Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain Harassment Story

Morgans

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Well, I think that if she complained to the proper channels at the University, and can prove they had overlooked or dismisssed her complaints for harassment, in this day and age, there is liability there. Opening to the media doesn't make the case any less appalling, just more blatant. University HR and other instances need to be accountable for these events, and in particular, since they should be in the forefront in addressing personal rights abuses where they arise.

And its why Deeks sent a PR release apologising before making contact with Aoibhinn. In any normal organisation, she would have a very strong case against her employer. She is choosing not to go down that route and highlighting the issue. Others wth less high profile might be encouraged to take action against their employer following this. Or UCD could do something about their HR practices to deal with issues like this.

Again, not sure why her harrassment case would be qualified as contentious. Are ye mistaking contentious and controversial?

IAMAMORON

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I really don't understand how this can be perceived other than a woman being harassed relentlessly by a man in a position of power. Seeing all the scrutiny, criticism and locker room talk she's gotten on here I can see why men get away with it.

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Courting the media by doing a Physics PHD. Gas. Trust me not all opinions deserve airtime.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

My question is, what was her prerogative for approaching the Irish times and volunteering her story?

Her doing so has highlighted that despite going through the correct channels and bringing it to the attention of the University, they did absolutely nothing about it. Which is wrong!

Even after her court case had concluded, she still hadn't heard from University on the matter.

Only after going public are they now apologising to her and, if they learn from this appropriately, will try their best to not make the same mistakes again.

Honestly, I'd have thought this was obvious.

LiquidZeb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Just come out altogether and say she was asking for it.

IAMAMORON

Morgans wrote: »

You just don't have a clue what you are talking about. I say that having working in UCD and in private institutions. Not a clue.

Ok thanks for your insight, my teachers used to come out with the same mantra. The odd lecturer too.

But this is not about me, it about what people think about her harassment story?

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

IAMAMORON

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Just come out altogether and say she was asking for it.

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

Why do you get to say you aren't Mr Bad Guy? If you cant process what has been repeated several times in the last 20 mins on why she 'went public' there is no point.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I haven't seen your opinion though. You're just asking a hypothetical question.

You tell us, what do YOU think her motivations were?

LiquidZeb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I just fail to see what her career in the media has to do with her ordeal. I hope things like this get much more press regardless of the status of the victim or perpetrator

irishblessing

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok thanks for your insight, my teachers used to come out with the same mantra. The odd lecturer too.

But this is not about me, it about what people think about her harassment story?

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

Can I ask whether you have an opinion for keeping it quiet rather than speaking up? I can see some positive change and support needed from speaking up, but keeping quiet only protects the harasser. And why on balance would that be justified?

IAMAMORON

Morgans wrote: »

Why do you get to say you aren't Mr Bad Guy? If you cant process what has been repeated several times in the last 20 mins on why she 'went public' there is no point.

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

walshb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I'd like to hear your take on it...

On why she went public?

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

I posted it here in the last 10/15 minutes. It is pretty obvious to everyone.

Tork

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

Just in case you've missed the question, why do you feel she went public over the matter?

Kaybaykwah

Morgans wrote: »

And its why Deeks sent a PR release apologising before making contact with Aoibhinn. In any normal organisation, she would have a very strong case against her employer. She is choosing not to go down that route and highlighting the issue. Others wth less high profile might be encouraged to take action against their employer following this. Or UCD could do something about their HR practices to deal with issues like this.

Again, not sure why her harrassment case would be qualified as contentious. Are ye mistaking contentious and controversial?

No, I think you are right there, I meant controversial. If she followed a reasonable pattern of complaints and the lack of interest from the higher ups reveals that she was improperly dealt with, there is no contention with opening up to media.

IAMAMORON

walshb wrote: »

I'd like to hear your take on it...

On why she went public?

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better off shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

That's good. It came across like you were accusing her of doing it for selfish, self promotional, reasons.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

And good thing we ARE having this conversation and this has all gone public. It might mean that the next person who is the victim of something similar will be afforded some protection

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better off shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

Clueless.

walshb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better of shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

Well explained and presented, and seems very logical

Regarding others not having her profile, or even clout; I wouldn't conflate here. It's life....some people have more clout, influence, "power" than others.

