On April 11th 2016, I contacted the Office for Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination at UC Berkeley to report that Professor Terry Speed had sexually harassed a postdoctoral researcher in the UC Berkeley statistics department in the period 2000–2002. Two specific allegations were subsequently investigated:
Allegation One: Respondent, a professor in the Statistics Department, sexually harassed Complainant One, a post-doctoral student in the same department, from 2000-2002 by making sexual advances toward her, asking her for dates, telling her he had a “crush” on her, giving her hugs, and communicating with her, including by email, in an intimate or romantic manner, when such behavior was not welcome.
Allegation Two: Respondent, a professor in the Statistics Department, created a hostile work environment for Complainant Two, an Assistant Professor in the Mathematics Department, in 2002, through Respondent’s persistent discussions and emails regarding his romantic interest in Complainant One and by pressuring Complainant Two to persuade Complainant One to interact with Respondent.
The investigation took 14 months to complete, and the result was a 47 page report along with 89 pages of supporting evidence based on interviews, hundreds of pages of emails that I disclosed at the outset of the investigation, and letters and emails provided by Respondent. The report concludes as follows:
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence substantiates that Respondent violated the 1992 Sexual Harassment Policy in that he engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that created a hostile environment for Complainant One and Complainant Two, and conditioned an academic or personnel decision on Complainant One’s submission to his conduct. This report is being submitted to the Vice Provost for Faculty for review under the Faculty Code of Conduct.
I have waited since June of last year to hear from the Vice Provost for Faculty at UC Berkeley what action the university will take in light of the findings, however despite multiple requests for information the university has yet to respond as to whether it will enact any sanctions on Respondent.
My close-up encounter with sexual harassment was devastating. I never expected, when I arrived in Berkeley in 1999, that Terry Speed, a senior professor in my field who I admired and thought of as a mentor would end up as Respondent and myself as Complainant Two. However much more serious and significant than my ordeal were the devastating consequences his sexual harassment had on the life and well being of Complainant One. The sexual harassment that took place was not an isolated event. Despite repeated verbal and written requests by Complainant One that Speed stop, his sexual harassment continued unabated for months. The case was not reported at the time the sexual harassment happened because of the structure of Title IX. Complainant One knew that Speed would be informed if a complaint was made, and Complainant One was terrified of reprisal. Her fear was not hypothetical; after months of asking Speed to stop sexually harassing her, he communicated to her that, unless she was willing to reconcile with him as he wished, she could not count on his recommendation.
Speed has been an advocate for women in academia in recent years. However no amount of advocacy on behalf of women can cancel out the physical and mental harm caused by prolonged sexual harassment. Speed’s self-proclamation that he is a “male feminist” rings hollow.
Update on June 6, 2018: Terry Speed is no longer listed as Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley.
Update on June 22, 2018: This is the “notice of outcome” I received from UC Berkeley regarding the case:
107 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2018 at 2:34 pm
Jeffrey C. Long
Thanks Lior, I remember hearing about these events from many people at the time. They had significant repercussions for years on Complainant 1, and permanent effects on her relationship. I’m happy to learn that you had the courage to do the right thing!
January 17, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Lior Pachter
Thanks Jeff.
January 17, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Tiberius Gracchus
Thank you for having the courage to speak up about this matter.
As for action on this matter, hopefully UCB faculty, staff and student bodies take note of this and pressure the university about their lack of action.
January 17, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Audrey Fu
Thanks for this courageous and powerful piece, Lior. And thank you for taking action during and after the investigation. I sincerely hope that Complainant One is doing fine now, despite the long nightmare.
January 17, 2018 at 7:04 pm
El-ad David Amir
Thank you for sharing this story and for acting in the first place. Based on the tone of your post, I understand that you have jeopardized your career, which is a commendable move. Many other faculty members would have kept quiet.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, did Complainant One had the option of approaching the police? If I recall correctly, there is much criticism against the way academic institutions in the United States handle such claims. I am under the impression that more often than not, involving the police might have been a better course of action.
January 17, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Darya Filippova
Thank you for sharing this story and for reporting the incident. I hope Complainant One still derives some good from this decision 15 years after the fact and I hope it did not derail her career. Did anyone in the department with knowledge of the events stand up for her then?
January 18, 2018 at 1:34 am
Lior Pachter
There were some people who were supportive but by and large I think it’s fair to say that most people who knew, and there were many, did nothing.
January 17, 2018 at 9:18 pm
Connie Silver
why did you report this in 2016 when the harassment took place in 2002?
January 18, 2018 at 1:31 am
Lior Pachter
Complainant 1 investigated filing a formal complaint when the harassment happened, but decided against it for fear of retribution. That fear persisted for some time and the wounds were raw for a while after that. It’s not an easy thing to file a harassment case.
January 17, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Robin
Good for you. Especially then. Thank you.
January 18, 2018 at 2:15 am
Olle Häggström
My warmest support to you and to Complaintant One.
January 18, 2018 at 6:19 am
Rick Durrett
This happened 15 years ago. Why bring it up now.? Terry has been a wonderful for many postdocs.
January 18, 2018 at 7:09 am
Lior Pachter
First, it wasn’t brought up now. The case was reported almost two years ago. If the question is why the harassment wasn’t reported k years ago where k>2, the answer is because two years ago is when Complainant 1 and I finally had the courage and ability to report it. If the question is why report someone who has been wonderful for many postdocs, the answer is that being wonderful to some postdocs doesn’t give someone the right to sexually harass other postdocs.
January 18, 2018 at 11:07 am
Nick
Prof. Durrett, I hope you’ll reconsider this response.
January 21, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Visitor
Rick Durrett said: “This happened 15 years ago. Why bring it up now?”
These words demonstrate the culture that allowed for the harassment to occur.
January 22, 2018 at 8:21 am
Lenny Teytelman
Dear Professor Durrett,
Your comment is depressing and infuriating to many people. Here are some of the many reasons why it is so upsetting.
1. There are many reasons why most people never go public with their stories of sexual harassment. That is because there are many negative consequences for the victims when they do so. Please see this powerful thread from Professor Stemwedel explaining this: https://twitter.com/docfreeride/status/939260754280058880.
2. The postdoc (Complainant One) may have needed time to pass before deciding to formally file the complaint with the university against Terry Speed. Why did she wait? Probably for the many reasons discussed by Professor Stemwedel above. If this is the case, Lior probably could not have gone ahead with the complaint earlier.
3. It took me over 20 years before I decided to speak publicly about the sexual abuse that I experienced. Again, countless reasons why it took so long. http://anothersb.blogspot.com/2016/10/because-of-donald-trump-im-speaking-up.html
4. How do you know that Terry Speed is not continuing to do the same thing now? After all, we have plenty of examples with people like Geoff Marcy where the sexual predation is a pattern of behavior. How often do we see cascades where one person speaking up helps the other victims to do the same? For all you and I know, Terry Speed could be sexually harassing one or more trainees today.
