It was Berkeley that said astronomer Geoffrey Marcy harassed students, not "the court of hysterical public opinion"
More than 250 astronomers and physicists have signed a letter protesting the New York Times’ coverage
of sexual harassment charges brought against Geoffrey Marcy, a professor of
astronomy at the University of California at Berkeley. Over the course of six
months, Marcy underwent a formal internal investigation conducted by the
university, responding to charges brought forward by four female students that
he’d groped, kissed, and fondled them. The charges were very specific: for
example, one student said that “he placed his hand on her leg, slid his hand up
her thigh, and grabbed her crotch.”
After
the six month investigation had concluded, the university found that Marcy had,
in fact, systematically sexually harassed female students over the course of
more than a decade. Nonetheless, he was not fired; the university merely put
him “on a very tight leash.” Which means that if he starts groping another
female student—or, more specifically, if he gets caught—then
he’ll be in trouble. Or not.
This is the university version of the babysitter wagging her
finger at her naughty charge and threatening, “Just wait until your parents get
home!” Empty words carrying no consequences whatsoever.
Inside
Berkeley’s astronomy department, more than twenty members of the faculty and staff were so
incensed that they signed a petition to boot him. A fuller accountcompiled by Buzzfeed
News helps explain why there is so much anger at the university’s decision to
basically do nothing. In short: it’s not
just these four students. Women warned other women about him, and inside the astronomy
community, his behavior was an “open secret.” More are
speaking out on Twitter using the hashtag, #AstroSH.
Which brings us back to that letter to the New York Times. The
composers of that letter, as well as its signatories, represent a slice of
people who make up a very particular segment of the scientific community. It’s
not the easiest thing to rile up scientists who spend their life gazing at the
stars, but over two hundred of them (and the list keeps growing) have signed a
petition to get the NYTimes to retract its article on the following damning
grounds: “on its false information, the clear bias of the author, the omission
of relevant details, and the harm it is doing to your readers. Furthermore, we
ask you in the future to consider that sympathy and support should be given to
the survivors, not to the perpetrator.”
Here are the main concerns:
This article epitomizes the culture
that champions the voices of predators and minimizes the experiences of
survivors. Mr. Overbye’s piece repeatedly sympathizes with Marcy, portraying
him as a misunderstood, empathetic educator. This viewpoint is captured in the
title of the article, and it is reinforced by quotes from Marcy and his wife
that Marcy was “condemned without knowing all of the facts” and “the punishment
Geoff is receiving here in the court of hysterical public opinion is far out of
proportion to what he did”. Not only are these statements false (see the next
paragraph), but they employ the damaging tactic of painting female targets and
their supporters as overly sensitive trouble-makers.
The entire letter merits reading, as it carefully
documents exactly how they
take issue with the coverage in the Times. These scientists are
clearly frustrated by Marcy’s behavior as well as his non-apology (which includes the admission that his
advances were “unwelcomed by some women”– implying just as strongly that other
women welcomed them, never mind that he’s married).
However, the letter takes specific issue with the coverage in
the New York Times, stating that “women are dramatically underrepresented in
our field and other sciences, in part because of the sexism and misogyny that
this article reinforced.” Their rebuke is a powerful indictment of the
workings of that mythic thing called the “old boy network” where individuals of
a certain class work to preserve its interests and protect its own rather than
serve the interests of justice. Or, for that matter, the truth.
