Tag: #AstroSH

AAS Investigating Members?: Open Letter to the AAS Council

The following post provides the content of an Open Letter sent to the AAS Council, AAS AEB, and many AAS Committee members, by The Astronomy Underground (January 19, 2016).


 

Open Letter to the AAS AEB and AAS Leadership:

Through the AAS CSWA blog and the evidence revealed in the Geoff Marcy Title IX report, it has become clear that 1) AAS Committees have actively sought out information that might incriminate AAS members and 2) AAS Committees have interfered in and manipulated the affairs of university departments.

The Constitution of the AAS and the charges given to these committees make it clear that 1) Council has no mandate to engage in such actions, and that 2) the Committees are going beyond their scope.

The open public records release of Marcy documents and the AAS CSWA blog make it clear that Council cannot be ignorant of these actions. Council’s legal responsibility as Board members of a non-profit organization should make it clear to everyone that 1) Council is responsible for the oversight of the Committees of the AAS, 2) negligence is no excuse for wrongdoing, and 3) individual Council members are liable if their actions cause damage to the Society or to its members.

The January 2, 2016 letter from Timothy Slater makes it clear that Council was knowledgeable, and that Council was formally asked to address their lack of supervision/negligence of supervision of their Committees. Council has failed to respond.

On January 16, 2016, The Astronomy Underground posted emails that were leaked out of the AAS CSWA/AAS AEB social justice movement. It was revealed that AAS is again being used as a means to gather incriminating evidence about its members. Kim Coble of the AEB was listed as the point of contact for the AEB.

The Astronomy Underground also transmitted that the AAS was aware of this and is in the motions of creating a letter disavowing these efforts.

At this point, the AAS Council has been aware of what its Committees are doing for months. Disavowing these actions, when they are being done in the name of AAS, and AAS is aware, is not credible. AAS Council has either condoned these actions or has demonstrated negligence in their duties.

We ask AAS Council and the AEB to publicly explain how these actions have been allowed to occur for so long, and with what license AAS has acted to investigate its members, damaging their careers, their personal lives, and the health of the Society in the process.

We ask AAS to publicly explain how they intend to 1) repair the damage done to those who have been “investigated” under the AAS name, 2) redirect the astronomy experience for our youngest members who have now spent their entire careers focused on these matters rather than on the science, and 3) repair the reputation of astronomy on the national landscape, for the purposes of future recruitment and funding.

Your response, or lack thereof will be posted as an update to The Real Astronomy blog, a collaboration of international astronomers. We are concerned about the junior-astronomer and AAS focus on social engineering over the business of advancing our science.

-The Astronomy Underground

Advertisements

Being Logical About Difficult Topics

The following post is a partial reblog from Science 2.0, written by Hontas Farmer. Farmer has taken a look at the information reported in the Geoff Marcy Title Ix Report, using “the Reasonable Person” lens. 

 

From December 24, 2015:

Geoff Marcy soon to be retired Professor of Astronomy at UC Berkley.  Pioneer of the search for exoplanets accused serial sexual harasser and perverse sexual assaulter was tried by media this year*.  Now more documents have been released. The problem with trial by media is that accusations often equal guilt.  That is the hallmark of a witch trial, that is the hallmark of a lynch mob, and no one should be lynched in the 21stcentury.  Especially now that social media makes it so easy to jump on the pile.   We can do better than that by giving both sides a chance to be heard.

….

In 2015 we are now in a place where a woman can allege sexual harassment, abuse, assault, etc and the default state of mind is to believe her until clear and convincing evidence prove otherwise.   We are now in a place where many times a “trial”in the court of public opinion or at best some sort of administrative process substitutes for any form of actual court hearing.    So let’s make a real trial of this and present the other side of the case of Geoff Marcy.   I was very hard on Geoff Marcy when this came out while affording him the presumption of innocence.

I am a person of color in the United States of AmericaAs such, I have been accused of things I did not or could not have done in the past.  When that has happened all I asked for was fairness. So in the spirit of our constitution, and the golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you…

….

Preponderance of evidence.

Reaction to my original article on this matter often made mention of the finding he did it by thepreponderance of the  evidence.  Reading the actual text of the finding I am really troubled by the “logic” used to reach that conclusion.

This is on page 44 of the full documentation in relation to the “crotch grab” and is proceeded by the investigator saying the accuser had no witnesses but could remember specifics*.

I found that Respondent’s reaction to this allegation lacked credibility. He did not entertain the possibility that he touched the student in any manner, including how he admittedly touched other students in the past. He distinguished Complainant 3 as someone whom he did not know, so therefore, not potentially subject to knee pats or other touching. Likewise, he characterized the behavior as that which he “would never have an interest in,” despite its congruency (arguably an extreme example) with other reported unwanted advances. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, I find it more likely than not that Respondent acted as reported by Complainant 3.

