Serious question: who cares? Do we need to have an opinion about this? This is Bill Ackman spending a pittance on a disgraced researcher. Maybe it'll pan out, and we can have a searching discussion about the implications of funded discoveries being made by problematic professionals. But until the lab actually does something meaningful, why bother picking it apart? Bill Ackman doubtless spends much more money than this on much more distasteful things than this; he's a billionaire, so his loafers are almost certainly former gophers.
It feels like one of those "announcement of an announcement" or "bill introduced in Parliament" stories that we usually deem off-topic for HN. Not that it couldn't possibly matter, simply that it doesn't matter enough for us to intelligently discuss yet.
Mobs derive power from their ability to lynch people they don't like.
If a billionaire follows along behind the mob, cutting people down from trees and resuscitating them, it severely diminishes the power of the mob.
Whether you think this is a good thing or not probably depends on whether you're part of the lynch mob, but it's hard to imagine being neutral about this.
What are you talking about? Nobody is being lynched.
This is the kind of weird discussion we don't have to have if we just wait to see if any of this matters before trying to parse it as an important story.
1. A group of people decided that Sabatini is a Bad Person.
2. As a result, they want to end his career.
3. A billionaire came along and undermined those efforts, by providing Sabatini with independent funding.
4. The people who decided that Sabatini's career should be ended are upset by this.
Sure, nobody is being literally lynched; but the fundamental story -- people being upset that their ability to exercise extrajudicial punishment is being undermined -- is the same.
I don't care. Why do I care? Why does any of this matter? He got fired from his previous job. Now a billionaire is funding his lab startup. It will probably come to nothing, just like every other investment does. You apparently care enough to equate what's happened with a torture-murder. The conversation here seems unhinged. This is all very low-stakes right now.
If you ask people to be upset about things, they will oblige you. Here, it seems like you're more or less begging for it.
Looks like you got modded down but that was my first thought browsing this now. It's odd to see someone who doesn't care so much that they'll fight you tooth and nail to show you how much they don't care. This raises a beige alert for me.
Words mean things, but meanings change over time. In the 21st century in the Western world, the noun "witch hunt" and the verb "to lynch" are generally understood to be metaphorical in usage.
Similarly, if a journalist talks about a "political earthquake" or a "horse race" they don't mean that the earth is literally moving or that politicians are literally equine.
I think you're going to find people are less and less tolerant of semantic drift with the term "lynch". "Witch hunt" is a better term to use.
For my part, I don't concede that there was anything like a witch hunt here. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, or to evaluate your own opinion. I did some reading, read the complaint in the guy's lawsuit, and none of this is clear to me. All I know is that I mentioned the guy's name near some biotech people and got "no mercy for anybody who Photoshops their western blots". I don't know what that means, so take it for what it's worth.
I don't think the (drifted) meanings of "lynch" and "witch hunt" are at all the same. The former applies in cases of "that guy is bad and we need to punish him"; the latter in cases of "there are bad people out there and we need to find them".
I'm not telling you how things ought to be (though I have my opinions there, too). I'm telling you how they are. You should avoid using the word "lynch" the way you are. It's a poor rhetorical strategy that will get you into long skinny threads like this more often than you want to be. But, you do you!
Point taken. I'm in Canada which -- while it has its own embarrassing historical issues -- doesn't have the same recent history of literal lynchings which the American South has. So I can imagine that there might be more sensitivity to that term on your side of the border.
Fine, but it’s not for you to decide which analogies I’m allowed to make.
Also, have you read the definition I copy-pasta’d?
Finally, as other have already commented, your framing is wrong: he hasn’t just been fired, but it’s being argued that his mere professional existence is a threat, and there are more morally sound individuals that deserve the resources spent on him. That’s not “just being fired”
> “Just think of all the good that could have been done with that money. There are so many excellent young scientists who could replace and outperform Sabatini. Instead, it’s been put into the hands of a failed leader,” says cognitive neuroscientist Jessica Cantlon, who is now at Carnegie Mellon University but was involved in another sexual harassment furor at Rochester University.
I’m not well versed with this case but this sounds arrogant af. These are just two private donors that have decided to fund someone’s research. No one but the donors alone decide how to use their money.
It’s not like Ackman is hurting for $2.5 million yearly or will necessarily use it for something better.
She's just saying Ackman is throwing good money after bad. Don't see how that's arrogant, it's just a good analysis.
Based on his history, Sabatini will most likely end up costing Ackman time/money/trouble. There are other people that wouldn't come with that risk whose likely research output would be the same or better.
I mean, he's welcome to make the investments he wants, but it's a bad look.
