to take care of myself.

    There was email evidence that put “serious doubts” over the claims of harassment prior to the article being shown. I don’t buy it either, that you allow someone to hug you or touch you in any way that’s inappropriate to you after being out for a dinner. It’s very easy to pull away from someone if you don’t want them hugging you. She should be able to set some boundaries for herself and if she can’t, she has no business being around mature adults.

  198.  

    It’s a fair question. What did Dr Kennedy find disgusting about the article?

  199.  

    I forgot to mention – what about everything else that I said that it doesn’t really matter what the article actually says? You know, you’re vindicating Fairlyshocking back there in 161, saying that you ignore many of my points.

  200.  

    If we had to match each other paragraph for paragraph, we’d be here till the end of time. It isn’t a game of chess, and nobody is obliged to go through your posts line by line to respond, just as you’re not required to go through mine.

  201.  

    FME – you’re obviously not the same kind of lady as the Dr. is – why compare yourself to her?

    No, she wouldn’t have told him to leave. She explained why she let him stay – she “listened to him patiently as a new colleague, not to appear rude”. Does that seem so unreasonable?

    It wasn’t just being alone with him – it’s what he did and talked about there, as she described. And anyway, don’t you get a more creepy feeling from some people than others?

    You, like Bock, are also judging her based on YOU, not HER! YOU know what to do if something happens; YOU wouldn’t allow anyone to hug or touch you like that; YOU know how to set boundaries. And finally, YOU decide that, because of her sensitivities, she has no business being around mature adults!

    I’m really a little shocked that both of you are deciding how this poor lady should act and feel! THAT’S what sounds Taliban to me! Where did empathy disappear to?

    (I have to take a little break for a little while. Be back soon, although I don’t know how much more I can do this!).

  202.  

    Bock – I appreciate you letting me go on like this, even if I’m standing up against you so much. But I’m sorry – again, you’re avoiding my point! Could you respond directly to my 96 and 99?

  203.  

    And I said that I didn’t go thru every point – I just compared your latest, allegedly independent comment, with your original post here, which is the basis for the whole discussion.

  204.  

    You didn’t make comment #96 or #99.

  205.  

    Lou, in post 269 on the “UCC punishes academic” thread you said the investigators’ report was flawed and incomprehensible.

    In the first paragraph of that post you refer to a fault in the report.

    In the second paragraph you state the following:

    “Are they saying that the reasonableness lies in his actions, in the paper, in the joke of presenting the paper, or the context of being in a room alone? Does it matter?”

    In other words you don’t understand the rationale of the report.

    That is the point of my question in post 81 above. Neither you nor any other anti-Evans commenter on this thread has been able to explain the rationale for the finding against Dylan Evans.

    “Does it matter?” you ask. Of course it matters.

    Remember the old adage, “Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.”?

    Yes, I know these old legal maxims and principles can be very awkward at times and can get in the way of shafting an individual but some of us actually think they are important.

    Obviously the UCC hierarchy has little regard for them.

    Fairlyshocking, as above indicated, the question I asked in post 81 has not been answered. I have already debunked in posts 109 and 111 your fallacious response to the question and I have nothing to add in that regard.

    Regarding the evidence of a mobbing campaign by UCC against Dylan Evans, I have dealt with that in post 187. I should have also mentioned in that context FME’s reference in post 66 to a UCC website.

    Your blanket denial of the evidence of such a mobbing campaign counts for nothing other than as further evidence of the anti-Evans bias that you showed in post 69.

    Some1LovesU, there is no contradiction in my position. As I’ve already said, my comments regarding the investigators’ report are based on information in the public domain. On the basis of that information the report is clearly flawed as far as I’m concerned, as there is nothing in the report to justify the finding against Dylan Evans. (Even Lou conceded that, as I have noted above.)

    Your anti-Evans position is based on information concerning the alleged pre-fruit bat incidents. We don’t have all the relevant information in that regard. All we know for certain in that regard is that Dylan Evans was formally exonerated. The presumption of innocence principle requires that that position is accepted until there is uncontested or incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Our positions are not symmetrical because of the presumption of innocence principle.

    Therefore, you’re the one with the problem in this regard, not me. You’re happy to accept the finding of the investigators against Dylan Evans regarding the fruit bat incident but you don’t accept their exoneration of him regarding the other allegations. Such an inconsistent, irrational and denigratory stance is typical of the mobbing mentality. Once the individual is targeted he or she is fair game for every sort of blame or stigma. Even though Dylan Evans was formally exonerated in respect of certain allegations in a report you otherwise accept you insist that he is guilty in respect of those allegations that have been officially deemed to be unsubstantiated.

    Regarding the independence of the investigators, which I commented on in post 101, we have a concept in this jurisdiction called “objective bias”. This means that it is not necessary to show that a judge is subjectively biased to impugn his or her impartiality. It means that if there is any hint of a conflict of interest the judge must recuse from the case. This is interpreted and enforced very strictly in the Irish courts.

    For some reason the principle of objective bias is not applied in non-judicial employment related cases such as this. I can’t see any good reason why it should not because essentially the same principle is involved.

  206.  

    Does it strike anyone as odd that a post about fruit-bat blowjobs receives 200 or 300 replies, while a post about the disastrous state of the country might get no more than 10 or 20?

  207.  

    Some1LovesU, obviously the lady is a different kind of lady than me. Your question on empathy could easily apply to Dr. Evans. What empathy and understanding is allotted to him, where no intent of offence is meant, yet his career and reputation can be jeopardized due to a particular colleague’s sensitivity?

    I have little empathy for a person who’s shown an academic paper and feels hurt and digusted by it. It’s a waste of my empathy. There are real victims of harassment out there who are more deserving of empathy. I know that sounds tough, but some people just need a kick up the arse and to be told stop feeling sorry for themselves. If she was being harassed prior to the article being shown to her, it’s nonsensical to me that she didn’t want to appear rude, as you state. As I’ve said I’ve no problem with her prudishness even, but that that should be catered to and a man’s career ruined over it, is not fair in my opinion.

  208.  

    Bock – S1LU did make posts 96 and 99, or are we not looking at the same screen/missing something? And scrolling through each point in a post has nothing to do with it, I think you failed to address ANY of the points or questions put to you by S1LU, no of course you don’t have to but you surely can’t expect to just put your own points across and then pull back when picked up on them perhaps? Again, yes you can, but that to me wouldn’t amount to a reasonable discussion.

    Snailpin, I am not anti-Evans, myself and everyone else you mention in your hysterical post 05 have answered your question on numerous occasions, and I can only conclude that you’re either a bit thick or a bit of a wind up merchant.

    Re – “Yes, I know these old legal maxims and principles can be very awkward at times and can get in the way of shafting an individual but some of us actually think they are important.” I completely agree! But no-one is arguing this.

    You also say – “Your blanket denial of the evidence of such a mobbing campaign counts for nothing other than as further evidence of the anti-Evans bias that you showed in post 69.”

    So therefore I’ll say “Your blanket denial and refual to acknowlege an answer to your questions counts for nothing other than a true declaration of your falling in love with Dr Evans”

    Fair enough?

  209.  

    Bock, re 06. No doesn’t strike me as odd, strikes me as fairly indicative of the state of the nation alright and the eejits contained therein (us) but not odd no. Heh.

  210.  

    I don’t know. The numbers don’t correspond on my screen. Maybe it’s some technical issue.

    But can you really be serious when you say I didn’t respond to any issue raised? I do my best to address everything, but you have to be aware that I have only a limited amount of time and there are other posts on this site that require attention. If I didn’t respond, it’s either because I didn’t notice, or I think it has already been addressed, or the point is superfluous. Or alternatively, it might simply be because I want to give the commenter space to express an opinion.

    I don’t think it’s necessary to acknowledge every single point made.

  211.  

    FME re post 07. “I have little empathy for a person who’s shown an academic paper and feels hurt and digusted by it. It’s a waste of my empathy.” It wasn’t just the paper in itself, but the way in which it was presented, the WHOLE context.

    “There are real victims of harassment out there who are more deserving of empathy.” Very subjective no?

    “I know that sounds tough, but some people just need a kick up the arse and to be told stop feeling sorry for themselves.” Ah yes but who decides who needs a kick up the arse? As with, who decides what’s offensive etc?

