Bat sex is not protected by academic freedom

This is a fucking travesty.

This is absolutely a travesty.

I pity anyone who is thinking of making a complaint at UCC, because their decision to do so has been made much more difficult by Dr. Evans' response and the individual who leaked those documents. (Who we may, perhaps, pseudonymously refer to as r.D avEns?)

Just saw this on Times Higher Education blog;
"Evans may be clever but he would seem to lack judgement.
On 29th January, just before his interview with UCC admin to investigate charges of sexual harrassment, he tweeted as follows:

Staring at boobs increases male life expectancy - http://bit.ly/cMcQkx - best bit of scientific research ever!

The boob research, btw, turned out to be a hoax."
Just imagine you're a female student and have signed up to follow the tweets of your oh so cool professor. This might be a little to much information. Or maybe perhaps useful information .
Sensitivity training doesn't seem out of place.

On 29th January, just before his interview with UCC admin to investigate charges of sexual harrassment, he tweeted as follows:

WOW. Just...wow. Yeah. The more I find out about him, the more the complainant's accusation makes sense.

Teh google now gives over 11,000 hits for 'dylan evans fruit bat'. Almost all of it I've looked at presents his story as truth, implicitly mocks the idea that showing a peer-reviewed scholarly article to a colleague could ever constitute sexual harassment, and plays up the phony academic freedom angle.

It's giving me a stomachache.

Well, you know what they say - bitches ain't shit.

(apologies to MAJeff for stealing his line)

Almost all of it I've looked at presents his story as truth, implicitly mocks the idea that showing a peer-reviewed scholarly article to a colleague could ever constitute sexual harassment, and plays up the phony academic freedom angle.

Frankly, the appalling standard of journalism and reportage on display is much more worrying than a case of relatively mild misconduct. (The initial offense, rather than the reaction, which may well constitute gross misconduct.)

I've just learned that this is not Dylan Evans's first appearance at Pharyngula.
It was just five years ago...

Ego trip now out of hand:
http://twitter.com/evansd66/statuses/14235336351

Holy crap! Nice legwork, Sven.

I just don't get it.

frankly, neither do I.

kind of why I asked if others had a different response.

Can anyone see a benefit to flogging what should be private departmental issues regarding interactions between members of a dept. publicly like Dylan is doing?

Has the internet actually changed what the predicted outcome would be?

Am I missing something? Has the way we deal with social interaction changed so much that random support from the interweb would have anything but a negative influence in a situation like this?

oh, and finally...

I can't claim much knowledge of porn — but this means that animals not only carry out sexually activities condemned by the religious as unnatural, but they do it better than we do.

show me bats doing threesomes, and I'll start to be a believer.

Gosh - thanks, Fishkiller!

***

I thought this was reasonable, especially Stephen Kinsella's comment:

http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/fruit-bats-and-the-limi…

***

He was accused of sexual harassment and he admits distributing an article about bat sex. If those are the criteria then that puts him in the same category as PZ Myers.

Wow, that's stupid.

NOBODY comes out of this incident smelling of roses.

I really hate statements like this. Even if that's true, no one is fucking supposed to. We're human beings, and we shouldn't be expected to be perfect - that includes people who make complaints. There was an episode of CSI a while back in which there had been a tragedy involving a child, about which the parents lied (for reasons that, it later emerged, were understandable). In the course of the investigation a number of facts emerged about the family involving an affair and so forth. At the end, the mother says to one of the investigators (I don't recall the exact words), "You must think we're terrible people." She replies, "No, just a normal family whose lives were put under a microscope."

We don't always handle everything as well as we should. This doesn't mean it's a wash, that everyone's an asshole and that excuses behaviors that are unacceptable. It's expected. That's why there are professionals trained to evaluate situations involving relationships that can be messy and determine whether someone crossed a line. But to protect everyone in situations like this, the process should be confidential and professional.

(There are also all sorts of reasons people don't want to confront someone directly in alleged harassment cases. Aside from the more obvious, sometimes someone's behavior seems bizarre or unstable, and responding at the individual level seems dangerous - if you don't feel like you can predict their response to being confronted in this way - and unlikely to resolve the problem. I'm not saying that's the case here.)

I'm curious as to what people think of the approach Dylan has taken to this issue. It's becoming more common, but is it productive at all?

I've given it some thought since you asked. I've been involved in the past in several campaigns involving academics, always on the side opposing the administration. Some have been reasonably successful, and I think it depends on a number of factors. These all involved politics, and some were extremely serious. Online petitions may often be useless, but I think petitions will remain an effective tool in some cases as they have been for more than a thousand years. And online campaigns generally can work. I also think there are serious cases involving human rights and real dangers in which internal documents should - after solid consideration - be made public, and I've seen the devastating consequences for whistleblowers who followed their consciences and can't imagine how hard it must be sometimes to do this.

I kind of fear this episode will make people avoid these campaigns, and I hope people will continue to support scholars who are genuinely being persecuted:

http://www.nearinternational.org/

I don't mean accept every campaign and sign on unthinkingly, just not avoid taking any action in any situation. (The guy who wrote the HuffPo post about this, incidentally, is with an organization called FIRE. I don't think I'd ever come across it before this. They may well do some good work, but what I have been able to gather makes me wary.)

Wow, that's stupid.

And yet, it is still true. That was probably why you were unable to offer an actual response to it.

And yet, it is still true. That was probably why you were unable to offer an actual response to it.

I did. I pointed out that it's stupid. The two contexts/situations aren't remotely comparable.

And yet, it is still true.

it is?

has someone in this thread signed an affidavit of sexual harassment against PZ for reprinting parts of an article on bat sex here?

oh, no, they haven't. you were being an idiot, full of false equivalency but signifying nothing.

well, whatever floats yer boat.

UCC starts disciplinary action:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270655043.html

I did. I pointed out that it's stupid. The two contexts/situations aren't remotely comparable.
&
has someone in this thread signed an affidavit of sexual harassment against PZ for reprinting parts of an article on bat sex here?

Oh that’s right, no one decided to be offended and go file a complaint to try and ruin PZ’s career. That is the key difference apparently. All it takes is for someone to ‘feel offended’, and not any actual act deserving of the phrase ‘sexual harassment’.

I do not know which is scarier. The fact that, apparently, someone can take a dislike to a person and potentially ruin their career (or subject them to a two year training/counselling period) in this manner regardless of whether an inappropriate act actually occurred, or that there are people on this thread who apparently think such a situation is ok.

Oh that’s right, no one decided to be offended and go file a complaint to try and ruin PZ’s career. That is the key difference apparently.

Listen, you idiot. First, don't combine comments from two different people like that. It's dishonest. Second, what part of "The two contexts/situations aren't remotely comparable" do you not understand?

Ignoring the other irrelevant babbling...

(or subject them to a two year training/counselling period)

Where is the evidence for this? Again, I'm not claiming it's false, but I have yet to see evidence of it.

From the Irish Times:

Dr Evans, who is being supported by the Irish Federation of University Teachers, told the Irish Independent yesterday that he had not released any documents in the case.

