This story is so stale I ought to just scribble up some boilerplate and change the name of the discipline every time a new case comes to light. Now it’s an entomology professor behaving badly.
In February, two months after being charged with sexual assault and harassment against two students in his department, James Harwood resigned from his position as an associate professor of entomology without stated cause.
According to 122 pages of investigation documents that were leaked to the student paper, the independently run Kentucky Kernel, Harwood violated school sexual assault policies by “fondling” the two students at two conferences in 2012 and 2013. He was also found to have sexually harassed the students in each case. Three other students did not file formal complaints but testified to the investigator about other alleged incidents of sexual misconduct as recently as 2015.
In a completely expected twist, the University of Kentucky has also been working to keep the information about James Harwood quiet.
The investigation, which concluded in December, was initially kept secret. The investigator recommended that Harwood’s “employment with the University be terminated and his tenure as a faculty member be revoked.” But Harwood’s subsequent agreement with the university allowed him to resign instead of going through the lengthy process of a disciplinary hearing. This also means that the investigation won’t be disclosed if he applies to new jobs.
Well, so much for keeping his harassment history under wraps — now everyone knows. And that’s good.
So they might as well drop the lawsuit against their own student newspaper, right?
There are many times that I’ve played devil’s advocate, an unfair number of times, that service was involuntary (see, thanks military and contract law things).
Here, I’d play devil’s advocate.
For the university system, where protecting the entire university is a mission of necessity.
So, the university learned of shenanigans, moved forward via advocate framework (read; specific attorneys).
The University was protected and doubled down on protection by a singular professor.
Devil’s advocates can go to hell.
This kind of short-sighted “protection” is going to prove far more damaging to the university’s reputation than if they dealt with the problem openly, and were more interested in protecting their students than allowing their abusive faculty to find a job at some other university.
I don’t think this protects the university at all. I don’t blame the Catholic church for containing sexual predators. I blame them for protecting those predators and enabling them to continue their assholery in a new environment.
Why the hell did they even offer him the deal to resign? Covering their own asses. I would be far happier knowing my kids went to a school that prosecuted people like this prof., rather than try to hide it.
The funny thing is, considering the history, how can any university think covering up this stuff protects their reputations?
Every time something like this comes out, the university in question takes a major hit to their reputation, and they end up losing money and sponsors.
On the other hand, in the very rare instances when a university does the right thing, their reputation actually becomes more positive, and they get more applications and more support.
So when are universities as a whole going to wake up and realize that dealing with this openly, kicking out the creeps, stalkers, rapists, and abusers, and creating a safe space for their students to learn is actually better for their reputations?
*Puts on cynic hat*
When the major donors and most of the parents tell them that.
*removes cynic hat*
PZ @ 2:
Damn straight. Hiding these people so they can go onto different places is exactly the same as the “where’s the priest” game the Catholic Church is so fond of playing. It results in many more people harmed, when that could have been prevented. It certainly makes the university’s priorities clear.
I’ll add a fuck off to anyone who thinks there’s any sort of merit in the ‘devil’s advocate’ isht.
Nathan@4: the university only takes a reputation hit when it gets caught. One thing we’ve seen with a few of these cases is that the abusers often have antecedents — which implies that universities typically *don’t* get caught.
As Caine says, this is exactly the Catholic method.
The lesson is that it’s all disciplines and professions. Abusers come in all fields and all roles.
I suspect the University is just “protecting” admin…CYA, as Golgafrinchan Captain puts it. According to Harwood’s LinkedIn page he has been an associate prof at UK since 2003, 13 years. Would you bet that he started harassing students in 2012/2013? That the reported cases are isolated incidences? That university administration or department heads never heard about this before? I wouldn’t bet on that. If the usual pattern follows, he’s been a predator from a long time, administrators were aware of it, and colleagues saw it going on. In the business world that could mean millions of dollars to settle claims and the dismissal of responsible managers. That would not look so good on the resume of someone like, say, President Capilouto.
Interesting sidebar: Per Wikipedia, Capilouto’s base salary is $500k, plus $125k benefits, and a possible $50k bonus. Geez, I got in the wrong business.
no, it’s not “the entomologists.”
It’s one guy.
What, you don’t think there are some criminally skeevy genetics-teachers-who-still-dabble-a-bit-in-zebrafish-development out there too? You want to break out your broad brush in that case?
So obviously protecting the University didn’t include the victims? So its still should be an open issue despite cosy deals with the perpetrator.