Focus on this.

Likewise, he characterized the behavior as that which he “would never have an interest in,” despite its congruency (arguably an extreme example) with other reported unwanted advances.

SO in this Title IX investigators mind the simple fact he was accused of things like hugging, a kiss on the forehead (like one might do to a small child), supposedly staring at a female student’s backside as she walked into the classroom, and giving a drunk student a ride home …. Means he more likely than not touched someone’s crotch?

That’s total BS nonsense.   That is like saying if you would get into a fist fight with one person that means if you are accused of shooting someone else you more likely than not did it.   That logic is …..not even logical. Proof is not just a sum of accusations.

What could Geoff Marcy have done differently…. Assuming for the moment he is innocent?

I practice preventative legal defense. It is my policy to document every interaction personal, private, or education with anyone in some form.

As a person of color if I enter certain stores I will be followed around as if I must be there to steal something  (MSNBC Anchor Tamron Hall, Neil DeGrasse Tyson).  As a person of color if I drive my new car through certain areas I may be stopped by the police, just because, and asked to present papers (Chris Rock talking about it).  As a person of color I cataloged a number of incidents regarding being #blackoncampus one of which had a campus officer at one of the schools I teach at instantly react to my entering a faculty lounge as if he was ready to shoot as soon as I opened the door.   Because of things like this I either I save documents and photos, or I make sure there are neutral witnesses, or at the very least I document my interactions in a journalWhen I have a meeting with anyone I tend to send an email or letter documenting my understanding of what was said.   That may sound paranoid but…I’ll bet Dr. Marcy wishes he had some of those now.

I know we are supposed to presume innocence.  I know that in practical terms one must prove innocence.

It is not enough to not break the rules; you have to PROVE that you did not break the rules.  Alternatively,if you do break a rule you can only be punished for what can be proven.

What should colleges and universities do differently?

Use the legal system to handle these things.

We have courts that are criminal, civil, and which address domestic issues such as stalking, harassment, etc.  Those tribunals are competent to hear such cases, consider evidence, and establish the credibility of witnesses.  The objection given to doing this is that then victims might not come forward.  Only people who think real court is like an episode of Law and Order SVU would think that.  In real court the accuser need not face the accused unless there is a criminal trial.  A sworn written statement, an affidavit can suffice to bring charges and have a potentially dangerous predator removed from campus via a restraining order with the full force of law.

University and College officials should serve as advocates for the accuser to get justice via the courts. Then they have to respect the decisions and orders of the court.   The accused will have all their legal rights protected through the whole process.

Let us not forget a university is much more like a town.  Students are taxed in the form of tuition to belong to a community that engages in certain activities that can lead to a credential.  If a student is deprived of the freedom to engage in those activities, they will lose a large investment of money in addition to any other legal sanctions.

A faculty member like Dr. Marcy would stand to lose tenure, promotion, and funding in addition to their freedom for a very serious allegation like sexual assault.

The legal system can take a person’s freedom.  The legal system has done it on the weight of an accusation based on a dream and only after over 28 years reversed that.   The legal system is not easy on the accused because even if they beat the charges it will cost thousands or tens of thousands in legal fees.

What of sensitivity towards victims in the legal based campus system I envision?

If the prospect of swearing out a statement is worse than sexual assault to someone … doubt them.  I don’t buy that in this day and in this age, or even 8 – 10 years ago a young woman could not accuse a man of sexual harassment.

Allow me to remind you, dear reader, of what was going on in the late 1990’s and early-mid 2000’s when much of what Dr. Marcy is accused of was taking place.

The late 90’s and early to mid 2000’s were the heyday of sexual harassment law.

  • This time period was hot on the heels of the Clarence Thomas hearings which were all about the allegations that he sexually harassed Anita Hill. It was on every TV Channel.
  • There were President Clinton’s troubles with Paula Jones and then Monica Lewinsky and almost being impeached because of it.  A woman accused a president of harassing her, and due to political motives and perjury Bill Clinton was almost removed from office.
  • In the very late 90’s and early 2000’s “Ally McBeal” was super popular.  That show was all about a single, short skirt wearing, dangerously thin, female lawyer being harassed by men she did not want and wanting a man she could not have. In an office with a unisex public toilet (and they even had THREE episodes that dealt more sensitively with transgender issues in 1999-2000 than most TV shows do now.)
  • In 2007 almost a decade ago a five year old boy was accused of sexually harassing a teacher because he hugged her.

Anyone old enough to have watched and understood “Ally McBeal”, or remembered the Clarence Thomas hearings, or the Clinton sex scandal(s) would know the gist of it.  Women were very empowered to accuse men, even powerful ones of sexual harassment.

….

Conclusion:

If the media is going to try people as if it is a court,then the media has to accept the responsibility of telling both sides of these stories with equal vigor.

