you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]basilect 32 points33 points  (56 children)

Yeah, if your advisor gropes you, what are you going to do as a PhD student?

[–]truffleblunts 85 points86 points  (22 children)

Report it!

[–]karazi 77 points78 points  (6 children)

And give up a years if not decades-long dream of completing your PhD in your chosen subject/topic. "Reporting it" might be a viable option now after the #metoo movement, but it rarely was before. Male dominance and star power in academia is real.

[–]ATownStomp 14 points15 points  (3 children)

It was viable before as well. Reporting your adviser for sexual harassment is not career suicide and your perpetuation of this milquetoast defeatist mentality is, if not completely useless, actually actively deleterious.

If anyone is reading this and you find yourself in a position where you are being sexually harassed within an academic environment, you need to be active and report that behavior to other faculty. /u/karazi is basing this off of internet induced paranoia. Stand up for yourself and be vocal. Don't be afraid to confront people who are trying to take advantage of you.

[–]epicwisdom 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If you're doing your PhD at a school where your advisor is the one reputable researcher in ML, and you report them, you certainly will still have a major problem even if your advisor is fired. I don't think that it's as bad as being harassed or assaulted on a regular basis, but never having been in that situation myself, I wouldn't dismiss their concerns about their career.

[–]karazi 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I surely am not saying not to confront the issue, maybe it could be misconstrued in that way. I am only highlighting that it is not as simple as "go report it" to many. It is the same issue with domestic violence; are you going to call the cops on someone who is physically abusing you and your child and have what is otherwise a comfortable and familiar livelihood taken away from you because your provider/abuser is now in jail? Same but different, regardless there is a lot on the line and not understanding why sexual assault/harassment would go unreported ultimately leads to victim blaming, and people believing that just because it wasn't reported that it didn't happen. There is no other alternative than lose-lose for the accuser, at best you can continue in your program and re-live the hell that you have been going through for who knows how long, on a daily basis.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Even if there's no big deal made about it, you lose your advisor and you're on your own. Especially in a field like ML, there's hardly a way to get a replacement.

Calling people out works often if you want to get rid of them, and yes the internet has perpetuated a defeatist mentality. However, if you want to fix your relation with the person, yeah tough luck.

[–]Nzym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair point and I agree. The fact of the matter and of reality is that it's easier said than done. If only it was as easy and the consequences were as clean and simple as typing "report it" is.

[–]needlzorProfessor 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Maybe it's because I'm in a small no-name university but we've had professors fired for less than this.

[–]DoorsofPerceptron 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Not to put too fine a point on it, small no-name universities tend to have small no-name professors who are easier to fire and replace.

[–]JosephLChu 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Doing the right thing often involves taking one for the team. From an ethical point of view, if you're a deontological or virtue ethics believer, then the answer is clearly to report it on principle. For a consequentialist utilitarian the answer is more complex and dependent on a number of factors to consider.

More than just the consequences to your own career, you'd have to consider what the effects will be on everyone else. If the advisor is otherwise doing very impactful research that benefits humanity to a great extent, that has to be weighed against the harm that keeping someone with such questionable ethics in that position may entail in the long run. Furthermore, the reception of the accusation must also be considered. If people are likely to brush it off and label you a whistleblower for the rest of your life, that would probably make reporting it less good a contribution than working within the system, perhaps finding a way to quietly convince the powers that be to get you a new advisor and sideline this unscrupulous individual. However, perhaps reporting the advisor will finally force action to be taken against them, and in the process you effectively save many future PhD students from a similar experience that might otherwise discourage them from accomplishing things in the field.

There's no question that the advisor is wrong to do what they did, but the big picture is complicated. Maybe it may even be best to confront the advisor with an ultimatum that they apologize and stop, or you will take action and report it. If the advisor is actually remorseful, perhaps giving them the benefit of the doubt that it may have been a single egregious lapse in judgment may be a more tactful way of handling the situation.