    “If she was being harassed prior to the article being shown to her, it’s nonsensical to me that she didn’t want to appear rude, as you state.” Don’t underestimate an acadmics/similar wish not to appear rude in any circumstance, it can override most things. More importantly, and on a much less lighter note, someone who is being harrassed (yes, if you belive her to have been harrased prior to the paper incident) will most likely take a nosedive in confidence and/or experience a wondering as to whether or not this is or has been ‘their fault’ in some way. So I wouldn’t bat an eyelid at the ‘not wanting to appear rude’ bit.

    “As I’ve said I’ve no problem with her prudishness even, but that that should be catered to and a man’s career ruined over it, is not fair in my opinion.” You’re assuming she was being prudish, the external investigation however found that she had been on the receiving end of sexual harrassment, a charge which the court upheld. Quite a way off from prudishness I’d say.

  212.  

    Fairlyshocking, do you not realise that when you have to resort to the old ad hominem approach of last resort, you’ve lost the argument?

    The same goes for your persistent puerile derogatory messing about with my pseudonym that I’ve already commented on in post 187 above.

  213.  

    I didn’t see anything ad hominem in the last comment.

  214.  

    Bock re 10, I agree it’s not necessary to acknowledge every single point made, but I do feel that S1LU raised a lot of points in those two posts, and I don’t think you made any effort to enter into discussion on them.

    I’m not saying you didn’t respond to any issue raised anywhere, but those two posts, before I read S1LU’s comments that you hadn’t responded, immediately came to my attention as having been side-stepped.

    If for some reason we are looking at different numbered posts, this is the post to which S1LU refers to. (I don’t how to do the quote thing you all do.)

    “And you’re not implying that you expect not to agree with her?

    Just like she was not basing her offense only on that last incident, I’m not basing my meaning reading only on your last statement. Here’s how you describe the article in this original post:

    An academic, rediculous article.

    Quoting the judge mentioning that it won the Ig Nobel award for being funny.

    UCC was just being prudish and Talibanic.

    Evans was just being silly.

    That’s without mentioning any other comments here, or the original post altogether. No mention here at all that there might be a smidgen of something that might justifiably disgust a reasonable person.

    You still want to say that you’re just “interested?” “

  215.  

    Post 187?? Good god I’m really lost now. The highest post number visible to me is 99, then it goes back to one again. Sorry smalpen.

  216.  

    Right. We seem to have a technical issue here. Have you refreshed your browser?

  217.  

    Yip.

  218.  

    Bock, I wasn’t referring to fairlyshocking’s post 211.

    I was referring to fairlyshocking’s post 208, and in particular to his addressing me as “Snailpin” in this paragraph:

    “Snailpin, I am not anti-Evans, myself and everyone else you mention in your hysterical post 05 have answered your question on numerous occasions, and I can only conclude that you’re either a bit thick or a bit of a wind up merchant.”

  219.  

    Actually it’s not from 1 to 99, it’s from 1 to 00, then back to 1. For me that’s twice from 1 to 00, and now up to post 17..and this possibly 18.

  220.  

    This is getting ridiculous.

    I don’t know what happened the numbers, and Spailpín, would you drop this petty shit for Christ’s sake?

  221.  

    Who’s Smalpen? Oh the fellow you called a bit thick Fairlyshocking.
    That’s not very nice now.
    I’m taking the whole context into account FS. It’s ridiculous that she had been feeling harassed by Evans prior to being shown the article, but didn’t want to appear rude, so invited him in. It makes no sense.
    She had no problem appearing rude when she put in her complaint.

    i think if anything goes into moderation Bock, it doesn’t appear for the other commenters but appears for the person who put it in and changes the number of posts for them.

  222.  

    There has been no moderation on this thread so far.

    Commenters appear to be still sober.

  223.  

    haha. I think some would be better off having a few stiff ones and even a spliff maybe.. just to chill the fuck out. FME said this, FME said that..bla bla bla, enough to drive anyone to drink.

  224.  

    FME re post 21 (from this end anyway) Perhaps we’ll just have to disagree on that point then, I can’t see how it’s ridiculous for her to worry about appearing rude and inviting him in, it makes sense to me completely. What I mean is, I can see how it could happen, very easily. With reference to her complaint, I don’t think appearing rude came into it do you? Dr Kennedy complained because she felt sexually harrassed by Dr Evans.

  225.  

    Can you explain how you know what was going on in Dr Kennedy’s mind?

  226.  

    I’ve just lit a fatty boom batty myself.

    I can share, I don’t mind.

  227.  

    Bock I didn’t say I knew what was going on in her mind. We have to take it that when someone makes a complaint about sexual harrassment, that they are doing it because they feel sexually harrassed. Innocent until proven guilty on both sides I’d say would you agree?

  228.  

    Bock made a good point–the Irish economy is in a nose dive–it would be interesting to have a wiki leak about the Irish banks, Russian money–which is now off shore and certain Irish politicians and developers.
    Re Evans–the case re sexual harassment is closed-the judge affirmed UCC verdict that he is guilty–Evans has 21 days to appeal but that would take some spinning as he said he is very happy with the verdict-OK.
    The next case is his violation of confidence—which is a much bigger deal–understandably he wants to change the subject.
    Evans rant in the Times today is bizarre — his fantasies of being castrated by some lesbian PC dominatrix-OK-thank you for sharing–up to a point.
    What happened to his global pharma conspiracy?–the jealous husband–the Italian woman MD with the vapours? Evans as the new Daniel Ellsberg?

    The case is now about violation of confidence–a very big deal in deed and much more damaging to his brand and reputation.

    The question I have is this, Evans was represented by his union from the start, they were in a process to deal down his penalty and take it to a Tribunal if required—a well established, rational, confidential process–why did Evans blow up that process with his petition and web and media blitz?
    It does not make any sense–unless he just wanted controversy, publicity, eyeballs and money.
    Ask yourself that question, why? to whose benefit ?

    Meanwhile the Irish economy is in a nose dive and we have zero information on the banks, the Russian money scam, the politicians and developers involved.

  229.  

    FS — Sorry. Not logical. You are not in a position to state what a person’s feelings were.

    Let me quote you:

    Dr Kennedy complained because she felt sexually harrassed by Dr Evans.

    You can’t possibly know that. The most you can say with any authority is that Dr Kennedy claimed to feel sexually harassed by Evans.

  230.  

    No Bock, I do not agree. I am not saying with any great authority that I know for a FACT myself PERSONALLY that Dr Kennedy felt she was sexually harrassed by Dr Evans, but I WILL work from the standpoint of saying that if she made a complaint of sexual harrassement then I (or the persons deciding the outcome) have to take that charge at it’s WORD. It’s not about BELIEVING, it’s about taking SERIOUSLY. The same applies to rape cases, child abuse accusations etc.

  231.  

    Valiant — The case is not about confidentiality. The case is finished. If this site carries a thread about confidentiality — and I have little enough interest in the subject — we might discuss it then, but not now.

  232.  

    Valiant “Evans rant in the Times today is bizarre — his fantasies of being castrated by some lesbian PC dominatrix-OK-thank you for sharing–up to a point.” There was nothing of the kind written by Evans. More bullshit from you. He’s allowed have as many theories as he wants to try and understand the nonsense of the complaint.

  233.  

    Bock, what “petty shit” are you referring to?

    In post 125 you gave fairlyshocking a “small reminder about etiquette” in relation to her/his messing about with my moniker.

    S/he has continued to mess about with it.

    If was wrong then it is even more wrong now.

    Also, saying somebody is “either a bit thick or a bit of a wind up merchant” is ad hominem.

    As I already said, if people have to resort to that schoolboy/girl namecalling stuff, they’ve lost the argument.

  234.  

    Valiant, these are things I have similarly commented on previously, see my post 06 (which I imagine is actually post 106?) I’d love to discuss further on your post, tomorrow though when there is more energy abound. Good points.

  235.  

    Quite right Bock 200-odd responses on this thread and I’m still none the wiser on the sexual practices of the fruit bat.

    I will say however, that where true justice is served balances are struck.

    On the one hand one Dr. Kennedy was ‘disgusted and hurt’ after being presented with an academic paper. I assume that her reaction stemmed from the belief (rightly or wrongly that) some kind of sexual innuendo was at play.

    On the other hand we have Dr. Evans who presented the paper to Dr. Kennedy for reasons that are not are entirely clear. I can imagine this as something of a joke, tongue in cheek.

    Back to justice. The conviction of sexual harassment against a university lecturer will destroy his career and most lightly bar him from future employment let alone advancement.

    Justice my bollocks.

  236.  

