Neil DeGrasse Tyson Misconduct

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

All of this discussion goes to the deeper issue of this case, and other cases like it. 

Where you draw the line is different from where I draw the line, which is different still from where a third person draws the line. 

How do we navigate through and between all of the complexities regarding what is mere unawareness and social awkwardness versus what is malicious and unacceptable? Between friendships with flirtation and expectations with consequences?

I’m glad we’re finally having these discussions. I’m sad that even I as a deep supporter of the change also struggle with clarity. 

Agree. But IMO, two of the cases are pretty much agreed upon with regard to the facts, outside of the intentions and beliefs of "her" and "him". Asking Tyson to admit any attempt at seduction, or what his feelings were toward the women, is taking the #metoo movement to far. It becomes a witch hunt.

It also takes away from the serious allegations of the lady who claims she was drugged and raped. 

 

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. But IMO, two of the cases are pretty much agreed upon with regard to the facts, outside of the intentions and beliefs of "her" and "him". Asking Tyson to admit any attempt at seduction, or what his feelings were toward the women, is taking the #metoo movement to far. It becomes a witch hunt.

It also takes away from the serious allegations of the lady who claims she was drugged and raped. 

I do not think these cases have to be or should be conflated. The case involving Allers demonstrates that Tyson does not have a great deal of respect for someone's body and would make creepy allegations more believable. It should be noted that only a few years prior, such behavior towards female colleagues is not that unusual, even among academics (and especially in male-dominated disciplines). Watson's allegations are already more troublesome due to the involved power differential and again, it is only creeping into public consciousness that as someone's boss there are certain lines one should not cross. It does not matter if Tyson did want to seduce her or not, you do no invite a lone employ to your place and put them into an awkward position. That is simply not professional and, again, a line that you should not cross as the boss of someone.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Thing is what was seen as harmless years ago, is viewed by many now as harrassment.

And traditionally subordinates were supposed to take passes by their bosses as a compliment. And I think it is good that it has changed.

What has been missed is the context of the misconducts. One was withing a professional meeting with colleagues, the other an interaction between boss and employee. Regardless of intentions, the actions were simply not professional and deserve at least a warning. They were not random interactions on the street or between construction workers or whatever else is being described in this thread. 

The rape allegation are quite a different matter and should be seen separately (unless a pattern of behavior is observed).

[beecee]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

And traditionally subordinates were supposed to take passes by their bosses as a compliment. And I think it is good that it has changed.

In that regard and many others, I am in complete agreement with you. In other cases, sometimes harmless flirting can be misconstrued by some women.

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

In that regard and many others, I am in complete agreement with you. In other cases, sometimes harmless flirting can be misconstrued by some women.

Sure. That is why you should not flirt at the workplace or an employee, for example.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sure. That is why you should not flirt at the workplace or an employee, for example.

Not flirting at work sounds like a bit of an overcorrection. 

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

In that regard and many others, I am in complete agreement with you. In other cases, sometimes harmless flirting can be misconstrued by some women.

I don't think a married man flirting with a subordinate alone in an apartment over wine is harmless. The situation was unprofessional. Tyson is responsible for the situation because the assistant was at a power disavantage which impacted her ability to turn down the invitation. 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not flirting at work sounds like a bit of an overcorrection. 

No flirting with subordinates. 

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not flirting at work sounds like a bit of an overcorrection. 

It depends on the type of work, I guess. However, in most professional settings I can think of, I do not see how flirting could  not be viewed negatively, if not by the recipient then by colleagues, customers, etc. However, every time there is a power differential, that is a hard no-no at the workplace. 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It depends on the type of work, I guess. However, in most professional settings I can think of, I do not see how flirting could  not be viewed negatively, if not by the recipient then by colleagues, customers, etc. However, every time there is a power differential, that is a hard no-no at the workplace. 