#9
I think this is exactly it. Somebody in the administration knew, did nothing, and is now covering their ass.
@ # 9&12: Perhaps, but you don’t have to assume that to explain this sort of situations. The fear of bad PR is more than enough to do shit like this. Even someone with no tolerance for this sort of misconduct can choose the easier path, either out of convenience or fear.
“It’s one guy,” says ChasCPeterson, in a series covering sexual abuses from many, many professors.
I’m pretty sure PZ is prepared to admit a colleague could be up to this behaviour.
The logic is strong with this one. /s
I don’t disagree at all– but I think it is mainly a theoretical problem. To get another faculty job– well the mere fact that he left a tenured position will raise flags. (When I’m on a search, we would immediately ask: why did this person walk away from tenure? We need to find out.) Furthermore you would expect letters of recommendation from his previous school, especially if the stated reason for separation was medical. If that were the actual reason, then he should be able to get letters attesting to his qualifications. And while a colleague might be afraid to say what happened explicitly, anyone who does faculty searches knows there is a mechanism in place, because all letters of recommendation can be broken down into two types:
1) Dr. X walks on water. (translation: I do recommend this candidate, and I have to resort to obvious hyperbole to convince you because that’s the game we play.)
2) Dr. X is very good. (translation: loser, but I’m afraid to say so because I might get sued.)
Again, I don’t disagree with any of the criticism of the university. And I don’t think it is impossible for him to get another faculty job (well, now it should be!). I’m just saying that even if the story didn’t come out it would not have been easy. There are some imperfect checks and balances.
Unless he has a huge grant that he can take with him. Then he’ll probably still get another job.
Shorter Bill Buckner: tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.
Chas: No, we screen all zebrafish researchers for perfection. We’re all flawless.
Herpetologists, on the other hand, are by definition kind of creepy.
Shorter numerobis:
You’re an ass. I was providing some insight (from experience) about faculty hiring. If you don’t find it interesting, why do you feel the need to troll? Look for validation much?
Link
Oh wait, that’s the same article. My bad.
Bill Buckner: you have repeatedly asserted that universities handle the problems well, on threads about universities behaving badly. It’s like clockwork.
On this particular issue, you assert that a prof wouldn’t be hired after being quietly dismissed in a way that covers up sexual abuse. Prior cases indicate that actually it’s quite common for abusers to bounce around.
What a dumb ass comment. Nobody with any sense would read my post in #15 and say that I argued that the university handled this well. (What part of “I don’t disagree with any criticism of the University” did you misunderstand enough to equate it to “the university is handling this well?”) I argued only that it is not as bleak as you imagine, because faculty hiring committees will be very sensitive to red flags–one of the biggest being that someone walked away from tenure. I have never seen that red-flag ignored. This guy would have an easier time if he were an Assistant prof rather than an Associate.
But it has to be as bleak (I’m only taking about the chance of the guy landing another academic job) as you imagine, right? Because that’s your story–he can waltz right over to the next university and get hired. Can’t be anything less, there can’t any imperfect checks against the scumbag laughing at the system and starting at State U tomorrow, because that does not fit in your tiny, neat world-view.
In your simple-minded black and white world that contains no nuance, this is the same as the Catholic scandal when it is, in fact, something like the Catholic scandal. The church can willy-nilly move a priest to another parish. The university can’t place the guy at another university. The university will usually fire the person, but then is almost certainly forced, by lawyers, absent a criminal conviction, to take a careful stance to avoid being sued. That is wrong of course, but not the same, at at least as much a fault of the legal system as it is of the university. The church has almost unlimited power is protecting its own, the University typically would like to burn the person, but is advised against it. Similar, but not the same fucking thing.
No. prior cases alone only indicate that some abusers find other jobs. That, absent other data say nothing about whether it is common for an abuser to find another job. You’re pulling that out of your ass. How many do we know about who landed other academic jobs. 10? 20? Is it 20/30 (common) or 20/1000, (rare)? The very problem we are addressing (the university hiding the incident) prevents you from knowing how common it is that the abuser gets another academic job.
You are simply taking the position: You must agree that the university is exactly like the Catholic church. As I said there is no nuance in your world. What isn’t white is black.
Here’s a story from today’s Guardian, about sexual harassment in British universities. It begins:
I’m fairly sure NDAs are also common in similar US cases (certainly they’re a familiar feature of US law in general).