This whole situation strikes me as a malignant form of the heckler's veto. Also I am reminded of the Scarlet Letter and The Crucible.
The part that seems most tractable to address are published institutional policies that exact collateral damage, e.g. the one that banned you, "Participants must not promote the work of those who have violated Professional Codes of Ethics..." https://sites.psu.edu/setisymposium2023/code-of-conduct/
If such a policy were to be applied in a uniform and consistent manner, it would invalidate many attendees and presentations.
Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 19, 2023Liked by Beatriz Villarroel
SETI seems to think that, like stargazers need a lightless place, the best way to find extraterrestial intelligence is to turn off their own.
Seriously, this case makes me appreciate working in a field that has a low presence on Twitter. At this point, it should be clear to anyone that doing PR on major social networks is not extending your reach but handing veto power to strangers.
I think it also provides an excellent solution to Fermi's paradox, as this group of astronomers are too busy bullying. I know I'm not the only one being targeted.
The art must be separated from the artist. If the offender can continue to contribute positively to society, then it could only be socially detrimental to prevent him from doing so. The offender should suffer the appropriate repercussions according to the law, but ordinary citizens should not act as additional judges, juries, and executioners by imposing further punishment (by harassing, ostracizing, canceling, etc.).
I became aware of the problem only peripherally, but reading this full account reveals the alarming nature of a Mafia with PhDs. I have a PhD and everyone with one should take a stand against this new form of affaire Dreyfus. We are in the Age of the Bully, and fascists in academia are hiding behind their institutions and titles, forgetting that the academy is meant to be the seat of integrity, not just knowledge. If they don't mind killing careers in a racketeering conspiracy of censorship, what trust can we place on their actual work and results? It isn't a good look for them.
I would love to know the names of these cowards, once you publish what they've written you, their institutions will disavow them. "May everything used against me be turned against my enemy."
Science has suffered, but the Karma will be visited entirely on these individuals. Good always triumphs, and wounds serve only to strengthen your voice in the end. I will follow you with great interest.
I also saw the comparison with Dreyfus and Emile Zola. They were 100 years adrift from the Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man' as Zola pointed out in his public missive. I edited out that comparison from a piece I recently wrote - I was trying to make the point that we seem to forget ourselves every two generations but it was getting unwieldy. I did make the comparison of two events about 100 years apart which was an intentional borrowing from Zola.
A weakness in this essay, for me, is the part about legal due process. Universities have their own due processes, such as they are, and much wrong behavior isn't appropriate to adjudicate in a criminal or civil court. Institutional processes, again - such as they are, have much merit compared to the court of public opinion.
The NSF recently awarded a CAREER grant to an assistant professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley. The outreach component of the project involves convicts in the San Quentin prison. It's worth thinking about a comparison: why does the US NSF fund such a project, but some other organizations disallow promotion of the research of anyone who has violated a code of conduct? https://www.dailycal.org/2023/01/23/assistant-professor-of-chemistry-receives-nsf-career-award
Title IX is flawed and does not constitute due process by any standard of Western justice - that may seem glib of me but it is stance I offer some justification for in a forthcoming article. I argue it is ad-hoc and lacking legal competences. I also argue that they are heavily influenced by the 'court of public opinion' - so far from having more merit as you suggest, I would say they are conflicted but ultimately tend to validate the mob. Again I make that case elsewhere but if we are getting to the equivalent of book burnings we are in the midst of a purge.
On a separate note, your San Quentin comments are a good example that I might like to use so I am much obliged to you for it - more grist to the mill. I recently found this case in pursuit of a similar point, which I think is equally interesting - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/harvard-nyu-prison-michelle-jones.html
It concerns a woman who murdered her four year old child who then undertook academic studies in prison. Upon her early release 20 years later, she had a place at Harvard to pursue a PhD but ultimately it was withdrawn over backlash fears. In my view, even if one was to conclude it was the right decision, it would have been for the wrong reason.