5. When you say, “Terry has been a wonderful for many postdocs” you are making a statement that the good Terry does makes up for and should excuse his predatory behavior. So you are suggesting by this that the devastating impact on the victim (or quite possibly impact on many more victims of Terry) is a reasonable price to pay for the good science and training that Terry performs. By that metric, Donald Trump can abuse as many women as he wants because he builds tall towers and Harvey Weinstein can rape right and left because he funds terrific films.
Instead of being angry with Terry Speed, you are upset with Lior. This is exactly the type of response that forces most victims to remain silent.
Kind regards,
Lenny
January 26, 2018 at 10:20 am
Peter
A lot of comments and conclusions being made, where in reality no one knows, except Durrett, what Durrett meant. I too was curious why the wait of roughly 15 years, and only later did I see that Pachter had explained it. Perhaps Durrett, like me, missed that (woke up early, before coffee etc), typed something in a thinking-out-loud manner, and never came back to the comment. The accusations are a lot to process too. (I have only ever heard good things of Speed, from men and women, but of course that doesn’t excuse harassment.)
January 18, 2018 at 2:28 pm
Ellen Simms, Prof Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley
Lior, thanks for posting this. UC Berkeley has a terrible record of not responding quickly enough to these cases and of trying to hide them. I totally understand why Complainant 1 would wait to file a complaint. I didn’t have the wisdom to do that (long story; not at UC Berkeley) and it had significant and ongoing impacts on my life and my career. I hope that both you and Complainant 1 get some satisfaction when this all finally plays out. I also think that Prof. Durrett should think carefully about his willingness to throw a postdoc under the bus.
January 18, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Aka
Is that because you got a position at cal tech so that you don’t care anymore and can report this?
January 18, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Lior Pachter
This case and my move to Caltech did overlap in time, but the decision to report, taken together with Complainant 1, was not connected to the move. Also I should note that I was not in the statistics department at UC Berkeley, but I worked with a number of different students and faculty there over the years, and continue to do so now.
January 19, 2018 at 7:48 am
geocognition
Good on you. I posted this to my running list of documented cases in academia since you posted the findings – 600th addition, as it happens. Also – I have learned that institutions often will not reveal the outcome of a case citing “privacy” in “personnel actions”. https://geocognitionresearchlaboratory.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/not-a-fluke-that-case-of-sexual-harassment-is-not-an-isolated-incident/
January 19, 2018 at 7:40 pm
Jenny Harrison, Professor of Mathematics, UC Berkeley
Thank you, Lior, for speaking out about this. I have had my own encounters with math faculty that were textbook examples of sexual misconduct. These incidents altered my career path and gave me needless burdens to shoulder. When I later tried to protect my students from faculty predators, further retaliation ensued. It is time for all of this to stop.
January 20, 2018 at 1:25 am
Rahul Siddharthan
It’s never too late to speak out. Shame that Berkeley is sitting on the report despite all the negative publicity from other harassment cases.
January 21, 2018 at 8:24 am
We Can All Do Better
From the evidence presented, this could easily be explained by an unrequited infatuation combined with sufficiently poor social skills (in academia of all places!) to not know to back off.
Combine this with the rest of the faculty’s lack of social intelligence to set straight Terry’s inappropriate behavior at the time and now you’ve got yourself a huge shitstorm where multiple lives have been utterly destroyed.
I wasn’t there, but I suspect this could have been handled better.
January 21, 2018 at 3:23 pm
ethel
Generally speaking I think when someone is saying “back off” that is usually a fairly good indication that they aren’t interested, especially if they are doing it multiple times.
When someone is allegedly saying that they will give you a bad recommendation unless you do what they want, that is not due to poor social skills.
January 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm
We dpm
I am sorry, but this sounds way too much like a geeked up version of “boys will be boys”. A professor has, among his responsibilities, nurturing and guiding trainees. If he does not have the ability to do this without knowing enough not to hit on post docs then he does not have the ability to do his job.
In our mothers’ generation bosses would chase their secretaries around the desk and women would told to put up with it because was just how men are. Sorry. No. It’s not our job to put up with men acting like pigs and frankly don’t care if his mom dropped him on his head or not.
April 2, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Mbean
Exactly right.
April 2, 2018 at 5:24 pm
Mbean
This doesn’t address the fact that when rebuffed, he threatened retaliation and refused to give complainant 1 a recommendation. He knew his behavior was wrong and unprofessional, and he punished her for not submitting to his advances. Obviously he was infatuated. How does that in any way make this not sexual harassment?
January 21, 2018 at 2:54 pm
H.T.
Where is this 47 page report?
January 21, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Torsten Seemann (@torstenseemann)
Lior states “could not count on his recommendation.” Not providing a recommendation is technically different to vindictively giving a bad recommendation.
January 22, 2018 at 10:38 am
Anonymous
Despite the fact that we would inescapably only know the skewed version of the issue after 16-18 years, as this is based on one side’s data, the issue is very unpleasant and unacceptable. I appreciate that the then postdoc, and Prof Lior must have gone through difficult days. However, the attempts to surface this issue 16-18 years after the occasion is a case of rather bad handling at both Berkeley’s part and the complaints’ part. This should have been addressed long ago. I understand that the wounds were raw back then, surfacing this now would make the complaints feel better provided that this is concluded in their favor, and certainly the best part for the community would be that this case could set an example for other cases (as at Berkeley unfortunately physically involved cases are happening!), but attempting this after so many years would certainly destroy many lives. I don’t refer only to the lives of Terry’s family, friends and the colleagues. Think about the female trainees/mentees/students of him between now and then or anyone associated with his name: all of them are going to be perceived (slightly for some, a lot for others) differently and lie under suspicion in terms of whether they were abused by him and/or conformed to his requests to work with him whether this is true or not. He must have many female trainees needless to say, as he is a very much senior now, and I know that for many of them this is not the case. He is mentioned as a great advisor most of the time. Holding this that long and attempting to surfacing is after this many years is very much unfair to them. The bottom line is, I would have fullheartedly supported this attempt if it happened long time ago (but sufficiently enough time after the event to have the wounds healed to an extent). But now, with all due respect, this attempt is a little bit immature in my opinion as these aspects were overlooked or ignored and proceeded with intense emotions after this 16 year-old issue.
January 22, 2018 at 11:05 am
Lior Pachter
The report is not based on one side’s data. The investigation obtained evidence from Terry Speed and talked to him in person, and found him to have violated the sexual harassment policy.
