We might need to reevaluate the sexual harassment allegations against David Sabatini

Worth reading, but I'd recommend reading other articles to complement that.

They (NYU protestors) hadn’t read the lawyers’ report, but they had read the internet, and they didn’t like what they’d read. NYU was about to hire a “serial sexual harasser,” as one of the demonstrators put it, trading grant dollars for their trainees’ “safety.” So where should a superstar researcher do his research? Where does the guy who’s going to help cure cancer go? “Uhhh, Prison?”

Since I didn't trust this framing (and the main context I know Bari Weiss from is the "anti-woke/free speech" University of Austin thing) I took the suggestion to skim the countersuit and a couple others.

The Weiss article implies their interaction began when she was independent and 29:

Knouse was an incoming cancer researcher at the Whitehead, where she would also head her own lab; hers focused on liver regeneration. He was 50. She was 29.

The countersuit says he was her former teacher, sat on her dissertation committee, and had influence over her career:

Knouse first met Sabatini in 2012 when he was one of her instructors at MIT, teaching her in a small class with about ten students.

In or around 2013, Sabatini began to serve on Knouse’s dissertation committee, with which she met both formally and informally.

Over the years, she began to worry that Sabatini had a romantic or physical interest in her, as he sometimes stood uncomfortably close to her when they spoke or would ask to meet one-on-one and there would ask personal questions. Although Amon had warned
Knouse that she believed Sabatini had engaged in a sexual relationship with another trainee, Knouse tried to brush aside the concerns.

Starting in 2016, Sabatini began asking Knouse to attend social events at his lab,
chiefly whiskey tastings organized by him.

...

From the summer of 2016 into 2018, Knouse continued to be invited to alcohol tastings – and to be asked to be involved in unsavory and sexually charged conduct initiated and encouraged by Sabatini.

...

In August of 2017, Sabatini wrote a letter of reference for Knouse for a National Institutes of Health early investigator award.
...
In this application and as late as 2021, Whitehead formally listed Sabatini as the mentor at Whitehead who would provide the “review” of Knouse.

..

At the start of 2021, Sabatini reached out to her to remind her that he was the one who would comment on her performance at the Whitehead retreat. And, just as the investigation began, he reached out again and told her he would weigh in on her candidacy for a
faculty position at MIT.

...

When Sabatini became aware that Knouse was participating candidly in the investigation, he went on the offensive and began a retaliatory campaign against her.

On information and belief, among other things, Sabatini met with lab members and told them that it was Knouse who had pursued him, that he had rejected her, and that, afterwards, she had embarked on a vendetta against him. Sabatini went further, calling Knouse, among other things, a “crazy” and “resentful” “bitch,” using those words and/or words to that effect, as he worked to rally her colleagues and his post-doctoral fellows against her, by suggesting falsely that she was intent upon ruining “their” Lab.

She is portrayed as someone who wanted to keep things secret and casual and also as an obsessed jilted lover:

Sabatini secured the interest of his next sexual partner. Sabatini had tried to have another Whitehead faculty member bring this young woman on as a “Visiting Scientist” although she was not qualified, and, when that did not work, he brought her into his own Lab so
that he could woo her.

Knouse's side of the story is that she was pressured into sex and keeping it silent:

As recounted in the counterclaim, the young doctor was devastated upon learning in March 2018 that her mentor, MIT biology professor Angelika Amon, had cancer with a dire prognosis.

“[Sabatini] positioned himself as the person on whom [the young doctor} could rely as a mentor, in Amon’s absence, and someone who would open doors for her going forward,” the counterclaim says. “In early April of 2018, Sabatini offered to introduce [the young doctor] to others in his professional network at a conference in Washington, D.C. [The young doctor] was flattered. She agreed to meet Sabatini and looked forward to the visit… She flew into town for the purpose of meeting with Sabatini and being introduced to his professional colleagues.”

Upon her arrival, Sabatini told her that he had decided not to go to the gathering.