They are just people, and if someone can use their name and who they know and all that, to help themselves, sure of course they can, and should.

No different really to having access to money and resources to help yourself...No point in having it if you aren't going to use it, or can't use it

Not directed at you, but I never liked the kind of begrudgery' from people against people who have influence and clout and power and money, that allows them to live a certain way....we all can't be equal, and shouldn't be.

walshb

Morgans wrote: »

Clueless.

This reply from you is clueless.....

deeperlearning

StevenToast wrote: »

Will the " King of Kindness" Ryan Tubridy have her on the Late Late...give her a national embrace on behalf of us all..

He really represents the country well and speaks for us all...so so kind....

Always knows the mood of the country...telepathically linked to us all..hes so kind...

What a creepy post.

The_Kew_Tour

Poor woman. It’s bad enough for something like that to go on at all, but to continue for 2 years is shocking.

Fair play to her for speaking out I just hope no woman or anyone has to go through something like that for so long.

You would think in 2015 even that no person would have to go through all that so openly.

strandroad

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better off shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

Why don't you read the article? She answers it herself. She wants to raise awareness because she recognises that for others it might be even harder to achieve what was already hard for her.

Today, Ní Shúilleabháin says that while there is growing awareness regarding harassment and other issues for students on campuses, “we also need to make sure those same supports are there for staff, and particularly early-career researchers. Those are the people who are on precarious contracts, temporary contracts, who are maybe doing a post-doc which is one or two years, who might be very afraid to rock the boat because it will impact, potentially, on them getting another contract.

“That’s why I wanted to talk about it. The first thing we need to do is recognise that it’s a problem, and after that we need to look at what are the many ways we can address it.

Dyr

Lads only solution here is to close the campuses and keep everything online, by their own admission, they're worse than war zones for sexual harrasement.

Kaybaykwah

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Poor woman. It’s bad enough for something like that to go on at all, but to continue for 2 years is shocking.

Fair play to her for speaking out I just hope no woman or anyone has to go through something like that for so long.

You would think in 2015 even that no person would have to go through all that so openly.

Yes, exactly. Imagine being in your office and having to deal with this kind of thing. Then, think of how much it can affect you doing your work. Who knows how many problems due to anxiety this kind of thing brought about?

That professor Braun guy is not the only one to blame.

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

Lads only solution here is to close the campuses and keep everything online, by their own admission, they're worse than war zones for sexual harrasement.

But what if the harassers want to get their harassing on elsewhere? And they get hobbies like swimming, running, cycling.............

Only thing for it is to close everything! That'll solve the issue!

Kaybaykwah

walshb wrote: »

Well explained and presented, and seems very logical

Regarding others not having her profile, or even clout; I wouldn't conflate here. It's life....some people have more clout, influence, "power" than others.

They are just people, and if someone can use their name and who they know and all that, to help themselves, sure of course they can, and should.

No different really to having access to money and resources to help yourself...No point in having it if you aren't going to use it, or can't use it

Not directed at you, but I never liked the kind of begrudgery' from people against people who have influence and clout and power and money, that allows them to live a certain way....we all can't be equal, and shouldn't be.

Well, it depends.

It has to do with how many privileges you want to accrue from your position in life. There are people with influence who may want to get the best table in a restaurant, and others who want sexual favors for glancing at a resume.

Money and influence don't give people permission to do the unspeakable. The "clout" of which you speak isn't the be all, end all.

Eric Cartman

Bambi wrote: »

Lads only solution here is to close the campuses and keep everything online, by their own admission, they're worse than war zones for sexual harrasement.

its like that brasseye skit about kids being defined as anyone under 30.

"If you define sexual harassment as almost any interaction between a woman and a man, the college campus stats are of epidemic proportions"

walshb

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Well, it depends.

It has to do with how many privileges you want to accrue from your position in life. There are people with influence who may want to get the best table in a restaurant, and others who want sexual favors for glancing at a resume.

Money and influence don't give people permission to do the unspeakable. The "clout" of which you speak isn't the be all, end all.

My point was more relating to using your power and influence and clout for the overall good, and for noble and decent pursuits..

Like in this harassment case..

LiquidZeb

Bambi wrote: »

Lads only solution here is to close the campuses and keep everything online, by their own admission, they're worse than war zones for sexual harrasement.

