Why Did MIT Sever Ties with Walter Lewin?

[Nikitin]

Not sure what losses MIT faces, but folks and institutions depending on the Fall 1999 8.01 courseware right now might feel differently.

what I meant was that they will garner controversy and loose allot of quality material from their site. After all, they could have just hushed the thing up and removed Lewin's emiratus title quietly. That would allow them to keep the material as well as not make a big deal out of this. Instead, however, they chose to put everything out in the open.

personally I am very disappointed in Lewin, but we should hear his side of the story too. It might be that he has finally gone looney, not that he is a sexual predator.

 

[WWGD]

what I meant was that they will garner controversy and loose allot of quality material from their site. After all, they could have just hushed the thing up and removed Lewin's emiratus title quietly. That would allow them to keep the material as well as not make a big deal out of this. Instead, however, they chose to put everything out in the open.

personally I am very disappointed in Lewin, but we should hear his side of the story too. It might be that he has finally gone looney, not that he is a sexual predator.

Why are you disappointed already if you have not yet heard his side?

 

[Nikitin]

Why are you disappointed already if you have not yet heard his side?

Because I don't doubt that he did something bad. After all, MIT has all the data and I assume they did a thorough investigation. What I am curious about are the actual circumstances around the case.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The case has not gone to court yet

Who says anything about a case going to court? Lewin was investigated by MIT for violating MIT policy (where the standard is much lower than for a criminal trial - essentially "more likely than not") and it was found that he did. As far as MIT is concerned, he did it, and they will take action, whether or not there is also a case in the courts.

 

[nitsuj]

Who says anything about a case going to court? Lewin was investigated by MIT for violating MIT policy (where the standard is much lower than for a criminal trial - essentially "more likely than not") and it was found that he did. As far as MIT is concerned, he did it, and they will take action, whether or not there is also a case in the courts.

The U.S. is pretty fair when it comes to money...if he is at all impacted despite his mitigation...and found not guilty in criminal court...is a good argument civilly. hmmmmm...ah ha defamation.

Where does the case law draw the line between defamation of a professional and their employers policy on...what ever.

Cause what I saw in this thread is people intuit his guilt via MIT actions on him. MIT called him a sexual bad guy...and what on Earth does that mean?

 

[Vanadium 50]

criminal court

Lewin has not been charged with a crime, so I don't see how a criminal court will get in the picture.

 

[nitsuj]

Lewin has not been charged with a crime, so I don't see how a criminal court will get in the picture.

I was editing that post while you replied. here's the additional comment.

Where does the case law draw the line between defamation of a professional by their employers policy on harassment.

Cause what I saw in this thread is people intuit his guilt via MIT actions on him. MIT called him a sexual bad guy...and what on Earth does that mean?

If the punishment is public, shouldn't MIT be forced to disclose the details to some authority?

 

[WWGD]

But, I mean, he had no problems, at least none reported for 43 years of his career, at least according to the Wiki page. Shouldn't that count for something in his favor?

 

[Pete Cortez]

what I meant was that they will garner controversy and loose allot of quality material from their site.

Not sure I follow. How would OCW lose quality material? I assume you mean by some method other than its curators' electing to take it down as it did for the Fall 1999 8.01 material.

 

[russ_watters]

If the punishment is public, shouldn't MIT be forced to disclose the details to some authority?

No, everyone involved probably prefers privacy.

 

[lisab]

But, I mean, he had no problems, at least none reported for 43 years of his career, at least according to the Wiki page. Shouldn't that count for something in his favor?

Wiki isn't a credible source, since wiki pages can be edited by anyone.

 

[dipole]

It says that he "sexually harassed someone online". How do you sexually harass someone online? Unless she was underage, this reeks of some bullshit to me. Is there any woman here who would claim that if some proffessor was making them uncomfortable ONLINE that they wouldn't just cease contact with him, but instead try to ruin the man's life?

 

[nitsuj]

No, everyone involved probably prefers privacy.

