Fair warning: you _never_ get the full picture if you only hear one side of it. It is possible that the advisor is a manipulative asshole (though it's unlikely that they are to such an extent), or it is possible that the author grew up always getting participation trophies and now isn't getting any (far more likely, IMO). So before you render your judgment, wait for at least some semblance of corroboration.
Because you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article. At least I haven't seen it, in a quarter century of my adult life. I quite frequently see folks who treat any demands that they do what they've signed up to do as "abuse" though.
Think about it: say you are a judge and you wanted to _really_ understand why someone is divorcing their spouse. Would you listen to just one spouse or both?
> you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article
It's very uncommon for student complaints to affect a professor's employment, especially a tenured one. As long as the professor brings in grant money, doesn't piss off the entire department, and graduates at least a few students, they are probably fine. It would take something beyond generic cruelty to students for a person that checks all three boxes to not "stick around" --- think something illegal or against university rules, and with clear evidence.
If this account were to be taken at face value (which it shouldn't be until evidence is presented), then the professor was abusing everyone for years, not just a handful of students. That, indeed, would not be allowed to continue.
I'm getting sick and tired of people taking on the role of judge, jury, and executioner, with zero corroboration or hard evidence.
Here's the dirty secret: competent wifebeaters look like really splendid people to all the world. The incompetent ones without social skills are weeded out early, that leaves the good ones.
An economist and his friend were walking down the street, when they spied a 100$ bill lying on the pavement. The economist strode past without a second look. His friend tugged on his sleeve, "Why didn't you pick it up! That was 100$ !"
The economist snorts, and says, "If that was a real 100$ bill, someone else would have picked it up already."
That's a good question, so I'll answer it with a question. Do you think Joe Biden should withdraw from the race due to the "credible" rape accusation? If the answer is "no", because there's no hard evidence, then we concur.
We're not talking party politics here. The point is that the downfall of Harvey Weinstein disproves the idea that you don't get to stick around if you abuse people.
Well he didn't get to stick around, did he? As powerful as he was, he was immediately disowned by everyone once his victims came forward, and there was corroboration and evidence. Whereas here it is suggested that we make judgments based on a _sole anonymous account_.
And no, you don't get to pick where you apply #metoo and where you don't. You either "believe all women" or "require evidence". There's no pick-and-choose.
His case shows it's possible to make it to the top, and to stay there for decades, as an abuser.
You're emphasising whether it's possible to get to the top as an abuser, stay there as an abuser, and die before getting caught. This has little bearing on my point, although we know from the Jimmy Savile case that it is indeed possible.
> There's no pick-and-choose.
As I just stated, I'm not interested in discussing this. My point here is specific.
You don't think the thousands of PhDs who've had abusive relationships with their advisors corroborate things? I've known tenure track faculty who have said "I don't want to work with women - they don't work as hard" and later got tenure.
There exist good advisors. There exist happy students. There also exist abusive advisors and systems to protect students are nearly nonexistent. This has nothing to do with "participation trophies".
I would think so, if it weren't for the fact that similar stories come from so many different Ph.D. programs, at so many different universities, over so many decades.