I think they should be closed to men until they stop raping and harassing women or police themselves and their male peers better. Until then online only. Let the women go on campus in peace.

Errashareesh

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

100% agree with you but i got called all sorts of names for having the same opinion so good luck !

What names?

IAMAMORON wrote: »

You need a thick neck to throw stones around glasshouses.

But I will be honest and think that there is certain amount of a "media lead" going on here.

No fluke it is in the weekend edition of our leading broadsheet either.

If someone accuses you of being cynical around harassment issues it is because they prefer the drama to discussing the problem, IMO. A lot of drama types like chastising opinion. Which is worse?

If you question victims' prerogative about going public on their plight you open yourself up to the accusation of not having empathy or even worse being an advocate for harassment. You can very quickly become the pound of flesh some off the more militant posters will want to corner and throw mud at.

Nobody was throwing stones in a glass-house.

There is questioning someone's motivation in a considered manner, with detail and back-up (which something like this deserves) - nothing wrong with that. And I know, people will get thick with those who raise their heads above the parapet on such a topic, but if they're a reasonable person who truly believes in what they're saying, they'll hold their own.

However, "Very pretentious person imo, and now making it public has obviously been done to promote her name even more" is none of those things. It is a nasty, unfounded pot shot. Mere antagonism I'd ignore (as it's only for a reaction so why give what they want) but this, I can't ignore. Enjoyable as that may be for the writer. This is downplaying a campaign of harassment/abuse of power/institutional failure to protect, and it's making the victim out to be the one in the wrong. It's vile. That comment is like "If he was hot she wouldn't be too upset, eh?!", "She'll be glad of it looking back when she's auld and saggy", "Oh no, a man raised his voice to her - how will she get over the trauma?", "well whatabout whatabout?", "women - always getting special treatment". And all of those comments are made - relentlessly - on social media. The doubling down here and all the "luv" punctuated sneery comments just further reinforce what that poster is up to.

If you have been harassed (I haven't) or someone you care about has been (they have) those words can cut like a knife. To think that people are actually more concerned with sneering at the victim than the perpetrator, making the victim out to be hysterical, a liar, attention seeking... *simply because she is a woman*... I can't tell you how depressing it can be. It's an old, grim attitude. And I say that as someone who has reservations about #metoo (originally well intentioned but all of those social media bandwagons have the potential to lead to dishonesty and witch hunts; the unscrupulous types do exist, and damage things for genuine folk).

Boards' biggest forums used to be pretty bad for it. Appalling at times. But I must say this thread is mostly very refreshing - so thank you. I really mean it. I have my suspicions towards overly feminist men at times, as they can denigrate their own sex, which to me is absurd. But most posts here are coming from a genuine, compassionate place, which is wonderful to see. And it's not about women or men, it's just about decency in relation to someone who was put through a terrible time.

As for her going public with this, good for her. If she is protected by working in the media, all the better - she has used that position to put the message out there to other ****ers like her harasser, and she won't be punished for it, but maybe they'll tread more carefully. Maybe it'll make people like my friend whose married boss tormented her with sleaze, and attempted to rape her (but no way did she feel protected enough to complain him) feel less alone.

Kaybaykwah

^^^^^^^^^^Yes to Errashareesh,

and the harassment if consistent with the description in the article, lasted long and UCD did not do what needed to be done to protect her. What Braun did, he could have done to a student, and maybe he did. This mediated outcome might encourage other complainants to come out of the woodwork.

irishblessing

IAMAMORON wrote: »

...womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

Say what? Nonsense?

The rest of your post almost made up for that statement though. :pac:

Strumms

walshb wrote: »

Maybe she feels that she was so let down and hurt by UCDs response to all this, that she simply wants to make it known how poorly they behaved here? And, I wouldn't slate her for it; albeit there being two sides to a story...

Neither would I.

UCD is a public university. Publicly funded. Yet this is how they treat people ? If I’m a student I’d be looking and considering seriously if it was going to be my seat of learning or if somewhere else might be of a more safe, fair and reasonable backdrop for my education. If I’m a parent of a child of either gender I’d be having serious doubts too.

