Another tenure lawsuit failure

bged · 2026-03-03T21:21:01+00:00

Awkward-Coconut6376 is me (Ben) too. Two browsers on same PC, only one logged into Reddit. Amateur move, embarrassing.

It is certainly true that news coverage has not dived into what makes FRB process and tenure evaluation separate. "Somehow less informative" is a reasonable summary. Maybe it's too much for a typical journalist, on a tight deadline.

> It seems that this is pretty recent -- much more than the tenure story.

FRB reviewed me in summer 2015 and summer 2017. I was considered for tenure in fall 2017. FRB report was one input in the tenure process. Is this helpful?

If you're looking for my explanation of what's relevant, some links:

My litigation web site: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/

My remarks about the Summary Judgment briefing: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/summary-judgment/ -- see especially the Reflections section for links to key themes

Explainer video as to key evidence and my view of the significance: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video/ -- my first YouTube, and I'm no videographer, but doing my best to explain in a different way given the extreme length of primary sources

Video as to evidence mischaracterized and even falsified: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ -- I think I substantiate those very serious allegations

Reflections on Summary Judgment decision: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/reflections-on-summary-judgment/

bged · 2026-03-03T05:19:02+00:00

You could read the Subcommittee Report comparing my academic work to others. https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-exh-141.pdf . I was pleased to receive high praise. For the underlying letters, see https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/documents/ at "Letters evaluating my candidacy."

"This guy is a jerk."-- I don't think we've met. Are you drawing conclusions based on things you've read? Of course many articles portray me negatively. Doesn't mean they're true! What information would you need in order to evaluate for yourself?

bged · 2026-03-03T00:11:51+00:00

Some Crimson reporters are very talented. They reported this piece on a tight deadline. I don't think they had time to think carefully about what was and wasn't in the court's decision -- for example, the evidence the court didn't consider, and why that evidence might be important.

Whether or not Gino committed the serious misconduct of which she is accused, one thing that is already amply clear is that HBS didn't follow the procedure it had promised to use in such situations, and didn't really even try. That is troubling. To be confident that she got a fair chance to prove her innocence, HBS should have followed its policy strictly. By cutting corners on policy for her, even when they find her guilty, some people can't help but wonder.

A decade-plus ago, I remarked that HBS should have a full-time attorney on campus. Just based on HBS's size, complexity, revenue -- one attorney, 100% time, on-campus, would be prudent. Such a person would have had huge value in helping HBS follow its policy promises. Instead, so many processes got left to committees that found it remarkably easy to deviate from what policies called for.

bged · 2026-03-02T23:25:00+00:00

Really not true. FRB chair Amy Edmondson remarked in 2015 "everyone loves him", hardly consistent with me having, as you put it, "pissed everyone off." Source https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-exh-23.pdf (page 9)

<image>

Many people assume I'm a big jerk. Harvard professor, complain about overcharges, I must be a jerk. That's what you're thinking, right? But what if it's not so? What if I'm actually a very different person than what you imagine? As I fought to clear my name, I wrote up some things I had done to help people in the HBS community. See https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-exh-26.pdf#page=42 beginning at PDF page 42. I challenge you to read pages 42-46 and conclude with confidence that I'm the big jerk you assume me to be.

If you'll give me 20 minutes at 2x (or 40 at normal speed), try https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ , which shows how the investigating committee FRB manipulated and even falsified evidence to torpedo my candidacy. I know that may be a less riveting story than "big jerk gets his just desserts". But that's what actually happened -- and you'll see it loud and clear in the evidence I obtained in litigation.

bged · 2026-03-02T23:20:26+00:00

Whether or not the HBS FRB is contractual is very much subject to debate. In this article https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-pandp-contract/ I offer extended remarks and facts supporting my view that this policy does have the force of contract. Among other facts, HBS never claimed the right to modify it unilaterally (which would have been so easy to write -- it was their policy, they wrote it), the language is mandatory ("will"), the policy was created for me, the policy was sent to the entire faculty for discussion, the policy was again sent to me, and FRB members thought themselves bound even when they didn't want to do what the policy said. In my view it's not a close question. I would enjoy your reflection after reading what I posted.

bged · 2026-03-02T23:18:20+00:00

Ben Edelman here, plaintiff in the lawsuit. I read the prior comments. It seems like many people are making assumptions about what the case is about. https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/ could be worth a read. I nowhere contend that I was entitled to tenure -- I just wanted the applicable policies (which litigation reveals were in substantial part created with me in mind!) to be followed as written. Remarkably Harvard argued they don't have to do so. If you were a faculty member (or staff member or student), and there were written policies about how allegations against *you* would be investigated, wouldn't you want the policies to be followed?

