Why Did MIT Sever Ties with Walter Lewin?

[camcool21]

I think it is pretty clear that MIT is covering their butts from a potential lawsuit by taking the videos down.

If it was for PR reasons, they would have done nothing at all, as this would have brought the least amount of attention to the issue.

They wouldn't bring big negative PR to the university by publicly taking the videos down and stripping Lewin's emeritus title for moral reasons, as large universities are essentially corporations (not in their legal structure, but in their behavior).

Lewin became a legal liability, so they distanced themselves from him as much as possible, no more, no less.

 

[fluidistic]

Meanwhile while the videos are still available, I cannot find his lecture notes... :(
I'm interested in his lecture notes in electromagnetism (lecture 20 I think he said), about Kirchhoff's rule is for the birds.

 

[WWGD]

I think MIT may be trying to have it both ways with Lewin: when you agree to hire, or to continue hiring, someone who is knowingly-eccentric, you ought to know that borderline-like behavior is likely to happen. If you choose to hire someone like this, you should be willing to give them some (reasonable) leeway, which does not seem to have been the case, at least by reading some of the e-mails (unless I missed something more serious he may have done).

 

[WWGD]

Dr Lewin has not been formally accused of a crime by the state, so the "innocent until proven guilty" law does not necessarily apply. He's being penalized for professional misconduct, not sued or indicted. And since MIT has the right to determine for themselves what constitutes proper professional conduct in order to remain associated with them, they are well within their rights to look at whatever evidence was presented to them, however "trivial" emails or Tweets might seem to some, and decide that it's enough to warrant dissociating with someone. The reason that employers have standards of professionalism is exactly to avoid the situations you seem to be afraid: to someone in a much more vulnerable position, there is indeed a possibility to be deeply disconcerted by what might seem to others as simply crude but playful humor. "Send me nudes lol" (as example only, not that it's what anyone involved in this may have actually said) might very well be something said sarcastically in a humorous context, it could also be soliciting a sexual favor. You could write it off as boys simply being boys, or you might feel deeply uncomfortable about it. To avoid exactly that ambiguity, we simply make the rule that there are certain things that just do not need to be said at all in certain contexts for any reason, one such context is communication between professors and their students.

But you ultimately seem to agree on my assessment ( at least what I was trying to say ) on considering the possibility of crossed signals and misunderstood behavior., i.e., how these may play a role when an accusation of this sort is made

 

[jack476]

But you ultimately seem to agree on my assessment ( at least what I was trying to say ) on considering the possibility of crossed signals and misunderstood behavior., i.e., how these may play a role when an accusation of this sort is made

I suppose that possibility always exists. And I'm pretty sure that it's that possibility that results in the vast majority of sexual harassment and assault claims not being reported, because regardless of their veracity, there ultimately is often little to go on besides the first hand accounts of the victim and the alleged attacker, and since the criminal justice system is (ideally) evidence-based you can't prosecute in good faith when all you've got is an accusation.

I still stand by my argument that MIT wouldn't cut out one of their most famous figures without very solid evidence of a very serious problem, however.

 

[Tosh5457]

Right, "harassment". Probably the girl showed interest and then called it harassment to get a lawsuit or something. That doesn't make any sense... Even if he harassed a girl, that doesn't invalidate his teaching about physics lol. Henry Ford was racist and anti-Semitic, let's close the company because of this.

 

[Czcibor]

Dr Lewin has not been formally accused of a crime by the state, so the "innocent until proven guilty" law does not necessarily apply. He's being penalized for professional misconduct, not sued or indicted. And since MIT has the right to determine for themselves what constitutes proper professional conduct in order to remain associated with them, they are well within their rights to look at whatever evidence was presented to them, however "trivial" emails or Tweets might seem to some, and decide that it's enough to warrant dissociating with someone. The reason that employers have standards of professionalism is exactly to avoid the situations you seem to be afraid: to someone in a much more vulnerable position, there is indeed a possibility to be deeply disconcerted by what might seem to others as simply crude but playful humor. "Send me nudes lol" (as example only, not that it's what anyone involved in this may have actually said) might very well be something said sarcastically in a humorous context, it could also be soliciting a sexual favor. You could write it off as boys simply being boys, or you might feel deeply uncomfortable about it. To avoid exactly that ambiguity, we simply make the rule that there are certain things that just do not need to be said at all in certain contexts for any reason, one such context is communication between professors and their students.