I agree with both you and Ten oz regarding subordinates. However, if you are looking for someone with similar age, education, etc., those at work are often the largest single pool of potential mates you are likely to find. No one wants to watch co-workers flirt at a meeting, but most professionals know that and would be discreet in their own best interests. I've know quite a few people who met their mates at work.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one wants to watch co-workers flirt at a meeting, but most professionals know that and would be discreet in their own best interests. I've know quite a few people who met their mates at work.

I do not disagree with that. However, the point is the flirting at the workplace proper is an issue. What one should do is e.g. meet for coffee or other functions outside of the workplace. I.e. flirting among colleagues is fine, but doing at the workplace is generally regarded as non-professional.

Or to put it differently, only once both parties agree to take things outside of the professional setting should things like flirting be conducted. Within the workplace it comes with all that baggage (including more subtle power differentials, e.g. not the boss proper, but having access to key assets) and can lead to highly unprofessional situations. That at least allows deniability to either party (e.g. by not meeting up after work).

[beecee]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sure. That is why you should not flirt at the workplace or an employee, for example.

I was referring to flirting in a more generalised sense, but yeah, I do see your point in that regard.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Or to put it differently, only once both parties agree to take things outside of the professional setting should things like flirting be conducted. Within the workplace it comes with all that baggage (including more subtle power differentials, e.g. not the boss proper, but having access to key assets) and can lead to highly unprofessional situations. That at least allows deniability to either party (e.g. by not meeting up after work).

Sounds rather clinical and sterile. I agree you don't want people rubbing up against each other, but like all things, flirting comes in many flavors.

We don't take the cafeteria out of the building because some people chew with their mouths open and pick their teeth. Similarly, I don't think flirting needs to be verboten just because a few hormonally enhanced peers don't know what is and is not reasonable.

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I agree with both you and Ten oz regarding subordinates. However, if you are looking for someone with similar age, education, etc., those at work are often the largest single pool of potential mates you are likely to find. No one wants to watch co-workers flirt at a meeting, but most professionals know that and would be discreet in their own best interests. I've know quite a few people who met their mates at work.

I have no idea what the numbers are but I'd image many long term relationships stem from the workplace. It is important as you stated that the individuals are peers. It is also important that it is reciprocal. It the case were individuals are already married it is bad news even if the two are peers and its reciprocal. It can be difficult for sure. For those who are single and spend most of their time working it is natural (my opinion) to start flirting among peers. The risk vs reward assessment for that sort of stuff in a professional environment is high.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Ten oz

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Sounds rather clinical and sterile. I agree you don't want people rubbing up against each other, but like all things, flirting comes in many flavors.

Possibly, but in most professional environments that is the norm and in some cases policies are in place. It may depend on what you define as flirting. However, basically anything that can be seen as crossing the line is most likely considered not something that you should do on company time. The point there is that the company does not want to be involved in any possible personal drama that arises from folks not keeping it together.

Also, I do not think that this:

Quote

We don't take the cafeteria out of the building because some people chew with their mouths open and pick their teeth.

Is an apt comparison. The latter are two immediate consequences of the functions of a cafeteria, which may or may not be objectionable. However, flirting is not a necessary consequence of a work environment (at least most that I can think of). A better comparison would be banning clipping your toenails within a cafeteria. There is a time and place for things and the workplace just is not.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

All of this discussion goes to the deeper issue of this case, and other cases like it. 

Where you draw the line is different from where I draw the line, which is different still from where a third person draws the line. 

How do we navigate through and between all of the complexities regarding what is mere unawareness and social awkwardness versus what is malicious and unacceptable? Between friendships with flirtation and expectations with consequences?

I’m glad we’re finally having these discussions. I’m sad that even I as a deep supporter of the change also struggle with clarity. 

When it was Kavanaugh people complained about the timing linked the accusers to a partisan conspiracy designed to deny Trump a SCOTUS pick and questioned why the women waited so long. In this case (Neil DeGrasse Tyson) the timing can't be linked to any sort of high profile event, political partisanship is a non-factor, in 2 of the 3 cases complaints were made years ago, and in the third case a complaint was made directly to Tyson himself. Additionally Tyson admits to knowing all 3 women. I think this conversation should more clearly lay bare how people really feel about these issues. 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think this conversation should more clearly lay bare how people really feel about these issues. 