August 17, 2018 at 10:16 pm
Eff Zee
You do have an answer for every thing, sir, and you have a great reputation to legitimize your points of view: https://medium.com/@NoOneOfConsequence/note-i-found-this-note-in-a-berkeley-coffeeshop-written-on-a-sheet-of-foolscap-crumpled-up-and-7621cf3368ca
January 23, 2018 at 5:28 pm
Hope
I kinda agree with you Anonymous,
All this hurt me as well.
March 5, 2018 at 3:19 am
Anonymous
Exactly. Defending the victim and reporting harassment behaviour, especially in cases when the victim is in the subordinate position, is the way to go. However, not 16 years after. This could be viewed as another person aligning himself with nowadays social lynching and metoo attention whoring.
January 22, 2018 at 11:17 am
A.N.
The respondent has made a statement (20/1/2018)
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/terry/
January 22, 2018 at 3:01 pm
Carlos Sanchez
I am saddened to learn of such misconduct by someone I admire, but the response to this post does not sit right with me.
The reason that Lior gives for publicly posting this are essentially that he (and presumably complainant 1) are dissatisfied with the response of UC Berkeley. As I see it there are two reasons why he may be dissatisfied:
1. The university is either not taking the complaint as seriously as they should or worse, they are actively protecting Terry.
2. The findings and likely response to the complaint are not what Lior had hoped for, either because the version of events is more contested than Lior would have us believe or the university does not believe that a response as severe as Lior had hoped for is warranted.
Either explanation is possible, but if the aim was to put more pressure on the university I do not see why it was necessary to explicitly name Terry. I cannot see a good reason to publicly name and shame Terry if the aim is to correct a failing of a university at which he has not worked for several years.
The decision to name Terry so prominently and explicitly, both here and on twitter, is more consistent with a (rather successful) attempt to start a campaign of public condemnation and renunciation of Terry as an alternative means of punishment.
I do not know the details of what happened 15 years ago. But the details matter to me. What does “reconciled with him as he wished” mean? Sleep with me or I won’t give you a reference? Or I won’t write a reference for someone who won’t speak to me. Neither are OK, but there’s a conspicuously large ambiguity in everything that has been posted.
I would like to remind all the social media heroes rushing to condemnation that they do not know the truth of what happened either. Innocent until proven guilty still matters.
To be clear, I am not saying that sexual harassment is acceptable or that the complaint should not be treated with anything but the utmost seriousness. However, it is also not acceptable to condemn someone for something about which your only information is an unspecific post from the aggrieved party.
March 23, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Anna Tsykin
Thank you for standing up against this character assassination. We need more people who have worked with Terry Speed to stand up for him. This story has somehow gotten into Australian national press and I find this treatment of a good man to be very wrong.
January 22, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Anonymous
Thank you for your reply Dr. Patcher. I would like to note four things: 1) The party that was hurt is more likely to keep the data relevant to his/her claims of a 15 year-old case and carry the memories with him/her. Therefore, the data is doomed to be skewed (maybe less, maybe more) by default as a natural result of waiting for 15 years. 2) Above notes are excerpts from a 47 page-long report and full report is not disclosed. 3) The respondent has made a statement about the case: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/terry/ 4) The respondent’s current institution made a statement about this case:
https://www.wehi.edu.au/statement In 15 years many things can change, including people. What I am trying to say is that waiting for 15 years not only would make the consequences of this case less effective for you and the community, but also would have significantly hurt many random people, espacially his old and current female mentees. I would like to reiterate that I am not defending Terry Speed, what I want to do is showing a couple of points that suggest the handling of this case as a bad one as well as showing the potentially unconsidered but important aspects of the decision making process.
January 22, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Lior Pachter
The blog post does not contain “excerpts from a 47 page report”. It contains the complete input, and the complete output. I’m sorry but I don’t understand the comment that this “hurts random people, especially his old and current female mentees.” How? Regarding the evidence, you are right that it is complicated to examine and assess evidence from 15 years ago. There was a substantial amount of email and letters disclosed both by myself and Terry Speed. The Title IX investigators examined it, being fully aware of the need to understand it in context, and to judge the credibility of the evidence and the witnesses. It took them 14 months to do that. I posted their conclusion. Their investigation is not ongoing, it was completed last June. Regarding waiting 15 years, this point has been raised in previous comments, and I explained in the blog post why it took time to report. I think it’s worth for you to consider that your own comment is posted as “Anonymous”, precisely because it’s not easy to come forth with information that one thinks could be offensive to important and influential people in the field. However in order to report this case 15 years ago, neither I nor complainant 1 could have been anonymous.
January 22, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Anonymous
Thanks again for your reply with clarifications Dr. Patcher. Regarding your question, “how this would hurt random people, especially the female mentees of him”; I’d like to refer to my original post to give an answer: “I understand that the wounds were raw back then…….., but attempting this after so many years would certainly destroy many lives. I don’t refer only to the lives of Terry’s family, friends and the colleagues. Think about the female trainees/mentees/students of him between now and then or anyone associated with his name: all of them are going to be perceived (slightly for some, a lot for others) differently and lie under suspicion in terms of whether they were abused by him and/or conformed to his requests to work with him whether there is any abuse or not.”. That’s why bringing up this so many years after the event would hurt many female students/mentees of him, who have worked with him sometime within these last 18 years and who are totally unrelated to this issue. This is an important aspect which must be overlooked or ignored and that’s why acting on a timely fashion would have been important.
January 22, 2018 at 6:25 pm
Ellen Simms, Prof Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley
Anonymous,
Have you ever experienced sexual harassment and then reported it at a time when there was not a particularly good nor well-publicized method for responding? I have and I can verify that the outcome was not good for me, the reporter of harassment of another individual, even though the perpetrator even admitted to his actions.
Do you realize that, by asking a complaint to have been made “in a timely fashion,” you are asking someone to have done something that could have been extremely damaging to her career at a time that she was especially vulnerable to retribution?
You should ask yourself whether you would have been willing to do such a thing at that point in your career. The fact that you aren’t even willing to identify yourself in this comments section suggests to me, at least, that you have a clear idea of the potential for repercussions and would not have been willing to take the steps that you are condemning the complainant for not having taken.
January 24, 2018 at 3:04 pm
MB
People who have been harmed by someone have every right to seek justice.
If the fact that Dr. Speed is being held accountable for old actions harms people other than Dr. Speed, those people should take that up with Dr. Speed, not Dr. Patcher.
