Neil DeGrasse Tyson Misconduct

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are slipperier than an eel. You said it was "creepy" that he was 60 and she 29 and I responded to that..

No, I said "Remove the fact Tyson is married the age gap is still significant and she still worked for him. The situation remains creepy regardless".  The "situation" includes the fact he was her boss. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, I said "Remove the fact Tyson is married the age gap is still significant and she still worked for him. The situation remains creepy regardless".  The "situation" includes the fact he was her boss.

1

If my boss is gay?

Edited December 7, 2018 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I think SJs point is more about the fact that this wasn’t a predator/prey situation. Human sexuality and attraction is complex. We are always both predator and prey (with the obvious exception of children or violence).

She was uncomfortable, and it would’ve been better had it not happened, but it’s also important not to paint her as some vulnerable bunny in the jaws of a shark. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think SJs point is more about the fact that this wasn’t a predator/prey situation. Human sexuality and attraction is complex. We are always both predator and prey (with the obvious exception of children or violence).

She was uncomfortable, and it would’ve been better had it not happened, but it’s also important not to paint her as some vulnerable bunny in the jaws of a shark. 

Thank you.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I think SJs point is more about the fact that this wasn’t a predator/prey situation. Human sexuality and attraction is complex. We are always both predator and prey (with the obvious exception of children or violence).

She was uncomfortable, and it would’ve been better had it not happened, but it’s also important not to paint her as some vulnerable bunny in the jaws of a shark. 

Nothing about pointing out the the significant age difference implies Watson was uniquely vulnerable. Rather it was in response to J.C. MaxSwell who asked a specific hypothetical question. We are 6 page in and this is the first time age was brought up. It is a minor component overall.   

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing about pointing out the the significant age difference implies Watson was uniquely vulnerable. Rather it was in response to J.C. MaxSwell who asked a specific hypothetical question. We are 6 page in and this is the first time age was brought up. It is a minor component overall.   

1

my gaydar is off, maybe her creep-o-meter is too...

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If my boss is gay?

No difference whatsoever. The gender of the attraction is irrelevant. Again, human sexuality and attraction in general are extremely dynamic and complex. Sexuality is also not binary. 

If the situation is uncomfortable, then take steps to remedy it. Sometimes, if you’re lucky, it can be handled by something as simple as an open dialog or considerate discussion. Other times, it involves big life changes and the need to relocate. Other times still, it involves formal complaints to employers or to law enforcement... and everything else in between.

Gay, straight, LGBTQ, or otherwise, however, shouldn’t IMO ever enter the calculus on this. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

No difference whatsoever. The gender of the attraction is irrelevant. Again, human sexuality and attraction in general are extremely dynamic and complex. Sexuality is also not binary. 

If the situation is uncomfortable, then take steps to remedy it. Sometimes, if you’re lucky, it can be handled by something as simple as an open dialog or considerate discussion. Other times, it involves big life changes and the need to relocate. Other times still, it involves formal complaints to employers or to law enforcement... and everything else in between.

Gay, straight, LGBTQ, or otherwise, however, shouldn’t IMO ever enter the calculus on this. 

1

Indeed. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

No difference whatsoever. The gender of the attraction is irrelevant. Again, human sexuality and attraction in general are extremely dynamic and complex. Sexuality is also not binary. 

If the situation is uncomfortable, then take steps to remedy it. Sometimes, if you’re lucky, it can be handled by something as simple as an open dialog or considerate discussion. Other times, it involves big life changes and the need to relocate. Other times still, it involves formal complaints to employers or to law enforcement... and everything else in between.

Gay, straight, LGBTQ, or otherwise, however, shouldn’t IMO ever enter the calculus on this. 

Agree. It is when it becomes clear that advances are unwanted that the obligation to cease and desist becomes essential.

No means no, and maybe means proceed with caution.

 

 

[MigL]

I have waited to weigh in on NDT's behaviour to see which direction this thread would go.

Other than the case involving alleged drugging, which would be criminal IF PROVEN IN COURT, the others are simply cases of bad behavior.
And going on about it, and making assumptions about thoughts/circumstances/actions for six pages is simply spreading gossip.

Is that proper behavior on a science forum ?

The fact that NDT is an excellent populariser of science does not mean that he has to be a proper, or even good, person.
We've had some people who I thought were excellent scientists on this very forum. But that didn't translate into people skills, and some had really bad attitudes.
Fortunately I can separate the two qualities, as no-one is a 'total package'.
I might listen to a NDT lecture, but maybe I won't go on a date with him ( also I like women ).

I suggest we all do the same. Other than Raider, who is still at that wonderful age, we are all old enough to know what is socially acceptable behavior.
And I'm sure some of us ( myself included ) have chosen to act inappropriately ( never criminally ) at some point before reaching our old age.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

The fact that NDT is an excellent populariser of science does not mean that he has to be a proper, or even good, person.

Well, yes. It has been pointed out that his behaviour was questionable for a variety of reasons. For most persons that would not have any consequences unless it becomes a pattern and HR is getting involved. And even then it has to be pretty bad, folks typically like to keep that contained.

But the point is that he is a public person, with plenty of media presence. Folks in these positions traditionally have to at least project that they are good persons, otherwise their value for mainstream media is limited (think Fred Rogers). This is to various extent true for most celebrities, depending on what they represent. And gossiping about celebrities seems to be an extremely common pastime.

[MigL]

No it doesn't, CharonY.

It would be nice if they were, but a lot of media personalities are real a*sholes.
( some even go on to become POTUS )

[iNow]

It’s contingent on the fan base expectations, not the mere achievement of celebrity. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I will certainly admit to having done a fair bit of speculation in this thread (while making it clear that I was in fact speculating). My main point being that taking the worst case based on the accusations as we know them (other than the drugging and raping accusation) is nothing of public concern.