But he posted them on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsbnERoFtUQ

It's possible that the Irish Times made a mistake, but I'm beginning to doubt Dylan Evan's sense of reality. He's on Twitter, and some of it is just not appropriate (slagging off at other commenters, and so on).

That is the key difference apparently.

really.

that's the ONLY difference you see.

you have remarkably poor vision.

UCC said it viewed “with the utmost gravity” the fact that confidential material concerning an internal allegation of sexual harassment was posted to various social media platforms in contravention of university policy and well-established procedure.

inevitable that it would come to this after the direction Evans took.

again, why I keep wondering if there is any value in bringing what should be internal matters into the purview of the internet.

seems in this case it was bad for everyone, including all potential future victims of EITHER real harassment or inappropriate sanctions.

I just don't see where any good comes out of going in this direction.

I read this:

I've been involved in the past in several campaigns involving academics, always on the side opposing the administration. Some have been reasonably successful, and I think it depends on a number of factors. These all involved politics, and some were extremely serious. Online petitions may often be useless, but I think petitions will remain an effective tool in some cases as they have been for more than a thousand years.

and agree that many factors must be considered, few of which I think were in Evans' case.

I see much flaming wreckage as a result here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsbnERoFtUQ

just noticed the only comment on that youtube upload by Evans:

"These documents were confidential. Making them public serves no good purpose. "

again, I can't help but agree with that.

From Twitter:

evansd66 @glukianoff - however, it would be more accurate to state that the documentation re: #fruitbatgate was posted online by someone else

I only see constant dissembling from him. Icthyic, this seems to be a flaming wreck already.

Evans claims he is not responsible for the freaking petition. His letter urging people to sign it was posted verbatim on Pharyngula, Huffington (ptew!) Post, and Dawkins's site.

Icthyic, this seems to be a flaming wreck already.

I think we're just scratching the surface, unfortunately.

I can see far-reaching implications.

I hope I'm wrong; maybe it's just a pan-flash.

Evans claims he is not responsible for the freaking petition.

*doubletake*

whaaa?

*looks at original post*

I am now campaigning to have the sanctions lifted. I would be grateful for your support on this matter. I have created an online petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedebate/

funny, unless my eyes deceive me, the pronoun used repeatedly in that statement is "I".

But he posted them on YouTube.

He also sent them to Lukianoff. From the HuffPo post:

UPDATES: I just received the official documentation from Professor Evans. You can judge for yourself: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/.

Even if he didn't create that site himself, do they think that makes a difference? And he apparently put them on his Facebook page, sent them to several media sites (as he said in his first post on this thread), and shared more than a few details here.

He seems to be saying he didn't write the petition, either. ?

and agree that many factors must be considered, few of which I think were in Evans' case.

I see much flaming wreckage as a result here.

Oh, I agree. I just think in some (other) cases, internet campaigns and petitions can be appropriate and effective. (I should note that none that I recall involved this sort of case or the sharing of confidential information.)

or that there are people on this thread who apparently think such a situation is ok.

take your strawman and stuff it.

UPDATES: I just received the official documentation from Professor Evans. You can judge for yourself: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/.

*looks at first line of reply from president, while reading it...*

Strictly Private & Confidential
Addressee Only

*balks at obvious irony.*

...and Dawkins's site.

Evans on Dawkins (from the link at the earlier Pharyngula post):

Ophelia Benson gets terribly upset at my claim that Dawkins is artistically illiterate. She thinks this shows that I can’t have read “Unweaving the Rainbow”, but in fact it is precisely this book that made me think, for the first time, that Dawkins couldn’t possibly understand poetry. It is true, of course, that he goes out of his way in this book to display a knowledge of literature, but the very ostentatiousness of these displays should be enough to raise a few eyebrows; the man protests too much. The references to poetry that abound in his “Unweaving the Rainbow”, smack of desperation – a desperation to be rid of the smell of philistinism that he is worried may waft up from his earlier writings. And when one subjects these references to any scrutiny, it immediately becomes clear that Dawkins has about as much feeling for poetry as a mole does for a beautiful sunset.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/who-needs-an-excuse/

But maybe that wasn't really him either...

(Sometimes I forget how much I adore Ophelia Benson.)

one minor thing I did note from reading all the letters was this:

Last February Dr Evans wrote to you personally and he told you that “when I first
received notification of the complaint, on 13 November 2009, I wrote to HR to say
that I was prepared to apologise to the complainant for any offence I may have
inadvertently caused”. He also offered to undergo mediation if necessary. The
complainant refused both the apology and the offer of mediation.

If accurate, I would retract my earlier admonition that he should have tried apologizing at least as soon as investigators contacted him.

the admonition that he should have apologized MUCH sooner still stands, however.

:)

Dawkins has about as much feeling for poetry as a mole does for a beautiful sunset.

hmm, what was he saying earlier in that same piece about Dawkins protesting too much?

It was not professional to put those documents online in contravention of the University policies. The dissembling by Evans on this point is a further red flag to me - I know that were I making the decision, I wouldn't give him tenure anymore, regardless of the merit of the original complaint.

Dr Evans said he was taking legal advice on the matter.

Why on earth hasn't his lawyer told him to STFU? Here's my advice to the lawyer: Tell your client to STFU. For the love of self-preservation, Evans, S T F U.

I'm concerned about the guy. This behavior isn't just unprofessional. It's very strange.

It is strange. It's flaming-out-in-style strange.

And I haven't even gotten the chance to mock him yet for calling himself "The PhDJ".

Ah, there it was.

I know that were I making the decision, I wouldn't give him tenure anymore, regardless of the merit of the original complaint.

ayup.

This behavior isn't just unprofessional. It's very strange.

it makes me wonder if indeed his colleagues WERE looking for any excuse to get rid of him, and he blundered right into it and promptly shot himself in the head.

looking at his past commentary, blogs, etc., it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the entire dept. at UCC had had their fill of him.

Academic Freedom arguments don't make up for being an ass on a regular basis.

...you need tenure for that.

:)

While I still have my reservations about the initial complaint, the posting of confidential materials outing the complainant is inexcusable. However badly he feels he has been treated by the University, if he leaked these documents (and I'm not sure who the hell else could have), he deserves any disciplinary action the University gives him.

see, this is why i love this blog. there's enough skeptics on here than someone, somewhere, will dig up the real story.

I think the massive, counterfactual denials that are coming in now pretty much confirm SC's suspicions that the dude was talking out of his ass from the start.

I bow before your bullshit-detector, SC.

So, if a letter says "Confidential" we should all respect that? The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc., should have all remained away from public scrutiny?

There was an injustice here, by a university president who weaseled out (as too many do) on the side of political correctness, rather than defend the most important value of the academy: academic freedom.

The incident revolves around sharing of a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal with a colleague. Case closed -- academic freedom must prevail or University College Cork will not be taken seriously by the academy.

The situation could have been resolved informally -- but both the president and the claimant refused personal discussion or informal mediation. Once it went formal, and had this outcome, academics around the world need to take notice.