January 26, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Anonymous
This is a response for Dr. Simms, (and Dr. Patcher); What I suggest is regarding the female mentees/students of Terry Speed who have done significant amount of work within these last 18 years under his supervision. There will be many of them ditching their many years of work (if they haven’t published already) to not to be related to such issues. The ones who completed a degree under his supervision or published some work with him would all need to add “Well, he didn’t sexually harnessed me…etc.” when they would be describing their scientific work to others. I don’t mean reporting such an issue the following day by the way, but waiting for 15 years is a bit much and
waiting that long significantly increases the number of female scientists who would be hurt by this (and also inescapably makes the evaluation of the case harder as the data will not be as unbiased as the earlier years.) I do understand that good timing for one party with respect to their career might not be a good timing for the others, but this aspect is certainly not unimportant and I think it was overlooked or ignored. I also realize that these allegations hasn’t come to an end for the time being per later comments. I hope the outcome would be a relief for the Respondents, be good for the community and hurt as few as possible female scientists. This is a delicate balance, and all I say is the best outcome would have been achieved if this was reported earlier. @Dr. Sims: whether I have ever been sexually harrassed or not is irrelevant. The chances that this event affecting my career is very slim. I could be happy to disclose myself to Dr. Patcher when/if we run into each other one day.
January 22, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Mary Kuhner
Dr. Speed was on my thesis committee in the late 1980’s. I did not experience harassment myself but I am none the less deeply grateful to those who have brought forward these complaints. A lot of evidence suggests that sexually abusive behavior is seldom a single event that’s unrepeated; more usually it is a pattern that continues over time. Complaining now, even about events in the past, may help prevent other women suffering in this way. I totally disagree with the Anonymous poster above who says that disclosure harms former woman mentees. I do not see how it harms me to know the truth; I find it paternalistic to support that I’d be better off not knowing.
January 26, 2018 at 11:50 pm
Anonymous
This is a response for Dr. Simms, (and Dr. Patcher); What I suggest is regarding the female mentees/students of Terry Speed who have done significant amount of work within these last 18 years under his supervision. There will be many of them ditching their many years of work (if they haven’t published already) to not to be related to such issues. The ones who completed a degree under his supervision or published some work with him would all need to add “Well, he didn’t sexually harnessed me…etc.” when they would be describing their scientific work to others. I don’t mean reporting such an issue the following day by the way, but waiting for 15 years is a bit much and
waiting that long significantly increases the number of female scientists who would be hurt by this (and also inescapably makes the evaluation of the case harder as the data will not be as unbiased as the earlier years.) I do understand that good timing for one party with respect to their career might not be a good timing for the others, but this aspect is certainly not unimportant and I think it was overlooked or ignored. I also realize that these allegations hasn’t come to an end for the time being per later comments. I hope the outcome would be a relief for the Respondents, be good for the community and hurt as few as possible female scientists. This is a delicate balance, and all I say is the best outcome would have been achieved if this was reported earlier. @Dr. Sims: whether I have ever been sexually harrassed or not is irrelevant. The chances that this event affecting my career is very slim. I could be happy to disclose myself to Dr. Patcher when/if we run into each other one day.
January 22, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Anonymous
As Terry’s former female student, it was shocking to learn Lior’s post. Shocking, because we always love and respect Terry. I joined Terry’s lab after the incidence described in this post, so I don’t know the details. Terry is very famous for his contribution in Statistics and Genetics field. At the same time, Terry is also very well known as a wonderful advisor. He has been always very kind to his students and has been devoting his time to guide his students’ research.
I’m taking harassment seriously, but I feel the power of social media sometimes is terrifying. As pointed by some other reply above, this indeed hurts us. This post doesn’t have much details on the investigation report. Does it reflect the full facts of the situation 15 years ago? People don’t know Terry well might be misguided in some way. I’m hoping the conclusion of the investigation will be reported properly soon as well so we can learn the full and unbiased facts.
January 22, 2018 at 6:41 pm
Lior Pachter
The conclusion of the investigation is reported in my blog post above.
January 22, 2018 at 8:40 pm
Noon van der Silk
Addressing the last two anoynomous comments:
I understand where you’re coming from and it’s clear to me that this could have some impact on current and former students.
Here’s some reasons that I think it’s good that Lior posted this anyway:
1. Whether or not such students are affected, I think the potential people that have been harassed are also important to think about. Whether by Terry or not, or by anyone. And this kind of attitude of “why now? it’s too late” and generally siding publically with the potential harasser is _actively harmful_ to _unrelated people_ and, of course, any _actual_ victims.
2. While it’s true that any outcome will carry some stigma, I have two thoughts:
– It’s true. And we need to stop this from happening in the future; all the more reason to encourage places like Berkeley to promptly resolve such issues, _and_ to make it socially clear to our peers that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and will be
– In many ways, I think, Terry himself can partially solve this stigma problem by making _clear_ and _concrete_ statements about what happened, promptly, and demonstrating that he cares for the well-being for his students by taking such actions that make that clear: for example, since the time of this complaint reaching him, has he taken actions to make sure he’s never seen to be harassing someone again? Perhaps by taking all meetings with students in groups, by not communicating via private emails, or even by _informing WEHI of the investigation_ and asking them for advice on how to be pro-active?
To reiterate, I feel for Terry’s former students and friends. Indeed, this is why we need to take any kind of harassment seriously, no matter how late it’s resported, and push university administrators in an uncompromising way: these kinds of activities hurt more than just one person!
January 23, 2018 at 12:42 am
Alberta
What is a “post-doctoral student”? A post-doc is not a student.
Was the complainant Terry’s post-doc or employed by someone else?
I agree with Carlos, there are too many important details left out.
January 23, 2018 at 8:38 am
Harold Pimentel
Many American universities label postdocs officially as “students.” I am currently st Stanford where my official title is Postdoctoral Student.
January 23, 2018 at 6:46 am
El-ad David Amir
There seems to be a gap between two different groups that reply to this post. I think it might be beneficial to provide a tl;dr. I will do my best to be objective in this comment:
1) Dr. Pachter contacted the Office for Prevention of Harassment and Discriminationat UC Berkeley, which held an investigation.
2) The investigation has ended. The conclusion of the investigation is that “… the preponderance of the evidence substantiates that Respondent violated the 1992 Sexual Harassment Policy in that he engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature …” (see full conclusion above).
3) As of the date of the post, the university has taken no action in light of that conclusion.
If I am reading Dr. Pachter’s post correctly, the investigation is done. Issues of skewed data or “waiting for a decision” are irrelevant, since the relevant Office in UC Berkeley finished their work and passed their conclusion to the Vice Provost for Faculty.
I believe (and this is my interpretation, apologies if I am mistaken) that Dr. Pachter has written this blog post to alert his readers that despite the committee concluding that Dr. Speed violated the Policy, no sanctions has been enacted by the Vice Provost for Faculty.