My more general point is that she managed to get published in prison. However, that doesn't make the people who supported her apologists for child murder, nor does it suggest that some code of ethics was violated.
Hi Michael, I look forward to your article. If it's not too late, please examine whether most Title IX cases happen in secret and no mob is ever aware of them. This is a significant selection effect that may complicate your thesis. My defense of Title IX was qualified: I wrote, "Universities have their own due processes," with "such as they are...." I was steel-manning but only in comparison to the court of public opinion (CoPO).
One thing Title IX investigations have going for them that the CoPO does not, are facts. What is available to the CoPO, if anything, tends to be a redacted, filtered, weirdly distorted version of what the Title IX office, the complainant, and the respondent all had (or will have) before them.
Sometimes a Title IX case is heavily influenced by the CoPO and by a University's interest in protecting its brand. I think the numbers would show that such examples are a very small minority of cases. Most cases are adjudicated in secret and the CoPO never hears about them.
In the specific case of Marcy at UCB, there was growing frustration on the part of some dozens (?) of astronomers, and especially by a few persons in particular, with what they perceived as inadequate punishment of Marcy's behavior. Part of that perception was caused by the secrecy of the Title IX process. The CoPO interest swelled only AFTER the Title IX office had already finished its work, and Marcy had been sanctioned by UCB (in secret). It was the BuzzFeed article(s) that initiated the CoPO "proceedings" that resulted in additional punishment of Marcy.
Your thesis of CoPO influencing institutions could apply to the regulations (documented in one of my other comments) that restrict the academic freedom of the author who has chosen to associate with Marcy, as the essay describes.
Hi Peter, yes I take those points. Thank you. As I said elsewhere, the Title IX process is ostensibly confidential but BuzzFeed News seemingly were privy to the details - which is a breach. On the facts you mentioned, I found it interesting that one of the contributory cases that resulted in the 'balance of probabilities' decision was later retracted. The witness thought they saw Dr Marcy take an inebriated student into her room when in fact he was placing her in the custody of her female roommate. The alleged victim made the clarification and the witness withdrew their statement so arguably that would impact the probability of guilt - but my understanding was that this only became known after the adjudication had taken place. That aside it also suggests that Berkeley made little effort to corroborate witness accounts which feeds into my point about competence. I have other questions in that vein. I did see your 'such as they are' qualifier so apologise if you think I did not adequately take that into account. My understanding is that after the BuzzFeed article the escalation that brought Dr Marcy's colleagues into the fray which led to his decision to resign. In fact that is what BuzzFeed also say. Clearly, for reasons we can speculate, Berkeley did not want him to go. Where I think we would most agree is on the clarity of message from Berkeley which completely failed to judge the mood. Again I think this is a competence issue. I also understand Berkeley's treatment of Title IX cases in general was subject to review that took 4 years to complete. Ditto.
On the broader application of Title IX, I found there to be no central record of cases although I have seen some attempts to pull records together through FOI requests. I am necessarily agnostic on points of fact relating to this case but there are nevertheless some obvious injustices that emerge from what is in the public domain. Your note that the public response only came after the adjudication became public knowledge is something I need to review so thanks for that and your other comments. I based that on my understanding of the 'complainant 3' statement that implied sexual harassment was widespread and common knowledge. She said it was commonplace that complaints were disregarded and indeed, that was the reason she gave to BuzzFeed as to why she kept quiet for 8 years.
I know a lot about the Marcy case, and I know that there's a lot I don't know.
I find it distressing how other astronomers feel ignorance frees them to judge rather than to reserve judgment. When I read a criminal trial result, I am relieved to not have to try to figure out justice from what (little) I know, but instead accept the jury's verdict as the "official" truth.
I want to say: the details of Marcy's case are largely unimportant to me with respect to the current treatment of those who choose to associate with him (or anyone), and that was the point of B.V.'s essay.