“Contrary to what he had promised, there was no introduction to anyone else, let alone luminaries in her field,” the counterclaim says.

Sabatini invited her to join him for drinks and dinner. She agreed.

“They talked about science and about Amon,” the counterclaim says. “Sabatini seemed sympathetic but warned [the young doctor] that, of course, she could be at a distinct disadvantage if Amon passed away, because Amon would not be able to champion and vouch for [the young doctor] early on in her career, something that is essential for young scientists. Sabatini reiterated… that he would step into the breach, assuring [the young doctor] that he would be there for her. After the dinner, Sabatini suggested that [the young doctor] come with him to his room to continue a scientific conversation they were having.”

The counterclaim continues, “When they arrived, [the young doctor] stood at the door, as he lay down on his bed, instructing her to lie down next to him. When she told him she was not comfortable doing that, Sabatini started talking about how he and another established woman scientist do some of their best thinking together in this fashion. He pressed her to enter the room.”

The counterclaim says that the young doctor “did not—by word or conduct—indicate that she welcomed his advances.”

“Sabatini began his advances and, realizing that she was not responsive, he told her to ‘relax’ and proposed that they have a relationship where they have casual sex on the side. [The young doctor] got visibly upset. She tried to resist his advances, telling him, among many things, that Sabatini was her mentor and thus had control over her career. She told him that any sexual relationship between them would be against the rules. Sabatini brushed aside her concerns and warned [the young doctor] not to tell anyone about what he was doing. Sabatini persisted in his advances and got angry as she continued to tell him why he should not proceed. He ultimately said that he was so aroused that she either needed to submit or get out.”

The counterclaim reports, “In the end, although she never consented, he had his way.”

The court papers say that the young doctor continued to feel trapped in the days ahead.

“Telling people—even her mentor, Angelika Amon—of what had happened that evening was not a realistic option if she wanted to preserve her career. Sabatini had explicitly instructed her not to do so, and she feared what would happen if she did not heed that warning.”

“[The young doctor] talked with him about why him engaging with her sexually was inappropriate. She spoke of wanting to be taken seriously as a scientist and not wanting to have her contributions diminished by any perception that he was helping her along because of a sexual relationship… Sabatini dismissed her concerns and told her that their sexual encounters would be fine as long as she did not tell anyone. He told her that he was ‘offended’ that she had gotten so upset during the previous sexual encounter… His demands for sex did not stop.”

The article mentions a year-and-a-half and a 248 page report but concentrates it to one actor:

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.”

...and minimizes "indirect influence" as being against the CoC:

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.

The countersuit claims it pretty clearly also goes against the letter of the law and was not something new in August 2018. It doesn't matter if the junior wants to keep the relationship quiet or casual. The rules exist to prevent possible ambiguity or abuse:

Consistent with its prohibition on sexual misconduct and harassment, MIT policies also strictly prohibit even consensual relationships between its faculty or principal investigators and those over whom such faculty or principal investigators have direct or indirect authority. This policy was strengthened in January of 2018.

...

Section 9.5.5 of MIT’s Policies further states that, if any relationship develops, the faculty member “must recuse themselves from any supervisory or evaluative functions for that subordinate and must notify their own department head or other supervisor. Even if a direct supervisory role does not exist, one person in a relationship may not evaluate the other’s work or exercise direct or indirect influence or authority over the other person’s work or positions, including ... sitting on or writing a letter of reference to a hiring ... committee considering that other person. In such cases, the senior person in the relationship must recuse themselves and must notify their own supervisor.”

There were also other actors. Some claims:

For example, Sabatini asked a female master’s student in his lab if she was “fucking” another lab member, and then asked her to rank the male lab members whom she would “fuck.”
As she would write a friend, Sabatini told her that he “doesn’t like the typical American because they are so uptight (sic) and that he likes about me that I am european and europeans can talk openly about sex.”

Sabatini asked a post-doctoral fellow if she was dating or if she used dating apps. The conversations occurred during one-on-one meetings that were supposed to provide her an opportunity for mentorship on scientific projects as well as openly in the lab.