January 23, 2018 at 7:30 am
Lior Pachter
Exactly. A complete description of the process is available here https://ophd.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/berkeley_senate_faculty_svsh_invadj_procedures_2017.pdf
January 23, 2018 at 9:00 am
anonymous
At which box in the flowchart (last page) we are now?
January 23, 2018 at 9:18 am
Lior Pachter
Stage 1 completed with a finding of violation of UC Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (see my blog post). That took 14 months (note the document states “60 business days for investigation”). Beyond that, all I have been told (repeatedly) for the past 6 months is “the matter is being attended to.”
December 20, 2019 at 9:46 am
anonymous
whatever happen in Sethian’s case?
https://stemfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/287/
December 23, 2019 at 12:29 am
Lior Pachter
The chair was notified about the blogpost but I have no idea whether he or others ever followed up on it.
January 23, 2018 at 9:35 am
anonymous
Thank you. So we don’t even know if respondent replied yet, nor if Peer Review is engaged (stage 2). It is still possible that Vice Provost determination (stage 3) will result in no formal discipline.
January 24, 2018 at 5:45 am
Anonymous
Right… So you’ve identified a way that this process could progress from the current status of a detailed investigation upholding the complaint, to nothing actually being done as a result by the University directorate. Feel good?
January 23, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Daniel Falush
Perhaps the problem is that asking institutions to investigate this kind of thing internally is unrealistic, given that they inevitably have (often hidden/unknown) conflicts of interest about the outcome. Lior is right that is the job of Berkeley to investigate this according to current policy/law, that they should follow their procedures and rules and right to be distrustful/frustrated about it. But being fair and being seen to be fair is… bordering on impossible for Berkeley in practice and this kind of paralysis seems nearly inevitable. It would be better to find a way to give the job to an external party.
January 23, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Steven
This blog post and the replies to it show why is so difficult to report sexual harassment. Even though the audience is of scientists who ought to know better the fallacies and deceit abounds. Allow me to enumerate:
– Oh, but it was such a long time ago, why bring it up now?
– Oh, but I am a female student of his and he never harassed ME!
– Oh, but he is so wonderful to other students!
– What is a “postdoc student” anyway? Does such a thing even exist?
– But this is just one side of the story!
– But there is no conclusion yet!
– The real problem is that this was not brought up sooner! That’s the real crime.
Dear reader, have you recognized one of your own contributions? Shame on you! You are part of the problem. It is YOU that make it possible.
January 24, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Hope
“Oh, but I am a female student of his and he never harassed ME!”
Sadly that was not true to all female students/trainee, etc.
January 24, 2018 at 6:18 pm
Mary Kuhner
I did post that I am a female student whom he did not harass, but I reject the characterization of that post as being a defense of Dr. Speed, since I went on to say clearly that I support the complainants and utterly reject the paternalistic idea that I would have been better off if they had kept quiet.
People kept invoking non-harassed students as somehow being victimized by the complaints. I wanted to make perfectly clear that as one of those people I am NOT victimized by the complaints. It is good for me, as for all women in science, when the truth is spoken. Cover-ups and silence do harm.
January 24, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Lior Pachter
Thanks for your posts Mary. I truly appreciate what you’ve said, and also that you’ve signed your name to the posts.
January 25, 2018 at 7:10 pm
Lee
Dear Steven,
Your post shows why it is so difficult to have an intelligent discussion on controversial issues these days. People like you jump in and start to police what questions people can ask or not, and moralize that certain questions are “shameful” and make the questioner complicit in sexual harassment (“It is you that make it possible”). An investigation and questions of the facts that lead to such a serious accusation, as made here, are important for justice. People like you are should be tasked with stirring up a mob, not in participating in intelligent discussions.
I acknowledge that many people make excuses for the offenders, and their excuses are often the type of questions you include in your list. But, that does not mean that anyone asking these questions is making excuses for the offenders.
Good day
January 25, 2018 at 7:52 pm
Lior Pachter
I’d like to clear up some confusion you and others appear to have with this post. You write that a serious accusation was made in this post. That is not the case. The serious accusation was made almost two years to the Title IX office at UC Berkeley. This post reports on the results of the investigation that followed the accusation. The investigation analyzed questions of fact carefully over an extended period of time and found Terry Speed to have violated UC Berkeley’s sexual harassment policy.
January 26, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Steven
Mr Lee bemoans the lack of “intelligence” in the discussion yet fails to recognize that he fundamentally misrepresents everything in the blog post and in the many replies around it.
As Prof. Pachter stated it many times, this is not an “accusation”, this is not “a version” of the events. Somehow that all escapes Mr. Lee and he sticks to his version of events where everything is still just a “he said” “she said” and we have to wait for the other side to admit to this.
And that is the attitude that I refer to when I talk about enablers. Each commenter seems to have a just a tiny bit of issue with this or that. Now individually each issue is minor and negligible, but all together it builds that wall that allows the harassment to occur.
Consider this: when compelling evidence is presented in a case by a victim in what another case would you take the criminal’s side even just a little bit? So why is this so different? Why is it that most people replying here try to poke holes in the claims and with that take the side of the abuser.
As it happens I also believe that most apologists here do not even understand and are unaware that they are apologists – are outraged by even the hint of that prospect – even though they actively do it. It is the current culture that trained them to think and respond the way they do. That is what makes this so difficult to deal with.
January 24, 2018 at 6:15 am
Doctor Yes
When you initiate a social-media lynching isn’t there an obligation to provide full information? Otherwise how can the mob make an informed decision on what extrajudicial punishment should be meted out? In the criminal justice system sentencing normally takes into account things like severity of crime, history, intent, victim impact, likelihood of re-offence and possible mitigating factors. From the limited information given, it’s hard for the ethical vigilante to know how to judge any of these factors. I’m left wondering if this is a hanging offence or would a few days in the stocks suffice? What might the offender have been thinking? How can this be reconciled with his stated beliefs and actions? This not only goes to establishing intent but to the implication of hypocrisy and, by extension, the severity of the punishment by reputational damage. Since Lior is smarter than I am and has clearly given these issues more thought than I have, I wonder why he has chosen not to provide more background and a more nuanced analysis.
January 24, 2018 at 9:30 am
Lior Pachter
Your comment implies that I initiated a “social-media lynching”. It would be fair to criticize me for that had I just told (my side of) the story on twitter and invited “the mob” to punish based on my remarks. That is not what I did. To the contrary, I filed a formal complaint through the official Title IX university. In doing so, I deliberately left the mob out of the equation, and the investigation was able to be performed in a manner that afforded all parties the opportunity to present evidence and to describe their version of the events that transpired. However filing a formal complaint, as Complainant 1 and I did, carries with it the burden that the respondent is informed of the identity of the complainants. While you have retained anonymity in making your comment on my blog, victims don’t have that privilege. For this reason, many victims don’t report the harassment or abuse they have suffered. To mitigate the problem, universities provide assurances that cases will be handled expeditiously. In this specific case, not only does UC Berkeley advertise short timelines for investigation on its websites, there have been emails faculty have received promising that reported cases would be investigated in a timely fashion. On January 27, 2016, I received an email from the dean promising to “deal with any harassment infractions speedily and effectively”. That reassurance played a role in the decision to report this case.
