>Is this your preferred policy for other firing offenses, too?
No. But I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release announcing the firing of someone based upon an internal sexual harassment claim. I would fully expect to be sued if I did such a thing. Unless the conduct would also meet a jury's definition of sexual harassment, and not just violate the internal policy, it's a perfect libel case.
>And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it?
In word: no. That is the impression I was left with based upon the actions they took. If it was worth destroying his reputation, as they did here, then in the absence of additional information we are left to assume the worst.
They could have easily not made this statement and just removed his classes from the site, or kept his lectures up and had another professor handle interactions. They instead chose to publicly tar and feather him. That may or may not be justified, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment. If his conduct was on the lower end of the sexual harassment spectrum (an "online learner" thought it was inappropriate that he asked her out, for example) then making this statement was uncalled for. They just ruined this man's career.
As you've said, "we don't have enough information to make that judgment." It is quite striking to see the sheer number of people here who nevertheless seem to think it's reasonably likely that the harassment wasn't actually worth worrying about.
Assuming that the accusations were substantiated and did violate the MIT harassment policy (which, just to emphasize this, was the conclusion of a committee led by his own colleagues in the Physics department that did see all the evidence), I think it's clear that Lewin ruined his own career.
As it happens, I'm a physics professor myself. And let me tell you, I know good and well that my tenure wouldn't be worth squat if I asked a current student for a date. It's not like this is complicated. Why does the blame so easily get assigned to the university ("They ruined his career") or to the victim ("She got him fired")?
> I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release
The man had some of the most popular lectures ever put online. Wikipedia claims over 12 million views. You don't just take down those videos without giving a reason. With celebrity comes a loss of privacy.
Also, they did not just ruin his career. He is 78 and spent over 40 years in the classroom at MIT. He already had a more than successful career. They ruined his ability to continue to have one-on-one interactions with students, and rightly so if he was sexually harassing them.
No. But I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release announcing the firing of someone based upon an internal sexual harassment claim. I would fully expect to be sued if I did such a thing. Unless the conduct would also meet a jury's definition of sexual harassment, and not just violate the internal policy, it's a perfect libel case.
>And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it?
In word: no. That is the impression I was left with based upon the actions they took. If it was worth destroying his reputation, as they did here, then in the absence of additional information we are left to assume the worst.
They could have easily not made this statement and just removed his classes from the site, or kept his lectures up and had another professor handle interactions. They instead chose to publicly tar and feather him. That may or may not be justified, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment. If his conduct was on the lower end of the sexual harassment spectrum (an "online learner" thought it was inappropriate that he asked her out, for example) then making this statement was uncalled for. They just ruined this man's career.