Or maybe people can have a second chance, or maybe there are more details that they know about and we don’t. Maybe a talented scientist shouldn’t have the rest of their life thrown away even if they did make a mistake.
I'd think a second chance would start with him admitting a mistake rather than suing the victims. It's unlikely to go better if he doesn't want to learn from the past.
Three separate organizations (HHMI, Whitehead, MIT) investigated and concluded he did. He also resigned from MIT rather than having tenure revoked, which also seems like he knew there was at least some merit to the claims.
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.
All of these institutions have a vested interest in making a PR disaster go away. Resigning says nothing about the truth of the claims as it can be really hard to defend yourself against institutions with bottomless lawyers who are out for your blood. And, if all the testimony is just internal people, they can be pressured quite effectively.
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.
> All of these institutions have a vested interest in making a PR disaster go away.
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.
> 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.
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.
No, just that I’m going to assume that three separate investigations were not rigged in perfect secrecy until there’s some evidence. I don’t have any impact on him or his career so I don’t have a motivation or ability to do an independent investigation, but my default assumption is that this case is inline with the past evidence showing that credible false accusations are quite rare.
He has not been convicted of any criminal wrongdoing, so I see no reason for him to be barred from his career.
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.
When does the "second chance" clock start, the first time you do something heinous or when you get caught? How many "mistakes" (Really? "Mistake"?) does that first chance cover?
Don't you know that accusations are just as good as convictions^? According to some other comments in this discussion, he has been so thoroughly accused that he is now "disgraced" and funding him is "evil".
^ Except of course when they aren't. When they are or aren't depends entirely on the politics of the beholder, and woe unto you if you ever get it wrong.
Second chances for people are great. And the way to get a second chance is to to follow a simple three-step process:
1. Admit guilt.
2. Express remorse.
3. Make amends.
So far, he's not reached step 1, he's still in step 0, which is deny everything and threaten everyone around you with lawsuits. That's not quite asking for a second chance.
This view honestly lacks perspective. Based on his history of scientific achievement Sabatini is likely to make further meaningful breakthroughs that will benefit us all. The difference is that those people with the same or better research output are already employed somewhere outputting research. Of the unemployed pool of labor this guy is likely the cream of the crop and getting him setup and doing research again will likely have a much higher return than incrementing the research budget of any of those already working Biologists.
Further, what the hell happened to America? America used to understand how high the benefit of scientific advancement was. Hell, America naturalized actual nazis and shielded them from prosecution in the name of pushing scientific progress not that many decades ago. Now everyone is on board with permanently and utterly derailing a productive academic over some he said she said BS that has not resulted in any actual charges, only civil suits and counter-suits??? Must be nice being so privileged that one can afford to spit in scientific advancement's face.
Yeah, it’s spending a lot of money to start a lab that:
- will probably be stonewalled out of any collaboration with reputable universities (because his reputation is so toxic),
- will have trouble attracting talent (because his reputation is so toxic),
- people will be ready to believe any sort of accusation of impropriety coming out of that lab from sexual harassment to more general academic fraud (because his reputation is so toxic).
> These are just two private donors that have decided to fund someone’s research.
It's a free country - they are free to fund a harasser, we are free to judge them and their judgement for it.
If someone gets fired from Wal-Mart for stealing from the till (no criminal charges necessary), and is running a Chick-Fil-A franchise next week, there'd be a fair bit of judgement of that, too. Even if the only people he's going to hurt are his employers, and employees.
> The Whitehead probe concluded that Sabatini fostered a sexualized lab environment in which he rewarded those who participated in sexual banter, threatened retaliation against lab members if they raised questions about his conduct, and threatened another faculty member who refused to hire a young visiting scientist whom Sabatini would later marry. It also found that he and Knouse carried on a sexual relationship against Whitehead rules.
Alternatively: He had a consensual relationship with a woman in the same institute, but had her own lab and he had no supervisory power over her. 2 years later she retroactively decided the relationship was abusive. It's rather unusual to ban all relationships across the board, even between people without a supervisor-employee relationship.
"Sexualized lab environment" is an incredibly vague allegation to make. These people are adults. Chances are a large number of the people working in the lab are dating or looking for a partner - are they just not supposed to give any mention to their social lives at work?
That's a right-wing activist's personal site. Bari Weiss doesn't have any insight or information into this, just a political and financial motivation to hype up “cancel culture”. Of course she's going to say that he was innocent because she needs a constant source of new material to maintain the narrative which pays her bills.