On another occasion, at a retreat in 2016, Sabatini took a woman post-doctoral fellow aside and asked her to “choose” between two male postdoctoral fellows for sex.

At some point, Sabatini’s brother, a scientist at Harvard University, attended alcohol tastings in the Sabatini Lab, where conversations quite frequently veered to the sexual.

After a female post-doctoral fellow had spoken to his brother at some events, Sabatini came up to the fellow and asked her if she was attracted to his brother. He then started to tease her about her purported interest in the Harvard scientist as she tried to work in the Lab. The interactions made her extraordinarily uncomfortable.

Sabatini asked women in his lab to pick up a visiting post-doc whom Sabatini referred to as a “Catholic virgin” and carry him across a figurative “virgin to non-virgin” finish line. Sabatini snapped a picture of the event and sent it around.

As recently as late 2020 – early 2021, on information and belief, Sabatini spent
several hours, over time, with another young woman who had reached out about the possibility of working in his lab, although she was not a student at MIT—far from his standard practice. She was excited and honored to be in conversations about science with such an important scientific leader.

In this context, she was unsettled but did not confront Sabatini when, during one of their many hours of discussion, Sabatini changed the conversation’s course from talking about serious scientific projects to the saying the following, using words to this effect: “I have always wanted to do a project trying to figure out why pubic hair is the length that it is.”

Sabatini’s suggestion that he wanted to study the length of pubic hair was shocking and bore no relationship to any legitimate topic under discussion. The young woman froze and left the discussion deeply disturbed by its sexual overtones.

In addition to the sexualized nature of discussions within his Lab, Sabatini also often aired his grievances as a white man. As one male member of the Lab has described it, Sabatini’s “the white man has it so bad” refrain was common in the Lab, as Sabatini bemoaned the cost for white men of the progress for women and other underrepresented groups. He was heard, on more than one occasion, to suggest that one has to be “gay” or have some other protected characteristic even to get into medical school or to secure a faculty position “these days.”

...with the sketchiest one (imo) being:

Additionally, in or around the spring of 2019, Sabatini began the inappropriate and disturbing grooming of a woman who was an undergraduate working in his Lab under the mentorship of a female post-doctoral fellow. Even before the young woman arrived, male members – in Sabatini’s presence – talked about her as the “hot model/girl” who was joining them.

When the young woman started in the Lab, she was greeted with advice as to how to get Sabatini’s attention and approval: She was told to “play hard to get,” “entertain him a little” then push him away. She viewed these and other comments as part of a “toxic” culture, one where women trainees were viewed as objects for sexual pleasure, not young scientists looking for training.

But the banter was not the end of it for this young woman. At a time when her mentor was away, Sabatini approached. He engaged in repeated, one-on-one, closed-door sessions with her in his office. He went for coffee with her and spent time walking along the Charles with her. Their conversations were strangely long in duration and nearly always devolved into discussions about sexual relationships in the Lab.

During her time in the Lab, the young woman traveled abroad, visiting another lab in which she had worked. She noted that Sabatini was giving a talk. The two communicated about this fact and she noted that she would miss his talk.
Sabatini then took a disturbing step towards a very inappropriate relationship with this undergraduate: he offered to pay for a change in her flight – and her hotel room – so that she could greet him when he arrived, attend his talk and spend time with him afterwards. She declined.

Relationships get ugly and I try not to put much weight on any individual's testimony, especially in a fraught dynamic. The 1.5 year anonymous investigation is what I'd trust the most.

The article claims two complaints (not Knouse) were lodged to H.R. and that they were the first in his 24-year tenure, which would be worth looking into (how credible the investigation was), but no quick checks came to mind.