UCD are in the last 36 hours proposing ‘a new zero tolerance policy’ on sexual harassment ! So in other words prior to this they tolerated it to an extent and didn’t have a zero tolerance policy to sexual harassment... at least they are honest.. sexual harassment is a crime, what other crimes didn’t they have a zero tolerance policy towards ? A bit of theft ok ? Assault ? An absolute clown show of a university. If the government had any bollôcks they’d be in clearing house, unlikely all the same with this limp wristed mob.

tobefrank321

I still can't get my head around why he was allowed continue in his job at UCD so long and why he's allowed continue in his current job.

This was a sustained period of harassment.

Strumms

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I still can't get my head around why he was allowed continue in his job at UCD so long and why he's allowed continue in his current job.

This was a sustained period of harassment.

For years in this country... and still evidently...anybody in a position of authority in public life.. basically could get away with anything... politicians... Gardai... teflon..

Why should this individal think any different... while expecting the highest standards of staff and students.. he failed to meet the lowest of standards himself...

He didnt make the culture he merly immersed himself into it.

Tork

This is the perfect storm, isn't it? Harassment that reads like something from a Hollywood stalker movie, missing only the climactic fight to the death scene. And the victim is someone who's reasonably well known and credible. If anyone with half a brain had been working in UCD's HR department, they should've been onto this like a shot. Ironically, this creep's reputation is now publicly in ruins because the morons in HR didn't do their job properly in the first place and led to this escalating. You would wonder what other stories are out there and if anyone else is going to come forward.

OscarMIlde

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ah ah , no way. Lots of women out there going through similar crap in the private sector and cannot do a thing about it for fear of negating career prospects. You do not get that issue in the public sector.

For example if her harasser was a leading fee earner? Very easy for private companies to turn a blind eye then. In fact if you went to the media it is highly plausible you could get dismissed for bringing the company name into disrepute.

Just saying.

You actually do get that pressure in academia. More so than most other industries, public or private. Short term temporary contracts are the norm and the lack of benchmarking procedures ensures that promotion/continued employment is based largely on the favour of others. Scientists in particular are expected to maintain a steady research output while also teaching and networking, which is next to impossible to accomplish. It's very easy for someone to hold back your progress by highlighting the area you lack, e.g. your research record is excellent but you need more teaching hours, while someone in favour will have job specs slanted towards their strengths.

Yurt2

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You actually do get that pressure in academia. More so than most other industries, public or private. Short term temporary contracts are the norm and the lack of benchmarking procedures ensures that promotion/continued employment is based largely on the favour of others. Scientists in particular are expected to maintain a steady research output while also teaching and networking, which is next to impossible to accomplish. It's very easy for someone to hold back your progress by highlighting the area you lack, e.g. your research record is excellent but you need more teaching hours, while someone in favour will have job specs slanted towards their strengths.

This aspect of the modern university is absolutely crazy. I have some friends 'below the bar' working in academia and they're driving themselves nuts trying to be all things to all men.

OscarMIlde

Yurt! wrote: »

This aspect of the modern university is absolutely crazy. I have some friends 'below the bar' working in academia and they're driving themselves nuts trying to be all things to all men.

Yes, the worst part is you are expected to be on a PI/Professorial track or else be unemployable. There is no room for people who just love the lab work/research and would be happy to do that forever. UCD for example generally won't let you be employed for over five years as a post doc, even if you move labs within university, which is the real world equivalent of taking a new job, lest you sue for CID.

So you get a continuous merry-go-round of bright, dedicated people slogging their guts for ten to fifteen years before facing the facts that they will never get secure employment and leaving to be replaced by the next batch of bright young things. In the process a wealth of knowledge and experience is lost. It's essentially a giant ponzi scheme where a few make it but the majority don't and the university continues to cream profit with their 10% cut of research grants, free teaching supply, and charging for use of facilities.

Realt Dearg Sec

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Yes, the worst part is you are expected to be on a PI/Professorial track or else be unemployable. There is no room for people who just love the lab work/research and would be happy to do that forever. UCD for example generally won't let you be employed for over five years as a post doc, even if you move labs within university, which is the real world equivalent of taking a new job, lest you sue for CID.