“He pushed me from behind into a bedroom with his friend where he locked the door and blared the radio to muffle my screams then fought hardily against an investigation” is hardly equivalent to ‘he removed his dress shirt and cooked me a salad in a T-shirt and touched the tattoo I was showing him and he welcomed an investigation.”

Edited December 4, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

“He pushed me from behind into a bedroom with his friend where he locked the door and blared the radio to muffle my screams then fought hardily against an investigation” is hardly equivalent to ‘he removed his dress shirt and cooked me a salad in a T-shirt and touched the tattoo I was showing him and he welcomed an investigation.”

Without evidence it's all just words and quite nebulous. Leaving it nearly 40 years makes it all but impossible.

[DirtyChai]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think this conversation should more clearly lay bare how people really feel about these issues. 

“He pushed me from behind into a bedroom with his friend where he locked the door and blared the radio to muffle my screams then fought hardily against an investigation” is hardly equivalent to ‘he removed his dress shirt and cooked me a salad in a T-shirt and touched the tattoo I was showing him and he welcomed an investigation.”

You're kind of making his point given that you completely ignored the allegations of drugging and raping the other woman, but that may have less to do with how you "really feel about the issue" and more to do with how you feel about the accused.

Edited December 4, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

“He pushed me from behind into a bedroom with his friend where he locked the door and blared the radio to muffle my screams then fought hardily against an investigation” is hardly equivalent to ‘he removed his dress shirt and cooked me a salad in a T-shirt and touched the tattoo I was showing him and he welcomed an investigation.”

Quote

A woman says famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tysondrugged and raped her when they were both grad students in 1984, and you’re about to hear her tell the story in her own words. Here

Tyson has been accussed of more than just unwanted flirtation. Thus far the conversation has focus more on the other accusations because both Tyson's version of events and that if his accusers are similar. 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

that may have less to do with how you "really feel about the issue" and more to do with how you feel about the accused.

It’s possible, yes. I can easily see Tyson as an overly flirty yet socially awkward and often misunderstood man. I cannot so easily see him as a Bill Cosby style rapist. 

Of course, I’m open to the possibility of being wrong. I hope we’re all open to that possibility. 

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Tyson has been accussed of more than just unwanted flirtation. Thus far the conversation has focus more on the other accusations because both Tyson's version of events and that if his accusers are similar. 

Indeed. I’d like more information about the other account. I’m aware that it’s not likely to be forthcoming any time soon. 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s possible, yes. I can easily see Tyson as an overly flirty yet socially awkward and often misunderstood man. I cannot so easily see him as a Bill Cosby style rapist. 

Of course, I’m open to the possibility of being wrong. I hope we’re all open to that possibility. 

Millions couldn't see Bill Cosby as a rapist either. I find the socially socially awkward and misunderstood part odd. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist by education yet has spent years blossoming himself into a media personality host TV Shows and being a regular on shows and podcasts such as (Joe Rogan, John Oliver, Bill Maher, etc). I think being socially relevant and understandable is part of his appeal and success.  

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed. I’d like more information about the other account. I’m aware that it’s not likely to be forthcoming any time soon. 

There is as much or more known as there was with Kavanaugh. Both Tyson and his accuser Tchiya Amet have commented. Tyson is his response acknowledges knowing Amet, claims they dated, and claims they were intimate. Kavanaugh had denied ever knowing his accusers. Here is a link to an audio interview where Amet discusses it. At times during her telling of events it seems overly convenient that she can't produces certain things she references. However most those things deal with proving she knew and spent time with Tyson and that is not in question. As such the overly convenient absences are actually insignificant. 

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Millions couldn't see Bill Cosby as a rapist either.

Quite right, which is why I chose that example. 

59 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I find the socially socially awkward and misunderstood part odd.

Just a personal observation after watching him on many interviews and interactions. He’s got an odd cadence and generally misses subtle physical cues from those with whom he’s interacting. 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Quite right, which is why I chose that example. 