The countersuit claims the anonymous survey was based on the National Academy of Science, and it's findings supported those complaints:

The findings included the following:

a. Sabatini engaged in and otherwise tolerated sexist and sexualized discussions with his lab, and engaging in sexualized discussions “was an implicit part of succeeding in” Sabatini’s Lab;
b. There was a “culture of fear and retaliation” within the Sabatini Lab;
c. Sabatini attempted to and did interfere with the investigation, including by discussing the investigation with lab members, suggesting to lab members what they should say to investigators and threatening lab members – directly and indirectly – not to raise concerns; and,
d. Sabatini’s conduct, engaging in sexual relations with a Whitehead Fellow, violated several Whitehead policies, including its policy on sexual harassment. This finding was not based on an assessment of whether the sexual encounters amounted to assault each time or were, instead, consensual, a matter the investigators viewed as beyond the scope of their investigation.

...it also claims that Sabitini was vindictive:

Sabatini was aware that the Survey was designed to ensure confidentiality and the anonymity of those who filled it out. Nevertheless, he called in a post-doctoral fellow in his Lab into a meeting.

He drilled her: Had she responded to the survey? Who else responded? She was rattled, frightened that he would blame her for any problems that would be revealed. She tried to assure Sabatini that she had only said good things about him, fearing that he would punish her if he ever learned otherwise.

...including a claim he tried to get someone from his Lab to take heat for the aforementioned undergraduate:

In this context, where issues arose in the Sabatini Lab that were reported to Human Resources, Sabatini – more than once – indicated that he wanted to know who was responsible and that person would – for daring to have crossed him or done anything that could be viewed as critical of him – lose his professional support.

In fact, with respect to the undergraduate on whom Sabatini had showered uncomfortably personal attention, when questions arose about Sabatini’s conduct “[a]lmost all of the male grad students were marched [in] one-by-one” and questioned to identify who had dared to raise concerns about his conduct.

As one male member of the Lab would write, Sabatini was “so inappropriate ... he kept trying to get me to say someone had slept with her. It was so bizarre.”

Another male member worried that “someone’s head is on the block,” and assuming that “if/when there is department/university scrutiny. Someone will go if it means he saves himself.”

Later reflecting on his experience in the Sabatini Lab, the same male member of the Sabatini Lab commented: “If this is what science looks like, then I am getting out of here and not looking back ... This past year has taught me that you can do all the right science and still fail, that the integrity of data doesn’t matter if it makes your PI look good, and that the boss will throw anyone under the bus the moment somebody squints in his direction.”

And Sabatini has done just that.

When asked about his relationship with a young undergraduate woman in his Lab, Sabatini would simply double down on his bizarre defense: It was a member of his Lab, he asserted, who had engaged in sexual relations with the undergraduate and so it was she – a
scorned woman – who had begun bogus rumors suggesting that Sabatini had acted inappropriately.

Sabatini went further, organizing former members of his Lab to pressure people who had provided information to investigators to change their stories.

For instance, the undergraduate whom Sabatini had groomed (offering to pay her hotel room and flight when she was abroad so that she could listen to him give a talk and spend time with him afterwards), has felt targeted after being approached by multiple people on
Sabatini’s behalf to change what she had said to investigators and now claim that Sabatini had done nothing wrong and been entirely appropriate. This was not true and she declined.

The article says the 16(?) people they spoke were baffled:

This was baffling to everyone I spoke to: Nine of Sabatini’s current and former lab employees, a current faculty member at the Whitehead, and half a dozen top doctors and scientists in Sabatini’s field. Most of them would not speak on the record for fear of being associated with Sabatini and derailing their own careers. “It’s impossible to be honest about this and preserve your own skin,” says a scientist who recently worked under Sabatini.

What does this say about the people Weiss spoke to? One of the success cases mentioned in Sabitini's lawsuit was public about rejecting that:

Former Sabatini postdoc Anne Carpenter, now a computational biologist at the Broad Institute, noted on Twitter that in early April she was asked to sign the anonymous letter of support because universities considering hiring Sabatini had requested such information.

“I will not sign,” Carpenter wrote in a Tweet thread on 10 April. “I was not surprised to see the [MIT] investigation (which did not involve me) found ‘issues of particular concern’ relating to lab climate.”