So that implies the accused too; so this an example of admitting guilt by being quite. Also is privacy from the law allowed? If someone did a criminal act, does it really a matter if the victim decides not to "press charges", can't an authority of sorts do that?

 

[nitsuj]

It says that he "sexually harassed someone online". How do you sexually harass someone online? Unless she was underage, this reeks of some bullshit to me. Is there any woman here who would claim that if some proffessor was making them uncomfortable ONLINE that they wouldn't just cease contact with him, but instead try to ruin the man's life?

Was the "victim" a subordinate? If yes, then think it through...hint-repeatedly

also "ruined life" doesn't have any objective definition. MIT didn't punish him via reducing his "well being" from a health perspective.

 

[lisab]

It says that he "sexually harassed someone online". How do you sexually harass someone online? Unless she was underage, this reeks of some bullshit to me. Is there any woman here who would claim that if some proffessor was making them uncomfortable ONLINE that they wouldn't just cease contact with him, but instead try to ruin the man's life?

Whew. Not sure where to start...

It's not only possible, but common to sexually harass someone online, using sexually suggestive emails or private messages, for example. I take it you're not female if you've never received one. It happens frequently, and it's pathetic.

But it leaves a trail, of course. So it would be trivially simple to obtain evidence.

I agree harassing underage people is especially heinous, but there is no age at which a person loses protection from harassment.

You think the proper way to handle this is to require the student to stop taking the class or pursuing that line of knowledge, and the professor should be allowed to stay and carry on? Well, students aren't there to be some professor's "prize", and I don't care how famous or well-liked the professor, or how great he is as a lecturer.

Ruin the man's life? If there is such strong evidence that school administrators 86'ed Lewin, it's a good bet he ruined his own life.

 

[WWGD]

Wiki isn't a credible source, since wiki pages can be edited by anyone.

But since he is being accused, I believe accusers should prove this is not so, i.e., provide evidence that this has happened before.
But I agree Lewin himself should try to dispute the charges if he thinks they are false.

 

[WWGD]

No, everyone involved probably prefers privacy.

But I don't think it is , or should be just a matter of preference. What if Lewin decides to go to court, would the accuser's name remain private?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But, I mean, he had no problems, at least none reported for 43 years of his career, at least according to the Wiki page. Shouldn't that count for something in his favor?

If you will tolerate sexual harassment for people under certain circumstances, you do not have a zero tolerance policy. That's hard to argue with. Now, you could argue that there shouldn't be a zero tolerance policy, but then I would turn around and say "when should you tolerate it?"

 

[WWGD]

If you will tolerate sexual harassment for people under certain circumstances, you do not have a zero tolerance policy. That's hard to argue with. Now, you could argue that there shouldn't be a zero tolerance policy, but then I would turn around and say "when should you tolerate it?"

I am not so sure zero-tolerance policies are the best answers in all situations. I can understand why they are desirable, but the world is a complicated place and it is difficult to come up with any rule that will effectively-address every possible situation one may run into; so it is back to a case-by-case, or at least having some flexibility on when/how to enforce rules. I understand the can of worms that opens, but there are also problems with zero tolerance .
It is just hard to believe that (assuming what the Wiki page says is correct) someone who has not done anything wrong would start doing so at 78 years of age, after 43 years with a spotless record. Things don't usually happen that way; crime/misconduct (strongly) correlate negatively with age for those who have a clean record.

 

[nsaspook]

If you will tolerate sexual harassment for people under certain circumstances, you do not have a zero tolerance policy. That's hard to argue with. Now, you could argue that there shouldn't be a zero tolerance policy, but then I would turn around and say "when should you tolerate it?"

You don't tolerate it, you have degrees of punishment. If we can have degrees of punishment for murder surely we can do the same for sexual harassment in a socially acceptable way.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Usually a murder case will go beyond the boundaries of MIT, where we do have varying degrees of punishment for sexual harassment (eg different "levels" of sex offender status, or no punishment at all for that matter). MIT undoubtedly has a zero tolerance policy for murder as well, so there's no inconsistency involved.