My gut feeling is that between Geoff Marcy being a wanton Hannibal Lecter like predator, and a guy who just likes to hug the truth is in the middle.  He did much of what he was accused of, most of which are innocuous things.  He supposedly noticed a student’s backside, had lunch with research students, and spoke to some at a cocktail reception at a meeting of the AAS.  (In which case every student who attends a conference is a victim.)

The pendulum has swung back in favor of female accusers in cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.  For a long time, the deck was stacked against them   If we let accusations stand as if they are proof in and of themselves then we are as guilty of mob justice as those who lynched people of 1600’s Salem. (I guarantee that at least one comment on this article will say that I am “defending” Geoff Marcy simply by trying to be fair. )

Thinking about Geoff Marcy

The following post is a partial reblog from Astronomy Topic of the Day, written by T. Madigan. Madigan has been the recipient of social media abuse for his comments.  They are reposted here with our support.

From October 18, 2015:

Unsolicited or unwanted personal contact is never ok, regardless of the individual’s position or status. Over a ten year period between 2001 and 2010, there were four documented cases that Berkeley’s Office of Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination investigated. The investigation focused on complaints of professional misconduct where Dr. Marcy was alleged to have behaved in a manner unbecoming of his title and standing at the university. The complaints included unsolicited and unwanted groping, a charge Dr. Marcy denies, having been reported 8 years after it supposedly occurred, innuendo, comments, and other overtures. Any actions where uninvited personal contact is made, often referred to as sexual harassment, a violation of US Title IX provisions is possible. Two of the complainants have changed career pursuits, citing certain irreconcilable effects Dr. Marcy’s actions had on them. The other complaints concerned Dr. Marcy behaving in an “overtly friendly” manner towards junior female colleagues and frank discussions about sex with a senior-level undergraduate over coffee in a public setting. It should be noted that this was a meeting that she arranged with Dr. Marcy, a meeting during which she steered the conversation away from astronomy. It should also be noted that this would not be the first of such meetings that she would arrange. To be clear, however, none of these cases involved sexual assault nor were any of the complainants students of Dr. Marcy’s! Sexual assault or assault of any kind is a serious crime, right up there with rape. If Dr. Marcy were guilty of sexual assault, he wouldn’t be preoccupied with recovering from the train wreck that is now his professional life, he would be either under arrest or in prison.

Anyone who decides to change their careers because of such actions was never committed to the profession in the first place since the field transcends any single individual or their actions. This is a red-herring used by those who have taken this affair to another level, who have disregarded the appropriate measures and sanctions already in place, who are obsessed with the personal destruction of Geoff Marcy and simply consumed with vengeance.

His actions were first reported in a Buzzfeed article and not by the department chair. That article was then followed by a piece in the New York Times by Dennis Overbye. While the university conducted its own internal investigation into the allegations, the department chair kept the news close to his chest, an action many have criticized him for. These actions, nonetheless, were wholly appropriate and consistent with a key aspect of our democracy, the presumption of innocence and the right to confront your accuser.

The response to Dr. Marcy’s actions by his detractors were extreme and wholly disproportionate to what he did. After concluding their investigation into the allegations, finding in favor of the complainants, the university’s attempt at a mediated solution didn’t satisfy. The administration provided a measured, reasoned and wholly appropriate response, complete with clearly defined directives and zero-tolerance sanctions if Dr. Marcy were to breach any terms of the new accord or the standing policy of the university with regard to sexual harassment. This solution was insufficient, not for the four complainants who originally came forward but for the cadre of individuals who were now out for blood! What did Dr. Marcy do to them? It was as though Dr. Geoff Marcy was guilty of murdering little old ladies, their grandmothers, their pet canary or torturing puppies or kittens on national television. There were four documented cases over a 10 year period, a period that ended in 2010. That would be an incident every 2.5 years. There were rumors of other incidents but, at this point, those would be considered hearsay in a court of law. Unfortunately, a court of law never got to decide Geoff’s fate and cooler heads did not prevail; he is now the victim of a mob mentality. Hundreds, literally, hundreds of highly educated professionals behaving like a mob; who would have thought? One has to wonder why now, why after 5 years since the date of the last reported incident in 2010, did this come to light? Could it be jealousy? Could it be pure altruism for the good of the profession; could it be that a new found nobility has emerged towards the plight of victims of sexual harassment or sexual violence, women in astronomy or women in general? I don’t think so; for a few, yes, but for the majority, no! The majority pounced on a wounded individual, a vulnerable individual; they did what is done in the jungle and on the open plains of Africa by packs of hyenas and lions, they attacked an individual who is wounded and vulnerable.

