To contrast, billionaires assume that they are going to get a return. If they believe that the money is going to all be wasted because the principal is a skirt chasing horndog, they are not going to invest.
None of any of this says anything about truth or justice.
Things get especially messy when consensual relationships are involved. He was apparently married to a fellow staffer (not a subordinate) and it looks like the breakup is at the center of this. Ever seen what people will do in the middle of a divorce?
Too many harassers get away with stuff, but we have also seen people pulled apart by the mob who were innocent. And the innocent need far more protection than they are given right now.
And, if the institutions suddenly decide to settle out of court, will we declare that as evidence that they went after the innocent and then send the mob after the institutions, instead? I have yet to see this.
Since things seem to be plowing through a court of law, I'll withold becoming part of the mob, thanks.
This is true, but they do have counter pressure from the risk of lawsuits, and conservative donors. No university is lightly getting rid of a high-profile researcher who has brought in a ton of money. They may conclude that it’s worth it but I’m certain a lot of people debated what to do internally first.
> To contrast, billionaires assume that they are going to get a return. If they believe that the money is going to all be wasted because the principal is a skirt chasing horndog, they are not going to invest.
Perhaps, but consider that the return might be something hard to quantify. For someone at Bill Ackman‘a net worth this kind of money is like someone here giving someone an iPad. If you had a personal or philosophical interest, that’s a gamble but not a big one and I’m sure he’s going to find a tax advantageous way for his foundation even if it’s otherwise a bust.
Now, I don’t know the guy so I can’t say whether he’s guilty and that’s what the legal process is for in any case but I will note that so far there seems to be a much greater number of guys who actually did the things they were accused of than who were falsely accused. The career risk and difficulty of reporting harassment has a strong disincentive.
So we now dispense "stochastic justice"? You're probably guilty because you are in a specific group so we'll just proclaim it by fiat?
Sadly, a lot of people think just like you do. And they get very upset when they are on the wrong side of the pointy stick because someone with authority claims they are in the wrong group.
You will always be in the wrong group for somebody. The only difference is that there is no defense if your beliefs are in charge and those people get power over you.
What is the rational for preventing him from working in a lab anyway? Because women might work in that lab and he might try to have a sexual relationship with them? If so, then what sort of job do you think he should be allowed to have? Burger flipper? Sorry, women often work in McDonalds kitchens too, he might try to have a sexual relationship with them. Construction worker? Women work in construction. Destitute bum dying under a bridge? I suppose that's the only line of work you think suitable for him. Wanting him damned to such a fate without so much as a criminal conviction is simply abhorrent.
Now, it's possible that one of the lawsuits will reveal some information which discredits those investigations but that's a pretty relatively low probability. Occam's razor suggests that the successful guy in a position of authority took advantage of that stature like so many before him.