• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Lawrence Krauss responds to Buzzfeed allegations

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Hopefully, everyone will be able to read this.

On February 22, reporters from BuzzFeed published a libelous story defaming me specifically, and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general. To those friends, colleagues, and others who have written me kind notes of support, I want to thank you sincerely. To those who have expressed anger, I understand the disappointment you may have experienced upon reading the story. It has been very hard to remain silent thus far as my integrity and the integrity of the academic and skeptical communities, which I care about
deeply, have been impugned. While it has gone against every grain of my nature not to immediately speak and write against falsehoods and distortions imposed upon the public, I have been advised by many individuals, wiser and more experienced than I in these matters,
to wait until calmer heads, including my own, prevailed.

I should note that Arizona State University has placed me on paid administrative leave, as per normal procedure, while it reviews claims arising from the BuzzFeed article. I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.

In this statement I aim to address three questions: Was BuzzFeed’s story accurate?, Does it accurately portray me?, and Did they do the community a service?

Of course, Krauss is defending himself, and it could be argued that he is far from an unbiased source on this.

To that, I can only respond that anyone skeptical should wait to see what Arizona State University finds after its investigation.

If Krauss is right, then this sounds like a smear campaign by someone using the #metoo movement as cover.
 
It is also possible that the allegations are generally true and that there is also a person who is alleging things not true for personal attention. That gets messy.

The "triggered" meme woman is sketchy for sure.
 
Outspoken atheists are targets in a religiously fundamentalist nation where adults actually believe in invisible alien gods that care about the affairs of humans.
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Hopefully, everyone will be able to read this.

On February 22, reporters from BuzzFeed published a libelous story defaming me specifically, and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general. To those friends, colleagues, and others who have written me kind notes of support, I want to thank you sincerely. To those who have expressed anger, I understand the disappointment you may have experienced upon reading the story. It has been very hard to remain silent thus far as my integrity and the integrity of the academic and skeptical communities, which I care about
deeply, have been impugned. While it has gone against every grain of my nature not to immediately speak and write against falsehoods and distortions imposed upon the public, I have been advised by many individuals, wiser and more experienced than I in these matters,
to wait until calmer heads, including my own, prevailed.

I should note that Arizona State University has placed me on paid administrative leave, as per normal procedure, while it reviews claims arising from the BuzzFeed article. I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.

In this statement I aim to address three questions: Was BuzzFeed’s story accurate?, Does it accurately portray me?, and Did they do the community a service?

Of course, Krauss is defending himself, and it could be argued that he is far from an unbiased source on this.

To that, I can only respond that anyone skeptical should wait to see what Arizona State University finds after its investigation.

If Krauss is right, then this sounds like a smear campaign by someone using the #metoo movement as cover.

Is this the guy with a string of sexual harassment allegations against him?

"and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general" <<<< that alone makes him sound like so much of an asshole that I don't care if he is guilty or not. :rolleyes:

Wrong dipshit... YOU being accused of sexual harassment does NOT "defame" "by association the skeptical and atheist community in general". If you are guilty, that is 100% on you and you alone. If you are innocent, it is also 100% on you and you alone. Do not try to manipulation us by trying to pretend any of us are guilty or "defamed" by nothing more than a shared lack of belief in deities :rolleyes:
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Hopefully, everyone will be able to read this.

On February 22, reporters from BuzzFeed published a libelous story defaming me specifically, and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general. To those friends, colleagues, and others who have written me kind notes of support, I want to thank you sincerely. To those who have expressed anger, I understand the disappointment you may have experienced upon reading the story. It has been very hard to remain silent thus far as my integrity and the integrity of the academic and skeptical communities, which I care about
deeply, have been impugned. While it has gone against every grain of my nature not to immediately speak and write against falsehoods and distortions imposed upon the public, I have been advised by many individuals, wiser and more experienced than I in these matters,
to wait until calmer heads, including my own, prevailed.