I can clarify for you that my comment about the CoPO only coming after Buzzfeed's article does not invalidate your memory that there were dozens of astronomers aware of allegations over many years. I don't consider the latter "public opinion." Clearly the actions of activist astronomers motivated the Title IX investigation of Marcy; that much is in the 100+ page record from the Title IX office.
A problem with Title IX processes is that even if an investigation results in sanctions, their secrecy contributes to a feeling that complaints are being disregarded.
But the confidentiality is in part to protect complainants and they would know whether or not their complaints have been disregarded. I am trying to understand (whilst avoiding speculation) what the general dissatisfaction with the outcome was based on.
I can provide some perspective, having been intimately involved. They wanted blood, and UCB’s (appropriate, IMHO) response to allow Geoff to continue with a few restrictions was insufficient. There were several astronomers who worked over several years, interviewing any woman who had ever been in the Berkeley astronomy department, to find women willing to file a complaint (I’ll call them the “Hunters”) In the documents from the Title IX office, there are many emails from the Hunters to the Title IX office requesting action. But the way Title IX is written, the complaint has to be filed by the person who actually experienced the harassment. So even after years of work, this group of astronomers had trouble finding women to file a complaint. As it was, two of the four complaints filed (the only two that were valid) were for interactions that were the result of Geoff treating the person like a friend—something you can’t do these days. The worst complaint was completely fabricated (and brokered by one of the Hunters) And the last one (co-assisting a drunk student home from a party) was created by one of the Hunters who later (under pressure from the student who was assisted—the supposed victim) retracted her statement. So after all that work, the Hunters wanted blood, and the University didn’t give it to them. They did not want the process to be confidential, and because one of them was a complainant, she had access to the information and leaked it to BuzzFeed to amplify the pressure. It was a well-planned media campaign.
Hi Michael, I don't want to be drawn into a long public discussion of Marcy's case. I read your first article and will read the others when they are published. I encourage you to seek some form of informal but informed peer review prior to posting.
I will reply here briefly. (1) I don't know if the complainants were told all of the specifics of UCB's sanctions of Marcy. (Not saying they weren't. Saying I don't know.) (2) in any case (as you already know) in addition to the complainants, dozens of astronomers knew an investigation was happening: that reinforces my point about secrecy. (3) I repeat myself that the details of the Marcy case are almost unessential for me to be distressed by the implications of this essay. (4) more generally, I think it will be more effective and productive to change culture in ways that are upstream of policies, allegations, adjudication, official sanctions, rumor mills, shaming of the guilty, and ostracizing those who choose to associate with them.
I support you as a person. But you must realize that certain behaviors requires, before that one is re-admitted in the scientific community at least a public , sincere, deep and humble excuses to women and then to all colleagues , of such behaviors. Until then, a ban for all people involved is correct, in my opinion .
Paulo, I support your commenting, "I support you as a person. But you must realize that certain behaviors requires, before that one is re-admitted in the scientific community at least a public , sincere, deep and humble excuses to women and then to all colleagues , of such behaviors. Until then, a ban for all people involved is correct, in my opinion ." I second your support for BV as a person, making her own choices in her career and her life. I also acknowledge her courage to write an essay about her views and her experiences.
As a graduate student at Berkeley and having worked in exoplanets for decades, I know more than many about this topic, and yet I know that I am ignorant of so much too.
I encourage you to write an essay for HeterodoxSTEM about apologies, to expand on your comment. There have been essays written already, even related to Marcy's contemporaneous published apology, describing it as inadequate, or insincere and self serving, but I think your essay could be an important contribution, given the many years of cultural change that have occured since 2015. For context, I invite you or anyone to describe how you'd feel if, for instance, an academic conference's policy disallowed any speaker who had previously spoken at a conference held in Russia after it had invaded Crimea, Ukraine in 2014. That's another form of banishment for association. Of course they're different, and it would be interesting to explore that in an essay. The moral dilemma of allocution has been explored at length in legal analysis, especially related to parole, but your essay could apply those philosophical analyses to this particular case or to sexual harassment and academia more generally. I know, it would be a lot of work to do so, and fraught with the risk of your essay being glibly misrepresented in social media.
