Ireland has gone Batty - Lecturer in UCC in trouble over Fruitbat Sex Article

CDfm

One of my US feminist friends sent me over this link after we swapped stories on the Hunky Dory saga.

This while humoorous has a serious side. A lecturer.Dr Evans, was discussing the "non uniqueness" of humans with a colleague and passed on a peer reviewed article concerning oral sex by fruitbats.

He got complained to HR and now is under sanctions. This is like PC gone mad. He is attached to the School of Medicine.

Sex, Fruit Bats, and Politically Correct Zoology at an Irish College



What's Your Reaction:

I had heard of "the love that dare not speak its name," but I had no idea it referred to the sexual habits of fruit bats. According to a professor at University College Cork in Ireland, however, sharing with colleagues a peer-reviewed article about observed oral sex among fruit bats was enough to get him put on double secret probation.



Printed below in its entirety is a letter from the censured professor, Dr. Dylan Evans, explaining what happened and asking people to join a petition protesting his ludicrously unjust punishment. (Hat tip to Steven Pinker of Harvard for forwarding this along.)

Subject: Please help me fight the sanctions imposed on me by University College Cork
Dear Colleagues,
The President of University College Cork, Professor Michael Murphy, has imposed harsh sanctions on me for doing nothing more than showing an article from a peer-reviewed scientific article to a colleague.
The article was about fellatio in fruit bats. You can read it online at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007595
It was covered extensively in the media, including the Guardian - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/10/oral-sex-bats-improbable-research
The colleague to whom I showed the article complained to HR that the article was upsetting. I had been engaged in an ongoing debate with the colleague in question about the relevance of evolutionary biology to human behaviour, and in particular about the dubiousness of many claims for human uniqueness. I showed it the colleague in the context of this discussion, and in the presence of a third person. I also showed the article to over a dozen other colleagues on the same day, none of whom objected.
HR launched a formal investigation. Despite the fact that external investigators concluded that I was not guilty of harassment, Professor Murphy has imposed a two-year period of intensive monitoring and counselling on me, and as a result my application for tenure is likely to be denied.
I am now campaigning to have the sanctions lifted. I would be grateful for your support on this matter. I have created an online petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedebate/
I'd be grateful if you sign the petition and ask your colleagues to do so. If you also felt like writing directly to the President of UCC, his address is:
Professor Michael Murphy
The President's Office
University College Cork
Cork
Republic of Ireland.
Your support would be greatly appreciated.
Dylan Evans

---

Dr. Dylan Evans
Lecturer in Behavioural Science
School of Medicine
University College Cork,
Cork, Ireland.

Anyone who has read previous entries of mine here on The Huffington Post already knows that even the most inadvertent offense can lead to students and faculty members being charged and often found guilty of various campus crimes. (Do I need to mention again the student punished for "openly" reading a book?)
But thankfully, here in the United States we have the awesome protections of the First Amendment to vindicate the rights to both free speech and academic freedom. Ireland, to my knowledge, does not have such powerful protections, leaving Dr. Evans in a bind.
So it is up to us to let the misguided President Murphy know that running an institution of higher education means placing the search for knowledge above the sensibilities of the inordinately squeamish. Ridicule sometimes wins where common sense fails, so I encourage you to spread the word about this case, write President Murphy, and sign the petition.
Seriously, President Murphy: A lot of facts about animals are weird, gross, and in this case, sort of funny. But if you're going to be a grown-up at a grown-up university, you really need to, well, grow up.
UPDATE: I just received the official documentation from Professor Evans. You can judge for yourself: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/. While the accuser alleges more than the Fruit Bat article was at play, it was the incident that inspired the complaint, and which President Murphy targets in particular and in a very odd way. While the additional details are helpful I ultimately agree with the letter from the Irish Federation of University Teachers http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ifut.pdf.
Also you can check out the article in New Scientist about the incident (new on Monday, May 17).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/sex-fruit-bats-and-politi_b_576597.html .

dlofnep

What a ridiculous suspension.

Hazys

Something tells me there is more to this story...

CDfm

Hazys wrote: »

Something tells me there is more to this story...

There is a bit so thats why I left the links in

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18916-bat-fellatio-causes-a-scandal-in-academia.html

Nevyn

Hazys wrote: »

Something tells me there is more to this story...

HR says it wasn't just that one single incident that there was a pattern of behaviour. 3 sides to every story.

Fremen

There's a lot of fairly intelligent discussion of this story here.

It seems that this is fallout from a clash of personalities, as much as anything else. This is one of several incidents that allegedly constituted harrassment. The rest were thrown out because Evans had e-mail evidence which didn't match up with the accuser's story. Apparently she laughed and asked for a copy of the article, then added this to the list of allegations later.