Not only have almost two years passed since the complaint was filed, it has been more than 6 months since the report was completed with a determination that the sexual harassment policy was violated. Not only has the university not meted out sanctions on the respondent, they have not even revealed publicly the result of the investigation. Yet this whole time Terry Speed has known exactly who the complainants are, a situation which I can tell you has created enormous stress and anxiety for me. I have been going through this as a senior tenured faculty member- I literally can’t imagine how a junior person could handle such a situation.
With my blog post I have publicly announced the result of the investigation. I did not publish excerpts, or the whole report, in order to protect the privacy not only of the victims, but also of Terry Speed. I don’t believe that reading through sordid emails is necessary, when the findings of the investigation are made very clear and precise with a summary of what was investigated, and a clear conclusion. I agree that more detail would be informative, and provide many lessons about how prolonged harassment harms victims and can poison a research group. Perhaps the details will eventually emerge. I certainly hope so. For now, I am not ready to reveal them. The university does have all the information needed to determine appropriate sanction.
As for reputational damage, sadly Terry Speed started damaging his own reputation the day he began sexually harassing his postdoc.
January 24, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Hope
“a situation which I can tell you has created enormous stress and anxiety for me. I have been going through this as a senior tenured faculty member- I literally can’t imagine how a junior person could handle such a situation.”
So true, Thank you.
January 25, 2018 at 6:22 am
Dr Yes
“I filed a formal complaint through the official Title IX university. In doing so, I deliberately left the mob out of the equation”
Initially you left the mob out – but subsequently, when the process stalled, you took matters into your own hands using social media and published the verdict absent contextual information that might normally be used to decide punishment. The predictable twitter pile-on followed.
“While you have retained anonymity in making your comment on my blog, victims don’t have that privilege.”
You and the other victims are clearly very brave and to be applauded for being prepared to identify yourselves in order to obtain justice. By comparison I am not being very brave – but then I’m not fighting for justice – I am merely critiquing its application via social media.
“I did not publish excerpts, or the whole report, in order to protect the privacy not only of the victims, but also of Terry Speed.”
I accept the privacy argument as it applies to the crime in question but there’s other relevant background that might have been presented to shed light on state of mind, intent, remorse, etc. Possibly you might say he had his chance in the investigation or that it’s not your job. Maybe, but by choosing to go ahead and post without crucial details and to include the imputation of hypocrisy you maximise the damage caused – and not just to Terry. I wonder if there might have been other ways of persuading Terry/WEHI/UC to expedite the process which might have enabled privacy to have been respected even more.
“As for reputational damage, sadly Terry Speed started damaging his own reputation the day he began sexually harassing his postdoc.”
This gets back to how to make the punishment fit the crime. Judges have sentencing guidelines. Tweeters not so much. Imagine that the end of the flowchart is reached and some sort of official punishment is announced. Should that punishment take into account “time already served” due to online vilification? Perhaps you think it’s a moot point because such a punishment will never happen. If so, how can you be sure that what you unleash will be just and do you think the unintended fallout to innocent parties is justified?
Unlike many others, I’m not claiming to know what the right thing to do is here – apart from anything else I know little about the case or the likelihoods of the various outcomes in the complaints process. I accept that wrong has been done but the missing information and the unpredictable nature of the DIY fatwa make me nervous.
January 24, 2018 at 1:38 pm
nicolasbray
“Since Lior is smarter than I am and has clearly given these issues more thought than I have, I wonder why he has chosen not to provide more background and a more nuanced analysis.”
Since Lior is smarter than you, he realized that he provided perfectly adequate background and analysis.
February 10, 2018 at 7:34 am
James Bleat
Didn’t take long for Lior’s sycophant to come braying in. Would be wonderful for you to find an opinion of your own for a change.
February 10, 2018 at 9:07 pm
nicolasbray
At first I didn’t think that much of this comment but “James Bleat” really put it over the top.
Good work.
January 24, 2018 at 11:37 am
Daniel Falush
In general this is definitely not a fair thing to ask any complainant and feel totally free to ignore the following suggestion which however might suit this peculiar set of circumstances and make some progress towards the resolution you are asking for: Since Berkeley are not doing their job, maybe you can help them by, both here and directly to them, suggesting sanctions they should apply to Terry Speed. [You revealed the result of the investigation for them so there is a bit of logic to this!]
January 26, 2018 at 6:38 pm
WhatWouldtheDalaiLamaSay
I think that there is a big difference between a single case of infatuation where judgement invariably goes out of the window and an extended history of calculated predatory bahavior. The first is certainly unfortunate but ultimately forgivable. Let those without sin cast the first stone. I think that Terry’s subsequent promotion of women in science means that he is longer the same person he was at that time.
January 29, 2018 at 2:56 pm
Anonymous
Thank you Lior and Complainant One for your courage in sharing this.
It is certainly possible that this alleged behavior was an isolated incident, and that Terry has done many good things for his students and for his field in the years since. And if so, I’d point out that this incident does not make Terry an inherently “bad” person. Perhaps this incident was a regrettable mistake. But even then, mistakes must have some consequences, or else our society will continue to make the same mistakes.
None of us know exactly what happened or what the intentions were, and therefore we should be wary of jumping to conclusions. But it is certainly within Lior’s and Complainant 1’s right (and in some sense even their responsibility) to share this information.
It is true that some people may be harmed by this blog post. But I worry that many more people will be harmed now and in the future if we continue to sweep these incidents under the rug for fear of damaging reputations.
February 1, 2018 at 5:06 am
MB
The comments under this blog post are a master class in why utilitarianism is a useless ethical framework in all but the most toy cases. It ignores justice and preserves the status quo.
Dr. Pachter and the post doc have no ethical obligation to decide whether the outcome of pursuing justice will harm or help more people. It is difficult to imagine any case where accusing a powerful person of wrongdoing does NOT have lots of negative consequences for innocent people. This is one of the reason victims are silent.
It is irrelevant because they still have the right to pursue justice, which is fundamental and beyond any outside utilitarian equations.
Dr. Pachter does have an obligation to weigh whether the punishment incurred by the blog post will be proportional to what happened.
Given the level of education of the readers of this blog, I am dismayed that there is so much utilitarianism in these comments. As we go forward with more complex problems in biology, I would hope that a better understanding of basic ethics would be part of more training programs.