Having been the victim of character assassination based on lies, rumors and completely baseless and unfounded allegations at a regional university, I am particularly sensitive to this issue and have a very strong opinion. Granted, the allegations against Geoff are documented, the effects are the same. My situation didn’t have the same outcome as Geoff’s and I have since recovered in part and have moved on but, nonetheless, it is very difficult to rebuild one’s reputation once destroyed. The recipients of Geoff’s indiscretions will survive and recover if they haven’t done so already with some of them having established their own productive careers in a field of their choosing.

My question to those who now delight in Geoff’s demise, to those who have expected to feel vindicated, are you happy? How does it feel? Has it been worth ruining an individual’s life and career over? Has it been good for astronomy? Did you get your pound of flesh or do you still want more? I can tell you how you feel; you probably feel vaguely empty and somewhat ambivalent, right? Was it worth it? Ask yourself, would Carl Sagan have signed on with you? I address these questions to, among others, Dr. John Johnson of Harvard University. As stated in your strongly worded and vitriolic blog post, Dr. Marcy was your graduate adviser, one would expect a certain modicum of loyalty to the one who mentored and taught you. You now find it perfectly fine to see your adviser, colleague, mentor and teacher burn. I also pose the same question to the faculty at UC Berkeley’s Department of Astronomy, Geoff’s colleagues many of whom signed a letter calling for his dismissal and the hundreds of signers calling for Geoff’s ouster, most of whom probably never met him and to whom he did no harm.

That the university responds now to complaints made between 5 and 15 years ago on the heels of receiving a $100 million grant from Yuri Milner to fund the Breakthrough Listen project with Dr. Marcy as a principal investigator, is dubious. That with his resignation from Berkeley’s Astronomy Department, goes his appointment as a PI on the project; that one of the women often cited in the articles and one who has intimate knowledge of the allegations made against Dr. Marcy, Dr. Joan Schmelz, is a program officer at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Interim Director at Arecibo Radio Observatory; that she is in a position of authority at both NSF and Arecibo and decides who receives telescope time and funding; that this smacks of a breathtaking conflict of interest goes without saying; that Arecibo is not yet a key node for the project when, by all accounts, it should be; that the project is still open to partnering with the giant radio telescope if a certain legal poison pill related to cash woes at NSF can be worked out, something that Schmelz would have intimate knowledge of given her role at NSF; that Dr. Geoff Marcy was to take a leading rolein the Breakthrough Listen project, a career enhancement anyone would covet, at a time when these “allegations” surfaced is quite dubious. The deeper you dig, the clearer it becomes that this whole affair has very little to do with Geoff’s minor indiscretions and more to do with something much darker and more odious.

Famous people attract detractors and they anger others on their way up the ladder. Some become jealous of others success with sexual harassment being a real issue. However, the disproportionate response to admittedly inappropriate behavior of touching junior colleagues on the shoulder or giving them a hug goodbye is far out of bounds; mob mentality prevails.

I would suggest that the matter concerning Dr. Geoff Marcy could have been handled quite differently, more in accordance with the sage words of the late, great Car Sagan who exhorted all of us to treat each other more with kindness, mercy and forgiveness, rather than with the alternative: “It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known”. In my view, these words are quite fitting in light of what has happened. Geoff has more than paid the price for his actions, transgressions made impulsively perhaps and without forethought; generally these kinds of actions are made without much forethought. The university’s mediated solution could have achieved more traction if it included provisions for mandatory therapy to address Geoff’s unprofessional behavior. Out of professional charity and respect for a fellow colleague, the Astronomy Department should have sought better for Geoff. In light of all that he has contributed to astronomy, is this to be his legacy? Is this how history will remember him? That many who had called him “colleague” signed the letter calling for his dismissal and suggesting that he is unfit to teach is shameful.

Is loyalty one of those virtues from a bygone era? Geoff’s career is over along with whatever fruits the rest of it would have yielded for us and for posterity. As we are all students of the universe and the natural world, as that is what we do, we continuously study and learn. It is disappointing that you haven’t learned one of the most essential lessons that an authentic study of science and the universe has to offer, humility, as said so well by Carl Sagan. It is as much ironic as it is disappointing, given that Geoff would have played a key role in the Breakthrough Listen project, a project Carl Sagan would have wholeheartedly endorsed and supported. In your grand quest to obtain some sense of justice, projected vicariously through the four individuals whose cases this entire affair is based on, you have missed the most basic lesson. I ask you again, was it worth it? Where is your humility?

On Proper Protocol and Professional Behavior

The following post is included in order to encourage the astronomy community to think about professional behavior and the importance of proper protocol in our professional activities. The content is verbatim from the letter that I sent to the IAU Executive Committee and the Steering Committee of Commission C.  The response from the IAU General Secretary follows.  

Communications with the President of Commission C will follow in another post.