This case deserves much public scrutiny.

As was noted in post #385

"Injustices that stay secret tend to remain injustices."

SC@534 said:

Why on earth hasn't his lawyer told him to STFU? Here's my advice to the lawyer: Tell your client to STFU. For the love of self-preservation, Evans, S T F U.

Once again, you are prescient:

Dr Evans denies that he was responsible for leaking the documents -- which include Dr Salerno Kennedy's written complaint, Dr Evans's reply and the findings of an external team of investigators.

"It wasn't me," Dr Evans told the Irish Independent last night. He said he had passed the matter over to his lawyers, who had advised him not to comment.

And yes, "unprofessional" is an understatement.

Memills,

Releasing those documents was not in the public interest. It was not even in Dr. Evans' interests. Now he is in much deeper trouble than he was before, and nobody is better off.

Case closed -- academic freedom must prevail or University College Cork will not be taken seriously by the academy.

Because University College Cork has suppressed what research exactly? What discussions? What academic positions or talks?

echidna,

University College Cork has, in effect, banned the sharing of academic papers among colleagues, lest a colleague find a paper distasteful.

This is an attack on academic freedom. As previous posters have noted, academic freedom was hard fought, and must remain the top value of the academy. Otherwise, we don't have universities, we have madrassas.

PS:

This post is confidential.

And, I hereby declare that your statement above has harassed me.

The head of Political Correctness Enforcement has reviewed your post, and has determined that your punishment will be flogging and banishment from the internet.

Imagine that was real. Would you care to take it public? Or, just take it?

This is an attack on academic freedom.

you didn't read the comments in this thread. I'd say a pretty careful investigation indicates that's mostly a cover.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say you are an undergrad there, or friends with one.

I don't think you have a good perspective on this, in any case.

I bow before your bullshit-detector, SC.

me too.

but mine seems to have been honed by observation, cause this:

University College Cork has, in effect, banned the sharing of academic papers among colleagues, lest a colleague find a paper distasteful.

is obvious bullshit even to me.

It's interesting that the general attitude on the UCC forum, and among people I know in UCC, is that this story is all down to insider politics. Any UCCers in the thread care to comment?

this story is all down to insider politics

lol, one could only wish it HAD stayed internal.

memills,

University College Cork has, in effect, banned the sharing of academic papers among colleagues, lest a colleague find a paper distasteful.

and

madrassa

Crikey, keep your hair on. You obviously don't know your audience here: the people on this blog are academically inclined, or at least very knowledgeable, and don't like hyperbole very much. There are quite a number of academics present, and a number of people who know more about political and religious repression and harassment than you can even imagine.

Taking this public has not helped the cause of academic freedom in the slightest, nor has Evans helped any institution or individual. All I see is that Evans found a way of revealing who his accuser was, totally smashing through the expectation of confidentiality that the complaints process was meant to have. He has made it much harder to make a legitimate complaint; he has set academics on edge about harrassment complaints. He has used sledgehammer tactics with the University and the complainant as targets, and he may have ruined his own career in the process. I know I wouldn't give him tenure after this display. Maybe he thought he had nothing left to lose.

The incident revolves around sharing of a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal with a colleague. Case closed

That is the most simplistic possible view. There is much more information available than Evans's ill-considered, self-serving, disingenuous letter and petition. You simply don't know what you're talking about (but you're in good company: Myers, Pinker, Dennett, and Dawkins have all been fooled too).

academic freedom was hard fought, and must remain the top value of the academy.

Agreed. That's precisely why this case pisses me off. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. It trivializes the serious and important issue of academic freedom in service of rationalizing fratboy douchery and web-2 narcissism.

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/05/does_oral_sex_confer_a…

So let's look at oral sex in animals. There is some evidence that bonobos engage in fellatio, but this is infrequent, and usually among juveniles and considered part of play (see this article (PDF) or this paper). This might lead you to believe that fellatio is primarily a human activity or emerged as a part of play (as opposed to a part of sex) - in either case, not a convincing evolutionarily adaptive explanation.

Except that the paper he's talking about explicitly talks about orangutans:

Schürmann observed that a female orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, often interrupted copulation for a short while, manipulating her mate's penis with her hand, licking it or putting it in her mouth before mounting again. It is plausible that this female's behavior increased male arousal [22].

Indeed it is, and this is much closer to what humans do. In fact, what these researchers seem to be doing is taking what we know from humans and - in a way that's valid as long as they're considering species-specific characteristics - using it to speculate on similar or related behaviors in other species. You'd have to be a fucking idiot [get it?] not to recognize that oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus; ...by the way, has anyone observed/studied cunnilingus in any other species?) have an arousal and probably lubrication function.* But fellatio has also been observed as (sexual?) play behavior (which of course also has adaptive value) in other primates, and is a culturally-variable practice. In other words, it's complex. But it would be pretty unreasonable to be led to believe something about humans on the basis of observed behavior in bonobos without taking into account what's obviously the case with humans.

I don't see what this study tells us about humans that we didn't already know if we gave it a moment's thought. This would be true even if it were a completely exceptional behavior, so this is a red herring. "Some might argue that oral sex does not have adaptive value. How could it increase reproductive fitness when engaging in oral sex does not seem to allow sperm to meet egg? If sperm and egg don't have a rendezvous, someone could be super duper awesome but an adaptive loser" and "This might lead you to believe that fellatio is primarily a human activity or emerged as a part of play (as opposed to a part of sex)" are simply ridiculous. Think about it, Goldman: Is oral sex part of sex - combined in practice with copulation - in humans?

When human adults show complex, possibly culture-specific skills, they emerge from a set of psychological (and thus neural) mechanisms which have two properties:
(1) they evolved early in the timecourse of evolution and are shared with other animals, and,
(2) they emerge early in human development, and can be found in infants and children, as well as adults.

I don't even know where to start with that.

*The business about its playing an anti-STD, antibacterial, etc., role is a bit worrisome if people are going to talk about humans in the same context. For all we know, it may play this role among humans, but oral sex is also a means to transmit infections, and people should be clear about that.

That's precisely why this case pisses me off. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. It trivializes the serious and important issue of academic freedom in service of rationalizing fratboy douchery and web-2 narcissism.

QFT.

*eyeroll*
The adaptive function of oral sex in humans?
Is there any reason at all to suspect a genetic component to the propensity to apply mouth to partner's genitals in the first place?

hmm let's see *waving arms about* "pair-bonding"!

Good sleuthing on SC's, Sven's, and others' parts. Given Evans' behavior - the tweets, the inconsistencies in his accounts, the apparently massive ego - I'm far more inclined to believe the complainant than I was before.

Based on the paper record I saw when I objected upthread, I still don't think it was unreasonable to give Evans the benefit of the doubt at that point. But the subsequent revelations paint a pretty damning picture, and it looks like I was wrong.

University College Cork has, in effect, banned the sharing of academic papers among colleagues, lest a colleague find a paper distasteful.