Honestly speaking it brings me to awkward question of anti-discrimination rules. Maybe texting from time to time "send me nudes lol" should be protected as part of sexual orientation?

I understand the rules they have, so they play technically speaking legally. Just when I try to figure out that legal system was constructed in quite funny way - in some situations you are forced to be damn careful not to fire someone whose harmless sexual behaviour you may not like, while in other you are effectively encouraged to just to fire them. Curious how many of such people are going to be rehabilitated in a century or so as already homosexuals were.

 

[lisab]

I think MIT may be trying to have it both ways with Lewin: when you agree to hire, or to continue hiring, someone who is knowingly-eccentric, you ought to know that borderline-like behavior is likely to happen. If you choose to hire someone like this, you should be willing to give them some (reasonable) leeway, which does not seem to have been the case, at least by reading some of the e-mails (unless I missed something more serious he may have done).

WWGD, I really like you, and I'm glad you're part of the PF family. But your posts in this thread indicate to me you don't have much experience in the workplace.

When an organization hires someone, "knowingly-eccentric" or not, the organization does so with certain expectations of the employee that are spelled out in a legally binding contract. Regarding how students are treated, you can be sure a smart organization like MIT will explicitly define what behavior will and will not be tolerated. MIT isn't stupid. They would have defined what we call "the crap that will get you fired" in terms neither vague nor ambiguous.

This was a big decision by MIT. It's a good bet there is evidence we have not seen.

If Lewin's contract allowed him to engage in what you call "borderline-like behavior", he would have a defensible case. As far as we know, Lewin hasn't challenged the evidence, or appealed the decision. So I have to ask you - how come you feel so confident defending him?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Right, "harassment". Probably the girl showed interest and then called it harassment to get a lawsuit or something.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Even if he harassed a girl, that doesn't invalidate his teaching about physics lol.

No, but MIT can (and did) say that he can teach his physics elsewhere; MIT does not condone such actions.

 

[WWGD]

WWGD, I really like you, and I'm glad you're part of the PF family. But your posts in this thread indicate to me you don't have much experience in the workplace.

When an organization hires someone, "knowingly-eccentric" or not, the organization does so with certain expectations of the employee that are spelled out in a legally binding contract. Regarding how students are treated, you can be sure a smart organization like MIT will explicitly define what behavior will and will not be tolerated. MIT isn't stupid. They would have defined what we call "the crap that will get you fired" in terms neither vague nor ambiguous.

This was a big decision by MIT. It's a good bet there is evidence we have not seen.

If Lewin's contract allowed him to engage in what you call "borderline-like behavior", he would have a defensible case. As far as we know, Lewin hasn't challenged the evidence, or appealed the decision. So I have to ask you - how come you feel so confident defending him?

I understand that Lewin is bound by MIT and by local , national laws and by the contracts he signs; what I meant is MIT should have known they were dealing with someone who did not play by the rules, so it is not reasonable for them to expect him to comply. It Is as if you hire Howard Stern, to benefit from his popularity and then expect him to behave in a standard way ; this is not likely, even if Stern signs a legally binding contract. And my reason to continue with this is basically that if I was fired, that someone would ask the questions I am asking. I was let go as an adjunct while having excellent reviews from both professors and from students and no one gave a damn. I understand Lewin is not being tried, but, again, one has to dig deeply to get at the truth in most situations, and that is what I am trying to do here. If an argument against Lewin is strong -enough, it should withstand any criticism that I or anyone else may have. This is independent of Lewin, whom I knew nothing about until this post. I understand it is difficult to apply this standard all the time, but I try to live by it whenever possible. I agree that the case must be strong-enough, but it is always worthwhile to dig in more deeply to make sure one is not missing something important.