...elaborated in the tweets:

I was not surprised to see the investigation (which did not involve me) found “issues of particular concern” relating to lab climate. The lab environment was unprofessional when I joined in 2003. I trust those who report that it worsened since then.

...

Whitehead found policy violations. HHMI concurred and three senior MIT officials recommended revoking his tenure as well. There’s a civil lawsuit over whether the process was fair, just to be sure. These have far more information in hand than the rest of us.

I just have to wonder how a supportive letter signed by some lab members is relevant, in light of 3 institutions concluding policies were broken, and in the absence of any route for dissenting lab members to provide input.

...

Finally, David names me in his lawsuit, in a list of his women alumni who have succeeded in academia - I and six others are presented as “obvious evidence that contradicts the finding that women were disadvantaged”. The logic here is appalling.

...

I want to be clear that my success is not evidence that he did not break policies. It is not evidence that the lab had a professional, supportive environment for all. It does not prove that he treated men and women equally in the lab.

Robert Grossman (backer for NYU) voiced related complaints about anonymous complaints and cancelling. I assume the "politicized SCOTUS" hearings he decried was Kavanaugh.

The article claims he is "unemployed and unemployable":

Today, Sabatini is unemployed and unemployable. No one wants to be associated with him. Those who do risk losing their jobs, publishing opportunities, friends, visas, and huge federal grants.

...but that's a pretty hyperbolic statement. My answer to the question from @JakeTheDog is why I feel that's hyperbolic.

The many examples of verifiably unsavory people in positions of prestige and power are an indicator that some sort of global blacklisting doesn't exist. Louis CK isn't cancelled. How many people did I have to sit through lamenting the lose of a once-in-a-generation comedian? If I look up the pro-Sabatini crowds history are they going to be the ones making those same claims about Louis CK?

That's not to say there aren't unfair judgments. I had a friend in college who was accused of something there was strong evidence he was innocent of. He ended up losing his campus job and a few friendships. Stuff like that certainly happens, and it's sad listening to things like an IQ2 debate on Title IX where rulebooks included showing too-little or too-much emotion as signs of guilt.

What this article asks you to believe is that not just one group has bad judgment, but that the world of academia and industry has bad judgment. Not just that a jilted lover can make a compelling case against you, but that a 1.5 year investigation can corroborate it.

The evidence presented is that Sabatini retired from Whitehead upon recommendation and MIT put him on leave after what they felt was a thorough investigation. Does it make sense that MIT would carelessly get rid of a golden grant goose and future Nobel winner?

Biomedical research isn't some niche-and-narrow humanities pursuit where you might have to change occupation. Is the biotech industry going to care? At NYU the opposition of a 56-58% female school in a progressive area was stronger than the clout of Grossman and Bar-Sagi, but that doesn't mean other universities wouldn't be happy to have him. They may not pay what he wants, be where he wants, give him the lab or prestige he wants, but that isn't being "unemployable".

Beyond that--and I'd be open to changing my mind-- I don't think "superstar scientists" are a healthy thing. Similar to finance, I think there's a pull towards a "great man theory" that comes more from survivorship bias, self-promotion, and opportunity, than it does from some exceptionalism.

A recent podcast discusses something like that. There's an inclination to give funds to an investor that made the most profit last year, but the reality of that is you're probably rewarding someone with a riskier policy that got a little lucky, and that incentive structure is how you get 2008. It's results-oriented. You want the person that had the best expected outcome, and when it comes down to the #1 in the world and the #5 in the world that usually isn't going to be very different.

Science is more about incrementalism than it is about genius and breakthroughs.

There's a good reason to have a smart policy for who gets limited resources/grants, but I feel the pressure to get "hits" like a superstar is a corrosive one. Combined with the history of star scientists killing ideas they don't agree with (ala Planck's "Science advances one funeral at a time.") and the inherent unpredictability of getting a "hit".