Less work, with less risk, would be to link to an essay, already published, that expresses your thoughts well enough. Grace be with you Paulo and with Beatriz, and to any others reading this comment.
Hat's off to Beatriz for sharing her story! Let's hope the sunshine will kill these germs.
Dear Anna, thank you so much for your wonderful support.
This whole situation strikes me as a malignant form of the heckler's veto. Also I am reminded of the Scarlet Letter and The Crucible.
The part that seems most tractable to address are published institutional policies that exact collateral damage, e.g. the one that banned you, "Participants must not promote the work of those who have violated Professional Codes of Ethics..." https://sites.psu.edu/setisymposium2023/code-of-conduct/
If such a policy were to be applied in a uniform and consistent manner, it would invalidate many attendees and presentations.
Dr. Villarroel, I suggest you may benefit from joining the https://heterodoxacademy.org/
Dear Peter, I thank you dearly for your wonderful support.
Three AAS committee members posted the following essay to the AAS website a couple weeks ago, titled "Citation Ethics in Publishing." The essay's repeated description of citing persons as compared with citing articles is a poor premise from which to start. https://web.archive.org/web/20230615213019/https://aas.org/posts/news/2023/06/citation-ethics-publishing
SETI seems to think that, like stargazers need a lightless place, the best way to find extraterrestial intelligence is to turn off their own.
Seriously, this case makes me appreciate working in a field that has a low presence on Twitter. At this point, it should be clear to anyone that doing PR on major social networks is not extending your reach but handing veto power to strangers.
I think it also provides an excellent solution to Fermi's paradox, as this group of astronomers are too busy bullying. I know I'm not the only one being targeted.
The art must be separated from the artist. If the offender can continue to contribute positively to society, then it could only be socially detrimental to prevent him from doing so. The offender should suffer the appropriate repercussions according to the law, but ordinary citizens should not act as additional judges, juries, and executioners by imposing further punishment (by harassing, ostracizing, canceling, etc.).
In absolute agreement.
I became aware of the problem only peripherally, but reading this full account reveals the alarming nature of a Mafia with PhDs. I have a PhD and everyone with one should take a stand against this new form of affaire Dreyfus. We are in the Age of the Bully, and fascists in academia are hiding behind their institutions and titles, forgetting that the academy is meant to be the seat of integrity, not just knowledge. If they don't mind killing careers in a racketeering conspiracy of censorship, what trust can we place on their actual work and results? It isn't a good look for them.
I would love to know the names of these cowards, once you publish what they've written you, their institutions will disavow them. "May everything used against me be turned against my enemy."
Science has suffered, but the Karma will be visited entirely on these individuals. Good always triumphs, and wounds serve only to strengthen your voice in the end. I will follow you with great interest.
Blessings.
F
Dear Francisco, I thank you whole-heartedly for your wonderful support. I really appreciate it.
I also saw the comparison with Dreyfus and Emile Zola. They were 100 years adrift from the Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man' as Zola pointed out in his public missive. I edited out that comparison from a piece I recently wrote - I was trying to make the point that we seem to forget ourselves every two generations but it was getting unwieldy. I did make the comparison of two events about 100 years apart which was an intentional borrowing from Zola.
Wow. I shared the link to the story on Twitter.
How does one tell a first author it's not her paper?!
Agreed, I was also shocked.
Hang in there.
Yep.
Hello Beatriz,
This is horrible and I'm sorry you are having all this trouble. Geoff should be released .. and we should all move on.
Take care, Jane L Piepes .. Artist Musician Teacher
I thank you so much for your wonderful support, Jane.