I should note that Arizona State University has placed me on paid administrative leave, as per normal procedure, while it reviews claims arising from the BuzzFeed article. I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.

In this statement I aim to address three questions: Was BuzzFeed’s story accurate?, Does it accurately portray me?, and Did they do the community a service?

Of course, Krauss is defending himself, and it could be argued that he is far from an unbiased source on this.

To that, I can only respond that anyone skeptical should wait to see what Arizona State University finds after its investigation.

If Krauss is right, then this sounds like a smear campaign by someone using the #metoo movement as cover.

Is this the guy with a string of sexual harassment allegations against him?

"and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general" <<<< that alone makes him sound like so much of an asshole that I don't care if he is guilty or not. :rolleyes:

Wrong dipshit... YOU being accused of sexual harassment does NOT "defame" "by association the skeptical and atheist community in general". If you are guilty, that is 100% on you and you alone. If you are innocent, it is also 100% on you and you alone. Do not try to manipulation us by trying to pretend any of us are guilty or "defamed" by nothing more than a shared lack of belief in deities :rolleyes:
Assume he is not guilty and place yourself in his place. You would have to wonder why were you chosen. And if you are an outspoken atheist in US you have to consider such theory. I don't know the guy personally, I have only seen him on youtube videos and astrophysics documentaries. He seems exactly how he described himself in that PDF - outgoing and informal.
I am suspicious of how all of that came about. Looks like BuzzFeed was not merely reporting but desperately searching for anything which could be concocted into a smear piece.
Maybe you confuse him with another astrophysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Marcy ?
That guy was a subject of internal investigation which determined what it determined.
In case of Krauss there was no investigation by any universities, just minor complains which went nowhere.
 
Assume he is not guilty and place yourself in his place. You would have to wonder why were you chosen...
He can wonder all he wants. He can push back against the accusations.

He can't attempt to manipulate others into his argument by trying to convince us that we are guilty/defamed by association. For that he is an asshole in my book.
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Hopefully, everyone will be able to read this.

On February 22, reporters from BuzzFeed published a libelous story defaming me specifically, and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general. To those friends, colleagues, and others who have written me kind notes of support, I want to thank you sincerely. To those who have expressed anger, I understand the disappointment you may have experienced upon reading the story. It has been very hard to remain silent thus far as my integrity and the integrity of the academic and skeptical communities, which I care about
deeply, have been impugned. While it has gone against every grain of my nature not to immediately speak and write against falsehoods and distortions imposed upon the public, I have been advised by many individuals, wiser and more experienced than I in these matters,
to wait until calmer heads, including my own, prevailed.

I should note that Arizona State University has placed me on paid administrative leave, as per normal procedure, while it reviews claims arising from the BuzzFeed article. I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.

In this statement I aim to address three questions: Was BuzzFeed’s story accurate?, Does it accurately portray me?, and Did they do the community a service?

Of course, Krauss is defending himself, and it could be argued that he is far from an unbiased source on this.

To that, I can only respond that anyone skeptical should wait to see what Arizona State University finds after its investigation.

If Krauss is right, then this sounds like a smear campaign by someone using the #metoo movement as cover.

Is this the guy with a string of sexual harassment allegations against him?

"and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general" <<<< that alone makes him sound like so much of an asshole that I don't care if he is guilty or not. :rolleyes:

Wrong dipshit... YOU being accused of sexual harassment does NOT "defame" "by association the skeptical and atheist community in general". If you are guilty, that is 100% on you and you alone. If you are innocent, it is also 100% on you and you alone. Do not try to manipulation us by trying to pretend any of us are guilty or "defamed" by nothing more than a shared lack of belief in deities :rolleyes:

Exactly,

This hits close to home as the ASU downtown campus is within walking distance of where I work. Sorry, Larry, but the fact that you're trying to turn this into an "attack" on secularists and atheists doesn't play well.
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

Hopefully, everyone will be able to read this.

