I think the stuff about misappropriating funds, the details of which have not been made public, is probably more serious (i.e. would stand up in a courtroom). The threat of making the details public will probably constrain what Fryer can say/do publicly regarding the harassment charges.
Fryer suspended
-
Fryer's case seems to have been heard fairly carefully. There are several things he was shown or admitted to have done that can reasonably construed as breaking a code of conduct. If Fryer (or you) think that even given those facts the punishment was harsh, that is not a strong legal ground to stand on.
Are you confident about the report and Harvard treating Fryer fairly based on what you read in the New York Times? The report leaked and some journalists think it exonerates Fryer:
-
If a black professional in business or tech firm was suspended without pay, for 4 years, for off color jokes made in an office, after multiple internal investigations cleared him of the more serious charges that had been leaked to the public by individuals with an ax to grind...there would be a public outrage about his treatment. Deservedly so.
Your point is not unreasonable, but the thing I think we need to be careful about with this phrasing is the wide variety of things that can be described as "off-color jokes".
A joke about a drunk Irish priest in a bar could be called "off-color". As can specific references to to sexual acts performed by students who are present. These two things are not the same thing.
Describing Fryer's infractions as "off-color jokes" categorizes what he did in the same category as much milder offenses. I assume that many of us don't want our language policed in a way that makes the drunk priest joke an issue but understand that Fryer's conduct crossed a line. And I think that saying that "all he did was tell off-color jokes" muddies those waters, intentionally or unintentionally.At the rate things are progressing, making a joke about a drunk Irish priest in a bar will be a fireable offense very soon.
-
I think the stuff about misappropriating funds, the details of which have not been made public, is probably more serious (i.e. would stand up in a courtroom). The threat of making the details public will probably constrain what Fryer can say/do publicly regarding the harassment charges.
I was an RA on a big study where the PI was audited by the U and the accountants were horrified by small mistakes. Like using Target gift cards as payments for completing surveys instead of the U’s preferred Visa gift cards, also not posting all the RA positions on the employment website, submitting expense reports a few months after expenses incurred, etc. The accountants made a big deal out of these improprieties. So maybe or maybe not a big deal for Fryer.
-
At the rate things are progressing, making a joke about a drunk Irish priest in a bar will be a fireable offense very soon.
White and Christian (and guessing a male).... those are groups you will be able to openly discriminate against. I guess Asians are joining this club but otherwise, yes every other joke is going to get you fired.
-
A lot of people talking past each other ITT, but a point some have made that seems worth reiterating is that the punishment seems overly severe. The things he said, did, and texted are highly unprofessional and certainly merit punishment and future oversight. But the NYT story also says that the University investigations did not substantiate the claims of retaliation. That was the most serious accusation, that he abused a position of power. Without substantiating that, I have a hard time seeing this punishment as appropriate. I can hold that view and at the same time find his conduct unacceptable in a professional setting. He should face oversight and scrutiny from the University going forward.
This.
-
Great going, a bunch of anonymous morons defending Fryer.
Well, there is just a lot of evidence that the punishment is totally out of proportion. If you read the "real clear investigations" article, a few things stand out:
(1) The complainant hired a team of extremely good and aggressive lawyers. This indicates that she is from wealthy background.
(2) She went for the "scorched earth" approach. The fact that her lawyers went after his funds tells you what this case is about.
(3) The complainant never mentioned any discomfort with Fryer's comments to any of her friends. What she did mention in private conversations is that she thought she being on the verge of being fired is unfair, and that she deserves 25,000USD.
(4) There is no evidence for any of the more severe allegations.
(5) The worst allegation that has corroborating evidence is: "This woman recalled Fryer saying, “Oh, you bent over for [the professor]? What else did you do for him?” All or most of the eight or more people who were present, including two other female and two male research assistants, laughed." Wow, that is definitely cause for severe psychological trauma.My interpretation? White privileged woman who got told by her daddy her whole life that she deserves all her privilege that she has is triggered by a black man who tells her she is not doing a good job ("oh my god, he is sooo mean to me"). Then she digs up some allegations of sexual harassment, does not have any evidence, and asks her lawyers to demand an audit of his lab funds. Probably there are some issues with the funds - let's be honest, academics are not the best in handling large amount of money - , which force Harvard to take some action.
-
Fryer just seems to have poor social skills. In the current state of academia, you pay a price for being and sounding like that.
In any sphere, if you are going to be a boss and have power over other people, you need some degree of emotional intelligence. Being rude and crude can rise to the level of abuse if you are in a position of authority.