 

[WWGD]

Usually a murder case will go beyond the boundaries of MIT, where we do have varying degrees of punishment for sexual harassment (eg different "levels" of sex offender status, or no punishment at all for that matter). MIT undoubtedly has a zero tolerance policy for murder as well, so there's no inconsistency involved.

Well, a better analogy would be using that of causing someone's death; murder is too specific. I would assume that accidentally causing
someone's death or negligence would be punished differently than something like voluntary manslaughter, or murder. But I don't think NSA
Spook is saying that there is an inconsistency; he is suggesting different degrees of "malfeasance" be punished differently, or that the punishment be proportional to the extent of the malfeasance, which makes sense to me. I still think the fact that (if verified) Lewin has no prior record strongly suggests the harassment, if any, was not a serious one; it is known that as anyone with a clean record ages, the probability of committing a crime decreases.

 

[nsaspook]

Usually a murder case will go beyond the boundaries of MIT, where we do have varying degrees of punishment for sexual harassment (eg different "levels" of sex offender status, or no punishment at all for that matter). MIT undoubtedly has a zero tolerance policy for murder as well, so there's no inconsistency involved.

Sure there seems to be no inconsistency involved with tolerance of crime. If the professor had actually committed a criminal act you would think that MIT would be bound to report it to the police so they would not be liable for possible criminal behavior. Because this is usually a civil manner there is usually a monetary advantage to all involved to keep the facts secret that makes it hard to honestly judge if the punishment was proportional to the acts for something like jokes of a sexual nature or was something more serious like adverse acts.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-sexual-harassment-workplace-a-crime.htm

 

[Vanadium 50]

You don't tolerate it, you have degrees of punishment.

MIT would define tolerance as continuing to allow (i.e. "tolerate") the offender to represent MIT. MIT has decided that they do not want to do this in the case of sexual harassment. They could have decided to add "unless he's a really, really good teacher, in which case we expect the person harassed to take it - for the greater good, you see." But they did not.

 

[Evo]

The last place I worked had a 'zero tolerance' rule. one of our best trainers was fired because a new hire he was training was about to be fired, so the new hire complained that the trainer had made a joke that he found inappropriate, it wasn't inappropriate at all (I don't remember it now, but the other students in the class told us the joke and it was fine. But the company was afraid of trouble caused by the new hire, so they fired the manager. He did nothing wrong. And the new hire was fired a few weeks later, he didn't pass training.

Just saying that we cannot assume that Lewin actually did anything that was intentionally offensive, but they don't want to risk a lawsuit.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

The last place I worked had a 'zero tolerance' rule. one of our best trainers was fired because a new hire he was training was about to be fired, so the new hire complained that the trainer had made a joke that he found inappropriate, it wasn't inappropriate at all (I don't remember it now, but the other students in the class told us the joke and it was fine. But the company was afraid of trouble caused by the new hire, so they fired the manager. He did nothing wrong. And the new hire was fired a few weeks later, he didn't pass training...

I'd rather work in a dull morgue than in a place where all of its people are cold-hearted.
If one doesn't like someone else's joke then be straight e.g "C'mon Walter, I don't like your joke, please stop." I think he'll stop. We can't stop jokers from making more jokes. All jokers I have met are funny extroverts. You can't fire them because they slap your butt once while making a joke to encourage you to work better.

 

[Evo]

It was devastating, not only did the trainer do no wrong, his reputation was ruined, his career was ruined, his life was ruined, all for nothing. Just because the company had a "zero tolerance' rule which meant anyone that complained about anything was right, and just fire the manager, end of story. Problem fixed.