First of five articles in support: https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelvigne/p/s11-e1-in-the-eye-of-the-swarm?r=2bzb33&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you so much for your kind support -- its dearly appreciated. I will forward your essays to my friends and colleagues.
You are welcome. This is symptomatic of a far bigger problem and I don't think ignoring it is any kind of option.
The essay is really great. Thank you so much for this.
That's very kind. Thank you.
A weakness in this essay, for me, is the part about legal due process. Universities have their own due processes, such as they are, and much wrong behavior isn't appropriate to adjudicate in a criminal or civil court. Institutional processes, again - such as they are, have much merit compared to the court of public opinion.
The NSF recently awarded a CAREER grant to an assistant professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley. The outreach component of the project involves convicts in the San Quentin prison. It's worth thinking about a comparison: why does the US NSF fund such a project, but some other organizations disallow promotion of the research of anyone who has violated a code of conduct? https://www.dailycal.org/2023/01/23/assistant-professor-of-chemistry-receives-nsf-career-award
Not unique. Here's another chemist, CAREER grantee, Cottrell Scholar, and Sloan Fellow working with inmates. Presumably there are others. https://www.chemistry.ucla.edu/news/nsf-early-career-development-award/
This is a really excellent point, Peter.
Title IX is flawed and does not constitute due process by any standard of Western justice - that may seem glib of me but it is stance I offer some justification for in a forthcoming article. I argue it is ad-hoc and lacking legal competences. I also argue that they are heavily influenced by the 'court of public opinion' - so far from having more merit as you suggest, I would say they are conflicted but ultimately tend to validate the mob. Again I make that case elsewhere but if we are getting to the equivalent of book burnings we are in the midst of a purge.
On a separate note, your San Quentin comments are a good example that I might like to use so I am much obliged to you for it - more grist to the mill. I recently found this case in pursuit of a similar point, which I think is equally interesting - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/harvard-nyu-prison-michelle-jones.html
It concerns a woman who murdered her four year old child who then undertook academic studies in prison. Upon her early release 20 years later, she had a place at Harvard to pursue a PhD but ultimately it was withdrawn over backlash fears. In my view, even if one was to conclude it was the right decision, it would have been for the wrong reason.
My more general point is that she managed to get published in prison. However, that doesn't make the people who supported her apologists for child murder, nor does it suggest that some code of ethics was violated.
Hi Michael, I look forward to your article. If it's not too late, please examine whether most Title IX cases happen in secret and no mob is ever aware of them. This is a significant selection effect that may complicate your thesis. My defense of Title IX was qualified: I wrote, "Universities have their own due processes," with "such as they are...." I was steel-manning but only in comparison to the court of public opinion (CoPO).
One thing Title IX investigations have going for them that the CoPO does not, are facts. What is available to the CoPO, if anything, tends to be a redacted, filtered, weirdly distorted version of what the Title IX office, the complainant, and the respondent all had (or will have) before them.
Sometimes a Title IX case is heavily influenced by the CoPO and by a University's interest in protecting its brand. I think the numbers would show that such examples are a very small minority of cases. Most cases are adjudicated in secret and the CoPO never hears about them.
In the specific case of Marcy at UCB, there was growing frustration on the part of some dozens (?) of astronomers, and especially by a few persons in particular, with what they perceived as inadequate punishment of Marcy's behavior. Part of that perception was caused by the secrecy of the Title IX process. The CoPO interest swelled only AFTER the Title IX office had already finished its work, and Marcy had been sanctioned by UCB (in secret). It was the BuzzFeed article(s) that initiated the CoPO "proceedings" that resulted in additional punishment of Marcy.
Your thesis of CoPO influencing institutions could apply to the regulations (documented in one of my other comments) that restrict the academic freedom of the author who has chosen to associate with Marcy, as the essay describes.