*Utilitarianism is where you are faced with an ethical dilemma you weigh the total good of your two choices (i.e. the railroad problem).
July 9, 2020 at 1:15 pm
Anonymous
I do not think this illustrates the useless of utilitarianism at all.
In fact, ironically, your argument that utilitarianism preserves the status quo seems like precisely a utilitarian argument! That is, you’re saying that the outcome of not pursuing justice is worse than that of staying silent. This is weighing the total good of one’s choices, i.e. classic utilitarianism.
It seems to me that the actual non-utilitarian perspective would be saying that justice should be pursued even if it worsened the status quo.
In fact, as a utilitarian, that is precisely why I believe that it is good for people to come forward: because the benefits of preventing someone from exploiting future students, and of providing a penalty to serve as a disincentive to others, far outweigh the harm to the perpetrator and their acquaintences (i.e. being more disliked, losing their jobs).
However, a focus on justice, misapplied and dissociated from concerns of its utility, is dangerous. A focus on justice might say that one country should invade another to depose a brutal dictactor because they will never be punished otherwise, heedless of the real human consequences of the power vacuum and instability that will inevitably result. A focus on justice encourages the use of the death penalty for murder, without considering its pernicious effects on society or its racial bias. In other words, justice must be for everyone involved, not just for the perpetrator or victim of a crime…which in the end amounts to something that is very close to utilitarianism.
February 2, 2018 at 7:19 am
Anonymous
At one time, people who disagreed with each other addressed it directly. Most of the time, this worked.
When this didn’t work, people could escalate to managers. Often, this worked.
Then, we have committees to investigate, for objectivity. This is especially useful when case 1 didn’t work, again, and introduced objective principles.
When this doesn’t work, government resources or court are also available, again standard practices. Usually works.
Now, we have release valves that involve social media and the press, for when objective committees or institutions don’t work. Or when an individual feels that the review process didn’t work. This mechanism is clearly recognized by a lack of objective principles and standards.
Choosing this mechanism seems like very idiosyncratic, very unreproducible reasoning to me. Choosing social media is optimal for one person only, as objectivity and process are clearly toast in their eyes.
February 3, 2018 at 10:46 pm
Anonymous
I couldn’t agree more.
February 4, 2018 at 1:06 pm
anonymous
I must say that I appreciate the courage of the Complaints. However, I am honestly having a hard time understanding why not waiting a bit more for the process to be completed before releasing this to social media? Complaints were filed 16 years after the event. Stage 1 of he process was completed some months ago. It seems like the following stages of the process are in progress now according to the algorithm and the Respondent’s statement in his webpage above. Maybe the wounds are still fresh because of this 18 year-old incidence and therefore, the Complaints are understandably seeking a fast outcome but wouldn’t it worth to wait a bit more after waiting for so many years and exhaust the other ways to expedite the process? Releasing this to social media increases the number of people hurt by this and impairs the objectivity of the process.
February 4, 2018 at 2:03 pm
Lior Pachter
There was a 14 month investigation by Title IX into two allegations. Terry Speed was found to have violated the sexual harassment policy. When I received the report I was told by the university, and I quote, “There are no University rules that preclude you from discussing the case with anyone else”. Shortly thereafter, I met someone who I thought would benefit from knowing about this investigation and its findings. Yet I remained silent, hoping the university would make an announcement in a timely manner. They didn’t. I’m sorry but six months is not a reasonable amount of time for an institution to review the facts of a case. That amount of time, coupled to a 14 month investigation is an eternity for victims. This whole time (2 years) Terry Speed has known about me and Complainant One reporting the case, about the allegations, the evidence, and during the past 6 months the findings. The asymmetry between the perpetrator and the victims is extremely harmful not just to the victims, but to everyone else who doesn’t know the truth. We therefore decided to post the fact that there was an investigation, and what it determined.
I pose to you the questions: how long do victims have to wait to speak up? What exactly do they have to do to be taken seriously?
We did not just take to social media with sordid allegations. We presented concrete evidence to Title IX officers. This was not easy. We waited patiently for an investigation to proceed and for a determination to be made. This was not easy. We were not only traumatized when the harassment happened, but for many years thereafter. This was not easy. And yet you, anonymously, think we still did something wrong?
Instead of praising our “courage”, please display some yourself. Ask the perpetrator to explain why he didn’t speak up when the findings were made available to him in June. Ask him why he didn’t announce to the world then, on his website, what he had done. Ask him why he didn’t come clean 15 years ago. And finally, ask him why he sexually harassed a postdoc, and why he conditioned an academic or personnel decision on the postdoc’s submission to his conduct. Ask him whether he thought of all the people that would harm.
February 4, 2018 at 4:31 pm
anonymous
The first paragraph of your comment answers my question. Thank you. I don’t know the answers to the questions you posed in the following paragraph, mostly because the situation seems to be a very difficult/complicated one for everyone involved, and I haven’t known the details. But I feel like the victims should speak up as soon as they can to start the legal process and seek for justice. But once the process has started, working towards expediting it collectively would be the best for everyone. Social media could be used to expedite the process I guess, but it is a fact that it impairs the objectivity for an continuing process because it is a very powerful, amplifying and uncontrolled tool.
I, anonymously, didn’t say you did something wrong. In fact, I praised your courage. However, I anonymously and naively wondered, why not waiting a bit more after waiting so many years before releasing this to social media… or whether all options to expedite the process have been exhausted.
I suggested this based on the algorithm you posted above. Time frames for the stages to be completed is clearly outlined there. In addition to that, Respondent also indicates that the process is not completed, and that he would be working on providing his representation of the events of that time in his statement (https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/terry/).
Please don’t think I don’t empathize the difficulty of the situation for the Complaints. I certainly do. And also please don’t think I wouldn’t ask some questions you encourage me asking in your last paragraph (I already asked some, which could have been asked at this point), provided that I have enough understanding of the process (and maybe the events but it is very difficult to have that picture), and that the process is completed, I’d certainly ask other ones which would be appropriate to ask at that time.
June 7, 2018 at 6:11 am
John Didion
The link to Terry’s statement on his Berkeley page that anonymous references on Feb 4 now redirects to his page at WEHI.
March 23, 2018 at 2:14 pm
Visitor
Thank you for having the courage to report this.
Prof Speed sent a post on his website denying your version of events. I am not how sending lovingly terms in professional emails to any student could be interpreted differently by him. He is old enough experienced enough to understand and the fact that he doesn’t is more worrying. He is a director of large institution in Australia now. One may be interested to find out what is happening there. People most of the times are afraid of speaking up.
To those saying why now!