    As FME remarked earlier, if the woman was hurt and disgusted by something like this, she has a hard life ahead of her.

  237.  

    FS — You stated the person’s feelings as fact, and I’m pointing out that you can’t possibly know the person’s motivations. All you can do is look at the facts available to you. By saying that she claimed to be hurt and disgusted, you don’t cast any doubt on her motives. You simply acknowledge that you personally have no access to what went on in her mind and therefore can’t speak for her emotions.

  238.  

    FME – “There was nothing of the kind written by Evans. More bullshit from you. He’s allowed have as many theories as he wants to try and understand the nonsense of the complaint.” Oh but there was. He undertands perfectly, and these ideas he puts forward are not theories, they are being put forward as multiple reasons for the ‘mobbing’ Spailpin (that right now?) refers to. I’m honestly so amazed that even on reading the Times piece alone ANYONE can take him seriously!

    Anyway, methinks that aspect of the story (breached confidentiality/PR spin/sociopathic tendancies perhaps) are to be put to bed here. Fairy nuff.

  239.  

    I would say you are probably right that this case (the High Court case taken by Evans) is closed – I don’t expect Evans will appeal given that he is happy with the outcome, and UCC has always withdrawn from court action at the earliest convenience.

    I do, however, expect the Fruitbategate case to continue for a while, perhaps in quite unexpected directions.

    It is a very interesting case, and likely to be quoted (by me if nobody else) in any future submissions on future versions of the policy and code of practice. I understand that a number of people are likely to produce academic studies incorporating elements of the case.

  240.  

    As I said Bock – “I am not saying with any great authority that I know for a FACT myself PERSONALLY that Dr Kennedy felt she was sexually harrassed by Dr Evans, but I WILL work from the standpoint of saying that if she made a complaint of sexual harrassement then I (or the persons deciding the outcome) have to take that charge at it’s WORD. It’s not about BELIEVING, it’s about taking SERIOUSLY”

    Can’t say that any clearer.

    Jesus close this thread will you please? I’ve stuff to attend to.

  241.  

    I want this discussion to have some sort of broader relevance, even though people seem uncomfortable with drawing broader lessons from individual issues. Therefore, what Evans did after the fact is not relevant to the facts of the case.

    By the way, I saw no mention of castration in the article as quoted by Valiant.

  242.  

    I agree Lou, I think it will continue for a while too, in unexpected directions yes.

    Goodnight all.

  243.  

    Another long one…

    In general, Fairlyshocking and I are on the same wavelength about this, so I agree at least mostly with what s-he says. And thanks again for coming to my defense.

    Spailpin – I must admit that you are very thorough in your responses, although I don’t agree with you sometimes.

    Now, since you seem to be stuck on your question of nobody being able “to explain the rationale for the finding against Dylan Evans”, I’m going to do that for you. As Lou said, they were just following the policy. What policy? The Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy:

    http://www.ucc.ie/en/SupportandAdministration/PoliciesandProcedures/HumanResources/EmployeeWelfare/DutyofRespectandRighttoDignity/

    You don’t have to go there – here’s the relevent part:

    ———————————————————————————————–

    13. Sexual harassment is similarly defined as any form of unwanted verbal, non verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, if the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.
    Common sexual harassing behaviour includes, but is not limited to:

    Verbal or physical advances
    Requesting sexual favours
    Asking about someone’s sexual preferences, fantasies or activities
    Repeatedly asking for a date after someone has expressed lack of interest
    Unwelcome patting, hugging or touching someone’s body, hair or clothing
    Making comments, jokes, sexual innuendo, displaying or circulating offensive material or computer pornography
    Making suggestive or sexual gestures, movements or facial expressions
    Making disparaging remarks to someone about their gender or body
    ———————————————————————————————–

    It’s clear that intention is not required – the conduct only has to have the alleged EFFECT, not PURPOSE. You want to know how the panel determined that what he did falls under sexually harrassing behavior? I don’t know that. But I would say, just by reading this, he “circulated offensive material”. Now of course, the big question you and Evans supporters will ask is “what makes the article offensive, especially since most people it was circulated to didn’t find it to be?”. Doesn’t matter. The policy says “any form of unwanted verbal, non verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. It was unwanted by her, even if he was to dense to realize it at the time, so it falls within the policy. Many of the other things that she alleged that he did previously are also listed here, but since they were rejected by the panel, we’ll leave them alone – although some of us dispute that rejection. But the FB incident on it’s own clearly could be considered to have violated this policy. Is that clear enough? So now, you should accept their judgement against him regarding that FB incident, correct?

    We might dissagree about how to apply Presumption of Innocence, but I would suggest that, once he was shown to be “guilty” in the FB incident, it would bring back into question the earlier ones. Especially considering what someone (Fairlyshocking it is, in 238) said here about what he said in his Times article – he does sound like a strange fellow who it might not be so beyond doing those things, doesn’t he? (I admit, I didn’t read it, so I’m willing to concede on that for now. And you can take that out if you think it’s libelous).

    According to you, “objective bias” would prevent any university from hiring such inquiry panelists to judge such a case! So what then – every such case would have to go to court? Maybe so.

    Bock – regarding the lower turnout for the more serious topics: I think that that’s because, once everyone rants their rant, you all basically agree what needs to be done, so there’s no need for a lot of posts. And there have been a few different topics about it – adding up all of the comments, it’s probably a lot.

    FME – I agree with you – and the court – that the punishment was overly severe. But not about the empathy.

    Bock 210 – limited amount of time? I’m sorry, not a good excuse. You obviously read a lot if not all of the comments. It would take you 15 seconds to say “yes, S1LU, I guess you’re right about that one”. And you still haven’t responded to my 196 and 199, or Fairlyshocking’s quoting of it in 214.

    Niall 235 – good summary – I basically agree.

    Bock 236 – “As FME remarked earlier, if the woman was hurt and disgusted by something like this, she has a hard life ahead of her.” What something are you talking about – the headline, the article, the whole presentation context? I’d say that she could deal with the first two, if she found them herself in a professional or even entertainment context. But as it was presented to – better, imposed on her, yes, it will be hard for her if it happens in the future. Although now she’s surely much better equipped to deal with it. But so what if it’s hard? Again, you’re implying more than just what your saying. Something like what someone else said, that she’s not fit for the grown up world.

  244.  

    S1LU — The answer to your question in 196 is yes. Your question 199 mentions everything else you said. I presume that’s everything in comment 194 which is about Evans going to Dr K’s office.

    His behaviour would be inappropriate if he and the complainant were not on friendly terms. However, since you go on to speak of “the past incidents”, it’s clear that you rely on Dr K’s statement about events leading up to that day, even though the inquiry was not persuaded by it.

    In fairness, therefore, I think you should also take account of the contrary testimony that they had been on cordial terms, and in such a case, his behaviour would not be inappropriate.

    I think I have now said several times that I don’t find Evans a particularly engaging character. I find little to like about him. Nevertheless, and for the final time, I think this incident has been blown out of all proportion and undermines the position of genuine victims by discrediting the disciplinary process.

  245.  

    ” So now, you should accept their judgement against him regarding that FB incident, correct?” Well of course you have to accept the judgement some1 but it doesn’t mean you have to agree with it.
    According to the policy, intention is irrelevant and the sensitivites of a particular person is what counts. That doesn’t seem fair to me. According to the inquiry, they did state that Evans didn’t intend to cause offence.

    RE ” Doesn’t matter. The policy says “any form of unwanted verbal, non verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. It was unwanted by her” Oh but it does matter, that’s why we’re having the discussion.
    It’s a non sequitur to discuss the validity of a finding, if you keep repeating a policy. We know the policy, we know what their finding was. Do you agree with it or not is the question and why? You can’t infer that because she states there was previous incidents of ‘harassment’ prior to being shown the article that he must have been harassing her.

    Sorry to repeat myself but the inquiry did not uphold any complaints of harassment prior to being shown the article as email evidence from Evans put serious doubts on these claims. And to my mind, if she was so offended and harassed by him prior to him coming into her office on the day of the fruitbat incident, it would not be a rational response to want to appear rude. That’s nonsense. If someone was harassing you, you would say beat it, I’m busy. Whatever. You wouldn’t invite them in.. Let them pull up a chair next to you.. etc. etc. If it doesn’t make sense, it’s usually not true. i.e that she was being harassed.

