Neil DeGrasse Tyson Misconduct

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Regarding the alleged groping though. Really now we have to ask if that should be constituting sexual harassment. 

Ah, but sexual harassment is a very specific claim and really only applicable to the assistant. Most articles go for the more generic misconduct in this case (and my guess is that others are just careless with wording).

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If Mr. Tyson had pulled aside a guys shirt collar for example, to look at the tattoo, would that be considered the same thing?

Yes absolutely. If you want to see, you ask. I should add that for the most part folks are less troubled by same-gender physical contact, though there are of course massive individual as well as cultural differences in what is considered acceptable. But especially in a professional setting or even out of general politeness touching folks you do not really know aside from social accepted forms (e.g. handshaking) which are specifically there to build rapport, it is frowned up on.

[Raider5678]

Just now, CharonY said:

Ah, but sexual harassment is a very specific claim and really only applicable to the assistant. Most articles go for the more generic misconduct in this case (and my guess is that others are just careless with wording).

Okay, yeah. I could definitely see misconduct, and thinking back now, about half the articles I said used misconduct and I should have realized those were the more carefully worded ones.

[DirtyChai]

3 hours ago, DrP said:

3 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

In addition to CharonY's question, I'd also like to know what that has to do with "religious groups opinions?"

 

I guess that 'religious groups' could jump on the band wagon and say that because he is an evil atheist without god in his life he was easily lead into sins such as rape... This is proof in some of their minds he can't be trusted and his arguments about evolution and the BB should be ignored in favour of creationism?   I guess creationists feel he is the enemy driven by satin because he propagates his views on the BB and the cosmos and thinks 'creation' is a myth in a story book.   Of course this would be ridiculous as there are many within the churches systems themselves that are guilty of far worse he is accused of without trial.

And tho that's not out of the realm of possibility, the only one I've seen making such comments so far is you.

I agree that our divisive social/political environment can be a bit frustrating.  Anytime some prominent figure is accused, the first thing some people want to do is attack their political/scientific/religious views.

If the accused is a democrat, they say "see, I told you those democrats are a bunch of no good SOB's!"  Likewise with a republican.

If the accused is a christian, they say "see, I told you those christians were nothing but a bunch of amoral SOB's!"

And even if some fringe website or lone keyboard warrior is making similar comments about Tyson/science, who really should care?  As if anyone with half a brain honestly believes that the credibility of science rests on Tyson's shoulders alone, and that his behavior somehow nullifies scientific concepts?

 

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

3 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

In addition to CharonY's question, I'd also like to know what that has to do with "religious groups opinions?"

Religious website Patheos reported allegations of sexual harassment made against mr. Tyson to a bunch of newspapers. Thats why I mentioned religious groups.

So what?  What's wrong with that?   David G. McAfee from Patheos was the one that interviewed the women and reported their stories.  What does that have to do with "religious groups opinions?" 

 

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

 the one I mentioned just tries to add satire and humor to a very serious rape accusation which disrespects both parties.

The quote you posted about him "just looking for Pluto. Everyone knows how he feels about Pluto! He simply cannot resist the pull of cosmic artistry in general" was from some liberal magazine that I never heard of before called The Slate, and from what I can tell was only posted by 3 other "no name" websites.  I can't seem to find that quote coming from any reputable source. 

Edit: Also, that quote had nothing to do with the rape allegation.

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by DirtyChai

[iNow]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Partly, possibly, because Cosby had multiple accusers capable of describing his MO. If that happens with Tyson, then one would be able to see him as a predator. 

I agree. The thought certainly crossed my mind.

My views are certainly subject to change as more information becomes available. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Agreed, it was poor, but what if it had been a guy?

If Mr. Tyson had pulled aside a guys shirt collar for example, to look at the tattoo, would that be considered the same thing?

Or is it just women? And if it's just women, would that constitute treating them different on the basis of sex, which would then mean sexism?

I'm not implying something, these are genuine questions.