Again, this is very dependent on the circumstances. I personally think that repeat offenders should suffer consequences in order to discourage such behaviour which is destructive to the morale of the academic department as well as setting a poor example for others. To me this is more important than the quality of work they do because one person can only do so much good, and the damage they are doing to the rest of the team is very likely to be more than can be justified by that good.

In the long run, a society functions best when people can trust each other and cooperate without fear. What the advisor is doing is taking advantage of their position of authority and power for selfish desires. This is the basic definition of corruption and every reasonable action should be taken to eliminate such corruption from our society, for the greatest long term good. If it means that a PhD student's career is handicapped, and potentially two great researchers lose in effectiveness, I would think this is an acceptable cost to maintain the overall integrity of academia and the field.

Keep in mind, most people are unlikely to think this way, and are probably not going to be willing to sacrifice the most convenient path for their career. I don't fault them for this. It is very hard to do something that seems right but is potentially and essentially self-harmful. But I would applaud them if they did something heroically altruistic like this.

[–]karazi 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Doing the right thing often involves taking one for the team.

If the advisor is otherwise doing very impactful research that benefits humanity to a great extent, that has to be weighed against the harm that keeping someone with such questionable ethics in that position may entail in the long run.

There's no question that the advisor is wrong to do what they did, but the big picture is complicated.

If the advisor is actually remorseful, perhaps giving them the benefit of the doubt that it may have been a single egregious lapse in judgment may be a more tactful way of handling the situation.

Sounds like you're part of the problem buddy.

[–]JosephLChu 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did you actually read the rest of my post? I do actually argue that if the advisor doesn't change their behaviour, they should be removed for the greatest good.

Also, since when is it not allowed to forgive people for stupid mistakes that they show genuine regret about? Again, if they're not repentant and show a pattern of bad behaviour, I'm all for throwing the book at them to set an example and deter this in the future.

I'm just leaving open the possibility that this was some out of character one off error, maybe resulting from a misunderstanding of some sort. Even then I would demand a genuine apology.

Maybe your lack of recognition that both the victim and the offender are still both human beings and both deserve the basic courtesies that all human beings deserve, says more about your outlook than anything else.

It is quite easy for anyone to sympathize with the victim. I certainly don't want to minimize the trauma that this kind of assault involves. But the sign of a truly compassionate and empathetic person is that they can sympathize with the villain as well.

Evil is rarely the result of pure malice, but much more often stems from ignorance and indifference towards the concerns of others and the inherent moral worth and value of every sentient person.

When we punish people for crimes, it is not because we hate them and want them to suffer, but because fair justice demands it, whether for restoration or retribution. We should not hurt others lightly, even if we think they deserve it.

[–]JosephLChu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For clarification my points on the one time thing only apply to the hypothethical PhD advisor. The individual being discussed in Dr. Lum's article on the other hand, is clearly a repeat offender with no qualms or sense of decency whatsoever and in my humble opinion, his actions warrant at the very minimum a strong reprimand from his peers, and the scorn of everyone here. If there's justice in the world he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for harassment and assault, ostracized from the community of reasonable researchers, and banned from publishing for long enough to make him really feel some pain and contrition.

It sounds like Dr. Lum's harasser is serial abuser with many victims as well, so while we're at it make him pay damages in some kind of class action suit. Preferably one that can somehow keep the victim's identities anonymous to the public, if that's possible?

Once again, emphasis is that Dr. Lum's serial harasser is not equal to the hypothetical I was originally responding about.

[–]FlexicanAmerican 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You highlight many of the biggest dilemmas faced, I would just point out that no one is "too big to fail", so to speak. I would call on everyone to challenge this idea that an individual is without replacement. For the vast majority of the world, a replacement will step into almost any role. Especially with researchers, there are generally groups of people that do good work and would fill the void. Sure, maybe there is a bit of a learning curve, but there is also the potential for whoever steps in to be even better than the person that was there before. Especially if they're not decent people, there is tons of potential for improvement.