I disagree that "Sexual Encounters... at Whitehead" is a misleading title in the report, and I also disagree that the report section could be understood as misleading readers re: "wrongdoing" by DS.
Re: wrongdoing, the report states that DS asked WF1 to have sex at Whitehead (his workplace), three times by text, which I would say counts as wrongdoing without anything further -- or would you disagree with that? As I shared earlier, I feel the same standard of wrongdoing would apply to anyone in any US workplace, academic or not, where text messages show that the person asked his colleague to come have sex at the office. The report also confirms that DS was the initiator all three times, which accords with the texts themselves. DS was also the senior person in the relationship with career influence over WF1. To me, that is enough to be considered wrongdoing under Whitehead's workplace standards or most workplace standards.
Besides that, it looks like DS also admitted to investigators he had a "heavy make-out" session with WF1 at Whitehead (at his workplace), which to me also counts as wrongdoing for basically the same reasons that having sex at the office does. I feel that any WIBR staff member would be rightfully disturbed to walk in on a "heavy make-out" between the senior professor and a junior fellow or hear both their moans through the door; the conduct also risks creating an appearance to staff of a sexualized workplace or even a sexual quid-pro-quo based on their relative junior-senior status. DS is not entitled to a heavy make out at his workplace after inviting a junior colleague there for sex. It's fine for Whitehead/MIT to disallow that for myriad reasons, which their rules do disallow. Whitehead/MIT are subject to federal guidelines, also.
Re: misleading language calling the heavy make-out a "sexual encounter", labeling a "heavy make-out" as a sexual encounter is appropriate in my opinion. First, that aligns with most dictionary definitions of "sexual encounter" that anyone can look up online. Second, it makes sense because a "heavy make-out" doesn't belong in the workplace precisely because it's sexual activity, because a heavy make-out is a sexual thing to do.
Re: whether the language is misleading, "make out" and especially "heavy make out" normally involve contact with genitals and could potentially include oral sex and nudity that is short of intercourse - DS didn't seem to specify to the investigator what exactly happened besides calling it "heavy." If DS got a hand job or oral sex at his workplace or put his fingers in or on WF1's vagina for the purpose of mutual sexual pleasure, I think it would be normal to call it a "sexual encounter" -- especially if it happened during a time period when DS was repeatedly inviting WF1 to come to his workplace for sex. Had the headline been "Sexual Intercourse at Whitehead" it could be misleading, but that's not what the headline says.
(By comparison, most people thought Bill Clinton was misleading when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," because he was reported to get oral sex from Monica Lewinsky under his desk. Labeling a "heavy make out" as a "sexual encounter" is less misleading than not doing so, I would think.)
Regardless of whether intercourse happened at the office, or just heavy touching of genitals, I still feel that the documents you shared still show that DS's own conduct is what caused his consequences. DS lost his job and many of his colleagues lost respect for him because of what he did, not by any materially flawed or unfair investigation or false statements. The investigation produced real and indisputable documents and admissions.
Further, DS publicized his own civil case; in doing so, he seems to be singularly responsible for creating a pretty extreme example of the "Streisand effect" for himself. DS is the one who quickly filed a civil lawsuit and engaged the media. The entire public then had access to DS's own version of the events available in his own filings so anyone could make up their own mind about him. Many did not take his side. Prior to DS filing his own lawsuit, almost nobody knew of the case, and he could have easily found employment somewhere else, but he chose paint himself as a victim in public. I don't agree with that victim characterization and think a lot of the public couldn't relate.
DS started with the massive privilege of being a top senior professor at one of the country's most prestigious workplaces. Despite being a smart or scientifically productive, he wasn't entitled to flirt, kiss, have sexual banter, invite a woman to have sex at work, or "heavily" make out at work. That wasn't his right. There is credible evidence for all of the above in the original documents as I see them, and his own admissions, regardless of anything WF1 told investigators independently. DS's texts show that he purposefully chose reckless, inappropriate, risk-seeking behavior by inviting his hot junior colleague to have sex at work with him in pursuit of sexual pleasure and "fun", over nearly a year, in addition to workplace activity like kissing and sexual banter (that there is existing documentary evidence for). No regular person could get away with that and keep their job. That is in addition to DS violating the consensual relationships policy. DS is not a hapless victim of woke culture; his own actions caused him to lose professional opportunities.