Sorry, but this is just a lame and inane statement. Sharing via e-mail, holding a seminar, or a break room bull session are unlikely to result in any complaints, just like any totally work related material.

Trouble can happen with non-work related material, that can be considered salacious by some, and a twit goes barging into someone elses office to shove it in their face.

Academic freedom is in no way impaired, but some jerks might have to change their behavior. This causes some jerks distress. I don't feel sorry for them.

I perhaps owe SC an apology.

SC: it seems that you were right on this one, and I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Thanks, Josh--you've got class.
I'd like to see PZ and the Horsemen follow your example.
Pinker in particular has managed to supply ammo to the mendacious "evo-psych exists only to justify the patriarchy" meme.

Did Evans send this to PZ ? If yes, I don't think he realised what he was getting himself into, putting this out to the skeptical horde for analysis...:-)

Pinker in particular has managed to supply ammo to the mendacious "evo-psych exists only to justify the patriarchy" meme.

Sigh. This depresses me, because I have a lot of time for Pinker (and Dennett). Evo-psych is almost as tough to have a rational conversation about as is any topic involving children and sexuality; biases and emotional reactions shut down the brains of even the most intelligent people. I understand why Pinker would react this way, and also why others would take the opposite position.

It seems to me true that:

a. Evo-psych can and does make useful contributions to understanding of human behavior

b. Evo-psych can and is often often done sloppily, and opponents are right to call out untestable "just-so stories." Some of them are embarrassingly laughable.

c. There are many opponents (not all, mind) of evo-psych that are rigidly and ideologically opposed the very idea that evolution shaped human psychology in any way, and contort themselves to caricature it at all costs. They do not distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable hypotheses, and see the whole thing as a tool of oppression.

d. Both camps are so charged and on guard, that what should be a conversation turns into ritual, content-free defense of one's tribe.

When this spaghettified intellectual mess infects a real world situation such as this one, nothing useful is accomplished, and a lot of damage is done.

http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/bringing-the-veil-down-…

***

Thanks, Josh and Walton. (I should say that I wasn't extraordinarily suspicious from the start. Though some elements gave me pause, I really was asking him questions in good faith. I don't know how this came to be about me, though; other people were calling for skepticism before I joined the thread.)

***

It seems to me true that:

a. Evo-psych can and does make useful contributions to understanding of human behavior

b. Evo-psych can and is often often done sloppily, and opponents are right to call out untestable "just-so stories." Some of them are embarrassingly laughable.

My approach is to only discuss specific research on specific claims.

My approach is to only discuss specific research on specific claims.

Where's Nancy anyway ??

;)

From the blog post SC linked above :

And a few thousand people have shown an extraordinary lack of judgement in backing him without having any real knowledge of the circumstances

Not here, they haven't.

Hank Fox, dutchdoc, and SC were the early voices of reason here (and anywhere, afaict). The guy at SC's link above has it exactly right--nothing more need be said (though it already has been).

http://www.stephenkinsella.net/2010/05/18/fruitbatgate/

Evans:

Thanks for your comments, Stephen, which strike me as very thoughtful. I am not sure, however, what the “bullying” you refer to is. Could you clarify? Please remember that I have never named the complainant, and indeed did my best to avoid revealing possible identifiers. But I guess it was inevitable as soon as this story went viral that journalists would do their utmost to identify the complainant. I did not post the documents online, but once they were in the public domain I felt I had a perfect right to defend myself against some of the more horrible slurs on my character that started doing the rounds on the net. I agree it is highly regretable that some newspapers are now publishing photos of the person they claim is the complainant. The complainant’s privacy deserves to be respected in these cases, and my beef is entirely with UCC, not with the complainant. I think their ruling on the matter does have serious implications for academic freedom, though I agree with you that now the story has evolved to be about much more than that. It is wrong for anyone to sign a petition without assuring themselves of the facts first, and for that reason it strikes me that whoever posted the documents online was doing the signatories a service, particularly as the identifiers were redacted. I should also refer you to a comment by Greg Lukianoff, the author of the #fruitbat post on the Huffington Post: “in the cases we handle in the US we usually post primary documents, like charging documents, on line.”

That's just...wow.

echidna,

I am a tenured professor, not an undergrad.

There are two conflicting interests here, protection from actual sexual harassment vs. protection of academic freedom. The reason there is so much back-and-forth on this topic is the tension between these two values.

Your statement that Evans "has made it much harder to make a legitimate [sexual harassment] complaint" indicates that you place a lesser value on academic freedom. Another perspective is that "the university has made it much harder to freely share academic articles with colleagues."

Again, keep in mind what this case is fundamentally about -- the charge that the act of showing a colleague a published journal article, in itself, constituted sexual harassment. (That was the only sexual harassment charge the president of the university made.)

In my experience, most academics would find this to be an unacceptable limitation on academic freedom.

Such violations need to be exposed and vetted by the academic community. Organizations such as the AAUP, FIRE, Academics for Academic Freedom, etc., have exposed similar attacks on academic freedom by university administrators.

Unfortunately, this situation is not unique -- it is one more example of the insanity that can result at universities as they try to be both politically correct and support academic freedom. Unfortunately, the latter does not always prevail.

For other examples, see the FIRE or AAUP websites.

Below is a link to a video of another administrative assault on academic freedom: a student who was judged guilty by university of racial harassment simply by reading a book (a book, ironically, available in the university library and one critical of the KKK).

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFIREorg#p/c/3/0ZHnB3jyrHI

And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPF5kEg7-Y

...and on a related current events note regarding free speech (and madrassas):

CNN: Pakistan shuts down Facebook over 'Draw Mohammed' Day

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/19/pakistani.facebook.shutdown/index.ht…

Folks who are offended by bat sex, or cartoons, should not be allowed to limit our speech.

The petition was posted on Friday May 14th. Links to the documents (and dance vid!) are now on the petition site but it's not clear when they were added. A signatory mentions reading the investigators report on the 15th. The first reference to the documents being posted online that I know of was in comment #48 above by ‘grantia.o’ (a possible Dylan Evans sockpuppet): “However, he [Evans] has been very open and has posted the original official complaint & several other relevant documents in full on his Facebook page”.That was just before noon (blogtime) Saturday the 15th. PZ’s post went up about 4 hours earlier, but Lukianoff‘s Huffington Post thing had been up the afternoon before (and he got it from Pinker!). The documents were then linked—at the felidware site-- from here by dutchdoc in #124 (15th, 3:46 pm) after “some poking around”. The ‘fruitbatgate’ dance-track video featuring scans of the documents was posted by ‘evansd66’ on the 16th. The Huffington Post article was updated apparently on the 17th; the language used was : “I just received the official documentation from Professor Evans. You can judge for yourself: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/.”

It’s not clear who set up the felidware site, and exactly when, but it hardly matters if the documents were posted to Facebook by Evans first.

Your statement that Evans "has made it much harder to make a legitimate [sexual harassment] complaint" indicates that you place a lesser value on academic freedom. Another perspective is that "the university has made it much harder to freely share academic articles with colleagues."

