I'm very confused at why you're posting this. The texts plainly show that DS invited KK to have sex at work, in his office building, in their workplace. Per my reading, the texts also show that they did in fact have sex at work. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual, having sex at work is a fireable offense for anyone, isn't it? I would wager that any employee in America, at any professional level in any kind of job, can understand the basic concept that having sex in your office is justification for the employer firing you. I've been following this case in the news, and until you posted these texts I actually didn't know that DS had sex at work. I'm really confused now as to why (a) you would post these, and (b) DS would sue MIT. It's preposterous that an MIT professor could actually believe that it's his right to invite junior colleagues to have sex at his office building then actually do so without being fired -- consensual or not is irrelevant. Besides being a normal workplace, MIT is also an environment where students learn and a workplace that is under strict regulations by funding agencies when it comes to being non-sexualized and harassment-free. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual between KK and DS, a student or anyone else could have walked in on them having sex at work and seen the two of them naked mid-sex. Or maybe the students could have heard them moaning, etc. Why should MIT tolerate any of that, from any professor? Employees can be fired for having sex in the walk-in-refrigerator at Applebees, why should MIT be held to lower standards? The timeline and facts also show that it was obviously within MIT's discretion to treat KK differently: while both of them had sex at work, DS was substantially senior to her and was in a clear position to influence her career (by his own admission in the text you shared here about her faculty hire), and the texts also plainly show that HE invited HER to have sex at work while she pushed back at first until she gave in. The difference in seniority and influence would be justification enough to fire him, and not her. But besides that, she is apparently the also one who subsequently 'fessed up to MIT and asked for an investigation. In that sense, one of the two parties is not like the other. Whether the sex or relationship was arguably consensual has nothing to do with the crux of this matter. The professor had sex AT WORK. I'm really puzzled by the fact that you've gone to all this trouble to create a Substack and twitter account to defend a high-level professor who was deranged enough to think that having sex in his literal office building was just fine, with a junior colleague no less. The hubris is almost unbelievable that he sued MIT after this? Last I checked, MIT and the Whitehead are not porn sets or brothels. So, employees should not have sex there? Is that not obvious to literally anyone and everyone? I'm further perplexed at what kind of toxic culture the author of this Substack must live in to have them setting up a website to defend a professor who had sex in his office building. How is that not "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," a.k.a. the literal definition harassment, to anyone who shared a workplace with DS? Whether he and KK were in a consensual relationship has literally nothing to do with why DS's conduct was 100% inappropriate.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. We post them because they are the data from the report, whether they look good for Sabatini or not. Strictly speaking, they raise the possibility that they sex at work and certainly prove that they thought about doing so, but "prove" is something that we would only agree with if there were texts that said "the sex we just had at WIBR was great" or "let's not, I didn't like the last time we had sex at WIBR."
Sabatini isn't actually suing MIT--he is suing WIBR. And the suit is not for wrongful termination, it is for defamation. While we aren't lawyers, the crux of that lawsuit is not "did WIBR have the right to fire Sabatini" (which, of course they did, as he and Knouse broke WIBRs consensual relationship policy). Rather, the central question is "did Knouse and Lehmann/WIBR defame Sabatini?"
You don't need to suggest that the authors (plural) of this effort live in a toxic culture--our lives are just fine, thank you. We are primarily concerned with examining the raw data of this case--this is NOT an effort whose primary objective is to defend Sabatini. He has himself and a legal team for that. We are scientists who want very much to know what the primary data at the core of this case are. We aren't nearly as concerned with painting him in a positive light as you think that we are--even though we think that the investigation that led to his termination was flawed and the punishment is not commensurate with the "crime."
With respect to the sex at the WIBR question, Sabatini claimed to investigators that the suggestions by him for sex at WIBR were never actually consummated. For what it is worth, here is what the report narrative says that Sabatini claims:
"In his third interview, Sabatini told investigators that he wished to “clarify” his earlier
statement that he never had sex with Whitehead Fellow 1 at Whitehead. Sabatini raised – for the
first time – that Whitehead Fellow 1 and Sabatini had three separate “physical contacts” in
Whitehead in 2018 and 2019. These include: a kiss after a whiskey tasting in spring 2018; a
“heavy” make-out in Sabatini’s old office on the third floor around Thanksgiving 2018; and a
kiss on the cheek from Whitehead Fellow 1 after Sabatini received news he did not have cancer.
Sabatini denied having sex on the third floor."
Further, the report says: "On one occasion, Whitehead Fellow 1 responded that she was “not keen on [Whitehead] becoming a regular venue,” and it appears from the message that the encounter did not occur."
Lastly in this section of the report...there is actually NO claim by Knouse to investigators that they actually had sex at the WIBR. The entire section is about the suggestion that they had sex there. In the absence of an assertion by Knouse that they had sex at the WIBR...it actually sounds like they very well may not have.
Like you, though, we think that the suggestion of sex at work is pretty gross. Thank you for reading, and we welcome any and all comments from you as you sound like a civil and thoughtful individual.