To me, it speaks volumes that the one time DS's texts showed him backing off asking WF1 for sex at work, his reason was that it "wasn't fun" -- not that it was inappropriate. His texts show that he would have likely had workplace sex if WF1 hadn't resisted. He asked for it three times. All the while, he was a senior Whitehead/MIT professor. I feel that WIBR/MIT students and staff deserve better than a workplace like that. Every example of DS's texts paints him as someone who feels the rules don't apply to him. His civil suit paints him the same exact way, and it also comes across as flagrant retaliation. A civil suit for defamation is not "protected activity." Nor is hiring a PR firm and engaging the press such that the complainant's photo ends up in large format in high circulation tabloids.
Personally, I feel that Whitehead and MIT holding DS accountable was the right choice - the trade-off in the long term in losing DS from Whitehead/MIT but strengthening the culture of accountability and safety in academic science. Personally, I support basic standards of professionalism for academia. Whitehead and MIT were right to not tolerate his conduct. If DS lost his job for having an unpopular scientific opinion I would defend him strongly. But, DS lost his job for sexualizing his workplace and violating policies designed to protect a whole class of people.
I'm not going to comment going forward because I've probably already spent too much time engaging on this. But I will end with the thought that I feel you ought to stop sharing these documents and take down the ones you posted. What you are doing seems to me to be an invasion of the parties' privacy, unless you have their consent. I have noticed the same documents are now being republished from your website to other places like twitter accounts. As I understand it, both KK and DS shared records with the investigator with a presumption of confidentiality and privacy. Doing what you are doing does not just harm KK and DS, publishing their intimate materials for which they had legitimate privacy expectations is chilling to anyone who would participate in an internal investigation at work. Why don't you knock it off?
I feel sorry that people are apologists for DS, when DS's own actions show he disrespected the professional scientific environment he was lucky to work in, and where his colleagues did science and where students learned. I am overwhelmed by DS's hubris and think it's fairly common in academia. DS acted like the rules didn't apply to him. If any regular person did what he did, they would likely lose their jobs too from a prestigious and upstanding employer. The question for me is why DS felt (and appears to still feel, in his lawsuit) that he should be an exception, and what that says about the culture he was a part of.
I disagree that "Sexual Encounters... at Whitehead" is a misleading title in the report, and I also disagree that the report section could be understood as misleading readers re: "wrongdoing" by DS.
Re: wrongdoing, the report states that DS asked WF1 to have sex at Whitehead (his workplace), three times by text, which I would say counts as wrongdoing without anything further -- or would you disagree with that? As I shared earlier, I feel the same standard of wrongdoing would apply to anyone in any US workplace, academic or not, where text messages show that the person asked his colleague to come have sex at the office. The report also confirms that DS was the initiator all three times, which accords with the texts themselves. DS was also the senior person in the relationship with career influence over WF1. To me, that is enough to be considered wrongdoing under Whitehead's workplace standards or most workplace standards.
Besides that, it looks like DS also admitted to investigators he had a "heavy make-out" session with WF1 at Whitehead (at his workplace), which to me also counts as wrongdoing for basically the same reasons that having sex at the office does. I feel that any WIBR staff member would be rightfully disturbed to walk in on a "heavy make-out" between the senior professor and a junior fellow or hear both their moans through the door; the conduct also risks creating an appearance to staff of a sexualized workplace or even a sexual quid-pro-quo based on their relative junior-senior status. DS is not entitled to a heavy make out at his workplace after inviting a junior colleague there for sex. It's fine for Whitehead/MIT to disallow that for myriad reasons, which their rules do disallow. Whitehead/MIT are subject to federal guidelines, also.
Re: misleading language calling the heavy make-out a "sexual encounter", labeling a "heavy make-out" as a sexual encounter is appropriate in my opinion. First, that aligns with most dictionary definitions of "sexual encounter" that anyone can look up online. Second, it makes sense because a "heavy make-out" doesn't belong in the workplace precisely because it's sexual activity, because a heavy make-out is a sexual thing to do.
Re: whether the language is misleading, "make out" and especially "heavy make out" normally involve contact with genitals and could potentially include oral sex and nudity that is short of intercourse - DS didn't seem to specify to the investigator what exactly happened besides calling it "heavy." If DS got a hand job or oral sex at his workplace or put his fingers in or on WF1's vagina for the purpose of mutual sexual pleasure, I think it would be normal to call it a "sexual encounter" -- especially if it happened during a time period when DS was repeatedly inviting WF1 to come to his workplace for sex. Had the headline been "Sexual Intercourse at Whitehead" it could be misleading, but that's not what the headline says.