Which would only be right. Keep in mind that the "academic freedom" at risk in this case is that of being able to share unsolicited papers in another person's office. If asking before sharing is the cost of ensuring that people are able to complain about harassment, then so be it.

As it is, even that consequence exists largely in the minds of those sympathetic to Evans, rather than being a likely consequence of the UCC President's actions.

Whereas, it is immediately obvious that Evans' very public campaign damages confidence in the complaints procedure. That is entirely Evans' fault.

Again, keep in mind what this case is fundamentally about -- the charge that the act of showing a colleague a published journal article, in itself, constituted sexual harassment. (That was the only sexual harassment charge the president of the university made.)

Bullshit. Even some of those who initially thought - myself included - that Evans may have been treated harshly, didn't think this was a matter of academic freedom.

As it is, he was clearly found guilty of some wrongdoing, if unintentionally. He then chose to make a public circus of the thing, for no reason other than that he didn't like the outcome. At that point, he could have chosen to go through the due process of disciplinary proceedings and appeals. Instead, he chose to reframe his own problem in terms of the current cause célèbre that is academic freedom, and act in manner damaging to both himself, the complainant, and the UCC.

Unfortunately, this situation is not unique -- it is one more example of the insanity that can result at universities as they try to be both politically correct and support academic freedom. Unfortunately, the latter does not always prevail.

Protecting people from harassment or bullying is simply political correctness, is it?

keep in mind what this case is fundamentally about -- the charge that the act of showing a colleague a published journal article, in itself, constituted sexual harassment

You have misunderstood completely "what this case is fundamentally about".

similar attacks on academic freedom by university administrators

Exhibit B.
The case, as every thoughtful person who has examined any of the details now admits, has nothing to do with academic freedom. Zero. Your insistence on propagating the most ideologically simplistic possible interpretation of the case suggests that you are using it to grind an axe.
Your subsequent characterization of procedural processing of a formal complaint of sexual harassment as "trying to be politically correct" suggests the particular axe you are grinding.

You are right -- I have an ax to grind. I place a greater value on freedom of speech and academic freedom over claims of taking offense to speech.

You don't -- so you are just grinding a different ax.

Given my values, I support your free expression of them.

@Memills
Is is your position that it is impossible that someone could use an academic peer-reviewed article to make a joke with sexual innuendo?

What sane person thinks academic freedom means academics can say or do anything they like regardless of its effects on anyone and without consequences? You can't do any research you like at a university (has to go through IRBs and IACUCs and follow policies, laws, and international conventions, however gutted); you can't publish fake data; you can't (as Evans learned, or should have) publish books libeling people; and you can't harass your coworkers.

***

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

The Utopia experiment sounds...interesting.

What axe am I grinding? I'm trying hard to judge the case by the evidence. You're trying hard not to.

Is is your position that it is impossible that someone could use an academic peer-reviewed article to make a joke with sexual innuendo?

Can free speech be abused? Sure. But in my value system, free speech is so important that it trumps a claim that it amounted to sexual harassment in this case.

Had it been a case of multiple instances of sharing academic articles about sexuality, despite clear communication that it was unwanted, and if informal mediation had failed, then I agree it would rise to another level.

Otherwise, academic freedom, as exemplified by sharing of research articles by colleagues, should not be restricted by university administrators.

Again: nobody's academic freedom is at stake here. The particular way in which this particular article was shared between these particular colleagues was deemed inadvertently inappropriate workplace behavior by an independent investigation. The President responded to the report by imposing the least punitive sanctions available by written policy. The accused breached confidentiality and took it viral. Free scholarly debate has been compromised in no way.

@memills
The investigaion found that this was simply a joke with sexual innuendo. In other words in handing over the paper Evans had the intent of a provoking a social response rather than an academic one.
One of the parties involved is a nutritionist specialising in elder care, the other a lecturer in medical risk analysis. They were not engaged professionally in anything close to the research topic of the paper.
Your beef seems to be that you do not think that what happened amounted to sexual harassment, which is a reasonable point of view.
The academic freedom angle is a red herring

Academic freedom is at stake when a university administration punishes a faculty member for sexual harassment based on a single instance of sharing an academic paper.

Compare this case with another case of a harassment claim based on reading a book:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFIREorg#p/c/3/0ZHnB3jyrHI

At least in that case, the university president ultimately reversed his finding of racial harassment in favor of academic freedom. However, note that it took publicity, and work by FIRE, to achieve this outcome.

With similar scrutiny by the academic community, hopefully a similar reversal may happen in this case.

In other words in handing over the paper Evans had the intent of a provoking a social response rather than an academic one.

Very well said.

(Sigh. I fear "sharing an article" might be next up for euphemism status.)

Evans had the intent of a provoking a social response rather than an academic one.

There is no evidence of this.

According to Evans (and apparently not challenged by anyone), they had an ongoing academic debate regarding the comparability of animal vs. human behavior, and "human exceptionalism." Evans' previous research and writing is relevant to this topic, as was the research paper that he shared.

Academic freedom is at stake when a university administration punishes a faculty member for sexual harassment based on a single instance of sharing an academic paper.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it does not erase the entire context surrounding the event.
To quote, "One of the parties involved is a nutritionist specialising in elder care, the other a lecturer in medical risk analysis. They were not engaged professionally in anything close to the research topic of the paper."

According to Evans (and apparently not challenged by anyone), they had an ongoing academic debate regarding the comparability of animal vs. human behavior, and "human exceptionalism."

I refer you to the 500+ posts above yours.

That is incorrect (see my post above).

Further, both are interested in, and researching, the interface between biological and psychological systems. The more general question of animal / human comparability is certainly within this arena. It often is discussed by academics in many disciplines.

Look, memills - I teach a college course about reproduction. I am known at my school as being interested in reproduction and biology. It would be entirely appropriate for any of my colleagues to bring me this paper and discuss it. But if they introduced it, several days after having a discussion about whether humans were exceptional, out of nowhere as a retort that "humans aren't unique because animals have oral sex", that would be really weird, because it's a fairly odd leap to use sexual practices as a linchpin for a casual human behavior=animal behavior discussion. It doesn't even make much sense within the parameters of that kind of discussion. And neither of them had any link to fields remotely related to this topic. Also, note that the fact that he never mentioned that this was an "ongoing debate" in the initial document; that was added on later, and looks an awful lot like a post-hoc rationalization.

Further, both are interested in, and researching, the interface between biological and psychological systems. The more general question of animal / human comparability is certainly within this arena. It often is discussed by academics in many disciplines.

Do you really think that's going to fly with the skeptical crowd here? Hell, most of the people you're talking to are in some vague way "interested in, and researching, the interface between biological and psychological systems." (It's a far cry, I'll note, from Evans' "topics directly related to our own research" above; I'll give it that.)

@memills;
"There is no evidence of this"
There is. The investigation panel after hearing the evidence of both parties, judged that what had happened was a joke with sexual innuendo.Presumeably Evans made his case there and it was not accepted.
The only evidence you have to the contrary is Evans' account.