    RE “Especially considering what someone (Fairlyshocking it is, in 238) said here about what he said in his Times article – he does sound like a strange fellow who it might not be so beyond doing those things, doesn’t he? (I admit, I didn’t read it, so I’m willing to concede on that for now. And you can take that out if you think it’s libelous).” He said nothing that was strange in the Times article. I’d suggest reading it before stating that because he might be strange, means he might not be ‘beyond doing those things’. You’re jumping to all sorts of conclusions Some1.

    You’d have to admit there is nothing intrinsically offensive about an article on the sexual habits of fruitbats and I’m taking the whole context into account as much as anyone else can. The complainant needed to take responsibility for what she felt comfortable with or not. She didn’t have to allow anyone to hug her after a dinner. She didn’t have to invite him into her office. She didn’t have to allow him pull up a chair next to her.. seriously is she not responsible at all for what she’s comfortable with? He told her what the article was about before she read it. All she had to say was take your article and on your bike you go. Victim my arse.

  246.  

    Some1LovesU, I appreciate your attempt to answer the question I posed in post 81.

    You say:

    “Now, since you seem to be stuck on your question of nobody being able “to explain the rationale for the finding against Dylan Evans”, I’m going to do that for you.”

    I’m not stuck on that question at all. The answer to that question is perfectly clear to me. There is no legitimate rationale for the finding against Dylan Evans as far as I can see.

    It is those people who support the finding but who are unable to explain the rationale for it who are stuck on the question.

    In your attempt to explain the rationale for the finding you say:

    “You want to know how the panel determined that what he did falls under sexually harrassing behavior? I don’t know that.”

    And there’s the rub.

    Just like Lou and all the other members of what Bock has called “the anti-Evans claque” (post 89), you are unable to explain the rationale for the decision.

    That is not surprising because to reiterate the bleeding obvious, there is no legitimate rationale for the sexual harassment finding against Dylan Evans.

    And yet just like them you continue to use that irrational finding as a pretext for denigrating Dylan Evans in all sorts of ways. (See also Bock’s posts 68 and 73 in this regard.)

    For example further on in your post you say:

    “We might dissagree about how to apply Presumption of Innocence, but I would suggest that, once he was shown to be “guilty” in the FB incident, it would bring back into question the earlier ones. Especially considering what someone (Fairlyshocking it is, in 238) said here about what he said in his Times article – he does sound like a strange fellow who it might not be so beyond doing those things, doesn’t he? (I admit, I didn’t read it, so I’m willing to concede on that for now. And you can take that out if you think it’s libelous).”

    As I’ve already dealt in detail with the perversity and morally unacceptable nature of this kind of commentary in post 205 above, I won’t say any more about it here.

    I’ll just repeat what I said in post 187: I would suggest that you disengage from the mob in these respects.

  247.  

    Excuse me, FME and Spailpin, but as much as I appreciate your responses, I’m just going to respond to Bock right now. I’m getting a little burnt out with this, and it’s taking too much time that I don’t have. I’ll try to get to you later.

    Bock – Yes to 196 is what I though, and it explains your attitude, which is fine. Would you consider, therefore, that her disgust threshold is valid, even if it’s much lower than yours?

    Yes, 199 refers back to 194. I wasn’t aware that they were on friendly terms. Even if they were, and assuming that he knew that she was married, isn’t it possible that he still went to far? I still think that it’s more likely that her friendliness was a cover for putting up with him and hoping that he would soon leave her alone. Like the inquiry report said, she didn’t resist enough – that was her mistake. I think that she IS a genuine victim, just not the fighting back kind in a case of more obvious harrassment.

    My “going on to speak of the past incidents” was only to point out that I didn’t need to invoke them to support my position on the FB incident! Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by bringing it up, then.

    Why isn’t anyone commenting about the cheese? (rhetorical ?, of course!)

  248.  

    I can add little to that. It’s irrelevant whether Dr Kennedy’s squeamishness is higher or lower than mine, since my feelings weren’t part of the final decision.

    What I have difficulty with is the idea that one person’s disgust threshold should determine another person’s guilt.

  249.  

    I hear that. I guess it must be that the UCC via that policy holds that her threshold (which you call squeamishness) was high enough that he should have been more careful not to cross it. I’m sure that he or anyone else wouldn’t have to be so careful if she was even more extremely squeamish, beyond the boundaries of normalcy. But I think that it’s reasonable that this RB case would cause such a reaction in a non-extremely squeamish person.

    I don’t know if that was clear enough, but that’s it, again for now!

  250.  

    Sorry – that’s FB (Fruit Bat) case.

    You know, watching the few seconds of video of them, I was also kind of disgusted – regardless of what they were doing! Just disgusting looking little creatures. And I’m generally an animal lover (platonically, that is).

  251.  

    Hi Some1LovesU,

    You stated ” Niall 235 – good summary – I basically agree.”

    I think that if you read my summary (as you described it) carefully, once more, I suspect that you might not agree with my synopsis. For my part, I find a lot of (but not all) of your offerings contrary to my arguments here.

    Regards,

    Niall

  252.  

    Bock, where did Niall’s comment go? He had the last one after Some1 yesterday.

  253.  

    I was wondering the same thing. I think he deleted it.

  254.  

    Oh right. That’s probably it. Thanks.
    I think he wasn’t sure if some1 meant to agree with his opinion.. as their opinion differed.
    Shur if he deleted it, maybe I should say nout.. :)

  255.  

    I thought that you (Bock) have to approve deletions.

    Anyway, I thought that I agreed with him, but if you (FME) say not, maybe not. I’m not going to analyze it to figure it out. Enough about FB’s and Drs E & K already! I might try to respond to yours sometime, though.

  256.  

    I don’t have to approve deletions. You can take out anything you wrote.

  257.  

    Can I take out something that somebody else wrote? That would be useful! ; )

  258.  

    No. Only the Moderator of the Old Testament can do that.

  259.  

    Ah we’d have no debate then Some1. – (if you could take out someone else’s)
    You did agree with Niall some1, but he wasn’t sure if you *meant* to.. as his opinion throughout differed than yours. Doesn’t really matter. I was just wondering where the comment went to.

    Not the moderator of the new Testament Bock? That is slightly more enlightened apparently.

  260.  

    Same moderator, I thought. Not very moderate, though. Let’s not tangent totally into being a Testament Testing Topic. See you at the Pandas!

  261.  

    Spailpín Fánach, you witter on again that “Lou and all the other members of what Bock has called “the anti-Evans claque” (post 89), you are unable to explain the rationale for the decision” despite patient repetition of a perfectly comprehensible answer – and plainly a panel, HR, president and judge who comprehend it.

    A younger and more vocal individual has rendered it in language you might follow: “I cannot believe that ‘don’t make creepy jokes about blow jobs at work’ is so hard to fucking understand.” (from Mumsnet via http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/exclusive-evans-wins-high-court-battle-19601/)

    A bit like no means no, silence is not consent (in English, Irish, Latin or Yale).

  262.  

    How about non-creepy jokes about blow-jobs?

  263.  

    Niall, would you kindly give me a break? I don’t give a rat’s arse if your comments go up or not.

  264.  

    Non-creepy variety also a no-no, I would think. Non-creepy meaning about people, not creepy little fruit bats, do you mean?

  265.  

    Closing it down Bock.. here’s a song to sing it out to.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k

  266.  

    Lou — I followed that link. How do you know the commenter is a younger individual?

    Interestingly, another “student” also mistakenly mentions castration in the comments, just like Valiant mistakenly did here, even though Evans said nothing about it in his Times article. Isn’t that odd?

  267.  

    That’s quite ok some1. I believe you said you might reply to Spailpin’s reply also. I’ll hazard a guess, that he won’t mind either.

    I followed the link too Bock. I wouldn’t be suprised if ‘Valiant’ was ‘Victor’ in that thread in the student blog.

  268.  

    Bock, I do not know that the individual is younger than me. I am guessing on the basis of the language and the presence of the comment on a mothering site. To be honest, I know that I am older than Dylan Evans and do not know the ages of anyone else here, or there.

    (I see that the link I pasted is messed up with the final parenthesis and goes to the wrong story, try http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/exclusive-evans-wins-high-court-battle-19601/ )

  269.  

    FME – There’s another coincidence. Talking about Evans’s Times article, Valiant refers to castration and uses the word Dominatrix on this thread, while Victor, on the thread linked to by Lou uses exactly the same terms.

    Isn’t that peculiar, since Evans referred to neither in the piece he wrote?

    What was that I said about mobbing?

  270.  