Hi Peter, yes I take those points. Thank you. As I said elsewhere, the Title IX process is ostensibly confidential but BuzzFeed News seemingly were privy to the details - which is a breach. On the facts you mentioned, I found it interesting that one of the contributory cases that resulted in the 'balance of probabilities' decision was later retracted. The witness thought they saw Dr Marcy take an inebriated student into her room when in fact he was placing her in the custody of her female roommate. The alleged victim made the clarification and the witness withdrew their statement so arguably that would impact the probability of guilt - but my understanding was that this only became known after the adjudication had taken place. That aside it also suggests that Berkeley made little effort to corroborate witness accounts which feeds into my point about competence. I have other questions in that vein. I did see your 'such as they are' qualifier so apologise if you think I did not adequately take that into account. My understanding is that after the BuzzFeed article the escalation that brought Dr Marcy's colleagues into the fray which led to his decision to resign. In fact that is what BuzzFeed also say. Clearly, for reasons we can speculate, Berkeley did not want him to go. Where I think we would most agree is on the clarity of message from Berkeley which completely failed to judge the mood. Again I think this is a competence issue. I also understand Berkeley's treatment of Title IX cases in general was subject to review that took 4 years to complete. Ditto.
On the broader application of Title IX, I found there to be no central record of cases although I have seen some attempts to pull records together through FOI requests. I am necessarily agnostic on points of fact relating to this case but there are nevertheless some obvious injustices that emerge from what is in the public domain. Your note that the public response only came after the adjudication became public knowledge is something I need to review so thanks for that and your other comments. I based that on my understanding of the 'complainant 3' statement that implied sexual harassment was widespread and common knowledge. She said it was commonplace that complaints were disregarded and indeed, that was the reason she gave to BuzzFeed as to why she kept quiet for 8 years.
I know a lot about the Marcy case, and I know that there's a lot I don't know.
I find it distressing how other astronomers feel ignorance frees them to judge rather than to reserve judgment. When I read a criminal trial result, I am relieved to not have to try to figure out justice from what (little) I know, but instead accept the jury's verdict as the "official" truth.
I want to say: the details of Marcy's case are largely unimportant to me with respect to the current treatment of those who choose to associate with him (or anyone), and that was the point of B.V.'s essay.
I can clarify for you that my comment about the CoPO only coming after Buzzfeed's article does not invalidate your memory that there were dozens of astronomers aware of allegations over many years. I don't consider the latter "public opinion." Clearly the actions of activist astronomers motivated the Title IX investigation of Marcy; that much is in the 100+ page record from the Title IX office.
A problem with Title IX processes is that even if an investigation results in sanctions, their secrecy contributes to a feeling that complaints are being disregarded.
But the confidentiality is in part to protect complainants and they would know whether or not their complaints have been disregarded. I am trying to understand (whilst avoiding speculation) what the general dissatisfaction with the outcome was based on.
I can provide some perspective, having been intimately involved. They wanted blood, and UCB’s (appropriate, IMHO) response to allow Geoff to continue with a few restrictions was insufficient. There were several astronomers who worked over several years, interviewing any woman who had ever been in the Berkeley astronomy department, to find women willing to file a complaint (I’ll call them the “Hunters”) In the documents from the Title IX office, there are many emails from the Hunters to the Title IX office requesting action. But the way Title IX is written, the complaint has to be filed by the person who actually experienced the harassment. So even after years of work, this group of astronomers had trouble finding women to file a complaint. As it was, two of the four complaints filed (the only two that were valid) were for interactions that were the result of Geoff treating the person like a friend—something you can’t do these days. The worst complaint was completely fabricated (and brokered by one of the Hunters) And the last one (co-assisting a drunk student home from a party) was created by one of the Hunters who later (under pressure from the student who was assisted—the supposed victim) retracted her statement. So after all that work, the Hunters wanted blood, and the University didn’t give it to them. They did not want the process to be confidential, and because one of them was a complainant, she had access to the information and leaked it to BuzzFeed to amplify the pressure. It was a well-planned media campaign.