It seems like the #meetoo movement, or at least a vocal segment of it's proponents, wants to see everything come forward.

This is far more likely to effect celebrities. As we saw in the Kavanaugh case there was an awful lot thinking there must be something to it based on statistics, but those statistics were not based on celebrities, are now skewed by the #metoo movement itself. and simply do not apply to individual cases.

It also brings forth accusations that take away from much more serious cases.

The dialogue can be important, justice in some cases can be achieved, but there can be a significant amount of collateral damage.

 

[DirtyChai]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My main point being that taking the worst case based on the accusations as we know them (other than the drugging and raping accusation) is nothing of public concern.

It seems the only reason those less severe accusations went public was because of the drugging/rape allegations.

[Raider5678]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:17 AM, Ten oz said:

and most govt related jobs members are only allowed to date other members of an equivalent paygrade.

Unless you're the president. 

[Silvestru]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Unless you're the president. 

What does that mean? Who did the president date that had a govt related job of different paygrade?

[Raider5678]

Just now, Silvestru said:

What does that mean? Who did the president date that had a govt related job of different paygrade?

Former president.

[Silvestru]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Former president.

How former? What are you talking about? and what does this add to the current topic.

[Raider5678]

Just now, Silvestru said:

How former? What are you talking about? and what does this add to the current topic.

Doesn't add anything. It was in relation to the statement of most government jobs having a policy against dating people of a lower paygrade.

[Silvestru]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Doesn't add anything. It was in relation to the statement of most government jobs having a policy against dating people of a lower paygrade.

But who do you mean? Clinton?

[Raider5678]

Just now, Silvestru said:

But who do you mean? Clinton?

Yes.

[Silvestru]

Oz sayd: "and most govt related jobs members are only allowed to date other members of an equivalent paygrade."

I wouldn't call the Clinton thing dating and even  if we did, he was impeached because of the Lewinsky scandal so in any way it has nothing to do with what Oz said.  Sorry for the off topic.

Raider5678 this was one of those not even wrong comments

[swansont]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:17 AM, Ten oz said:

A lot of employers have strict rules about dating. For example in the U.S. Military, Federal Agencies, local Police Departments and most govt related jobs members are only allowed to date other members of an equivalent paygrade.

In the military you can't fraternize (officers and enlisted socializing/dating), but the basic rule is you can't date if one is the supervisor of another. There's also the issue of whether it compromises discipline or the chain of command.  So if you aren't in the same chain of command, it's generally not an issue. If you are, it depends on where in the organization you are.

For government jobs, I've never heard anything about having to be the same/equivalent paygrade in order to date. It's only if one person is in a position of authority over another where it's prohibited. 

Quote

Even casual socializing (anything non-work related) between individuals separated by stature is against the rules. Many of Tyson's peers are Professors in Academia and on campuses it is not uncommon to have rules about Administrators dating students. Just as it is normal for co-workers to date it is also normal for there to be rules about who can date.  

Nobody in academia (administrators or professors/instructors) should be dating their students.  

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Doesn't add anything. It was in relation to the statement of most government jobs having a policy against dating people of a lower paygrade.

In the Clinton case, the issue was senior person/subordinate. Not paygrade, per se. A president should not be having that kind of close relationship with anyone who works for them.

Much like a TV show host should not try and have a personal relationship with anyone who works for him.

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

In the military you can't fraternize (officers and enlisted socializing/dating), but the basic rule is you can't date if one is the supervisor of another. There's also the issue of whether it compromises discipline or the chain of command.  So if you aren't in the same chain of command, it's generally not an issue. If you are, it depends on where in the organization you are.

For government jobs, I've never heard anything about having to be the same/equivalent paygrade in order to date. It's only if one person is in a position of authority over another where it's prohibited. 

Among enlisted members the rule for dating is that members should be within 2 ranks (up or down) of each other. There are numerous cavets however. Members would be expected to separate just because one is promoted. There are also cavets for enlisted & officer relations as sometimes one is already married to an enlisted members at the time of their commissioning. My piont was that it is common for rules related to dating fellow co-workers to be in place and those of high stature dating co-workers of lower stature is often frowned upon.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nobody in academia (administrators or professors/instructors) should be dating their students.  

My point here was just that I think Tyson's behavior with his assistant was out of line with what would be tolerated among his peers in a ademia. 

On 12/7/2018 at 11:30 AM, Ten oz said:

 

Lots of relationship start off with differentials in income which some perceive as power differentials. However I think power differentials between individuals who work together are far less common. Co-workers who date are most typically peers from my experience. The most famous case I can think with a major power differential between married man and a women less than half his age would be Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. In that case Bill Clinton was married, 50yrs old (Lewinsky was 22 or 23 I think), and Bill Clinton was the most important person where Lewinksy worked. The relationship was totally consensual. Regardless of the consensual nature of that relationship Bill Clinton has been wracked over the coals for that affair ever since. Just this past June while out promoting the book "The President is Missing" Bill Clinton had a series of confrontational interviews where he was asked to apologize to Monica Lewinsky. It has been 24yrs since the Lewinsky affair and Bill is still being publicly challenged and ridiculed for it. Rightfully so in my opinion. The situation was ridiculously inappropriate. 

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Oz sayd: "and most govt related jobs members are only allowed to date other members of an equivalent paygrade."

I wouldn't call the Clinton thing dating and even  if we did, he was impeached because of the Lewinsky scandal so in any way it has nothing to do with what Oz said.  Sorry for the off topic.

Raider5678 this was one of those not even wrong comments

I already criticized Clinton in this thread. So bringing him up again in a whataboutism manner makes no sense to me.