–Dr. Stephanie Slater

 

December 29, 2015

 

To the Division C Steering Committee and other relevant parties:

I am writing to formally register my deep concerns related to the operating protocols of Division C of the IAU. I am a new member of the IAU and of the Theory and Methods in Astronomy Education Working Group, affiliations that I entered into with reasonable expectations as to the orderliness and ethical operation of the Division. However, in the short period since the official inception of our Working Group, I have observed irregularities that I believe constitute significant lapses of ethical, professional conduct, and a significant deviation from the protocols expected by most IAU members. These instances include a self-organized “investigation” of IAU members by Division C Steering Committee members, improper handling of confidential documents by Division C Officers, and verifiably false accusations of sexual predation made by Division C Officers. I set out my formal complaints, and my request for action, below.

Foremost, it has come to my attention that at least two officers of the Division C Steering Committee (e.g., Division Officers Pamela Gay and Beatriz Garcia) appear to have self-organized investigations of the activities of members of the IAU, and have disseminated their “evidence” to the membership of the IAU, using this supposed evidence as a call for action against another IAU and Division C member. They have publicly released their investigative activities against one member at this time; it is unclear if they have been engaging in other unpublicized investigations. It is my belief that they engaged in these secret investigations without any authority by IAU procedure or designation, and in direct conflict with the work of the bodies that do have authority. Dr. Gay, Dr. Garcia, nor any other member of the Division C steering committee have any formal training in the collection of investigative data, or in the analysis of such data. They further have not established agreed upon guidelines for what would constitute a “violation.” Without authority, expertise or established procedures, their activities make a mockery of due process.

I do not believe that their actions have been in keeping with the prevailing protocols or philosophy of the IAU or of its membership. Instead, it appears to me to be the act of a few who took on far more than their delegated authority to come to a decision that they appear to have made before due process began.  While evidence provided by members of the community lead me to believe that Dr. Gay instigated this event, I cannot absolve Dr. Garcia. As a long-standing member of the IAU and as a professional who has taken on a formal leadership role within the IAU, she was well aware that this action was beyond her authority. Perhaps more seriously, as Commission President, Dr. Garcia disseminated a letter related to this “investigation” that included the signatures of other members of the Commission. Communications with those members indicates that they were not aware of the content of the letter, or simply do not agree with the content of the letter as drafted by Dr. Garcia, and they have asked to have their signatures removed. This is a serious abuse of a leadership position on Dr. Garcia’s part.

While this particular violation made opportunistic use of the community’s current obsession with all things related to sex and gender, Dr. Gay, Dr. Garcia and others like them, could just as easily use such tactics to “investigate” members’ professional behaviors related to funding, proposals, or publications. I do not desire to be a member of an organization that explicitly or tacitly condones such activities free of ethics or reasonable due process, and I believe most members of the IAU would agree. Consequently, this behavior on the part of Dr. Garcia and Dr. Gay must be addressed by the Division C Steering Committee in order to clarify the IAU’s position on allowing secret investigations of other members of the Union, and the IAU’s role in determining and enforcing behavioral norms across its 74-nation membership. Indeed, the IAU should determine if it has such a role at all.

More troubling, according to her own statement, Dr. Gay accessed files that are sealed and confidential, in direct contradiction to the adjudicative decision of the legally authoritative bodies, and offered to disseminate parts of these sealed and confidential files to other members of our community. Again, Dr. Gay’s actions, encouraged by Dr. Garcia, are starkly at odds with international norms for professional conduct, and are directly at odds with her professional responsibility to properly manage the confidential records and files of the Division to which she has access as an officer of the Division C Steering Committee.

I cannot conceive of any way in which one could rationally argue that Dr. Gay or Dr. Garcia were unaware of the inappropriateness of these actions. In the case of Dr. Gay, she has been through formal training on the proper handling of confidential files in the USA, which is her home nation, the home nation of the authoritative bodies, and the source of these confidential documents. Given this training, which I have also completed, there can be no doubt that she knew she was violating the adjudicated decision of a sovereign agency from within the USA. It is unclear to me that Dr Garcia has been through such training as she is not a citizen of the USA or employed by an organisation answerable to its laws and statutes. However, given that virtually every aspect of our professional work depends upon confidentiality, it is certain that she understands the concept of a file being “sealed and confidential”.

To access and read files that the authoring body specifically determined should not be in one’s possession is unethical and corrupt. To deliberately disseminate the contents to others who should not possess these files, as Dr. Gay did, is beyond unconscionable. Members, including Dr. Garcia, who were willing to accept such files or approve of their dissemination knowing that they are confidential, are equally guilty of ethical misbehavior.

I cannot understand how this would be acceptable to members of the Commission, the Division, or the IAU, and I question how anyone could feel confident that their proposals or research can be competently and professionally managed within the Division, when the Secretary of the Division C Steering Committee does not adhere to the most fundamental document management protocols. The President of a Commission must also be trusted to view and manage confidential documents, such as proposals for working groups, symposia, and focus meetings. These are competitive proposals that are submitted and evaluated under the assumption of confidentiality. The Division cannot function with Officers who engage in the inappropriate handling and dissemination of such documents. This untenable situation must be addressed and rectified by the Steering Committee.