Hi Michael, I don't want to be drawn into a long public discussion of Marcy's case. I read your first article and will read the others when they are published. I encourage you to seek some form of informal but informed peer review prior to posting.
I will reply here briefly. (1) I don't know if the complainants were told all of the specifics of UCB's sanctions of Marcy. (Not saying they weren't. Saying I don't know.) (2) in any case (as you already know) in addition to the complainants, dozens of astronomers knew an investigation was happening: that reinforces my point about secrecy. (3) I repeat myself that the details of the Marcy case are almost unessential for me to be distressed by the implications of this essay. (4) more generally, I think it will be more effective and productive to change culture in ways that are upstream of policies, allegations, adjudication, official sanctions, rumor mills, shaming of the guilty, and ostracizing those who choose to associate with them.
Thank you, Beatriz.
Thank you, Judy!
I admire your principled courage.
I support you as a person. But you must realize that certain behaviors requires, before that one is re-admitted in the scientific community at least a public , sincere, deep and humble excuses to women and then to all colleagues , of such behaviors. Until then, a ban for all people involved is correct, in my opinion .
I have tried briefly, without success, to identify BV's line, "Where heads did mercilessly fall, no apologies are expected, nor given at all."
Google sent me to this paper about apologies. https://hbr.org/2006/04/when-should-a-leader-apologize-and-when-not and the following one, interestingly dated around the time Marcy apologized and then announced his retirement. Even though its author is affiliated with a Berkeley organization, her essay makes no mention of Marcy's case. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_three_parts_of_an_effective_apology
Paulo, I support your commenting, "I support you as a person. But you must realize that certain behaviors requires, before that one is re-admitted in the scientific community at least a public , sincere, deep and humble excuses to women and then to all colleagues , of such behaviors. Until then, a ban for all people involved is correct, in my opinion ." I second your support for BV as a person, making her own choices in her career and her life. I also acknowledge her courage to write an essay about her views and her experiences.
As a graduate student at Berkeley and having worked in exoplanets for decades, I know more than many about this topic, and yet I know that I am ignorant of so much too.
I encourage you to write an essay for HeterodoxSTEM about apologies, to expand on your comment. There have been essays written already, even related to Marcy's contemporaneous published apology, describing it as inadequate, or insincere and self serving, but I think your essay could be an important contribution, given the many years of cultural change that have occured since 2015. For context, I invite you or anyone to describe how you'd feel if, for instance, an academic conference's policy disallowed any speaker who had previously spoken at a conference held in Russia after it had invaded Crimea, Ukraine in 2014. That's another form of banishment for association. Of course they're different, and it would be interesting to explore that in an essay. The moral dilemma of allocution has been explored at length in legal analysis, especially related to parole, but your essay could apply those philosophical analyses to this particular case or to sexual harassment and academia more generally. I know, it would be a lot of work to do so, and fraught with the risk of your essay being glibly misrepresented in social media.
Less work, with less risk, would be to link to an essay, already published, that expresses your thoughts well enough. Grace be with you Paulo and with Beatriz, and to any others reading this comment.
I should have written, "As a Berkeley PhD 1993, and having worked in ..."
Where heads did mercilessly fall, no apologies are expected, nor given at all.
EVERY ACTIVIST ONLINE:
“Is the last scientist that disagreed with my politics out? Good.
WE NEED TO PUT THE SCIENCE BEFORE THE POLITICS…”
Do the bullying come mostly from other astronomers or some unrelated Twitter mob?
Supposedly, astronomers with PhDs.
This essay is linked in the 2023 Open Inquiry Awards of the Heterodox Academy.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2023-open-inquiry-award-winners/
About a copy of this essay republished elsewhere, Jason Wright (Penn State) has written https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2023/09/29/codes-of-conduct-at-the-pseti-center/
I draw the reader's attention to the three instances each of the words "notorious" and "apologize."