So you get a continuous merry-go-round of bright, dedicated people slogging their guts for ten to fifteen years before facing the facts that they will never get secure employment and leaving to be replaced by the next batch of bright young things. In the process a wealth of knowledge and experience is lost. It's essentially a giant ponzi scheme where a few make it but the majority don't and the university continues to cream profit with their 10% cut of research grants, free teaching supply, and charging for use of facilities.

This is an excellent description of the system. Anyone who describes the university in terms of being a public sector number where you don't have to worry about job security, you can automatically rule them as not having the first clue what they're talking about. It is an incredibly high pressure working environment, especially for those lower on the pole. As you say, it's a Ponzi scheme.

We could get into the weeds on that and all the consequences that flow from it, but one thing I can say with certainty is that speaking out against harassment, particularly by tenured faculty, would be really difficult for, say, an adjunct or a grad student, and very likely to result in the end of their career. Ni Shuilleabhain's story is remarkable because even as a relatively powerful person (an assistant professor with a fairly high public profile) she was still brushed off. I don't know anything about the harasser but I am going to assume he was a productive researcher and drew down a lot of grant money.

Working in the humanities I knew lots of women who had been casually harassed as grad students and adjuncts by senior folks and they never reported it because they felt the risks were too great. They were almost certainly correct. Also in my field at least, professors get used to thinking of themselves as minor celebrities of a sort. Women at conferences and stuff do kind of flock towards these people and hang on their every word. It's very easy to start to think you can do whatever you want.

Kaybaykwah

Tork wrote: »

This is the perfect storm, isn't it? Harassment that reads like something from a Hollywood stalker movie, missing only the climactic fight to the death scene. And the victim is someone who's reasonably well known and credible. If anyone with half a brain had been working in UCD's HR department, they should've been onto this like a shot. Ironically, this creep's reputation is now publicly in ruins because the morons in HR didn't do their job properly in the first place and led to this escalating. You would wonder what other stories are out there and if anyone else is going to come forward.

That is a very apt point. This guy's acts are reproachable, and he needed to be confronted. He obviously had something going between a behavioral or psychological problem that needed attention. Maybe, if the guy had been put in a position where he had to consult with a psychologist, the prolonged ordeal might have been avoided, and afforded both the guy and the lady a better outcome. Nip it in the bud, if possible, if not, deal with the abusive party more harshly.


These kinds of situations are very common, unfortunately. Anytime someone complains of an issue like this, there should be a sympathetic ear, and action.

Tea drinker

JasonStatham wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/aoibhinn-n%C3%AD-sh%C3%BAilleabh%C3%A1in-two-years-of-harassment-at-ucd-1.4346015?mode=amp

UCD academic, Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain recounts her episode of harassment. I have to say it's a shocking story.

How can a professional organization let such a thing carry on for so long? Absolutely shocking.

There was an issue in one of the museums in Dublin I think? A lad got moved "from parish to parish" in the museum IIRC ?
*Some* Professional organisations have no problem with this up until they are embarrassed publicly to take action

Morgans

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

This is an excellent description of the system. Anyone who describes the university in terms of being a public sector number where you don't have to worry about job security, you can automatically rule them as not having the first clue what they're talking about. It is an incredibly high pressure working environment, especially for those lower on the pole. As you say, it's a Ponzi scheme.

We could get into the weeds on that and all the consequences that flow from it, but one thing I can say with certainty is that speaking out against harassment, particularly by tenured faculty, would be really difficult for, say, an adjunct or a grad student, and very likely to result in the end of their career. Ni Shuilleabhain's story is remarkable because even as a relatively powerful person (an assistant professor with a fairly high public profile) she was still brushed off. I don't know anything about the harasser but I am going to assume he was a productive researcher and drew down a lot of grant money.

Working in the humanities I knew lots of women who had been casually harassed as grad students and adjuncts by senior folks and they never reported it because they felt the risks were too great. They were almost certainly correct. Also in my field at least, professors get used to thinking of themselves as minor celebrities of a sort. Women at conferences and stuff do kind of flock towards these people and hang on their every word. It's very easy to start to think you can do whatever you want.

Add to this that Irish academia is a very small pool (rife with gossip and where news travels and informal references have huge value) and post docs have very limited options to transfer their skills to a competitor should they have dirtied their bib. It adds up to those at the bottom of the ladder being in a hugely vulnerable position. It's a real problem across all universities and HR needs to be better to improve the lives of new academics. Anyone suggesting that there was anything more to this case going public other than that is reaching.

