The Marcy situation has repercussions all across the university, and at universities all across the country. Here’s Ellen Simms take.
The greatest fury regarding the Geoff Marcy case has been directed against the university for protecting the predator at the expense of student safety and well-being. Despite a finding of sexual harassment, the university completely suppressed the outcome of the investigation. No effort was made to warn the students and postdocs in the astronomy department. They were left to be the canaries in the coal mine. Only if one of them complained would Marcy have experienced any repercussions for his decade or more of abuse. And, why would those women complain? Some had already complained and, seemingly, nothing had come of it. The only reason that this path was not followed is that someone leaked the report to BuzzFeed. It was from there that I, other Berkeley faculty and even the students involved in the investigation, learned of its outcome.
On Monday evening, most graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and faculty members of UC Berkeley’s astronomy department publicly condemned Marcy’s behavior and the administration’s handling of the case. Yet it seems clear that some faculty members had knowingly tolerated Marcy’s behavior for years. This episode clarifies that such cases cannot be investigated internally. The conflicts of interest are too great.
That’s a major problem: the institution wants problems like Marcy’s harassment of women kept silent, because they have an interest in preventing the stories from affecting their reputation and revenue stream. So potential victims are kept unaware, and all of the burden of reporting and standing up to the barrage of negativity that follows falls entirely on the shoulders of whistleblowers…who are often also victims of the predator.
Where Marcy should have gone:
https://www.seekingarrangement.com/
Do it legally and safely.
wcorvi @ 1:
That misses the point entirely. Men like Marcy, Kearsley, etc., aren’t interested in that sort of thing. They are bound up in their sense of privilege and entitlement, and the power differential works in their favour. What also works in their favour is the long tradition of covering such behaviour, of which UC provides a sterling example.
Caine
Yep. It’s not about fucking, it’s not primarily about sex. If those men simply wanted sex, their salaries would probably pay for a lot of time with sex workers and I guess that putting on a lab coat is one of the less extreme things customers have asked them to do. This doesn’t mean that it is sex workers’ responsibility to fuck the creeps so the rest of us is safe. It just shows that they could easily satisfy their sexual desires in an ethical way. But they couldn’t abuse their power that way.
+++
From the OP:
Sure something came of it. Many of the women left, so Berkley sent the message “shut up or you’ll pay the price”
This kind of cover up happens all over the world and it is dangerous to assume that it always sexual. I was bullied into taking early retirement at a time when I was suffering from PTSD following a family suicide and it was part of a power game my head of department was playing to get into the Vice Chancellor’s good books. The government had introduced an early retirement scheme and the more of the older top-of-the-salary-scale staff he could persuade to leave the better. His success in clearing the decks led to the VC making him Dean of the Faculty – at which point every other department in the Faculty (and who had known what was going on and did nothing) objected. I understand there was an internal inquiry where many victims were identified and to hush matters up he was given a year to take his evil ways to another university which did not know why he was looking for another professorial post.
Yes, it is a power game, sex is just a bonus (for the male) for “winning the game”. Sex as the sole desire is easily fulfilled manually, without all the emotions of involved with including another person. All of these recent kerfuffles involving sex, focus on only that incidental aspect of the powerplay which is the actual issue.
I would like to make a witty inference to the apparent popularity of B&D games; yet my witty banter fails me now. So I’ll just leave that there.
One thing reading this site has made me a little more aware of. is the power-dynamic at play in regards to sex relations (aka: sexual politics). To which I appreciate being educated thusly.
chrisreynolds @ 4:
There is no assumption involved. In this particular case, there are a whole lot of victims speaking up. No one has said, “every single case of institutional covering is sexual!” Most people are quite aware of the absolutely filthy career politics and ruthless ladder climbing many people engage in. This post and thread, however, are about covering up for a fucking wealth of men who consider being a serial sexual harasser and sexual assaulter is a perk of position, privilege, and power.
slithey tove @ 5:
While the power differential is a large component here, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are not fucking kerfuffles, nor are the incidences of men feeling free to indulge in such behaviours in any way a fucking kerfuffle. Watch your language.
re @6:
apologies, I used the word “kerfuffle” deliberately, as a substitute for the other words I was tempted to use.
To be clear: I agree that kerfuffle is incorrect to apply to these incidents.
— Substitute one’s own expletives when reading “kerfuffle” in my writings.
slithey tove @ 5
You must have been having a real bad day, first the kerfuffle deal and then your witty banter failing you. If you think consensual BDSM (play or lifestyle) have anything at all to do with sexual harassment or abuse perhaps you should get a bit more education. Here is a hint: bringing up BDSM in a post solely about sexual harassment/abuse is a big kerfuffle.