In case you missed it, his reply to the original complaint was "It is true that I showed the complainant the paper she refers to on 2 November 2009. I did this without any premeditation, simply because I was reading the paper when walking by her office and thought she might find it interesting."

That doesn't even sound like there was a previous discussion as part of it that he just "forgot" to put in the document; in fact, it directly counters that idea by declaring that it was "without any premeditation" and that he though simply that "she might find it interesting".

In my experience, most academics would find this to be an unacceptable limitation on academic freedom.

As as ex-academician I call bullshit. You appear to be conflating absolute freedom of speech, with intellectual inquiry. Absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist, nor should it. People need to take responsibility for their speech, and especially if it bothers entails barging into other peoples offices to show them what might be considered salacious material. Or yelling "fire" and causing a panic resulting in bodily injury to people where no smoke or fire exists.

Also, there are proper venues for academic freedom. Why didn't Dr. Evans give a seminar on sexual habits of non-humans that are similar to certain human behaviors? Pure academic freedom at work. Also, it is voluntary on whether to attend. Even more freedom. The other end of academic freedom entails not having boors banging on your door to show you stuff you have no or little interest in. You appear to think that is appropriate behavior of collegues. I don't, nor does the HR department backed by the administration at most places.

Maybe he thought he had nothing left to lose.

...and with his usual lack of foresight and empathy, failed to even consider what impacts his actions might have on others involved in future disputes.

he deserves obscurity at this point.

Evo-psych is almost as tough to have a rational conversation about as is any topic involving children and sexuality; biases and emotional reactions shut down the brains of even the most intelligent people. I understand why Pinker would react this way, and also why others would take the opposite position.

lol. In my time as a grad student, you could have substituted sociobiology for evo-psych and the statement could have otherwise been a commonly said one.

According to Evans, there was another person in the office who really could shed some light on the topic. Evans requested that this person be interviewed -- that did not happen.

The investigation seems pretty shoddy. At the outset of the investigative report itself doubt is cast on the believability of the complainant, apparently due to conflicts between her account vs. emails she sent.

Clearly, given the issues at stake, and the apparently shoddy investigation, this case deserves as much attention by the academy as possible.

PS: Nerd -- I'm glad your are retired. Wouldn't want to share any academic discourse with you given your sensitivities.

Further, both are interested in, and researching, the interface between biological and psychological systems.

frankly, it doesn't matter even if there WAS a discussion going on behind the scenes.

the fact of the matter is, Evans' behavior, as documented in the complaint and after, has been wholly inappropriate.

it has nothing at all to do with academic freedom, and I'm sorry to see so many otherwise well meaning people conclude that it does.

you really need to apply your efforts to preserve academic freedom to better targets.

there are certainly enough out there to choose from.

The investigation seems pretty shoddy. At the outset of the investigative report itself doubt is cast on the believability of the complainant, apparently due to conflicts between her account vs. emails she sent.

Might be relevant to the specific investigative procedures and policies of UCC. Probably what you really should be concentrating your efforts on improving, rather than thinking this has anything to do with academic freedom.

PS: Nerd -- I'm glad your are retired. Wouldn't want to share any academic discourse with you given your sensitivities.

we're still waiting for any bit of academically oriented discourse to come from YOU.

I find Nerd's analysis to be much closer to the mark, and much more representative of what is really needed to bolster academic freedom, than anything you have mentioned so far.

do you have a real case to make as to why Evans' case is THE thing we should be concentrating on in a fight for academic freedom?

again, I simply don't see, with all the information available, that this has been anything other than a grandstanding internet boondoggle.

we're still waiting for any bit of academically oriented discourse to come from YOU.

I find Nerd's analysis to be much closer to the mark, and much more representative of what is really needed to bolster academic freedom, than anything you have mentioned so far.

do you have a real case to make as to why Evans' case is THE thing we should be concentrating on in a fight for academic freedom?

again, I simply don't see, with all the information available, that this has been anything other than a grandstanding internet boondoggle.

To quote, "One of the parties involved is a nutritionist specialising in elder care, the other a lecturer in medical risk analysis. They were not engaged professionally in anything close to the research topic of the paper."

I will add something to this...

if you look at Evans' website, you will see he does indeed research into the evolution of human behavior... as a topic of general interest.

so, it is at least plausible that there was a debate running on this issue, regardless of how one might interpret Evans' initial response to the investigators.

that said, and again as mentioned previously, all of that is entirely irrelevant to whether what happened is an issue of academic freedom.

Ah... but I repeat myself.

...another example of political correct insanity at universities, for your reading pleasure:

"Within hours of issuing our press release yesterday, the local and national media were on the scene at Hinds Community College (HCC) in Mississippi to discuss the case of student Isaac Rosenbloom's punishment for a single use of the word "fuck" outside of class."

http://thefire.org/article/11900.html

Ah... but I repeat myself

irrelevantly.

if you don't care to discuss Evans' case specifically, shouldn't you move on?

it's not like we have argued for academic freedom in general here.

if you have evidence to support the idea that Evans' case really is quintessential to fighting for academic freedom, you better get on with it.

memills@563:

echidna,
I am a tenured professor, not an undergrad.

But sloppy with details, I can see. I didn't say that you were an undergrad, somebody else did.

have argued for haven't argued for.

*sigh*

I hate instant coffee.

Wouldn't want to share any academic discourse with you given your sensitivities.

Yeah, I bet you are the type to grab your colleagues by the lapels and make them listen to your endless discourse in the name of academic freedom. That freedom also means that I, or anyone else, can tell you to unhand me and I can go on my way without further bother from a blowhard boor. I've met of few of your type during my academic days, with no pleasure. Such types are not the embodiment of academic freedom, but rather their selfish interests. Time and place for everything, but not on your schedule...

but I repeat myself.

All the idjit boors do that. Why don't you stop, and prove you aren't one?

I didn't say that you were an undergrad, somebody else did.

*raises hand*

a conclusion I'm still sticking to in absence of any contrary, independent information.

gotta call em as i see em.

Yeah, I bet you are the type to grab your colleagues by the lapels and make them listen to your endless discourse in the name of academic freedom.

wait...

are we sure this isn't Evans as a sockpuppet?

'cause that's pretty much been how I envisioned him.

I thought so. memills is here not to defend academic freedom, but rather to decry rampant "political correctness".

Ichthyic,

This case is but one example of the efforts by some to restrict freedom of speech, especially (and most ironically) at universities. As I mentioned before, fortunately, there are organizations such as FIRE and AAUP who take these cases before the public.

Once exposed in the light of public (or legal) scrutiny, many are resolved by the removal of restrictions on speech.

But, I get the sense that we disagree... ;-)

I doubt there is much further to debate here without repetition, so I look forward to following the case to its ultimate outcome.

but rather to decry rampant "political correctness".

Hmm...Wonder how many complaints are on his record? Inquiring minds using academic freedom want to know...

free speech is so important that it trumps a claim that it amounted to sexual harassment in this case.

because bitches ain't shit, and if they feel pushed out of academia by a hostile work environment, that's just A-OK.