In the interim, the work that I have done within the scope of the Working Group on Astronomy Education Theory and Methods involves collaborations with members of the Division on a project that fulfills one of the two primary tasks of the Working Group, and which has involved the sharing of pre-publication papers. This work was conducted within the Division in the belief that standard protocols related to the handling of confidential documents would be observed. This work is grounded in my intellectual work, and more importantly, the intellectual work of my graduate students. Given the disrespectful attitudes related to confidentiality demonstrated by these Division Officers, I believe I must take two actions in order to protect the intellectual work of these students.  The first is to suspend collaboration on this work with members of the Division while the Division clarifies procedures with regard to access to information and proposals that should not be shared. The second action is to call upon the Division C Steering Committee and the IAU leadership to prohibit these Officers from disseminating or replicating these students’ hard-earned intellectual work, and to treat replication of this work by these Officers or their colleagues, as serious academic misconduct.

These are my professional judgments related to organizational structure and ethical professional behavior. More personally, this particular group’s dalliances in, perspectives on, and lack of employment of intellectual integrity or honesty, related to purported sexual aggression in the field, are deeply offensive. Engaging in such delicate matters requires a dedication to rigorous judgment and sensitivity. Anything less allows abuse of the system by those who have no other pathway to mollify themselves, or to enhance their own career prospects. Such behaviors diminish our capacity to protect those who need protection, and draws us into a situation in which logic is irrelevant, evidence is cosmetic and the accusers indulge themselves in their ill-gotten rewards. In this case, by languorously encouraging the production and analysis of “evidence”, this group arrived at an irrational place where, among other things, it was stated that I personally engaged in sexual predation at the most recent meeting of the IAU — a meeting at which I spent every possible free moment vacationing with my grandchildren. This is absolutely disgusting.

If a man had dared to discuss the exposure of my body parts, my sexual activities, or had even suggested that I use research as a tool of vengeance and a means for a “power play,” as Dr. Gay did in multiple emails to Working Group members, we would be calling for immediate removal from office. These false accusations are not suddenly tolerable because Dr. Gay is a woman. Her behavior, egged on by Dr Garcia’s purported encouragement to provide additional “evidence” to committee members is outrageous and highly offensive. It is the worst kind of woman-on-woman aggression, and yet less offensive to me, and to my graduate students, than other aspects of the way this situation has unfolded.

Given the personal nature of our experiences with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, we have little tolerance for individuals who fail to comprehend the role that “confidentiality” plays in the reporting of these acts, and we have no tolerance for those who use false accusations and rumors related to sexual aggression as a means to manipulate the community.  As my spouse, Dr. Timothy Slater, informed some individuals within this community, in the last decade, I was sexually assaulted by a senior member of the astronomy community who followed his actions with stalking, and with very realistic assurances that he would ruin my career if I reported his actions within the community. This was not harassment, it was not a tap on the buttocks, nor a compliment that I did not appreciate. Instead, what I experienced was an assault that was followed by the perpetrator being taken into custody by authorities and subsequently institutionalized. During the same decade, our daughter was repeatedly hospitalized, on a suicide hold, prior to revealing that she had been repeatedly, violently sexually assaulted by a family member. Between taking both his wife and his daughter to innumerable therapy appointments and interviews with law enforcement, sleeping outside our daughter’s bedroom door to prevent her from attempting suicide in the middle of the night, and physically holding her while she struggled through flashbacks, blackouts and anxiety attacks, Dr. Timothy Slater somehow managed to graduate many female PhDs in astronomy in the USA, nearly all of them in his field. He has as a routine, found means for women who would normally have little chance of receiving any terminal degree, including women who are survivors of sexual assault and rape, to earn doctorates in astronomy and astronomy-related fields. As a group, we take the current flurry of unverifiable “sex accusation” attacks on prominent astronomers, and particularly on this astronomer, personally.

The ease with which some members of the Division would damage the career of any member by spreading gossip that he is a sexual harasser, but especially a man who has dedicated so much of his life to piecing back together his wife, his adopted child, and many other women, giving them a platform for their work, and providing a means for them to become financially independent, is profoundly and utterly offensive. Committed in the face of protest by some committee members, and without even a weak attempt to check easily verifiable facts, I judge such actions to be deeply, ethically and morally flawed, and a mockery of the entire idea of protecting women in the field from sexual predation. Individuals who abuse the community’s concerns about equity to make false allegations for personal gain are at odds with the advancement of real female and minority scholars. Indeed, in my home nation, the USA, false allegations of sexual predation are considered a criminal offense, as they undermine the very protocols put in place to protect individuals from such acts. Given our reliance upon such protocols, we stand firmly opposed to those who provide false statements about sexual abuses. In this case, the accusations of sexual abuses, made by Dr. Pamela Gay, a citizen of the USA, are verifiably false.