 

[WWGD]

I have to admit too, without going too far in this direction, that I want to make sure that in _general_, these acusations are not too easy to make, by questioning when they happen. If the accusations are legitimate, they should be able to withstand the scrutiny. If you make these accusations too easy to do, you create ( at least for me) an uncomfortable social climate ). It is a delicate balance to find a way of figuring out which accusations are legitimate and which are not.

 

[ShayanJ]

I always remind myself that in such situations I shouldn't base my thoughts on things I'm not sure of. Sometimes it means you're not allowed to have any idea about the matter at hand but I don't think its one of those cases.
There are two possibilities here:

1) He didn't intended to do a sexual harassment. This means he was just joking with the girl and said something that she considered as sexual harassment. Some people here say that it was the girl's mistake to take it the wrong way but this is a very weird idea. If you expect the girl to differentiate between a joke and a sexual harassment only through seeing some words appearing on the screen, how can't you expect a man as old as Lewin to understand what his words may mean to a young girl who's not hearing his voice or seeing his face?! If I were an employer, I wouldn't tolerate such a person who couldn't even learn this simple thing through out that many years of his life. The fact that he doesn't understand what he's saying doesn't make a difference in the damage that the girl may bear. So if this professor doesn't understand these things and may hurt the students only because he doesn't know the rules of joking, its of course both the university's and the student's right to have him fired.
2) He intended to do a sexual harassment. This case is trivial!

But about removing his lectures from MIT's website. The first simple reason that comes into mind is publicity. People may say "Hey, we don't want our kids to be educated by such a man, now whatever he's saying in those lectures!". This may seem to be a bad reason to some people. But I see a good reason too. By removing the lectures from their website, MIT is delivering this message that they value moralities and student's rights as much as education, or maybe even more. So if a professor isn't going to play right, either intentionally or not, MIT simply says "we need none of your services and it doesn't matter how good you are in doing them!". This is both a relief to students and a warning to other professors that only because they're good at what they're doing, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.

Actually now that I think about it, I admire MIT for these decisions. But I should say this will be completely right only if they record some good fundamental physics lectures and upload them in their site.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And another reason I have for doubting the accusations is that Lewin, at 78, has no prior record, at least
nothing known.

when you agree to hire, or to continue hiring, someone who is knowingly-eccentric, you ought to know that borderline-like behavior is likely to happen.

In seven days, your position seems to have turned around.

 

[WWGD]

In seven days, your position seems to have turned around.

Not quite: borderline behavior $\neq$ actual harassment.

 

[russ_watters]

Not quite: borderline behavior $\neq$ actual harassment.

That's actually a contradiction and you probably don't know it because, as lisab said, you're not in the workforce so you've never had sexual harassment training. There is no "borderline" precisely because "borderline" behavior would be subject to interpretation and a company can't allow behavior that can be interpreted as harassment. So the typical language used to describe allowable/not allowable behavior is that you can't say anything that can give even "the appearance of impropriety" (as opposed to actual impropriety).

You can google that phrase and the resulting hits are all to corporate/government ethics policies. For example:
http://www.legalethicstexas.com/Eth...ould-Avoid-Impropriety-and-the-Appearanc.aspx

There can be no "crossed signals" if there are no signals.

 

[WWGD]

What do you think, I have never worked? I am not that rich. I am unemployed now, but I spent many years as an adjunct
though I never received any sexual harassment training. I guess I have enough common sense to not require training, because in 8 years+ as an adjunct, I never had any problem, neither with colleagues nor with students. So there go your unfounded theories/assumptions. EDIT: and this was in the 2000's-2010's that I was working as an adjunct.

EDIT 2: Anyone have a copy of any actual e-mails sent by Lewin, or any other specifics about his alleged misconduct? It could be a case of political correctness; it would not be the first time. Unless you have specifics, you are all speculating. At least I admit I am not sure of what happened, and until then, I will not condemn (nor support) Lewin.

EDIT3: I was an adjunct for many years in schools in which there was a strong feminist movement. You would see the nastiest, unfounded name-calling and blaming men for all of humanities ills. And no one ever challenged them, nor dared oppose them. This is a recipe for false accusations. Until I see what actually happened, the actual e-mails, I refuse to go along.