On February 22, reporters from BuzzFeed published a libelous story defaming me specifically, and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general. To those friends, colleagues, and others who have written me kind notes of support, I want to thank you sincerely. To those who have expressed anger, I understand the disappointment you may have experienced upon reading the story. It has been very hard to remain silent thus far as my integrity and the integrity of the academic and skeptical communities, which I care about
deeply, have been impugned. While it has gone against every grain of my nature not to immediately speak and write against falsehoods and distortions imposed upon the public, I have been advised by many individuals, wiser and more experienced than I in these matters,
to wait until calmer heads, including my own, prevailed.

I should note that Arizona State University has placed me on paid administrative leave, as per normal procedure, while it reviews claims arising from the BuzzFeed article. I will inform the public of the results once that review is concluded.

In this statement I aim to address three questions: Was BuzzFeed’s story accurate?, Does it accurately portray me?, and Did they do the community a service?

Of course, Krauss is defending himself, and it could be argued that he is far from an unbiased source on this.

To that, I can only respond that anyone skeptical should wait to see what Arizona State University finds after its investigation.

If Krauss is right, then this sounds like a smear campaign by someone using the #metoo movement as cover.

Is this the guy with a string of sexual harassment allegations against him?

"and by association the skeptical and atheist community in general" <<<< that alone makes him sound like so much of an asshole that I don't care if he is guilty or not. :rolleyes:

Wrong dipshit... YOU being accused of sexual harassment does NOT "defame" "by association the skeptical and atheist community in general". If you are guilty, that is 100% on you and you alone. If you are innocent, it is also 100% on you and you alone. Do not try to manipulation us by trying to pretend any of us are guilty or "defamed" by nothing more than a shared lack of belief in deities :rolleyes:

That is a very good point. The skeptical community is not a church. We may have our more famous (or infamous) leaders, even if those leaders are really only chosen by their popularity among their respective populations. They are not moral leaders, like that of a religious body, and the skeptical community will go along just fine without him because we have no claims that require validation via ethical behavior. If Krauss was admired, it wasn't for his high moral virtue, but his intellect and contribution to knowledge that I think most people in the skeptical/atheist community may have been a fan. That being said, it's my firm belief that we should require anyone in "the movement" as a leader or whatever you may wish to call it, to be of high moral character. As we should expect this of each other.

I read the BuzzFeed article awhile ago, and I think I'll reread it again shortly. Personally, I don't know what to think. I did admire Krauss at times, but I also thought there were times where he was definitely an arrogant insufferable ass. I did enjoy his book, A Universe From Nothing. I've also followed a few of the people mentioned in the article online for some time now, and have also viewed them in a positive light, and I personally would be at a loss to explain why a few of them would make up these accusations. I am sad to say that the article reveals what could be a pattern of behavior, and what could be credible accusations. The #metoo movement has pointed the finger at many, and I figured it was only a matter of time before the skeptical community (or again, whatever you wish to call it) would have its share of accusations. It's a shame, but if we expected people of an atheist or skeptical outlook to be immune somehow then we were already too naive, to begin with.
 
Did you guys read the BuzzFeed article? That article itself makes the association to the atheist/skeptic community. That is what he is referring to.

Stuff like this:
Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats. As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.

...

What’s particularly infuriating, said Lydia Allan, the former cohost of the Dogma Debate podcast, is when male skeptics ask how they could draw more women into their circles. “I don’t know, maybe not put your hands all over us? That might work,” she said sarcastically. “How about you believe us when we tell you that shit happens to us?”
 
Did you guys read the BuzzFeed article? That article itself makes the association to the atheist/skeptic community. That is what he is referring to.

Stuff like this:
Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats. As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.

...

What’s particularly infuriating, said Lydia Allan, the former cohost of the Dogma Debate podcast, is when male skeptics ask how they could draw more women into their circles. “I don’t know, maybe not put your hands all over us? That might work,” she said sarcastically. “How about you believe us when we tell you that shit happens to us?”