I have conferred with students, past and present, and we are in agreement:

  1. We do not believe that the IAU is the appropriate venue for investigating the behavior of members. Members are under the authority, rules and laws of their home institutions and their home nations. Any concerns about members should be filed with those bodies.
  2. We stand firmly opposed to the unethical possession and dissemination of confidential documents, in part or in whole, as the publication of those documents has been prohibited, with reason, by an authoritative body. We have all given statements to investigators under the assurance that our statements would be sealed and held confidential. We are collectively horrified at the ease with which other women, Dr. Gay and Dr. Garcia, would rob us of the protection we were promised. We will not be silent given the gravity of this violation of our rights.
  3. And finally, we will not share our intellectual work or resources with organizations or individuals who engage in thoughtless and malicious slander of our peers, particularly in this case, where the colleague being attacked is one who has done so much for us as we have worked to heal from actual instances of sexual predation.

We call on the Commission to clarify the Commission’s stand on these issues, and to take action to repair the damage done and ensure that these actions are not repeated in the future. We further call on Dr. Pamela Gay and Dr. Beatriz Garcia to retract publicly their defamatory remarks; and we strongly suggest that both women step down from their leadership positions, particularly Dr. Gay, who has demonstrated that she is uniquely unqualified to act as the Secretary of a professional organization with ongoing access to confidential materials and submitted proposals.

I have attached images of samples of correspondence in which Dr. Gay explains that she is acting at the encouragement of Dr. Garcia, and in which she offers to disseminate confidential documents. I am not attaching samples of her other statements as they are unpleasant to read, and because they constitute libel per se in the United States. I will be taking legal action against Dr. Gay in the United States courts system, and therefore will not disseminate any reproductions of her defamation. However, if any party would like additional descriptions of the types of defamatory statements she has made, or if you have any other need for clarification on these matters, please feel free to contact me at: stephanie@caperteam.com .

My good wishes go out to Dr. Paulo Bretones and Dr. Tim Slater who have worked so hard on the Symposium 326 and on the goals of the Theory and Methods in Astronomy Education Working Group, and to our colleague Dr. David McKinnon, for having the good sense to recognize a liar when he saw one, and for having the backbone to do something about it.

 

Aloha kakou,

Stephanie Slater

 

CC: Officers of the Union, Division C Steering Committee, TMAE Working Group SOC, Sym. #326 SOC

——————————————————————

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Piero Benvenuti <iau-general.secretary@iap.fr>
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Formal Registration of Complaint Re: IAU Division C
To: “Stephanie J. Slater” <sslaterwyo@gmail.com>
Cc: “Paulo S. Bretones” <bretones@ufscar.br>, Tim Slater <timslaterwyo@gmail.com>, Kathy Eastwood <Kathy.Eastwood@nau.edu>, Jay Pasachoff <Jay.M.Pasachoff@williams.edu>, director@hbcse.tifr.res.in, “nicoletta.lanciano@uniroma1.it” <nicoletta.lanciano@uniroma1.it>, “Rosa M. Ros” <ros@ma4.upc.edu>, Magda Stavinschi <magda_stavinschi@yahoo.fr>, atomita@center.wakayama-u.ac.jp, Tony.Lelliott@wits.ac.za, David McKinnon <d.mckinnon@ecu.edu.au>, Cecilia Scorza <scorza@hda-hd.de>, John Hearnshaw <john.hearnshaw@canterbury.ac.nz>, Susana Deustua <deustua@stsci.edu>, “Pamela L. Gay” <starstryder@gmail.com>, Beatriz Garcia <beatrizgarciautn@gmail.com>, Ruggles <rug@le.ac.uk>, Pedro Russo <russo@strw.leidenuniv.nl>, “xcsun@ihns.ac.cn” <xcsun@ihns.ac.cn>, Michèle Gerbaldi <gerbaldi@iap.fr>, “Saeko S. Hayashi” <saeko@naoj.org>, Katrien Kolenberg <katrien.kolenberg@gmail.com>, Kazuhiro Sekiguchi <kaz.sekiguchi@nao.ac.jp>, Linda Strubbe <linda@phas.ubc.ca>, Silvia Torres Peimbert <silvia@astro.unam.mx>, Ewine van Dishoeck <ewine@strw.leidenuniv.nl>, “iau-general.secretary@iap.fr” <iau-general.secretary@iap.fr>, Teresa Lago <mtlago@astro.up.pt>, Norio Kaifu <norio.kaifu@nao.ac.jp>, Thierry Montmerle <montmerl@iap.fr>, Francesca Primas <fprimas@eso.org>

Dear Dr. Stephanie J. Slater,

I read with attention your Formal Registration of Complaint and I
would like to immediately clarify the position of the IAU on the case
you are raising.