If Tyson doesn't know the guy well enough to know whether or not it would be OK, he should not assume it is. If the guy took offence or said something, Tyson would owe him an apology and refrain from doing anything similar going forward, unless it is made clear it is OK.

So it is not just women, but nature being as it is, if a man does that it is likely to make a women more uncomfortable than it would a man, generally speaking, though not necessarily.

Both woman and men would often be more comfortable if a woman did it (pull aside a shirt collar or similar), generally speaking, but again not always. 

That answer might be considered sexism to a degree, but that is from experience. I think it is an obligation to avoid making people uncomfortable with regard to their personal space when it can be avoided.

 

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That answer might be considered sexism to a degree, but that is from experience. I think it is an obligation to avoid making people uncomfortable with regard to their personal space when it can be avoided.

I think that is a fair assessment, considering that our society is not really 100% symmetrical when it comes to how genders are perceived. A part of the issues that Tyson is running into is that there are ongoing shifts on what society perceives to be acceptable.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

A part of the issues that Tyson is running into is that there are ongoing shifts on what society perceives to be acceptable.

Let me pull a dimreeper:

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If Tyson doesn't know the guy well enough to know whether or not it would be OK, he should not assume it is. If the guy took offence or said something, Tyson would owe him an apology and refrain from doing anything similar going forward, unless it is made clear it is OK.

So it is not just women, but nature being as it is, if a man does that it is likely to make a women more uncomfortable than it would a man, generally speaking, though not necessarily.

Both woman and men would often be more comfortable if a woman did it (pull aside a shirt collar or similar), generally speaking, but again not always. 

That answer might be considered sexism to a degree, but that is from experience. I think it is an obligation to avoid making people uncomfortable with regard to their personal space when it can be avoided.

 

I think to some extent everyone has heard the mantra "no means no" so often that in situations where "No" wasn't verbalized some see ambiguity. However "No" is actually (in my opinion) the default standard. Unless one invites you to touch them you shouldn't be touching. For example the extension of a hand is an invitation to shake or the lateral extension of arms is an invitation for a huge. One should never just grab and huge are person or just take their hand. It is inappropriate. 

[Lord Antares]

When I read threads like these, it makes me glad to live in a ''shitty'' ''backwards'' country. 2018 is ridiculous.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Let me pull a dimreeper:

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Aye, there's some truth in that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

A fourth woman has come forward:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/neil-degrasse-tyson-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-fourth-woman

"...According to the report, Tyson "drunkenly approached" the woman at the event and allegedly proceeded to make "sexual jokes and propositioned her to join him alone in his office." ..."

Later in the article: (bold by me)

"...A second woman, Ashley Watson, told Patheos she was forced to quit her job as Tyson’s assistant after he made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. Watson claimed Tyson had “predatory tendencies” and once tried to convince her to have sex with him. Watson pointed to a time when Tyson invited her to his apartment to “unwind for a couple of hours” in 2018.

The former assistant said the meeting was uncomfortable and ended with an “awkward and incredibly intimate handshake.” She said she quit her job after “negative interactions” with her boss. ..."

With regard to this previously reported incident, I don't believe the writer of the Fox News article had any more information than we have already been discussing here, so stating "Watson claimed Tyson once tried to convince her to have sex with him" is likely incorrect, and sounds like they are forcing their opinion into a claim by Watson. If true Fox would be well advised to apologize to both Watson and Tyson and clarify...

...don't hold your breath

Edited December 6, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[beecee]

For a man who is I believe [perhaps wrongly?] that is pretty well known in Australia, I have yet to see any mention of this case in either the TV or print media...zilch, nada!

[swansont]

On 12/3/2018 at 5:55 AM, swansont said:

 There's a work relationship at play. He was her boss. Probably not across the line of sexual harassment, though, if it was not a pattern of unwanted contact.

But it was poor judgement. 

 

I read another account of this incident, and it made me appreciate something I had not fully comprehended (I wish I remembered the link). I had wondered why a woman would accept an invitation to go to her boss's apartment for wine — I would expect that would set of warning bells. Well, apparently it did, but her job was ending soon, she wanted to know if she would be picked up for the next part of the show, and thought they would be discussing that. So she went. That, to me, really shows the kind of power that bosses have. And they should be aware of it.