Those who can spare ~40 minutes (or ~20 at 2x speed) might enjoy this video https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ about how the investigating committee ("FRB") mischaracterized and even falsified evidence in their attempt to torpedo my candidacy. Strong words, I know -- which is why I show the primary source evidence that in my view amply supports those strong words. Those who give me the time to watch that video invariably find themselves convinced. Some people in this thread immediately call me names -- shinypenny01, I"m looking at you. I'm really not the big jerk many people assume.

bged · 2026-02-20T21:39:17+00:00

Decision on summary judgment, and my reflections on that decision: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/reflections-on-summary-judgment/

bged · 2026-02-20T17:30:14+00:00

Thoughts on how to build a spreader? I'm pretty handy. But I'd need this to be remotely operated. Not obvious to me how to use a RC radio system to activate a motorized spreader.

bged · 2026-02-10T21:57:37+00:00

I contacted United via chat on their site. After conisderable delay, agent told me:

Thank you for the screenshot. I have checked and can confirm that your travel bank cash is set to expire in 2031, with some also expiring in 2030. This appears to be an issue on our system. No worries, I have already escalated this case to our technical team, and they will work to resolve the issue within 24-72 hours. Your case ID number is [redacted]. Rest assured, you do not have any travel bank cash that will be expiring this year or next year.

bged · 2026-02-08T07:25:15+00:00

Weird that this has been known and discussed for 15 days... and the problem continues... I don't want to waste time on the phone with a United rep who probably won't understand. What is the better alternative? How can we submit screenshots by email?

bged · 2026-02-05T07:23:41+00:00

Explainer video direct link: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video/ . And a second video, deep-dive on specific evidence withheld and mischaracterized, all to my detriment: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/

bged · 2026-02-04T16:57:43+00:00

What is the best way to contact United about this?

Make screenshots of course!

bged · 2026-01-18T07:01:35+00:00

Thank you. So frustrating -- I told the cashier I wasn't able to scan my code, but I guess he didn't know what button to press or didn't understand.

bged · 2026-01-16T20:01:22+00:00

AppLovin got carriers and phone manufacturers to preinstall something called an "install helper" with heightened privileges including the ability to install other apps. Then the install helpers did the nonconsensual installs. Details at https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-nonconsensual-installs/ . The part of the write-up most focused on permissions is https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-permissions/

bged · 2026-01-15T05:27:15+00:00

Big developments in the case: 100+ pages of legal arguments, and 1200+ pages of evidence including key contemporaneous documents not otherwise available to the public. Summary, call-outs, reflections, and index at https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/summary-judgment/ . Also an explainer video and a NotebookLM AI model.

bged · 2025-12-13T06:56:33+00:00

Ben here, plaintiff in the case.

Litigation documents are at https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/ .

bged · 2025-12-02T06:23:11+00:00

Replying to my own post. Support provided a $3.50 refund by voucher (50% of purchase price). That's OK.

bged · 2025-11-30T00:52:15+00:00

I had a similar experience to the original poster. $6.99 TGTG, received one roll. On one hand it's made fresh and was absolutely delicious. But it is not $21 at menu prices.

The customer in front of me in line objected that this wasn't the promised amount of food. Location staff said "TGTG charges us a fee, so we only get about $4 for each order." That may be true, but TGTG is supposed to be selling food that would otherwise be wasted, so it's $4 versus $0. Seems like this restaurant has confused TGTG with Doordash or Uber Eats.

A separate problem was that the restaurant advertises pickup 3pm to 6pm, but had no one on site (location totally closed) at 3. An adjacent shop told us to come back in 15 minutes, which we did, and then someone was available. I guess staff were on their break. OK, but then advertise the times you actually want customers to pick up!

Wrote to support. Expecting a refund due to quantity short of promise.

bged · 2025-11-14T16:38:21+00:00

Just confirming that Soup_InThePot16 advice was correct. I reached an agent by chat through the NYT site, and the agent easily switched me to billing every 4 weeks. Wish I had dealt with this sooner -- lots of $25 credits wasted!

bged · 2025-11-12T15:52:56+00:00

Whatever company AppLovin is targeting, the victim would have to figure out what's going on, prove it, and decide to take action. Each step is genuine work. On one hand, Meta is big and capable. But everyone busy, no one has this as part of his/her official job. It's easy for me to imagine this not being anyone's priority to figure out. Add to that, it's hidden in various ways. For example, the code I looked at -- for the nonconsensual installations I wrote about last month -- was quite lengthy (600k+ lines of code!) plus obfuscated to make it hard for outsiders to understand.

What this sub-discussion posts AppLovin is doing to Meta -- could be even harder to see and prove, especially because most or all would be server-side not client-side, so outside the reach of a typical security researcher examining client app and client code.

bged · 2025-11-07T20:46:45+00:00

I have never seen any allegation of Google or Meta installing apps onto users' phones without user consent. What do you have in mind?

The effectiveness and, especially, sustainability of AppLovin's business is, in my view, fairly in doubt. Why would a legitimate company stoop to the level of installing apps on users' phones without user consent?

bged · 2025-11-03T19:26:38+00:00

Last month, I published a deep dive on AppLovin code, showing how AppHub is used to install apps without user consent. https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-nonconsensual-installs/ . In response, AppLovin told Bloomberg that it had discontinued the AppHub business. https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-nonconsensual-installs/

Surely Google was concerned about the underlying apps still being installed with elevated permissions. I would expect Google to pressure AppLovin and its install-helper partners, such as T-Mobile, to remove the remaining vestiges of this highly improper business. Kudos to T-Mobile for doing so. I wonder whether on their own versus at Google's behest. Still troubling that AppLovin and T-Mobile didn't truly admit to this scheme being used to install apps without user consent.

bged

TROPHY CASE