Just a personal observation after watching him on many interviews and interactions. He’s got an odd cadence and generally misses subtle physical cues from those with whom he’s interacting. 

On separate but possibly related note In the interview with Tchiya Amet I linked she explains that Tyson was initially assigned by administrators to show her around because the 2 were the only black students on campus. She describes viewing Tyson as an older brother and senior fellow person of color to help mentor her. I found the characterization and the fact (if true) the 2  were the only black students interesting. What Amet describes is an initial differential is power/position and a fellowship rooted to race. It substantively different than the casual dating, consensual intimacy, which ended in "no chemistry" Tyson described. If Amet's description about the reasons for their interactions(racial fellowship and senior student mentor) are accurate social awkwardness could account for why Tyson felt they were dating. It is possible the matter of race failed to register with him and being they were both students he viewed their status as equal. Of course that is all pure speculation on my part.

[Raider5678]

On 12/2/2018 at 4:17 PM, StringJunky said:

If somebody accuses of you of something, to which you think  you are not guilty, they are going to get the sharp end of your tongue; especially on a subject the media is sensitized to and will make a meal of, no matter how tenuous. I'd tell her where to go in no uncertain terms.

I knew a guy that was very big on believing the accuser until the accused proved himself innocent. Then a girl accused him of something and he changed his position in about 2 seconds flat once he lost his job.

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not flirting at work sounds like a bit of an overcorrection. 

Sounds reasonable to me. It's a great way to lose your job in every company I've worked for. Which admittedly, is only 4.

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

When it was Kavanaugh people complained about the timing linked the accusers to a partisan conspiracy designed to deny Trump a SCOTUS pick and questioned why the women waited so long. In this case (Neil DeGrasse Tyson) the timing can't be linked to any sort of high profile event, political partisanship is a non-factor, in 2 of the 3 cases complaints were made years ago, and in the third case a complaint was made directly to Tyson himself. Additionally Tyson admits to knowing all 3 women. I think this conversation should more clearly lay bare how people really feel about these issues. 

Well, since we're in the business of reading deeply between the lines of what people say......

I don't really like how you brought up the Kavanaugh incident. I don't think it changes the course of this discussion, and I think it was a crude attempt by you to muddy the waters here. Clearly, those are two completely different situations, they aren't related other than by the general area of the accusations, and I generally think it's a Red Herring.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I knew a guy that was very big on believing the accuser until the accused proved himself innocent. Then a girl accused him of something and he changed his position in about 2 seconds flat once he lost his job.

 

here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation.

[Raider5678]

On 12/2/2018 at 1:14 PM, Ten oz said:

I personally find Tyson's response troubling.

I don't.

Tyson has his reputation, that's about it. If he said nothing, people would find it troubling. If he said what he did, people like you would find it troubling. There is virtually nothing he could have done in his situation where people wouldn't find it troubling and say it makes him look guilty. 

On 12/2/2018 at 1:14 PM, Ten oz said:

Tyson further diminished his accusers voices by talking about the need for evidence.

I don't see how it's diminishing his accuser's voice. Do we not need evidence? He pointed out there is no evidence, and that people should have evidence of something happening before assuming he's guilty.

Do you really intend to imply that if you were in the situation of someone accusing you of things and they didn't have evidence, that you would never bring up the idea that maybe your accusers should have to have evidence? Is that seriously what you'd do?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation.

Firstly, I don't get what you do by just jumping into discussions, saying some line, and then stopping there.

Where did I blame the victim? Very simply I said he changed his position. He could be guilty, he could be innocent. Either way, he changed his position. If that's what you consider victim blaming I think you really need to reevaluate your definition.

On 12/2/2018 at 1:14 PM, Ten oz said:

I am disappointed by his response.

In terms of a response that can actually mean things, rather then him expressing his personal view on the situation disappointing you, he did welcome an investigation.

Welcoming an investigation, while not automatically proving you're innocent, is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, and didn't disappoint me.