Well, to be fair...this has been a problem for quite a few years now in any case. And as much as people like to look down their noses at Buzzfeed, I strongly recall them forming an investigative journalism branch a few years back - which is how they've managed to scoop other outlets on, among other examples, Breitbart.com's clear association with white nationalists.

IOW, we're still at "he said-she said, she said, she said, she said, those witnesses said, these institutions found, and this journalism team checked it all out."
 
When I opened the document and re-read that first sentence, I wanted to put things away and not read the rest. I don't have time for this. I have better things to do.

Instead, I read the first 3 pages.

I had some skepticism about the way he words things up to page 3. He seems to focus on the fact that he remains uninformed of the complainers or even that they did not complain formally at that time to anyone. That isn't really discrediting the account.

I found what he said to not be very convincing until I got to the part on page 3 about Dr Cornwell's narrative of events:
BuzzFeed included numerous quotes from an
unnamed source who claims I touched her leg at a bar during this convention. What
the reporters chose to omit from the story were any of the specifics or quotes from
the lengthy detailed testimonial of Dr Robin Cornwell, then Executive Director of the
Richard Dawkins Foundation, which was one of the groups coordinating the
convention. Dr. Cornwell was the one who arranged the meeting at the bar with
myself and several others from the Foundation. Dr. Cornwell made it clear to
BuzzFeed that she had vivid recollections of the evening because at the time she was
taken aback by the openly flirtatious behavior of a young woman who joined the
group, her persistence in repeatedly inviting me to a hot tub, and her strong reaction
to my rejection. Dr. Cornwell offered a detailed account of who was there, where
they sat and how the conversation proceeded, including the overt nature of the
woman’s flirtation and my obvious discomfort. She also described to BuzzFeed her
reaction months later when discovering a defamatory blog post about the incident,
which she brought to my attention. Rather than presenting a single detail of Dr.
Cornwell’s thorough eyewitness testimony that was completely counter to the claim
they wanted to report, BuzzFeed merely stated that Dr. Cornwell was a friend who
“backed [my] account.”

I am immediately struck by this but putting aside the strong evidence in his favor, I am actually not certain the young lady in the story is the same as the young lady in the complaint, that the lady did not meet him at another time at the same bar etc without having more information. IF this is the same exact bar, same time, same day, same young lady, then this is a serious problem for the buzzfeed story.

This one also seems a bit ridiculous:
Case Western Reserve University: BuzzFeed reported on an occasion when a Dean at
CWRU induced a student to submit a harassment complaint about discussions we had
that made her feel patronized and uncomfortable. Since BuzzFeed also claims to have
seen correspondence between the student and the administration, the reporters would
have been aware that while the university wrote that the “behavior as alleged by the
student could constitute a violation of the University’s Sexual Harassment policy,”
following discussions with the student and myself, she, I and the university agreed to
an informal resolution of the complaint. The information I provided CWRU and
BuzzFeed included the following: I was surprised by the complaint because the student
and I had many discussions about science communication in a variety of contexts. I had
asked her on one occasion—I believe it was when she requested to accompany me to a
BBC radio interview I was taping off campus—about whether it was difficult being the
only woman in one of her physics classes and whether she was harassed at all. I meant
it out of concern, as a former chair of the department, but apparently it was not
taken that way. Also, one time she was interviewing me in my office and apparently I
closed the door, which would not have been unusual since my office opened onto a
coffee lounge for my research group and it was often noisy. While I do not recall, I
apparently asked her if she wanted to get something to eat. Again, this was not
unusual, as I often choose to agree to interviews over meals so I can kill two birds with
one stone. I also often have meals or coffee with students, as do many of my
colleagues. Moreover, because she had once asked if I would meet her off campus at
a coffee house for an interview (I didn’t go, not because I felt it was inappropriate,
but because I didn’t have time), I wouldn’t have thought my request would make her
uncomfortable. I had no inkling that it did until she later wrote about her concerns in
a student paper. Moreover, there were interactions after the interview which gave no
indication of discomfort. She had asked for a recommendation for a fellowship to
attend a conference in Boston I was speaking at and I wrote one for her. There, she
reached out to my wife and me and asked to share a taxi ride. She was quite outgoing
and irreverent, both of which I encourage. That is why I was surprised to later learn
of her article in the student paper complaining about the language I used. BuzzFeed
misrepresented the context, the nature of the complaint and its resolution. They
instead focused on CWRU’s surprising directive almost 5 months later, after I had
already left the University, for the Dean or Physics Chair to approve return visits. I did
return various times over the following years to lecture or talk to colleagues.

