I think it's more valuable to praise good ethical decisions than it is to deride bad ones, and we have more than enough bad ones bombarding us constantly.
>Or to come clean on your own and resign before it’s a stink.
I feel like this is what is happening, so we must be thinking on different timelines.
As it is now, it’s bad for Stanford. And means the hiring committee didn’t do sufficient due diligence to even ask people on his field if his work was valid.
To be clear, there's no net-positive here, it's still net-negative and I agree that everyone is worse overall. The thing I'm pointing to though is that this was the best outcome from an already bad situation and is done in a way that is transparent and is actually addressing harms and preventing further harm by changing the power structures.
> I think it's more valuable to praise good ethical decisions than it is to deride bad ones,
I agree. But I don’t think this is a good ethical decision. It’s not a decision at all. He was fired and Stanford PR made a statement for him. I don’t think that’s praiseworthy.
Or I suppose we could praise him for not murdering people. And lots of other things that are extremely common and I don’t think noteworthy.
I think it’s also worth reflecting on terrible decisions and people who make them and use mistakes of others to learn.
>Or to come clean on your own and resign before it’s a stink.
I feel like this is what is happening, so we must be thinking on different timelines.
As it is now, it’s bad for Stanford. And means the hiring committee didn’t do sufficient due diligence to even ask people on his field if his work was valid.
To be clear, there's no net-positive here, it's still net-negative and I agree that everyone is worse overall. The thing I'm pointing to though is that this was the best outcome from an already bad situation and is done in a way that is transparent and is actually addressing harms and preventing further harm by changing the power structures.