So, really poor judgement on Tyson's part, and really creepy behavior. You don't get to have personal relationships/encounters of this sort with subordinates. That's the price of being a boss.

[Ten oz]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

I read another account of this incident, and it made me appreciate something I had not fully comprehended (I wish I remembered the link). I had wondered why a woman would accept an invitation to go to her boss's apartment for wine — I would expect that would set of warning bells. Well, apparently it did, but her job was ending soon, she wanted to know if she would be picked up for the next part of the show, and thought they would be discussing that. So she went. That, to me, really shows the kind of power that bosses have. And they should be aware of it.

So, really poor judgement on Tyson's part, and really creepy behavior. You don't get to have personal relationships/encounters of this sort with subordinates. That's the price of being a boss.

If I am not mistaken it was also part of the women's job to drive Tyson to and from the set. So being in the car at his apartment would have been a normal occurrence. Tyson invited her in and she had just a moments to say yes or no to her boss. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I read another account of this incident, and it made me appreciate something I had not fully comprehended (I wish I remembered the link). I had wondered why a woman would accept an invitation to go to her boss's apartment for wine — I would expect that would set of warning bells. Well, apparently it did, but her job was ending soon, she wanted to know if she would be picked up for the next part of the show, and thought they would be discussing that. So she went. That, to me, really shows the kind of power that bosses have. And they should be aware of it.

So, really poor judgement on Tyson's part, and really creepy behavior. You don't get to have personal relationships/encounters of this sort with subordinates. That's the price of being a boss.

...and usually when also in a totally different jurisdiction known as marriage, you don't get"to have them at all...but of course it happens

We probably all know a lot of couples that met and had there relationship evolve at work, often one or both were married at the time, and often one would have been subordinate to the other. When it "works out" they might be no less innocent than when it doesn't.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If I am not mistaken it was also part of the women's job to drive Tyson to and from the set. So being in the car at his apartment would have been a normal occurrence. Tyson invited her in and she had just a moments to say yes or no to her boss. 

That doesn't sound like how it had been described by either.

From the link in your OP: 

"Tyson invited her to join him in his apartment for wine in the evening after work.

Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe."

Edited December 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

It may not have been moments to decide, but there's the question in her mind of whether she would be offered further employment if she said "no" and that's not a position someone should face.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

It may not have been moments to decide, but there's the question in her mind of whether she would be offered further employment if she said "no" and that's not a position someone should face.

 

Did she say that? It seems her accusation falls short of that.

"Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe."

If she was reluctantly accepting, that doesn't fit with her claim of being naive about the plans for the evening.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We probably all know a lot of couples that met and had there relationship evolve at work, often one or both were married at the time, and often one would have been subordinate to the other. When it "works out" they might be no less innocent than when it doesn't.

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. 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.  

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did she say that? It seems her accusation falls short of that.

"Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe."

If she was reluctantly accepting, that doesn't fit with her claim of being naive about the plans for the evening.

 

I don't see the distinction. The boss makes the offer to talk. If you say no, does that mean you lose your chance at the new job? That doesn't enter your mind, that if you say no, then the job might go to someone else? Even if you don't think of it as a creepy situation, there's no issue of maybe he offers the job to someone else before you get a chance to talk, and by the time that happens, you are told that the position has been filled?

 

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and usually when also in a totally different jurisdiction known as marriage, you don't get"to have them at all...but of course it happens

We probably all know a lot of couples that met and had there relationship evolve at work, often one or both were married at the time, and often one would have been subordinate to the other. When it "works out" they might be no less innocent than when it doesn't.

That doesn't sound like how it had been described by either.

From the link in your OP: 

"Tyson invited her to join him in his apartment for wine in the evening after work.

Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe."

The way Tyson describes it in his own words seems as though she was dropping him off and he invited her up. I will see if I can find a clearer version of events. 