This case is but one example of the efforts by some to restrict freedom of speech,

you're implying they are connected.

they are not.

you're bloody paranoid, and might want to see someone about that.

I doubt there is much further to debate here without repetition, so I look forward to following the case to its ultimate outcome.

ultimate outcome:

Evans will not get tenure.

why?

because he's a bloody fool for airing this laundry in the public venue, and forcing his department to file disciplinary proceedings against him.

50/50 he won't even have a job at UCC in 6 months.

sad, really, but HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC FREEDOM. In fact, this case has set the fight for academic freedom back, if anything.

And so, with their arguments exhausted, the discussion degenerates into ad hominems...

But, I get the sense that we disagree... ;-)

snide ass.

You made my case.

And so, with their arguments exhausted,

Whereas your cogent argument never got started. It was just WAAAAAHHHH, I might have to not be a boor, and engage in boorish behavior, in my futile and illegal efforts to chase the unworthy women from the faculty...

And so, with their arguments exhausted, the discussion degenerates into ad hominems...

again, only an undergrad wouldn't know the correct usage of the term "ad hominem".

calling you a snide ass is an insult, not an ad hom.

saying BECAUSE you are a snide ass, your every further utterance will be drivel would be an ad hom.

so, let me get straight to it before you run away, tail betwixt legs:

I'm convinced you have nothing relevant to say, and haven't since your first proclamation here.

run along and play now, sonny.

You have all hurt my feelings here, and I feel harassed.

Freedom of speech is very dangerous. You should not be allowed to do this. You should be punished.

Oh, the irony.

And so, with their arguments exhausted, the discussion degenerates into ad hominems...

others, suffering from irrational persecution complexes, tend to claim all who disagree with them are merely employing ad hominem to persecute them.

yeah, we've seen it before.

from creationists, global warming denialists, etc, etc.

are we sure this isn't Evans as a sockpuppet?

I thought it might be Lukianoff or someone else at FIRE.

This case is but one example of

The problem for you is that you haven't demonstrated that. No one is denying that there are undue restrictions on academic rights around the world. That doesn't mean that every case that someone claims is about a violation of academic freedom or freedom of speech really is (Evans' claims about the Rose matter are a decent example), and they need to be sized up honestly. Surely you know this. In this case, FIRE has not only parroted statements from Evans to the public that are misleading, questionable, or arguably outright false, but also helped him to put himself in an even greater bind and to do real damage to other people. Even if the outcome of the original case is as you desire, the reputation of FIRE has suffered a blow.

And so, with their arguments exhausted, the discussion degenerates into ad hominems...

And so, tired after a long Gish Gallop, memills moves on to the next standard in the repertoire. What will be next...?

Icthyic,

I suspect that memills is either a tenured professor in psychology at Loyola, or Evans in disguise. I'd go with the Evans in disguise hypothesis, given that the arguments he is making have the same brainless "shoot from the hip" quality as the Evans who has been advised by his lawyer to STFU.

Memills,
explain exactly what academic freedom was infringed in this case. Start with the argument that the paper supports that was so compelling that it needed to be shown around the department.

By the way, the last time I was involved in an article being shown around the department like that, it was a picture of a naked girl on a motorbike. And yes, this was an academic institution, and was specifically shown to the females to get their reaction.

Explain to me why this situation was different, other than this one had the cover of being a journal article.

And so, tired after a long Gish Gallop, memills moves on to the next standard in the repertoire. What will be next...?

I see you posted that before reading:

Oh, the irony.

;)

I thought it might be Lukianoff or someone else at FIRE.

hmm, yeah, that makes sense.

The problem for you is that you haven't demonstrated that.

indeed. which is what keeps me wondering why it is still here...

I find it amusing that one-note posters like memills can only post their one-note over and over, and not answer any of the cogent questions asked. Personally, they know they are wrong to begin with, and are tacitly admitting that by not answering the questions. You can always show me wrong memills...

Freedom of speech is very dangerous. You should not be allowed to do this. You should be punished.
Oh, the irony.

"...and another family of strawmen is DESTROYED!"

-paraphrase of Lewis Black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwtpMmssKv8

You have all hurt my feelings here, and I feel harassed.

Freedom of speech is very dangerous. You should not be allowed to do this. You should be punished.

Policy here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php

Policy here:

ROFLMAO

Memills is unlikely to be the tenured professor he claims to be. There is no substance to his arguments, and there is a basic cluelessness and shiftiness about him that rings false.

SC, you think Lukianoff? It's certainly someone invested in Evans, but left defenceless by the lack of supporting facts.

SC, you think Lukianoff? It's certainly someone invested in Evans, but left defenceless by the lack of supporting facts.

That's what I was thinking before, but I have no idea.

I suspect that memills is either a tenured professor in psychology at Loyola

ah, you mean this guy:

http://drmills.wiki-site.com/index.php/User:Memills

actually, I think you nailed it. His interest in evo pysch would have drawn him to this thread.

if so, it is quite sad he is unwilling and/or unable to support his contention that Evans' case is important in the struggle for academic freedom, or address ANY of the evidence presented counter to his claim that it does.

Frankly, if that really is the right Mills, I would much rather discuss his presentations on the evolution of sexually dimorphic behaviors.

of course that has about as much to do with Evans' case under discussion here as anything else he's brought up so far.

still, I think it would at least be more interesting.

of course, that's all assuming we've id'd the handle correctly.

actually, this link is more direct:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/index.htm

check it, quintessential evo pych, right down to purely darwinian-sytle selection mechanisms proposed:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/publications/Bernard-Mills-Swenson-Walsh.pdf

that would be worth an entire thread to debate, I think.

...OK, maybe not "purely" darwinian, given its reliance on kin selection and inclusive fitness.

still... it IS purely selectional.

OK, enough OT.

Thanks Ichthyic, it is an interesting paper....

oh, my
Evolutionary psychologists circling the wagons to protect one of their own? At this point?
Big mistake. Worse than being fooled once.

Thanks Ichthyic, it is an interesting paper....

I plan to devote an hour or two to reading it today, in fact.

I can imagine any number of discussions I have had over the last several years that it would be worth adding in to stir the pot.

Careful who you show it to. It might upset a creationist. ;-)

so that IS you?

I can think of many other than creationists sociobiology tends to upset.

*looks up to see if bloghost is watching*

If that is you, why not pop over to this open thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/episode_lvii_cooking_and_arg…

in a few hours after I have finished reading this paper.

I'm sure many would be far more interested in debating the merits of evo psych with you than hearing your inappropriately placed screeds regarding academic freedom in this thread.

That's an open thread, and would likely attract the handful of pharyngulites that have debated this issue previously.

Here's another clue for you all...

memills' first post is stamped at 2:28am. I'm not sure which US timezone scienceblogs uses, but assuming Minnesota time, the times memills is posting would be awkward for someone in LA (such as someone at Loyola), but not awkward for Ireland (first post would be 8:30 am).

Therefore, I'm inclined to think the memills posting here is NOT the Loyola professor of evolutionary psychology.