Should by your logic we forget the church sexual abuse of children? It happended very long time ago!
One career lost is too many.
Unfortunately understanding these basics for some “professors” seem to be very difficult. They do not deserve to be named teachers and for sure people career fate should be out of their control, at least those we find out who they are. Many more to be exposed and this is why Senior Executives do not like firm action on these types of reports. The main argument perhaps is ‘who is next?’
March 24, 2018 at 8:08 am
Anna Tsykin
Please pay a bit more attention to facts. The woman in question was a postdoc and Terry Speed was never ‘a director of large institution’. Terry Speed is one of the most supportive mentors I’ve seen in my fairly long career, surely his contribution counts for something.
It would help to have a name associated with posting criticism of this nature.
March 23, 2018 at 11:09 pm
Anna Tsykin
I do not have anything to add regarding this regrettable incident many years ago but would like to say that Terry Speed doesn’t deserve having his name dragged through the mud. Scientists are no better than people in other professions, sexual harassment and other forms of mistreatment of students or young postdocs is common, but why single out Terry Speed like this? So, he suffered a lapse of judgement but his behaviour doesn’t sound predatory. There must be thousands of cases which are much, much worse, why publicise this one so much?
Terry Speed is well known for helping a large number of people without asking for anything in return. He would have saved projects an careers of many young people, both male and female. He helped me on several occasions and I cannot fault his behaviour in any way. I would like call Terry Speed’s former students and associates to speak out against this character assassination, please.
March 29, 2018 at 12:26 pm
nicolasbray
“a lapse of judgement” is just an amazing way to describe a pattern of behaviour that persisted for well over a year.
April 2, 2018 at 11:52 am
David desJardins
Sexual approaches by faculty members toward those over whom they have influence are inherently predatory.
March 24, 2018 at 9:23 am
El-ad David Amir
Lior, have there been any updates from UC Berkeley regarding the results of the investigation?
March 24, 2018 at 10:29 am
Lior Pachter
No.
April 2, 2018 at 11:50 am
David desJardins
Thank you for posting this. Carol Christ has said that it is a priority to make UCB’s response to sexual harassment more effective and timely and less bureaucratic, but the results don’t seem to match the words (yet?). There seems to be a culture of bureaucracy that is designed to make even simple things complicated, and a culture of secrecy that is designed to obstruct justice. I’m sure that UCB is not the only place where these things occur, but it’s particularly troubling when I see them in a place where I myself have an affiliation.
April 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm
valerie currer
For what it is worth I have known Terry Speed (and his wife Sally) in a non professional but personal friendship for almost 60 years and believe him to be one of the kindest, generous and honest people I have ever known.
Valerie Currer
April 4, 2018 at 9:40 pm
David desJardins
So? Surely sexual harassment is not less objectionable if done by kind, generous, and honest people than when done by cruel, miserly, or dishonest people.
April 16, 2018 at 12:40 pm
Visitor
Here is a news article that contains more information on the events:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-23/terry-speed-ally-of-women-in-science-accused-of-harassment/9546170
Also a personal observation. It is disheartening to see how many of his supporters lack empathy towards the victim.
It is perfectly fine to believe that he is a much better person today that he was back then, it is fine to believe that these events do not reflect on his true persona.
But the victims deserve recognition. A rehabilitation can only begin after bringing a closure – ignoring the events and whitewashing them will only make things worse.
April 18, 2018 at 8:25 pm
David desJardins
It’s incredible. The quotes in the article should be enough to fire him, if they could be verified. Why should it take 2 hours to deal with this, much less 2 years?
May 3, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Visitor
The ABC did further research and shine the light to a lot of other details in this story. I suggest people listen to the whole thing, particularly those who seem to are defending him and have forgotten the fact that there is a victim.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/harassment-in-science/9566122
May 25, 2018 at 8:13 am
ray
He indeed looks creepy! Just google some of his pictures!
May 25, 2018 at 8:34 pm
David dono
Nowadays this kind of corruption happen everywhere , that is why the society is not getting better but getting worse . Morality is degrading everywhere from private company to even university now. University is supposed to be a place where knowledge is created , trust is builted, cooperation and knowledge is exchanged in a dignity and honest way.
But you can observe people cheating on test , exams. Researchers stealing research result and idea from other ( as you can observe so many Chinese students in various physics , nano technology lab in the western world universities, and brining the secret to China …)
For example, here http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=103318&sid=4
Professor ( many professors of foreign origins) would make use of the resources at the university to train the students from their own countries , and fraud the funing resources for even personal purposes. If you visit certain professor website ,you could see that almost exclusively they train the students of their own ethnic origin. This is no good to the united states and many western countries . It is happening in hong Kong right here , where the mainland China professor pretty much drain the govt funding resources to train students from mainland China . And their many corrupted practice such as spending money on “conference” trip, “scholarly exchange”, this is no good. And cannot continue.
I would try to reveal the inner part of these disguised people , so that the justice will be well served. Good that internet is very convenient nowadays, so you pretry much cannot hide completely everthing either good or bad that you have done.
People should make use of this powerful tool of internet , so that people will guard their own behaviour and realize that what comes around goes around. You cannot only get away for so long before justice is due. Glad that there is internet where people can talk about and reveal many hidden things. Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!!
June 7, 2018 at 12:49 pm
David Ideal
https://www.wehi.edu.au/statement
” Professor Speed has informed the Institute that the University of California, Berkeley has made no finding on the matter. Professor Speed has advised that he is resigning his Emeritus Professor role at the University of California, Berkeley.”
June 7, 2018 at 1:08 pm
daviddesj
How on Earth can there be “no finding”? Maybe by the year 2068 there will be a finding??
June 7, 2018 at 6:07 pm
David Ideal
Lior, what happened?
June 22, 2018 at 12:58 pm
Lior Pachter
I’ve posted the “notice of outcome” I received from UC Berkeley.
June 20, 2018 at 10:25 pm
PE
A shameful conclusion for UC Berkeley.
June 24, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Suzanne
I worked for TS within that time, & I know who you’re talking about. He was obsessed. I’ve seen text recently from some of the emails in an ABC article, & it’s creepy & intimidating. He wasn’t like that with the other women of the time: of which there were many, so he at least gets points for staffing ratios! It was clear he had a ‘favourite’. I’m sorry I didn’t realise how creepy the situation was at the time. I hope this offers some closure for her, & that it hasn’t slowed down her career. Good on you for speaking up.
August 14, 2018 at 10:03 am
David desJardins
Here’s a fairly astonishing story from the NYT of a female philosophy professor who incontrovertibly (according to hard evidence described in the article) harassed her student and yet her feminist colleagues leapt to her defense.
Academia has a LONG way to go in taking sexual harassment seriously. 😦