    And just for fear Victor’s comment might be accidentally erased due to some technical fault, here’s a screenshot of it.

  271.  

    Good man Bock. Call the bullshit for what it is. There was no suggestion of castration and dominatrix in his Times article as Valiant said here or as Victor said in the student blog. That’s the only reason I suggested people read it for themselves. Valiant has been proved over and over again, to be spewing complete and utter crap.. as on the first post you did on this. Definitely malicious lies and mobbing going on.
    (I see tenure is mentioned also by Victor. If I remember correctly you explained a scientific term to Valiant on the first post, saying you weren’t concerned about such parochial concerns as tenure, but the issue on its own.) Definitely a ‘dog in the fight’, I would think.

  272.  

    I wonder, having linked to the post in the first place, if Lou has any views on this?

  273.  

    Admin note: Some irrelevant and distracting quibbling about housekeeping has been deleted.

  274.  

    A view on Victor and Valiant? I have seen Dylan Evans refer to Victor as his “greatest fan” on Cork Student News and Dylan Evans also suggested (on the Times Higher articles) a Google for Dylan Evans and Victor. The search returns hits going back to May on many blogs, so does Dylan Evans and Valiant. One of them mentions Stanford, I think both mention US attitudes to confidentiality and both seem unfamiliar with Irish law.

    They could be extreme feminists.

  275.  

    They seem to have a great deal in common, especially their inaccurate quotations of Evans’s articles. Apart from Victor’s comment, I can’t see anything on the link you provided that contains anything particularly critical of Evans, and therefore I’m wondering why you submitted it.

  276.  

    I have no special interest in criticising Evans. I posted an amusing answer to Spailpín Fánach’s echo. I also posted the link to the article by Evans, and recommended reading it.

  277.  

    Is there a free link to the article that Evans wrote?

  278.  

    “Spailpin Fanach’s echo”, Lou? (post 275).

    As I don’t know what this means, I presume it’s this just another one of your snide sideswipes.

    I take it that the closing remarks of post 260 are in a similar vein, as they seem to refer back to your rape innuendo in the “UCC punishes discussion”. You will recall that you were found out in that regard by FME in post 277 of that thread.

    Anyway, in response to your addressing me in post 260, I don’t want to clutter up the board with needless repetition but I would refer you to post 205 where I quoted you admitting on the other thread that you didn’t understand how the investigators arrived at the sexual harassment finding.

    I quoted you in this regard because you denied admitting this in post 188 above.

    And it has emerged in the course of this discussion that, like you, none of the other anti-Dylan mob is able to explain how the fruit bat incident constitutes sexual harassment by reference to the “reasonable person standard” of proof, which standard I believe is invoked in the relevant code.

    I can understand how that kind of exposure would annoy you and cause you to lash out as you have.

    So, insofar as the sexual harassment finding against Dylan Evans cannot reasonably be construed as sexual harassment and therefore lacks a legitimate rationale, I think one must look for an illegitimate rationale.

    And in view of all the available evidence (see post 187 above) it is reasonable to conclude that the illegitimate rationale was the desire of the UCC hierarchy to get rid of Dylan Evans one way or another because he was, probably among other things, raising questions about disclosure of funding that the UCC hierarchy did not want raised.

    In other words Dylan Evans was “challenging the culture” and suffered the consequences usually suffered by such persons – he was scapegoated.

    If you disagree with that hypothesis, theory, proposition or whatever you want to call it, Lou, please try to respond in a logical manner for a change.

  279.  

    Spailpín Fánach, who conceivably cares about your “hypothesis, theory, proposition or whatever you want to call it”? Not even Dylan Evans.

    The simple fact is that he acted in a way that was objectionable and unwelcome, “reasonable people” were appointed to investigate his conduct, he was found guilty of sexual harassment, and the High Court has upheld that finding. They did not uphold the complaint of a pattern of prior misconduct due to he-said-she-said conflicts of evidence. His “misunderstanding of the investigation finding”, as the judge termed it, speaks volumes. There is no need for any further explanation, and Evans appears to have no plans for further appeal, given his statement that he is happy with the outcome.

    I have been interested in the development of related policies for many years, I contribute to public consultation, I question Dáil candidates and I vote accordingly. Sometimes the effort seems pointless – this is the first guilty verdict in the ten years since the policies were introduced, and not because sexual harassment has been successfully eliminated from the workplace. To have someone like Dylan Evans present himself as the first convict is a gift in raising awareness, as much as his media hooring is deplorable. The entertainment value that he has brought is a bonus.

    Personally, I would like to reinvestigate his conduct in the light of his Sunday Times article and reinstate the original disciplinary sanctions, but that might be an expensive experiment, and unnecessary given his other actions since May.

  280.  

    Lou RE: , “Personally, I would like to reinvestigate his conduct in the light of his Sunday Times article and reinstate the original disciplinary sanctions, but that might be an expensive experiment, and unnecessary given his other actions since May.” I find your repeated claims of unbias a little hard to believe Lou – e.g.
    “I have no special interest in criticising Evans. I posted an amusing answer to Spailpín Fánach’s echo. I also posted the link to the article by Evans, and recommended reading it.”

    What don’t you like about his article? “Reinvestigate his conduct in the light of his Sunday Times artcle”? ha? His conduct was already investigated Lou. Also future actions, don’t change previous ones.
    I found the article to be reasonable. That’s his point of view, he’s entitled to it. Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it’s indicative of any conduct Lou. You quoted ‘extreme feminists’ earlier to Bock.. is that the part you don’t like? You don’t think there are extreme feminists out there, no?

    Also it wasn’t exactly a “he said/she said conflict of evidence”. It was she said, he had evidence that disproved it. Entertainment value hey? That’s nice you’ve been entertained Lou.

    I find Valiant’s quotes of what he supposedly said in that article completely off the wall and a little nutty. Maybe that’s the type of woman he’s referring to.

  281.  

    OK, I read Evans’ article. Hope that this is coherent enough.

    He keeps emphasizing the “colleague” aspect of their relationship, that he just “showed her a scientific article”. But I thought that he admitted doing it as a joke? He’s understandably making himself sound perfectly innocent. I would question the perfection of that.

    “I had unintentionally and unwittingly offended my colleague.” Says you. I question those 2 “un”s.

    He’s right that the case didn’t ask about the rightness of the policy, which is also what Bock wants asked.

    “it reignited debate about the extent to which interactions between colleagues should be policed by employers, and about the dangers of rampant political correctness.” What’s wrong? You bothered her, she asked for help. Rampant to you. At best, it was a bad joke, which she didn’t want you to tell. You should have figured it out, if she didn’t say it outright. You must have known by then that she’s a sensitive person, and wouldn’t like it.

    “a noble wish to defend a damsel in distress but, as this phrase itself implies, they betray a patronising view of women.” You’re the one who mentioned the phrase! Forget about “women” – we’re talking about this one woman, who WAS in distress!

    “Extreme feminism contains a set of ideas that go further, viewing men as irremediable misogynists and taking a dim view of heterosexual relationships.” Again, wrongly trying to generalize from this one woman’s distressing experience.

    “they view women as fundamentally fragile creatures unable to stand up for themselves, and therefore in need of protection. How else to explain their campaign to punish men for making even the most innocuous of remarks, merely on the grounds that a woman says she took offence?” Generalizing again. And it continues – I won’t quote every instance. You don’t really believe that yours was one of the most innocuous of remarks, do you?

    “Any word or deed with even the slightest whiff of sexual innuendo is viewed with alarm. Men are viewed as disgusting perverts or — even worse, perhaps — subtle seducers against whose devious schemes all decent ladies must constantly be on the alert.” Well, there is some truth to that. At least to be always suspicious, unless a woman wants to be seduced. What you did was not a mere “slightest whiff of sexual innuendo”.

    Skipping ahead a little. He’s trying to hide behind “free speech” and “democracy”.

    Last comment: “All rights presuppose a corresponding duty, and my right to free speech obliges you to have a certain level of toughness and resilience.” That’s funny – I would have thought the the corresponding duty is that YOU should have been careful not to abuse that right of free speech by upsetting your colleague like you did.

  282.  

    Well glad to see you finally read it some1. Was it strange as you initially mentioned before reading it?
    Did you see any mention of castration or dominatrix as ‘Valiant’ stated? Not there right?
    You said the colleague was in distress. How do you know that? She said she was hurt and disgusted. If she was distressed, she’s very delicate all together, don’t you think?