I'd bet anybody 50 bucks that if the situation had been that this entire thing happened exactly as described, but she didn't file the complaint and then Evans went on to rape her after offering her a ride home one day, memills would be in the front of the line accusing her of being completely stupid for not seeing it coming based on his obviously inappropriate prior behavior.

Therefore, I'm inclined to think the memills posting here is NOT the Loyola professor of evolutionary psychology.

*sigh*

well, it was worth a shot.

Here's another clue for you all...

...the Walrus was Paul?

Just peeling back the layers of the glass onion.

well, it was worth a shot.

I could still be wrong. Mills could be visiting Europe...

oh, and that paper is longer than I thought.

it's a fucking old-sytle monograph!

gonna take me a couple days to get through it.

of course, on cursory glance, it's little more than a review and proposed thesis, rather than containing anything experimental. STill, I plan to wade through it anyway. I AM a selectionist, after all.

*jumps to feet*
Wait as second, GOATS ON FIRE! If memills is really Evans pretending to be Mills (it's not a random name, now, is it?), then this is another data point. Quite an important one involving acceptable behaviour.

PZ is in a position to know if the posts are coming from the same place. PZ?

Aw, I don't think memills is Evans.
It could be somebody from FIRE though. (That organization makes my spider-sense tingle for some reason.)

Hmm.

FIRE is based in the US, the timing of the posts fits Europe better.
One thing that sets my spider-sense tingling though, is the way memills ambiguously allowed Ichthyic to draw the conclusion about being the professor from Loyola, neither confirming or denying, just encouraging the belief.

It seems an Evansy thing to do, given the way he claims he did/didn't set up the petition, and did/didn't release confidential documents.

But I wouldn't be surprised, or unhappy, if I am wrong. Just corrected.

But I wouldn't be surprised, or unhappy, if I am wrong. Just corrected.

it seems we will never know for sure...

it seems we will never know for sure...

No, it seems not. The reasonable position seems to be then, until further data comes to hand, that memills is likely not the LA prof, but someone else probably in Europe, identity unknown.

Expert textpert, choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
(Ho-ho-ho! Hee-hee-hee! Ha-ha-ha!)

Either you have something to contribute, or you don't.

I told you about the fool on the hill,
I tell you man he living there still.

Well, now there is more data to hand.

It's 4am in Dublin at the moment, which throws my Europe hypothesis out the window. Undergraduate humour at work here, it seems.
*sigh*.

I did. In response, I got heckled and harassed.
(Note how this thread has emptied, except for
a small clique with the same opinions.)

Living is easy with eyes closed,
Misunderstanding all you see.

Can't sleep. Anybody got an Ambien?

I got heckled and harassed.

heckled?

why shouldn't you have been, given how off base you were?

harassed?

you obviously don't know the meaning of the word, along with what ad hominem means.

see #610 for further commentary.

seek ye a physician.

I guess you believe the host of this blog is off base, too.

See posts #149 & #250 for further commentary.

Note how this thread has emptied,

Well, I've seen Brent in action:

[warning: long thread]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…

You're no Brent.

You're not even a Tim Curtin:

[warning: long thread]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php

You'll have to try a bit harder. Yawn.

I guess you believe the host of this blog is off base, too.

you're just figuring that out now??

so, you're dense on multiple levels then?

for your reference:

yes, we occasionally DO disagree with the blog owner.

none of us is sacred here.

PZ is an excellent writer; often with extremely well thought out arguments.

it's one of the reasons I come here.

the other is that many of the commenters are just as good at it, even if they don't have their own blogs (some actually do).

so, you fail here on multiple levels:

-you don't understand the blog host

-you don't understand the community

-you missed the thrust of the thread

-you presented no support for the idea that this really is a case we should be concerned about wrt academic freedom

-you thought all of us were in agreement on everything

-you didn't even bother to research Evans' case yourself.

-you assumed none of us were interested in preserving academic freedoms...

sweet jebus, man, just how much more wrongness do you want to add to this list, before you say "mea culpa" and either admit your errors or bow out?

Don't know about Brent or Tim (or why that's relevant).

I do feel in good company with PZ Myers, who is in my camp on this issue.

(I know, I know. You know PZ Myers, and I'm no PZ Myers. I can dream, tho...)

I guess you believe the host of this blog is off base, too.

You guess? That's not obvious? It's always interesting that the people who rattle on about independent thought are so often shocked that anyone here would disagree with PZ or Dawkins and try to use it like it's a "Gotcha!" Sad.

That is really some excellent arugmentation there, Ichthyic.

And, I need some sleep... almost dawn here.

Don't know about Brent or Tim (or why that's relevant).

They make for better entertainment.

I do feel in good company with PZ Myers, who is in my camp on this issue.

Ah, the argument from authority. Dennett's in your "camp" as well, apparently. Guess that makes you right.

Now where's my logical fallacy bingo card...?

And, I need some sleep... almost dawn here.

I truly hope that's a legit excuse for your poor showing here.

that, or you don't bother coming back.

judging by how you started off, I'd say you're probably better off trying to find a blog where people respond better to cries of "once more into the breach!" without bothering to think.

Are you folks this charming and persuasive in person?

Can't seem to tear yourself away, can you?

Are you folks this charming and persuasive in person?

project much?

I'm always charming and persuasive ;)

Can't seem to tear yourself away, can you?

I find you quite fetching. Er, wait... I meant that in a purely platonic, intellectual way... Entirely professional.

Wadayasay we all put down the torches, and have lunch. On me. Raise your glasses. Cheers -- to free spee... er, to a safe workplace...

Oh, heck. We showed up, and that's half the battle. Peace.

sweet jebus, man, just how much more wrongness do you want to add to this list, before you say "mea culpa" and either admit your errors or bow out?

No mea culpa, but hey...

Yawn, when trolls like memill have nothing cogent to say, they still say it and often sound drunk in doing so. What idjits. Tis better to be silent and have folks think you are stupid, than to open your mouth and proven them right.

Still a travesty.

Now over 3500 duped signatories to the petition "Stop UCC from abusing its harassment policy to limit academic freedom," despite the clear facts that the policy was followed, not 'abused', and that nobody's 'academic freedom' has been 'limited' in any way.

Due solely to Evans's successful attempt at self-publicity and his ("alleged") posting of the confidential documentation, the complainant has been identified by name and, right here in this thread alone, called a "manipulative lying bitch" and (in a typically nuanced treatment from Abbie) a "pussy" for making a good-faith, non-malicious complaint of sexual harassment, which the independent investigation upheld (in part).

Meanwhile, none of those, like PZ, Dennett, Dawkins, and Pinker, who reacted rashly to Evans's misinformation and thereby badly exacerbated the consequences, have had the class to apologize or admit to second thoughts on the matter. (Kinsella, Josh, and Walton excepted.)

Now the badly spun and slanted version of the case is being hobby-horsed by misogynists, libertarians, and anti-PC wingnuts, all of whom seem willfully ignorant of the actual facts.

A fucking travesty all around.