At this point, I think the Buzzfeed article or other material should be compared to what he is writing...because I find it hard to believe this could be all there is to it. If it is, then again Buzzfeed is wrong.

Does anyone have other sources of info for this story?
 
Suppose the professor did have a huge sexual desire for the woman. Is it inappropriate to attempt to spend time with her?

Are men allowed to attempt to have sex with women?

And then after the sex decide if they want more?
 
I wonder how many male professors think "To hell with that, I am going to avoid female students as much as possible"?
 
Assume he is not guilty and place yourself in his place. You would have to wonder why were you chosen...
He can wonder all he wants. He can push back against the accusations.

He can't attempt to manipulate others into his argument by trying to convince us that we are guilty/defamed by association. For that he is an asshole in my book.

Except it is an objective fact that some Christians are blaming atheism in general for his actions, using the argument that morality cannot exist without God. The Buzzfeed article centered upon his strong influence and fanbase in the skeptic community. Most skeptic organizations have severed ties to him, prior to any vetting of the allegations, simply to avoid the guilt by association.
IOW, he isn't in any way saying we are guilty by association, but noting the objective fact that enemies of skepticism and atheism are using the accusations against him to defame all skeptics and atheists.
 
Suppose the professor did have a huge sexual desire for the woman. Is it inappropriate to attempt to spend time with her?

Are men allowed to attempt to have sex with women?

And then after the sex decide if they want more?

Apparently under the #metoo gynocracy it is no longer allowed.
 
Assume he is not guilty and place yourself in his place. You would have to wonder why were you chosen...
He can wonder all he wants. He can push back against the accusations.

He can't attempt to manipulate others into his argument by trying to convince us that we are guilty/defamed by association. For that he is an asshole in my book.

Except it is an objective fact that some Christians are blaming atheism in general for his actions, using the argument that morality cannot exist without God. The Buzzfeed article centered upon his strong influence and fanbase in the skeptic community. Most skeptic organizations have severed ties to him, prior to any vetting of the allegations, simply to avoid the guilt by association.
IOW, he isn't in any way saying we are guilty by association, but noting the objective fact that enemies of skepticism and atheism are using the accusations against him to defame all skeptics and atheists.

Yeah, some Christians did that, some will do that now, and some will do it into the future, no matter what the outcome here. Their own hypocritical leaders failing at their own moral code doesn't phase them, and this certainly won't. I wonder what Sir Occam would say. A Christian plot to discredit atheism, in combination with BuzzFeed and many years of backstory, or Krauss is a creep. I know where my money would go.
 
Suppose the professor did have a huge sexual desire for the woman. Is it inappropriate to attempt to spend time with her?

Are men allowed to attempt to have sex with women?

And then after the sex decide if they want more?

It's not OK for someone in a position of authority to have relations with someone in a subordinate position. That's true whether we're talking about professors and students or doctors and patients or managers and employees. If she wasn't a student, then how he goes about making his desires known can very much be the problem. Just look at many of the allegations floating around the #metoo movement. A lot of it is about people in positions of authority expressing sexual desire in really inappropriate or frankly disgusting ways.

Anyway, it very much is possible that some group of theists concocted this just to discredit atheists in general by going after a very prominent atheist, but it is also in bad taste for Krauss to bring that up. It sounds like he's trying to pull our emotional strings.

Personally, I'll wait to see what ASU decides, but I appreciate everything everyone else has to say about this.
 
Back
Top Bottom