    You don’t know what remarks he made, innocuous or not. He told her about the article, she then requesting that he leave a copy with her. After reading it, she was then disgusted and hurt.

    I would say he’s generalising all right – About extreme feminists and supporters of the complainant, like Valiant above. I don’t know what his intentions were that day and neither do you, so you can’t really speculate on that. But apparently they were on friendly terms. That seems to make sense to me, due to the complainant allowing him into her office and talking to him. If he’d have been harassing her, she would not have been worried about appearing rude to him… (he wasn’t even her superior). So all you can go on is what seems logical Some1.

    Also RE: “What’s wrong? You bothered her, she asked for help. Rampant to you”. It’s not that she asked for help. It’s that she put in an official complaint that would ruin his career.

    I don’t have too much more to say on it..

  283.  

    Lou — You say “The simple fact is that he acted in a way that was objectionable and unwelcome”

    Do you have a way of defining what is objectionable?

  284.  

    I have lost interest in the Evans case–easy for me as I do not have to pay for his litigation.
    As I understand it he was represented by his Union from the start, Unions engage in negotiations and bargain down penalties–it seems to me that the issue would end up in Tribunal—the Union representing Evans and whoever representing UCC.
    Can some one explain why Evans nuked this fair and rational process by going public on the Web? before it had even played out?
    Also from my view the UK Times article is odd, I may have taken some metaphorical liberty with ” castration” and ” dominatrix” but if you read the article that is not a big stretch —-
    There is clearly a lot of PC nonsense around but Evans is the worst spokesman for anti PC.
    Evans has a phd in philosophy–I just do not see what he has published in the realm of philosophy–correct me if I am wrong

  285.  

    Both you and the other V did more than take metaphorical liberty. You misquoted and misrepresented the article.

  286.  

    Bock

    In my case that is true– I used an analogy and put it in quotes
    Evans has used the THE, Irish Times, Independent, etc to claim that he was exonerated of sexual harassment , anyway that case is over.

    His trial for violating confidentiality is now in progress, which IMHO will prove much more serious.

    Frankly I think Evans is a self promoting fake–so what ?

    The case could involve a man, woman, transsexual, bi sexual or what ever

    I do not support a lot of the PC nonsense, neither do you—Evans is the worst spokesperson for that cause

  287.  

    FME 282 – no, the article wasn’t as strange as described. I took other people’s word for what it said. Mistake. Valiant admits metaphoricizing; Bock said it was more than that; I agree.

    You and the other pro-Evansites say that we anti-E’s are unfairly out to get him; I’d say that you’re unfairly out to save him.

    I used the word distress as a follow up to “damsel in distress”. You say she was merely disgusted? Nit picking words. She was distressed because she was disgusted. He came in uninvited, sat down uninvited, and showed her an inappropriate, provocative article, using their professional relationship as a cover. If there’s anything at all to believe in any of the previous incidents – and I’ll remind you again that there was only evidence against SOME of her complaints against him – then it was understandable that she was distressed by this one. You say that I’m wrong to keep those incidents in the picture once the panel discredited them; I say that you’re wrong to totally ignore them.

    Saying that nobody knows what his intentions on that day were – I’m basing my speculation (and I have a right to speculate – why not?) – based on her complaint, assuming that there is some fire somewhere behind all of that smoke, and based on his high fallutin’ attitude in the article. You say that they were “apparently on friendly terms”. How do you know THAT? And according to her complaint, it was just that – apparently. She wanted to get rid of him, was being polite, and didn’t quite know how to proceed beyond that politeness. Don’t you see the possibility in that, or are you so gung ho to defend HIM? Basically, some of us are believing her story, and some of us his.

    “she would not have been worried about appearing rude to him” – well, how do you know THAT? I can’t know what his intentions were, but you’re damn sure what hers were! You don’t see the double standard running through this whole argument? “It’s not that she asked for help. It’s that she put in an official complaint that would ruin his career.” Again, nitpicking language. What the hell is filing an official complaint for, if not asking for help?? I hope you have more to say, because you should respond to these points. Sorry for being so forceful with some of my language here, but it bothers me that you’re being so, well, flippant about the whole thing, just like he is.

    Bock 283 – “Do you have a way of defining what is objectionable?” Like the commentor said quoted in 260:

    “I cannot believe that ‘don’t make creepy jokes about blow jobs at work’ is so hard to fucking understand.”

    And Spailpin 278, does that fit better now with the “reasonable person standard of proof”? You don’t accept this legitimate rational, so you have to go look for an illegitimate one. You claim that you gave evidence in 187 – all I see is the “presumption of innocence” principle, and that they dismissed the previous incidents. And then you go on to admit that “the full details of all the evidence relating to these “previous” allegations are not in the public domain”! So you don’t know the evidence, either! Then you refer back to 11, 65 and 70 for “a lot of evidence of such a mobbing”. 11 just complains that they didn’t appologize for the overturned disproportionate punishment. 65 just presents your analysis of the incident. And “It seems reasonable to deduce from this that this whole imbroglio was fabricated in order to victimize Dr Evans and prevent him from being appointed to a permanent position.” Your opinion. And maybe they DON’T want to give him the promotion, and used this as an excuse – so what? Maybe they know some things about him that you don’t know! Maybe it’s not like this, but maybe it is.

    Now #70 – this I admit complicates things, the whole thing about Evans’ campaign for greater transparency. It does sound like it COULD be a case of “we have to get rid of this guy somehow”. So I don’t know. But still, if there was all of the tension and sub plot going on in the backround, don’t you think that Dr. Evans should have been even MORE careful not to show her the article? Sounds to me then like he was baiting her, instigating her to get a response from her/them that he couldn’t get through more “normal” channels.

    I suppose that I should have read all of the comments here – I just jumped in late, not thinking that I would get so carried away with this. So if there’s anything else important that I’m ignoring, please let me know.

    Anyway, this whole thing is a big complicated mess. I hope that everything comes out in the wash eventually. Why didn’t Evans himself bring up the transparency connection?

    Valiant 284 – Correction: you just read his published philosophy:

    “a first hand guide to how to present and decharge an emotionally charged incident in a more philosophical way.”

  288.  

    Maybe that was an unnecessary low blow (no pun intended). He has published a ton, although I don’t see so much philosophy there – mostly about evolution and psychology.

    http://www.dylan.org.uk/publications.html

    Sounds like a smart guy. Maybe there is something to this mobbing theory. And/or maybe he just made a boo-boo showing her this article, and forgot about The Policy.

  289.  

    I wouldn’t like to be seen as a “pro-Evansite”. It makes no difference who was at the centre of it.

    The issue for me is about people taking offence. I’m not comfortable that one person’s guilt or innocence depends on another person’s attitudes to life. In some ways, it helps that Evans is a rather unsympathetic figure because defending his position is unlikely to arise from any personal liking for him.

  290.  

    It has been a recurring theme throughout this thread (and the original). Those most vocal in their condemnation of Evans and his actions regard any attempt to question their stance as pro-Evans, mysoginistic, or deluded.

    That, in itself, speaks volumes about their reasoning skills.

  291.  

    And a similarly, rather weak analysis could be made for the pro-E’s.

    I think that it’s better not to try to categorize anyone as anything – that hopefully, each person is just trying to get to the truth of the matter, whomever turns out to be favored. I, for example, recognize the possible validity of Spailpin’s comment 70, which has the effect of possibly “pro-Evansizing” me. And, like I just said before, after seeing his bibliography, I see that there’s a lot more to him than I thought. Doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be a sexual harrasser also, but it does make it harder to stereotype him, even if he may be an “unsympathetic figure”.

  292.  

    Yeah I’d say Valiant was more than metaphoricizing Some1. I don’t know if you’ve read all the original thread, but she’s been caught bullshitting there too. A character without much ethics by the looks of it. (supposedly a DA/Lawyer and psychiatrist).

    I’m not meaning to nit pick any of your language, in terms of you saying she was asking for help. I’m reiterating that it was in actual fact an official complaint that would have serious ramifications for him.

    In terms of disgust/ distressed. I won’t get into that with you. To me there’s a big difference. RE: “He came in uninvited, sat down uninvited, and showed her an inappropriate, provocative article, using their professional relationship as a cover”. As a cover for what though Some1? All this talk of being uninvited. I regularly don’t make appointments for a quick chat with people in work. I’m regularly alone with a male colleague in an office. Being alone in her office doesn’t indicate that extra caution should have been taken, to my mind. In terms of not wanting to appear rude, that just doesn’t make sense to me. If he was really harassing her, she wouldn’t have cared about appearing rude. I’ve said this already, so I’m just repeating myself now.