The persons that undertook the actions reported in your Formal
Complaint acted at personal level: they were explicitly told by me
that they should not act on behalf of the IAU or Div C, nor even as
IAU member.

The reason is very simple and quite independent of any specific
alleged case: the IAU has neither the means nor the authority to
investigate and eventually judge alleged cases of harassment of any
type that may have occurred outside its specific activities, namely
outside its Symposia or Meetings.

The persons were told that, if they they wanted the alleged
accusations to be properly investigated, they should appeal to the
Entity that has the authority do so, e.g. the Employer of the alleged
offender.

The same persons were warned by me that using and distributing confidential
material is an illegal act and they were strongly discouraged to do
so. If they did, it is their own responsibility and the IAU can only
deplore their action.

For the very same reason above, the IAU cannot sanction actions that
were taken at personal level by an IAU member and from which the IAU
explicitly took distance. The members of all the Divisions’ Steering
Committees have been elected by the Division members through a formal
process and the IAU Executive Committee will monitor their behaviour
and performance uniquely on the basis of the specific activities of
their Division.

The IAU deplores the fact that delicate personal matters are harshly
discussed in an inappropriate public forum and rejects any attempt to
drag the Union into matters that are far from its mission. We hope
that the superior and universal value of Science in general, and
Astronomy in particular, can bring the dispute to a more dignified, appropriate
level and free our energies to pursue the main objectives of our Union.

Best regards,

Piero Benvenuti


Piero Benvenuti
IAU General Secretary
e-mail: iau-general.secretary@iap.fr
Tel.: +33 (0)1 43 25 83 58

—————————————————————-
Well said, Dr. Benvenuti. 

Censored by AAS CSWA

The following post is a comment submitted to the AAS CSWA blog post entitled “It’s Not Just Marcy, and the Grapevine Isn’t Enough” on November 29,2015. It hasn’t been published yet, and there’s been no communication to explain why. The post asks the community to reconsider the reason and integrity they have used in thinking about the social issues in astronomy.  It also should cause us all to wonder a a blog of the American Astronomical Society censoring and biasing the conversations of its members.

There are serious concerns about due process for the accused under university Title IX policies. 28 faculty from the Harvard Law School voiced their objections to Harvard’s policy in the Boston Globe.

“Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:

*The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

*The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

*The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.”

All of these things are problematic with the UCB investigation of Geoff Marcy. There was no hearing. He did not have representation. And the UCB Title IX office had ONE officer do all of the interviews and write the report. So that one person was judge, jury, and executioner, and –like at Harvard–there is no step in the UC process that allows the accused to rebut the charges and face their accuser.

Marcy denied the “groping” charge that was reported 8 years after it allegedly happened. The investigator (one person) thought it was “more likely than not” true. But let’s think about this for a minute. This alleged action is substantially different than the other complaints, which mostly involved contact like a touch on the shoulder, a hug, a kiss on the cheek in a public place, or an intimate conversation.  Yet it is clear from this blog post and the firestorm of the last six weeks that many assume he is guilty of the worst of the accusations. Guilty until proven innocent, yet no opportunity to prove anything.

So do you believe the woman at all costs? Even if the behavior someone is accused of is totally out of character?  Even if others might have something to gain from causing another’s downfall? The conflicts of interest in this case are glaringly obvious to anyone who knows the field. Consider the possibility that UCB Vice-Chancellor Janet Broughton understood where this case fell on the spectrum of sexual harassment, and realizing that the latest incident was in 2010 and none of the incidents involved actual sex, requests for sex, or damage to careers, she meted out the appropriate punishment. Maybe she knew more about the facts of the matter than people who only read the headlines.

I and others have been appalled at how our community reacted to Geoff’s case. Some of the very people he has helped the most have jumped into the fray with their torches and pitchforks at his throat. If you are not ashamed of yourselves yet, you should be. And this suggestion to create a “serial sexual harassers” list has gone too far.  It will help no one, especially not the women who are driving this action. America is a democracy, but the microcosm that is astronomy has lately been acting like a fascist state.

I expect that the blog author and her friends will flame back at me with accusations, exactly as Senator McCarthy did in the 1950s for those who spoke out against his witch hunt of people suspected of being Communist sympathizers. But it is time to move past the disagreements and name calling and get to the reasoned discussion of solutions besides public shaming and blacklists.

One tactic I have seen used in this blog is that comments that disagree with the most outspoken of the CSWA are not posted. But diverse opinions are essential for arriving at solutions. If this comment is not posted, I think others in the AAS will be interested to hear about how “moderation” is being used to control the conversation.

Posted for Anonymous