 

[jz92wjaz]

Just one quick comment. I would not give extra leeway to someone eccentric to make sexually (or racially) inappropriate comments, even if they seem innocent enough. This isn't to say I'd fire a teacher for a minor indiscretion, but it would be addressed according to the severity and intent of the offense. I wouldn't want to give the impression to harassers or potential harassers that sexual misconduct will be tolerated.

 

[WWGD]

I think many here are being very naive believing that the top priority of MIT as well as that of many other academic (and other types of) institutions is that of
uncovering the truth at any expense. Covering their behinds , defending their reputation in any way they can are all pretty high in the list of priorities of most institutions, and it is an angle that many of those that believe Lewin was rightly terminated have not seriously considered/addressed. I don't know Lewin, but I hav eno basis to conclude he was neither correctly nor incorrectly terminated, and I have seen no solid basis offered for neither side.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you think, I have never worked?

I had no idea about your age or background, but only surmised from your postings that you have a lack of sexual harassment training. So:

...I spent many years as an adjunct though I never received any sexual harassment training.

That's shocking. Sexual harassment training has been pretty standard for decades. I am very surprised you've never had any.

I guess I have enough common sense to not require training, because in 8 years+ as an adjunct, I never had any problem, neither with colleagues nor with students.

Whether it is true or not, it wouldn't be relevant. Training is given to everyone, because obviously it is impossible to know ahead of time who might violate the policy.

Unless you have specifics, you are all speculating. At least I admit I am not sure of what happened, and until then, I will not condemn (nor support) Lewin.

We all admit that we don't know, but again, your position requires more assumptions than ours because it requires assuming both the student and MIT did wrong. All we are assuming is that MIT did right by the evidence that none of us have (and their policy/priorities).

I was an adjunct for many years in schools in which there was a strong feminist movement. You would see the nastiest, unfounded name-calling and blaming men for all of humanities ills. And no one ever challenged them, nor dared oppose them. This is a recipe for false accusations. Until I see what actually happened, the actual e-mails, I refuse to go along.

Your bias might be understandable given your frame of reference, but that doesn't make it logical or good practice.

 

[russ_watters]

I think many here are being very naive believing that the top priority of MIT as well as that of many other academic (and other types of) institutions is that of uncovering the truth at any expense.

I doubt anyone is that naive/actually believes that.

Covering their behinds , defending their reputation in any way they can are all pretty high in the list of priorities of most institutions...

Agreed, as several people have explicitly stated in the thread.

...and it is an angle that many of those that believe Lewin was rightly terminated have not seriously considered/addressed.

The issues are not mutually exclusive. Lewin has just as much responsibility to MIT's reputation as MIT's leadership does. So there is no conflict of priorities and no reason to label such priorities as a wrongful reason for terminating him.

I don't know Lewin, but I hav eno basis to conclude he was neither correctly nor incorrectly terminated, and I have seen no solid basis offered for neither side.

Nor do I. I simply choose to trust that MIT believed-in what they did.

 

[OCR]

All we are assuming is that MIT did right by the evidence that none of us have...

Well, yeah, that makes total sense... I guess? lol

 

[russ_watters]

Well, yeah, that makes total sense... I guess? lol

Not "total" sense, but more sense than assuming impropriety by MIT, without evidence.

 

[OCR]

Not "total" sense, but more sense than assuming impropriety by MIT, without evidence.

That is allowable... with sensible restraint...

 

[russ_watters]

That is allowable... with sensible restraint...

[sigh] Again, given that we are not privy to the evidence, it is more logical to make one no-evidence assumption than two+.

 

[OCR]

[sigh]

Lol...

Again, given that we are not privy to the evidence, it is more logical to make one no-evidence assumption than two+.

[shrugs] Well, I'll step out now, but... do carry on...

 

[Evo]

We are now at 8 pages of repeating the same thing on both sides. Until new information is shared on the content of what the conversations were from both parties, thread is closed.