    RE: “Saying that nobody knows what his intentions on that day were – I’m basing my speculation (and I have a right to speculate – why not?)” The inquiry found that he didn’t intend to cause offence Some1.

    From the report:
    We find on the balance of evidence that Dr Evans did not ever intend to cause offence to Dr __. He was not aware that he may be causing offence by visiting her office and Dr __ 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.

    You know what I find a little strange from her complaint too. That’s she’s so worried about Evans qualifications and the fact that it bothered her that he told people they had all been out to dinner. “Following that evening, both my husband and I heard from various colleagues in UCC that Dr. Evans was telling people that he had dinner with the _______ (I presume the title of her husband’s position at UCC, due to the use of the word ‘the’) suggesting he had a special friendship with us.” Bit of a high fallutin’ attitude there to me . She makes it sound like she thinks her and her husband are very important people all together, who didn’t appreciate anyone wanting to appear to have a friendship with them.

    I’m not pro anyone. They’re probably all equally deluded people. If I’m for anything, it’s for women not to be labelled victims, due to work place conflicts.

  293.  

    Valiant — You didn’t use an analogy. You misquoted the article.

  294.  

    FME – the more that I think about it, why didn’t he use the whole transparency issue as a defense?

    I agree with you about Valiant – and she also admitted going too far there.

    As a cover for wanting to provoke her, either sexually or about the transparency campaign.

    We just dissagree about her so-called toleration of his so-called forwardness.

    “From the report…” I don’t understand. If the report said that he didn’t do anything wrong, then all that he’s guilty of is violating the official policy, which has to do with his affect and not his intention? The whole thing seems strange then.

    I don’t think that her comments show that they think that they are important – just that they don’t want people to think that they’re his friends. Maybe a little overly paranoid, but based on her complaints (discredited, of course), understandable.

    She’s not being labelled as a victim – she’s calling herself a victim.

  295.  

    So, Lou (post 279), you don’t care that the evidence shows that the sexual harassment finding against Dylan Evans was spurious and that it was just a means of scapegoating him.

    So you have defined yourself as perverse, irrational and unprincipled.

    That being the case, there is no point in trying to engage you in rational discussion. This is illustrated by the fact that everything you say in the second paragraph has already been logically refuted. (See, for example, post 101 and others on the question of whether the investigators’ finding was “reasonable”.)

    And by the way, I found the newspaper article by Dylan Evans to be lucid, cogent and reasonable. However, your perverse response to it is not surprising, given your self-characterisation as above noted.

    And in the light of that self-characterisation, it is somewhat frightening that someone like you is involved in policy-making in this or indeed any area.

    Some1LovesU, while I am not in any way disputing your right to say whatever you want to, I just wonder what the point of all your commentary is.

    Your biased interpretation of Dylan Evans’s newspaper article cannot be taken seriously because you had already made up your mind about it before you read it (post 243).

    With regard to the rest of your commentary, I have nothing to add to what I said in post 246.

  296.  

    OPPRESSIVE EDICT WARNING!

    No more quoting of previous comment numbers by anyone. It’s giving me a headache. I mean this. Stop.

  297.  

    Bock, 296 really did hurted my feelings there. :)

    Some1, I’m not sure if Evans had of used the ” whole transparency issue as a defense”, that it would have made a difference to the outcome. His defense was that he didn’t mean to offend the complainant and that they were on friendly terms, that she didn’t appear offended at the time etc. Regarding the report, they didn’t uphold the claims of harassment prior to the fruitbat incident. However they deemed it reasonable that the complainant should be offended by the fruitbat article alone. ” We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for Dr__ to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone. We therefore find that the complaint on this action is upheld through it was not Dr. Evan’s intention to cause offence”

    “I don’t understand. If the report said that he didn’t do anything wrong, then all that he’s guilty of is violating the official policy, which has to do with his affect and not his intention? The whole thing seems strange then.” Yeah it does seem a bit strange all right. That and it’s reasonable that she should be offended by a fruitbat article and especially because she was alone . And she couldn’t have told him not to come into her office. And that she didn’t have to allow herself to be hugged in a manner that was inappropriate to her. And that she felt ‘harassed’ by hearsay of him telling people he was out to dinner with the Joneses. Tis all a bit strange all right. Meanwhile the bats are having great fun, while we’re debating whether an article of what they’re up to could be considered reasonably offensive.

  298.  

    Spailpín Fánach, you found the newspaper article by Dylan Evans to be lucid, cogent and reasonable. I read it as a rejection of the finding of sexual harassment and the process by which it was upheld, by HR, by the president and by the court. Under the terms of the policy, that failure to engage with a disciplinary procedure can itself be a further disciplinary offence. My sense of humour is not worth another 400,000 euro, which is the figure people have been using for the court outing.

    Bock, you asked me if I have a way of defining what is objectionable. It is whatever an employee or service user finds objectionable, so long as the appointed “reasonable people” judge the offence to have been reasonably taken. The term “indecency” is similarly defined, and we seem to cope with the censorship of publications act, which says “the word ‘indecent’ includes suggestive of, or inciting to, sexual immorality or unnatural vice or likely in any other similar way to corrupt or deprave” and “the Censorship Board shall have regard to … the class of reader which, in their opinion, may reasonably be expected to read it” (6(2)d).

    We don’t appear to have the rather bizarre, anti-queer UK offence of gross indecency, where an act between two men offends a third party – but then the UK parliament argued the difference between urophilia and urolagnia in 1999.

  299.  

    Lou — We would be slow to use the description “indecent” in relation to anything without qualifying it, because the word is so subjective.

    When you said that the way Evans behaved was objectionable, you omitted to mention that this was in the opinion of Dr Kennedy, and therefore determined by her level of sensitivity.

    Some readers might easily have thought that a thing could be objectionable in and of itself.

  300.  

    You are quite correct, nothing is indecent until the Board has determined that a copy has been purchased and a member of the public offended by it, or some such arcane procedure. I am sure it is clear that the complainant claimed that the conduct was objectionable, that is to say that offence was taken and not necessarily given. The investigators concluded that the behaviour was offensive to the complainant, and that no offence was intended.

    For completeness, I have located a copy of the UK parliamentary discussions on updating the obscenity act here http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arparl99.htm#Obscenity%20Bill and the enactment is here http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_025572&propertyType=document – these documents are representative of the subject of many academic (and humorous) discussions in my academic work, over many years. Despite their obvious potential to offend, we seem to have coped, and readily accept that something offensive to one individual may delight another. Sexual harassment legislation is not intended to outlaw “offensive” behaviour, but to provide a safe and effective working environment free from unnecessary stress and pressure. There is (I feel I am repeating myself) nothing inherently offensive in the fruitbat article, or in oral sex, or sexual discussions between colleagues, and no prohibition on such discussions.

  301.  

    Our society seems to be obsessed with not offending people.

  302.  

    I just read the Customs and Revenue bit about “Our Forms and Public Notices are also available in large print, Braille or audio cassette, please contact the Helpline for further details”, and can just picture some partially-sighted, devout, traditional Family (as per the Constitution) person listening to that list over their latté while planning a holiday via the UK … I wonder if the voice is the woman who does the London Underground?

  303.  

    My partner has pointed out that the Voice of the London Underground, Emma Clarke, was sacked for offending her employers in 2007 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7113545.stm ) but has become that very patient voice in my SatNav who keeps saying “Recalculating …” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7132378.stm ).

    (Despite inserting some spoof announcements into the system like “We would like to remind our American tourist friends that you are almost certainly talking too loudly”, her employers insist that they were offended by a statement that she would never travel by London Underground).

  304.  

    Yeah, all of the old quoting is giving me a headache, too! So what are we going to do – have everyone say everything again?

    I find in general that people are reluctant to acknowledge a good point made by the opposition, and instead ignore those good points, and continue to harp on the perceived bad points. Threfore, it’s hard to bring the concensus closer to the middle.

    Example: FME in her last comment, only described things that she thought were strange against Dr. Kennedy, choosing not to mention anything at all from her complaint, even though said complaint was rejected only on “balance of evidence” and that the board stated that they had email evidence against her for only “some” of her complaints, meaning that some of them were justified, or at least didn’t have any known evidence against them.

    Spailpin – where is Lou “perverse” (quote him, not the the comment number!).