(By comparison, most people thought Bill Clinton was misleading when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," because he was reported to get oral sex from Monica Lewinsky under his desk. Labeling a "heavy make out" as a "sexual encounter" is less misleading than not doing so, I would think.)
Regardless of whether intercourse happened at the office, or just heavy touching of genitals, I still feel that the documents you shared still show that DS's own conduct is what caused his consequences. DS lost his job and many of his colleagues lost respect for him because of what he did, not by any materially flawed or unfair investigation or false statements. The investigation produced real and indisputable documents and admissions.
Further, DS publicized his own civil case; in doing so, he seems to be singularly responsible for creating a pretty extreme example of the "Streisand effect" for himself. DS is the one who quickly filed a civil lawsuit and engaged the media. The entire public then had access to DS's own version of the events available in his own filings so anyone could make up their own mind about him. Many did not take his side. Prior to DS filing his own lawsuit, almost nobody knew of the case, and he could have easily found employment somewhere else, but he chose paint himself as a victim in public. I don't agree with that victim characterization and think a lot of the public couldn't relate.
DS started with the massive privilege of being a top senior professor at one of the country's most prestigious workplaces. Despite being a smart or scientifically productive, he wasn't entitled to flirt, kiss, have sexual banter, invite a woman to have sex at work, or "heavily" make out at work. That wasn't his right. There is credible evidence for all of the above in the original documents as I see them, and his own admissions, regardless of anything WF1 told investigators independently. DS's texts show that he purposefully chose reckless, inappropriate, risk-seeking behavior by inviting his hot junior colleague to have sex at work with him in pursuit of sexual pleasure and "fun", over nearly a year, in addition to workplace activity like kissing and sexual banter (that there is existing documentary evidence for). No regular person could get away with that and keep their job. That is in addition to DS violating the consensual relationships policy. DS is not a hapless victim of woke culture; his own actions caused him to lose professional opportunities.
To me, it speaks volumes that the one time DS's texts showed him backing off asking WF1 for sex at work, his reason was that it "wasn't fun" -- not that it was inappropriate. His texts show that he would have likely had workplace sex if WF1 hadn't resisted. He asked for it three times. All the while, he was a senior Whitehead/MIT professor. I feel that WIBR/MIT students and staff deserve better than a workplace like that. Every example of DS's texts paints him as someone who feels the rules don't apply to him. His civil suit paints him the same exact way, and it also comes across as flagrant retaliation. A civil suit for defamation is not "protected activity." Nor is hiring a PR firm and engaging the press such that the complainant's photo ends up in large format in high circulation tabloids.
Personally, I feel that Whitehead and MIT holding DS accountable was the right choice - the trade-off in the long term in losing DS from Whitehead/MIT but strengthening the culture of accountability and safety in academic science. Personally, I support basic standards of professionalism for academia. Whitehead and MIT were right to not tolerate his conduct. If DS lost his job for having an unpopular scientific opinion I would defend him strongly. But, DS lost his job for sexualizing his workplace and violating policies designed to protect a whole class of people.
I'm not going to comment going forward because I've probably already spent too much time engaging on this. But I will end with the thought that I feel you ought to stop sharing these documents and take down the ones you posted. What you are doing seems to me to be an invasion of the parties' privacy, unless you have their consent. I have noticed the same documents are now being republished from your website to other places like twitter accounts. As I understand it, both KK and DS shared records with the investigator with a presumption of confidentiality and privacy. Doing what you are doing does not just harm KK and DS, publishing their intimate materials for which they had legitimate privacy expectations is chilling to anyone who would participate in an internal investigation at work. Why don't you knock it off?
I feel sorry that people are apologists for DS, when DS's own actions show he disrespected the professional scientific environment he was lucky to work in, and where his colleagues did science and where students learned. I am overwhelmed by DS's hubris and think it's fairly common in academia. DS acted like the rules didn't apply to him. If any regular person did what he did, they would likely lose their jobs too from a prestigious and upstanding employer. The question for me is why DS felt (and appears to still feel, in his lawsuit) that he should be an exception, and what that says about the culture he was a part of.