I'm very confused at why you're posting this. The texts plainly show that DS invited KK to have sex at work, in his office building, in their workplace. Per my reading, the texts also show that they did in fact have sex at work. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual, having sex at work is a fireable offense for anyone, isn't it? I would wager that any employee in America, at any professional level in any kind of job, can understand the basic concept that having sex in your office is justification for the employer firing you. I've been following this case in the news, and until you posted these texts I actually didn't know that DS had sex at work. I'm really confused now as to why (a) you would post these, and (b) DS would sue MIT. It's preposterous that an MIT professor could actually believe that it's his right to invite junior colleagues to have sex at his office building then actually do so without being fired -- consensual or not is irrelevant. Besides being a normal workplace, MIT is also an environment where students learn and a workplace that is under strict regulations by funding agencies when it comes to being non-sexualized and harassment-free. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual between KK and DS, a student or anyone else could have walked in on them having sex at work and seen the two of them naked mid-sex. Or maybe the students could have heard them moaning, etc. Why should MIT tolerate any of that, from any professor? Employees can be fired for having sex in the walk-in-refrigerator at Applebees, why should MIT be held to lower standards? The timeline and facts also show that it was obviously within MIT's discretion to treat KK differently: while both of them had sex at work, DS was substantially senior to her and was in a clear position to influence her career (by his own admission in the text you shared here about her faculty hire), and the texts also plainly show that HE invited HER to have sex at work while she pushed back at first until she gave in. The difference in seniority and influence would be justification enough to fire him, and not her. But besides that, she is apparently the also one who subsequently 'fessed up to MIT and asked for an investigation. In that sense, one of the two parties is not like the other. Whether the sex or relationship was arguably consensual has nothing to do with the crux of this matter. The professor had sex AT WORK. I'm really puzzled by the fact that you've gone to all this trouble to create a Substack and twitter account to defend a high-level professor who was deranged enough to think that having sex in his literal office building was just fine, with a junior colleague no less. The hubris is almost unbelievable that he sued MIT after this? Last I checked, MIT and the Whitehead are not porn sets or brothels. So, employees should not have sex there? Is that not obvious to literally anyone and everyone? I'm further perplexed at what kind of toxic culture the author of this Substack must live in to have them setting up a website to defend a professor who had sex in his office building. How is that not "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," a.k.a. the literal definition harassment, to anyone who shared a workplace with DS? Whether he and KK were in a consensual relationship has literally nothing to do with why DS's conduct was 100% inappropriate.
Kelly--
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. We post them because they are the data from the report, whether they look good for Sabatini or not. Strictly speaking, they raise the possibility that they sex at work and certainly prove that they thought about doing so, but "prove" is something that we would only agree with if there were texts that said "the sex we just had at WIBR was great" or "let's not, I didn't like the last time we had sex at WIBR."
Sabatini isn't actually suing MIT--he is suing WIBR. And the suit is not for wrongful termination, it is for defamation. While we aren't lawyers, the crux of that lawsuit is not "did WIBR have the right to fire Sabatini" (which, of course they did, as he and Knouse broke WIBRs consensual relationship policy). Rather, the central question is "did Knouse and Lehmann/WIBR defame Sabatini?"
You don't need to suggest that the authors (plural) of this effort live in a toxic culture--our lives are just fine, thank you. We are primarily concerned with examining the raw data of this case--this is NOT an effort whose primary objective is to defend Sabatini. He has himself and a legal team for that. We are scientists who want very much to know what the primary data at the core of this case are. We aren't nearly as concerned with painting him in a positive light as you think that we are--even though we think that the investigation that led to his termination was flawed and the punishment is not commensurate with the "crime."
With respect to the sex at the WIBR question, Sabatini claimed to investigators that the suggestions by him for sex at WIBR were never actually consummated. For what it is worth, here is what the report narrative says that Sabatini claims:
"In his third interview, Sabatini told investigators that he wished to “clarify” his earlier
statement that he never had sex with Whitehead Fellow 1 at Whitehead. Sabatini raised – for the
first time – that Whitehead Fellow 1 and Sabatini had three separate “physical contacts” in
Whitehead in 2018 and 2019. These include: a kiss after a whiskey tasting in spring 2018; a
“heavy” make-out in Sabatini’s old office on the third floor around Thanksgiving 2018; and a
kiss on the cheek from Whitehead Fellow 1 after Sabatini received news he did not have cancer.
Sabatini denied having sex on the third floor."
Further, the report says: "On one occasion, Whitehead Fellow 1 responded that she was “not keen on [Whitehead] becoming a regular venue,” and it appears from the message that the encounter did not occur."
Lastly in this section of the report...there is actually NO claim by Knouse to investigators that they actually had sex at the WIBR. The entire section is about the suggestion that they had sex there. In the absence of an assertion by Knouse that they had sex at the WIBR...it actually sounds like they very well may not have.
Like you, though, we think that the suggestion of sex at work is pretty gross. Thank you for reading, and we welcome any and all comments from you as you sound like a civil and thoughtful individual.