    So what that his article was “lucid, cogent and reasonable”? He therefore can’t have also been guilty of sexual harrassment? What perverse response of Lou?

    And you already made up YOUR mind about his article before you read it, also! What kind of criticism is that? I read it, hoping that it would maybe change my mind. It did move my opinion closer to his direction, but not totally. You also don’t like to give credit where credit is due, and only emphasize the points of someone (Lou and me in particular) that conflict with yours.

    Now, I suppose that I should respond to your last comment, where you refer back to 246, which refers back to 205 (sorry, Bock). Here’s a quote of yours from 205:

    “Therefore, you’re the one with the problem in this regard, not me. You’re happy to accept the finding of the investigators against Dylan Evans regarding the fruit bat incident but you don’t accept their exoneration of him regarding the other allegations. Such an inconsistent, irrational and denigratory stance is typical of the mobbing mentality. Once the individual is targeted he or she is fair game for every sort of blame or stigma. Even though Dylan Evans was formally exonerated in respect of certain allegations in a report you otherwise accept you insist that he is guilty in respect of those allegations that have been officially deemed to be unsubstantiated.”

    I could throw that right back to you. You accept the findings that you like, but then reject others that you don’t:

    Some1LovesU, there is no contradiction in my position. As I’ve already said, my comments regarding the investigators’ report are based on information in the public domain. On the basis of that information the report is clearly flawed as far as I’m concerned, as there is nothing in the report to justify the finding against Dylan Evans. (Even Lou conceded that, as I have noted above.)

    Bock 299 – I think that it’s obvious that Lou meant objectionable to Dr. Kennedy – that’s what this whole thing is about. And here’s a subtle analogy: just like you’re sensitive about what some readers might mistakenly think, some people are sensitive about how some people can be more offended than others. (Not mistakenly offended, because offense in a personal decision, not like mistaken thinking. Well, that’s a decision also, but not a forgiven one.)

    And then in 301, you go back to your basic position that. “Our society seems to be obsessed with not offending people”. It’s not an obsession – it’s a sensitivity. Society decides what is reasonable to be offensive, even to not unreasonably sensitive people. Dr. Evans’ action was therefore offensive to Dr. Kennedy, even if he didn’t intend it to be so (which I still question, until we see all of the evidence in a few months).

    I’ve quoted already what Lou quoted earlier, and now I’ll quote it again – I think that it makes this point very clearly:

    “I cannot believe that ‘don’t make creepy jokes about blow jobs at work’ is so hard to fucking understand.”

    I’d like to ask Dr. Kennedy why she accepted the evidence against the earlier incidents in her complaint. If I can, can I do that, Bock, if it means bringing her attention to these two, long topics about the whole issue?

  305.  

    RE: “I find in general that people are reluctant to acknowledge a good point made by the opposition, and instead ignore those good points, and continue to harp on the perceived bad points. Threfore, it’s hard to bring the concensus closer to the middle….
    Example: FME in her last comment, only described things that she thought were strange against Dr. Kennedy, choosing not to mention anything at all from her complaint, even though said complaint was rejected only on “balance of evidence” and that the board stated that they had email evidence against her for only “some” of her complaints, meaning that some of them were justified, or at least didn’t have any known evidence against them.” That’s right.

    Why would a person want to bring concensus closer to the middle? The middle of what? the night..

    Yes I thought the complaint was strange for the reasons I stated. That’s my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it. I’m not sure what the point is of quoting something I say, to show I’m not in agreement with a lot of what you say. I feel no need to move to any middle.

    Haven’t you already made the points you’ve directed at Spailpín already, about agreeing yet dismissing parts of the complaint and what was upheld/not upheld? This is getting tedious.

    RE: “It’s not an obsession – it’s a sensitivity. Society decides what is reasonable to be offensive, even to not unreasonably sensitive people. Dr. Evans’ action was therefore offensive to Dr. Kennedy, even if he didn’t intend it to be so”
    Have a read of this if you want Some1 and see if you still feel the same about the validity of society deciding what is offensive.
    http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-portland/pakistan-president-zardari-stays-christian-woman-s-execution-for-blasphemy

    “It’s a sensitivity” What are you getting at? We should be sensitive of sensitive people is it? It’s not a sensitivity, it’s that some people take no responsibility for their own misery and are waiting for others to blame and take offence from.

  306.  

    It is getting tedious, because you both ignore good challenges, so they have to be repeated.

    By bringing concensus closer to the middle, I just meant that the goal is to disagree about less issues.

    You’re comparing the UCC’s application of this policy to Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law? You can do better than that. So you’re basically comparing Lou and me to Islamic extremists. OK.

    If society doesn’t decide, then who does – you? Bock? God? I’m talking about a society of reasonable people. You might say that anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable.

    It amazes me that you’re so stuck in how you would react to what Evans did, that you can’t appreciate how somebody could react like Kennedy did. THAT’S insensitivity.

  307.  

    That’s a bit subjective of you Some1 to regard anything you’ve stated as a good challenge.
    I don’t agree that the goal should be to disagree about less issues. We’re not in the midst of wide affecting peace talks or anything here. I see no problem with divergence of opinion. If a person doesn’t agree they don’t agree. With Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law, I’m giving an example of “society deciding what is offensive.” How one person’s guilt or innocence depends on another person’s sensitivity level. Please don’t jump to conclusions about what I’m comparing you and Lou to.

    RE: “It amazes me that you’re so stuck in how you would react to what Evans did, that you can’t appreciate how somebody could react like Kennedy did. THAT’S insensitivity.”
    As I stated earlier, I’ve no problem with a person’s sensitivity (prudishness/digust/hurt/offence/distress, whatever term you want to attribute)… But that that should ruin another person’s career/reputation/livelihood, that’s where I’ve a problem. If you’re a sensitive soul, you just have to be firm in setting your boundaries.. that’s what grown ups do – take responsibility for themselves. Not for instance, ‘oh he came into my office when I was alone etc.. I didn’t like it, but I didn’t want to appear rude’. Give me a break.

  308.  

    Bock, I’m finding your nasty little attacks on me on this and on other threads somewhat annoying. (See the “Is an Irish Wikileaks Needed” category, society, thread for my further comments in this regard.)

    For instance in post 297 you criticise me for doing something that you earlier on this thread had repeatedly criticised shellshock for not being able to do, viz., back up her claim regarding something someone else (in this case, you) had allegedly said.

    There are other examples of your petty viciousness towards me on this thread but I couldn’t be bothered listing them.

  309.  

    That wasn’t a nasty little attack on you – it was an “oppressive edict warning” to anyone quoting previous comment numbers. It was basically you and me – it wasn’t personal per se, I think. You’ll have to come up with a better example of nastiness than that.

    Well, now that I’m commenting anyway (I was going to leave it):

    FME: I didn’t say that every challenge I’ve made is a good one. But I guess that I do think so – otherwise, I wouldn’t make it. You probably feel that way about your challenges, don’t you?

    Don’t need peace talks to want to come to a concensus. Or at least, appreciating valid but differing opinions.

    About the damage to Evans that she would potentially cause with her complaint. Maybe she did go a little overboard, although maybe she didn’t realize what the repercussions would be. Or maybe she wanted, rightly or wrongly, to protect other women from him. Or maybe she really did want to get him out of the way regarding the other transparency issue. I suppose that she should have been a big enough girl to tell him to stop – or have her husband tell him – before filing the complaint.

  310.  

    Well now Some1, I’d have to say that was a very good point you made there – “I suppose that she should have been a big enough girl to tell him to stop”. By golly, I think we’ve reached some kind of concensus. :)

  311.  

    Ah, consensus – what a good feeling! : D

    Looks like it’s just you, me and Spailpin.

  312.  

    As already indicated, Some1LovesU, I’ve said everything I wish to say on the substantive topic of this thread. You did subsequently take issue with me on some points but I’m not interested in going back there. As far as I’m concerned, when a point is proved, it’s proved.

    My last post here was concerned only with a “procedural” matter. You expressed disagreement with me on that also. So be it. I’m not interested in going back there either for the aforementioned reason.

    You use the term “consensus” and maybe this raises the question of what we are engaged in on this “site” (I used the term “forum” when I was new here a couple of months ago but Bock denied it was a forum). Is it conversation, dialogue, discussion, debate, dialectic or what? Is it a “blog” and if it is into which of the above categories, if any, does that fall into? Or does it matter?

    Maybe that is a topic for a separate thread in itself.

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)