It's always extremely amusing when I see Bari Weiss libeled in a such a manner. yes, the Jewish Lesbian with a degree from Colombia, numerous journalism awards, nearly a decade of experience working at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times is totally a right-wing activist rather than a well educated, well reasoned, experienced journalist with views you don't agree with (almost certainly because your views are at least partially wrong).
You appear to be arguing that her identity protects her ideas from criticism – are we to believe someone can’t be Jewish or gay while also being right-wing or an activist? Or that a degree from a good school somehow prevents you from being ideologically committed?
I used that label based on her writing. If you look at the positions she’s taken over the last half decade or so, they’re consistently on-message for what American conservatives are opposing: attacking #MeToo, railing against imaginary antifa (it’s been a while but that’s why she stopped writing NYT op-eds[1]), pushing COVID denialism, attack transgender people, and, most especially, being a committed member of the “cancel culture” marketing campaign. Whether that was hyping up IDW figures, defending a right-winger who is currently being criticized, or minimizing right-wing book banning or calls for people to be fired, she’ll be right there next to the rest of the crew.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying any of those are (or should be) illegal, only that on this topic she’s notably biased and quite literally makes a living from advancing this position. Her move out of journalism was based on building an audience with a pronounced bias and she’s not going to say anything which upsets them until she has another job lined up. Reading her blog posts on a culture war issue is like going to HuffPost expecting trenchant analysis of the Republican Party.
What Bari Weiss may or may not be is rather irrelative here. The core facts ("He had a consensual relationship with a woman in the same institute, but had her own lab and he had no supervisory power over her. 2 years later she retroactively decided the relationship was abusive") are not disputed. Or if they are, you're not addressing that in your comments.
You appear to be ignoring the other 60% of that sentence that pointed to her work history, awards and degree. Although lesbian Jew has not traditionally been associated with being right wing, it's a big, inclusive tent these days (thankfully).
As for your second paragraph, there is quite a lot of mischaracterization of what she has actually said and weird correlation equals activism claims. You haven't put forth anything that refutes the educated, competent journalist with views you disagree with counter hypothesis to your right wing activist claim.
I've come to conclude it's a matter of perspective: I've met communities where someone such as Weiss genuinely is right-wing by the standards of community. I don't think it's right or productive to declare that the above commenter's view are wrong, rather it's just indicative of the extremity of their point of view.
In criminal law we have the concept of restitution, of paying your debt to society. There are no second chances in the court of public opinion, no punishment severe enough, no act of restitution sincere enough.
Should we have locked Kevin Mitnick out of society forever? Danny Trejo? Some people can turn it around and do good things in the world.
There are no second chances in the court of public opinion, no punishment severe enough, no act of restitution sincere enough.
This just isn't true. Look into how Dan Harmon gave a genuine apology and accounting for his wrongdoing and was forgiven. Can you point to Sabatini doing anything that even arguably rises to that level of contrition?
Should a lack of contrition prevent Sabatini from ever working again? He should be indefinitely held in contempt of the court of public opinion?
I fully understand criticism of his personal manner but I have not seen much criticism of his actual work. Why not allow a position where he is not managing career paths?
Edit: He lost his positions, he suffered consequences. When are the consequences enough, is there ever a point?
I'd be really leery of anybody who went to work in his lab. It's going to lead to tough conversations for any junior scientist as they apply for advancement.
I guess they'd be able to go to Hillsdale (now) or New College (in a few years), but I'd love to see the DEI statement good enough to get a Sabatini lab alum hired to a faculty position.
This, among many other reasons, is why this whole thing is such a waste and such an insult. He did real and lasting harm. He hasn't apologized. He hasn't attempted to make amends.
Maybe they won't go to a cult that requires "DEI Statements" from people that are there to do scientific work.
Upon reflection though the above post is actually an interesting example of how this kind of statement could be weaponized to enforce some kind of ideological compliance. "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating"
I suggested institutions that won't require DEI statements. They're, uh... not the pinnacle of academia.
Putting moral arguments aside, there's a rational argument to exclude abusers from a research environment. If you let them in and shelter them, their prey (marginalized people, typically) will be less likely to visit, collaborate, and ultimately join. You've excluded roughly 75% of the general population with that choice! It's worse than that, though, because some fraction of that remaining 25% will also avoid you, because you've excluded that 75%. Recruiting from the remaining groups does not mean you won't make progress, breakthroughs, and valuable inventions. But you've massively hamstrung yourself for no real reason.
Weaponized ideological compliance isn't always a bad thing. We don't engage Nazis or hooded members of the KKK in debate, because our priors tell us that they won't engage in good faith (c.f. Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew)
Instead of "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating", try "Don't do this because of how it makes you look", or Vonnegut's "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