 

[Nikitin]

The last place I worked had a 'zero tolerance' rule. one of our best trainers was fired because a new hire he was training was about to be fired, so the new hire complained that the trainer had made a joke that he found inappropriate, it wasn't inappropriate at all (I don't remember it now, but the other students in the class told us the joke and it was fine. But the company was afraid of trouble caused by the new hire, so they fired the manager. He did nothing wrong. And the new hire was fired a few weeks later, he didn't pass training.

Just saying that we cannot assume that Lewin actually did anything that was intentionally offensive, but they don't want to risk a lawsuit.

wow that sounds ridiculous. What was the joke?

 

[nitsuj]

It was devastating, not only did the trainer do no wrong, his reputation was ruined, his career was ruined, his life was ruined, all for nothing. Just because the company had a "zero tolerance' rule which meant anyone that complained about anything was right, and just fire the manager, end of story. Problem fixed.

Is there no way for him to go after the employer for his financial loss (mitigated)?

My understanding of the "law" would be company XYZ hire Justin "the flirt". And during the course of coworkers getting to know me it's found I'm more flirty than an average person. So long as my behavior isn't corrected, it's deemed "acceptable". I cannot be "tricked" into one day it is not, even if the complaint is from the "new girl".

effectively one person should not have the power to "not only did the trainer do no wrong, his reputation was ruined, his career was ruined, his life was ruined," over hearsay harassment, which by definition includes repetition.

In the U.S. can people be fired/"let go" for no reason?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can't fire them because they slap your butt once while making a joke to encourage you to work better.

Actually, you most assuredly can.

 

[nitsuj]

Actually, you most assuredly can.

But(t) that's what Joey "butt slapper" does? You're going to fire him out of the blue now? Give Joey the opportunity to demonstrate it was not "harassment".

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's not confuse things. Zero Tolerance is a statement about penalties. And yes, I agree it can go overboard (like the kid who was expelled for taking the knife away from the other kid who was using it to self-injure), but if you don't have it, you immediately run into the question of what to tolerate and what not to. "First offenders" might be first offenders, or they might be people who have successfully intimidated people they have harassed in the past into not reporting it. We've heard the argument that since Lewin is a really good lecturer, MIT should look the other way. If they had a really, really good lecturer, should he be allowed to get away with even more? What about a really, really, really good lecturer?

The other question is one of investigation. As Evo points out, a slipshod investigation is unjust. I see no evidence that this investigation was anything other than thorough (and knowing some of the people involved, I expect it was complete and fair), and I haven't read any complaints here other than that people didn't like the outcome.

As far as our hypothetical butt-patter, having one's butt patted should not be a condition of employment. If I were "Pat McCann's" supervisor, I would follow whatever the company policy was. If it were termination after one offense, and that offense was substantiated, yes, I would fire him.

 

[russ_watters]

It was devastating, not only did the trainer do no wrong, his reputation was ruined, his career was ruined, his life was ruined, all for nothing. Just because the company had a "zero tolerance' rule which meant anyone that complained about anything was right, and just fire the manager, end of story. Problem fixed.

Couldn't he sue if the policy was misapplied?

 

[Dr Transport]

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance..., now, if MIT Determined there was cause, they have the right to terminate their relationship with the faculty member, emeritus or not and they obviously reserve the right to remove all references to the individual..

If criminal charges have not been filled, that is one thing, but the threshold for civil damages is much lower. If MIT didn't sever ties, they could be held partially responsible in a civil trial later.

 

[lisab]

Lots of talk of law suits in this thread. It's not available in all states. Where I live, Washington, is a "work at will" state, sometimes called "At-will Employment":

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

That article states Massachusetts is an "Implied-in-law Contract" state. It seems that how the law is interpreted relies on precedent:

Court interpretations of this have varied from requiring "just cause" to denial of terminations made for malicious reasons, such as terminating a long-tenured employee solely to avoid the obligation of paying the employee's accrued retirement benefits. Other court rulings have denied the exception, holding that it is too burdensome upon the court for it to have to determine an employer's true motivation for terminating an employee.