[Inu]

This is how the article summarizes the report:

>So what exactly had those 248 pages said? What had David Sabatini been found guilty of that merited this kind of punishment? Chiefly, failing to disclose his consensual relationship with Knouse. On top of that, the report found that Sabatini, in his day-to-day administration of the lab, violated the Whitehead’s Anti-Harassment Policy, since his “behavior created a sexualized undercurrent in the lab.” Sabatini’s relationship with Knouse exacerbated things, given his “indirect influence” over her, which violated the Anti-Harassment Policy and ran afoul of the “spirit” if not the letter of another of the institute's policies. True, he didn’t supervise Knouse. He didn’t work directly with her. He never threatened her or proposed a quid pro quo. And he certainly didn’t have the power to fire her. But, according to the report, he had “experience, stature, and age” over her. Knouse’s apparent desire to continue their relationship only served to confirm his influence: “That she felt the need to act ‘fun’ to impress Sabatini underscores how Sabatini’s words and actions profoundly impacted her,” the lawyers wrote. Nor did the lawyers care for the happy hours and whiskey tastings that Sabatini sometimes hosted in his office, which betrayed his “apparent ‘friendliness’ and general propensity to have ‘fun.’” (Knouse, in her counterclaim, says the events were “drunken,” and “conversations quite frequently veered to the sexual.”) “While we have not found any evidence that Sabatini discriminates against or fails to support females in his lab, we find that Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of ‘science above all else,’ creates additional obstacles for female lab members,” the report concluded.

Not sure I understand what is damning about his behavior based on this summary.

[Comevius]

There is plenty wrong here, but the summary basically tries to pin it on Knouse when multiple women made complaints. One of the court filing had three accusers.

I'm not a court to decide who is wrong here, but this does not look like a clear example of cancel culture. Going against this guy must have been a huge risk for these women.

[itchyouch]

> Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of 'science above all else'...

It sounds like the way to "succeed" in the lab was by an amalgamation of personality + merit, which sounds pretty reasonable. This is one of the very common modes in which people get ahead.

If you are one of many researchers in the lab, equally capable, but you could gain an edge by flirting, sleeping with the head, etc, it behooves one to gain that advantage. And it can develop into a subtle, but insidious toxicity. It's the elephant in the room that no one points out, but also impossible to ignore, if you're considering how one's social dynamics play into career prospects.

The problem is that many men are incredibly smart and nuanced in being capable of hitting just a bit too low, glancing just a moment too long, stepping just a half-step too close, insinuating with just a teency amount of overstepping boundaries, while maintaining the illusion that everything is above board and with plenty of plausible deniability. And to be subjected to that type of environment, as a woman, is this subtle non-verbal gaslighting that feels impossible to criticize or pinpoint without coming away as being perceived as delusional. However, women all around feel it, but this behavior hasn't necessarily been labeled yet.

Even more challengingly, these slightly lower bids, are a built-in "feature" of human relationships and connection. It's a part of this dance we use to renegotiate relationships. But there's also unspoken and hidden contracts at play, where temporary advances, while not welcome with enthusiastic consent, won't be punished as long as they are temporary and ephemeral.

Sabatini, likely never grossly crossed certain boundaries, but it seems that his behavior, choices and the air of his presence was just underhanded enough with enough women, with enough persistence, that finally multiple women would step forward.

I'm willing to speculate that there was likely an unspoken contract between Sabatini and Knouse, where Knouse may have believed herself to be a much more serious connection to Sabatini, while Sabatini, over time, unveiled a growing disinterest in her. I'm also willing to bet that Sabatini had a seduction playbook of some sort that Knouse likely realized, either on her own, or in concert with other women, and finally retaliated to "protect" other women in the lab.

Confounding this is that it's also very likely, that he had plenty of excellent and non-underhanded relationships with other female researchers who are quoted to vouch for him and his excellence.

With the given story, it's impossible to pronounce judgement that he should have lost his career or that he was assaulting women per se, but when there is a pattern of women #meToo'ing to a person of power, there's a tremendous amount of signal pointing to something more underhanded going on.

[tqkxzugoaupvwqr]

If I launch a campaign against you by accusing you of things, and bringing people in rage with the accusation so that they support me because this evil must not continue, there’s a tremendous amount of signal. But does this tremendous amount of signal point to something more underhand going on? No.

The article states “Knouse […] had ongoing flings with men […] and she wanted to keep it that way.” When Sabatini’s interest in her faded, he is suddenly accused of harassment by her. Peculiar timing. The article writes, “It would also pacify Knouse, who wanted to see Sabatini fired publicly. ‘Part of me just wants to organize a protest […]’ wrote Knouse to a friend during the investigation.”

Sounds very much like revenge of a scorned lover that is enabled by an a lynch mob environment.