Nexytus

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

That is a very apt point. This guy's acts are reproachable, and he needed to be confronted. He obviously had something going between a behavioral or psychological problem that needed attention. Maybe, if the guy had been put in a position where he had to consult with a psychologist, the prolonged ordeal might have been avoided, and afforded both the guy and the lady a better outcome. Nip it in the bud, if possible, if not, deal with the abusive party more harshly.


These kinds of situations are very common, unfortunately. Anytime someone complains of an issue like this, there should be a sympathetic ear, and action.

Maybe he was just a bad cxnt. And he didn't have any condition.

Awaaf

Major kudos to Dr Aoibhinn ní Shúilleabháin for highlighting this issue in such an effective way.

It really is appalling (although not very surprising), that Irish 3rd level institutions who claim to be elite functioning adults when seeking state funding can fail so appallingly.

To do what she has done requires so much as a person.

Inter alia you must withstand and make sense of the behaviour forced on you in all its unsettling reality, you must raise the strength to complain, you must cope with the cynicism of the people who claim to be there to support you, you must cope with the indifference (at best) of bystanders, you must see it through and you then must be willing to expose yourself and your story publicly (all the while being concerned about costly legal backlash and the impact on your family).

After doing all that she has the intelligence and grace to eschew the cheap bandwagoners who seek to attach themselves to her cause by insisting that this is an issue for all people (regardless of their gender) to face up to their responsibility in.

Bravo Dr. Aoibhinn ní Shúilleabháin

Realt Dearg Sec

Morgans wrote: »

Add to this that Irish academia is a very small pool (rife with gossip and where news travels and informal references have huge value) and post docs have very limited options to transfer their skills to a competitor should they have dirtied their bib. It adds up to those at the bottom of the ladder being in a hugely vulnerable position. It's a real problem across all universities and HR needs to be better to improve the lives of new academics. Anyone suggesting that there was anything more to this case going public other than that is reaching.

All this is true. A couple of things I would add though: the fact that people gossip can work the other way as well. It was, and remains, widely known in my discipline who the old creeps are that young women (or in the case of gay academics, young men) should avoid either being alone with in the office, or stuck with at a conference or the like. When Metoo happened my first thought was, academia is going to be RIFE with stories. They really haven't surfaced to the extent I expected, but they are there.

The other thing is that while the small world of Irish academia is a problem, in my experience UCD has a lot more issues than other institutions I've worked in (I've worked in two other Irish universities, I'm in the States now). I don't just mean harassment (it's obviously an issue though), but also the way adjuncts and grad students are treated, how HR conducts itself, what kind of academic culture is fostered, etc etc. All these things fed into this story, and I genuinely don't think it would have played out as badly in the other Irish universities I've been in.

Morgans

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

All this is true. A couple of things I would add though: the fact that people gossip can work the other way as well. It was, and remains, widely known in my discipline who the old creeps are that young women (or in the case of gay academics, young men) should avoid either being alone with in the office, or stuck with at a conference or the like. When Metoo happened my first thought was, academia is going to be RIFE with stories. They really haven't surfaced to the extent I expected, but they are there.

The other thing is that while the small world of Irish academia is a problem, in my experience UCD has a lot more issues than other institutions I've worked in (I've worked in two other Irish universities, I'm in the States now). I don't just mean harassment (it's obviously an issue though), but also the way adjuncts and grad students are treated, how HR conducts itself, what kind of academic culture is fostered, etc etc. All these things fed into this story, and I genuinely don't think it would have played out as badly in the other Irish universities I've been in.

Agreed. Aoibhinn mentions how the carpet under which these issues are brushed is lumpy. Far more minor issues are allowed fester without any resolution with sometimes devastating effects on the people involved. There has been no appetite to address these issues organisationally. Anyone brave enough to seek some resolution in the future will hopefully feel more powered.

Kaybaykwah

Nexytus wrote: »

Maybe he was just a bad cxnt. And he didn't have any condition.

Not denying the possibility. The University should have some measures for dealing with people like that. Getting a psychological evaluation done is the first one. Then you can determine if it's a disease or behavioral problem, and try to deal with it.