Quote

 

"In the final week of shooting, with just a few days left, as a capstone of our friendship, I invited her to wine & cheese at my place upon dropping me off from work. No pressure. I serve wine & cheese often to visitors. And I even alerted her that others from the production were gathering elsewhere that evening, so she could just drop me off and head straight there or anywhere else. She freely chose to come by for wine & cheese and I was delighted. In the car, we had started a long conversation that could continue unabated. Production days are long. We arrived late, but she was on her way home two hours later. "

https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don't see the distinction. The boss makes the offer to talk. If you say no, does that mean you lose your chance at the new job? That doesn't enter your mind, that if you say no, then the job might go to someone else? Even if you don't think of it as a creepy situation, there's no issue of maybe he offers the job to someone else before you get a chance to talk, and by the time that happens, you are told that the position has been filled?

 

I don't disagree. But my point is that she did not make that claim in her accusation (if she said no, she felt she might not get the job), it's something you inferred from something she described as more of an opportunity than a threat. You may very well be right, but she did not make that claim. She implied otherwise by stating she had approached it quite naively.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The way Tyson describes it in his own words seems as though she was dropping him off and he invited her up. I will see if I can find a clearer version of events. 

 

 

I can see how you might take it that way from that quote.. It is a little ambiguous ("She freely chose to come by for wine & cheese and I was delighted" seems an odd way to put it if they were already there), but you may very well be right.

Assuming that's true, that makes it seem less premeditated by Tyson.

Looked at another way, if Tyson had not been married and these two had ended up as a couple, how would you (anyone) view this? Would it change if she (this fictitious person) later admitted that though she liked him, she found him a little awkward and creepy at first?

How many male/female relationships start with a power differential in their relationships, real or perceived?

Edited December 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can see how you might take it that way from that quote.. It is a little ambiguous ("She freely chose to come by for wine & cheese and I was delighted" seems an odd way to put it if they were already there), but you may very well be right.

Assuming that's true, that makes it seem less premeditated by Tyson.

Looked at another way, if Tyson had not been married and these two had ended up as a couple, how would you (anyone) view this? Would it change if she (this fictitious person) later admitted that though she liked him, she found him a little awkward and creepy at first?

How many male/female relationships start with a power differential in their relationships, real or perceived?

From what I can find the McAfee interview written about in the patheos article I linked in the OP is the only interview with Tyson's former assistant Ashley Watson. So the issue of when the invitation was made isn't clear. 

Whether or not Tyson was married doesn't change anything. Tyson is 60yrs old and Watson is 29yrs old. Tyson is more than double her age. Remove the fact Tyson is married the age gap is still significant and she still worked for him. The situation remains creepy regardless  whether or not Tyson is married. 

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. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

From what I can find the McAfee interview written about in the patheos article I linked in the OP is the only interview with Tyson's former assistant Ashley Watson. So the issue of when the invitation was made isn't clear. 

Whether or not Tyson was married doesn't change anything. Tyson is 60yrs old and Watson is 29yrs old. Tyson is more than double her age. Remove the fact Tyson is married the age gap is still significant and she still worked for him. The situation remains creepy regardless  whether or not Tyson is married. 

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. 

At 29 years old, one should have ones head screwed on and no what one wants, whether it be an older person or not. If she was sub-20 you could call it exploitation of the naive but you wouldn't expect so in this case.

Edited December 7, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

At 29 years old, one should have ones head screwed on and no what one wants, whether it be an older person or not. If she was sub-20 you could call it exploitation of the naive but you wouldn't expect so in this case.

Considering she walked into Tyson's office, explained she felt he had behaved inappropriately, and then quit I would say she did know what she wanted. She apparently wanted to work in an environment where she didn't feel married men twice her age that she reported directly to were trying to have sex with her. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Considering she walked into Tyson's office, explained she felt he had behaved inappropriately, and then quit I would say she did know what she wanted. She apparently wanted to work in an environment where she didn't feel married men twice her age that she reported directly to were trying to have sex with her. 

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

Edited December 7, 2018 by StringJunky