I don't think the disciplinary action is political correctness on the part of the university, so much as fear of a harassment lawsuit

Nevyn

/shrug
many people laugh when they are uncomfrotable, either as a nervous reaction or to try and cover up how uncomfortable they are feeling and if she considered being shown the article to be part of harrashment it would make sense she got a copy for her case.

CDfm

Fremen wrote: »

There's a lot of fairly intelligent discussion of this story here.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting comments on internal college politics there.

I can understand Dr Evans position /sensitivity as this type of innuendo surrounding a guy can harm a career and as he points out -it already has.

EDIT -an update from the London Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7128911.ece

kangaroo

Fremen wrote: »

I don't think the disciplinary action is political correctness on the part of the university, so much as fear of a harassment lawsuit

But they can be connected. Somebody's ideas makes somebody feel uncomfortable - sounds like part of the basis of the sexual harassment claim.

Freedom of thought should be encouraged in our academic institutions.

We shouldn't have people penalised for what some see as "thought crimes".

The petition link again is: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedebate/

ETA: reading a few more comments on this solidifies a vague feeling I had that our sexual harrassment laws are far from perfect. (presuming what they are saying is correct).
Here's an anonymous comment from one of the petition signers:

Dylan I fully support your petition, but you are unfortunateely 100% guilty. This is becuase of the most stupid law in Ireland which says the complainant only has to say "i didn't like or want (whatever)" and that is enough to convict you. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/equality-in-work/harassment_at_work - this sets out some background. You are automatically guilty. I was put through five years on this issue despite my innocence being to prove I wasn't there when events were meant to happen. But I had to find the forensic proof - phone records, IT records, witnesses etc who disproved the case. sufficiently to allow the judge to say the complainant had purged themselves What you have to remember is this in not about you. Its about the complainant. You are under Irish law guilty just becuase she made a complaint, times events etc did occur and all she has to say is it was "unwanted" as per the link above. I wish you luck in highlighting this. She is probably also claiming compesation from her employer for their failure to keep her safe from you under haelth and safety legislation. You often find these personal grudges become about money as they evolve. They have admitted this in the documents listed. You may get a case against you presonally for breaches of her human rights for all of this I intend to write a book on this to highlight it.

From: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/psychologis-at-university-college-cork.html

Sexual harrassment is one of the only laws I know of where the guilty party's thoughts, motives and behaviors are completely irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is how the victim perceives you.

Obviously sexual harrassment is real and obviously abuse of sexual harrassment laws to destroy people is real as well.

Sounds like time for segregated workplaces, to protect the hothouse flower that is woman from the horrid beast that is man.

But seriously, it reminds me why I do not have discussions about non-work issues with any female employee or client ever ever ever.

You never know who has it in for you. And one word from a disgruntled female is sufficient to send you into therapy, or get you fired.

It's made work desolate and lonely, but I don't want to get fired for this kind of BS. I have found I make a pretty good robot. My lack of any discernible reaction to sexual humor from women is incomparable.

Because someone is "offended", we give up all speech that does not conform to their dictates?

Somewhere, Dr. Goebbels is laughing hysterically.

etc

CDfm

It read to me like a set up and a situatiion where what he haS "there is no smoke without fire" hanging over him on his reputation

Others may think of the infamous Monkey Trial in the US in the 1920's

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

Zulu

I don't know the "ins" & "outs" of this case (other that whats been posted here) so I'll reserve judgment on this particular case, however, it does strike me that men are more and more obliged (legally) to respect the "sensitivities" of women.
It occurs to me, that this necessarily isn't a courtesy that's extended to men.

What I'm trying to articulate is that, while we acknowledge the differences between men & women, we only seem interested (as a society) to protect the differences of one sex, while disregarding (sometimes completely) the differences of the other.

The danger here (if it hasn't already occurred) is the potential that by legally protecting (the differences of) one sex, we can, in effect, make the (differences of the) other illegal!

Herbal Deity

Thaedydal wrote: »

HR says it wasn't just that one single incident that there was a pattern of behaviour. 3 sides to every story.

Did you read all the correspondence between all parties?

There were more incidents, but they were all dismissed. He was suspended soley for showing her the bat fellatio article.

Here's the site with all the correspondence. Read the second page of the investigators report. Notice how the sexual harassment claims have not been upheld. The single incident of showing her the article has been the only reason for his punishment.

KrustyUCC

Dr Evans was on the Neil Prenderville show on 96fm this morning. Interview should be up on web later on tonight

Wibbs

Zulu wrote: »

I don't know the "ins" & "outs" of this case (other that whats been posted here) so I'll reserve judgment on this particular case, however, it does strike me that men are more and more obliged (legally) to respect the "sensitivities" of women.
It occurs to me, that this necessarily isn't a courtesy that's extended to men.

+1 It's not far off the leaving the toilet seat up or down argument. You want it down? You put it down. You want it up? You put it up. It's really bloody simple. If you suggest the correct way is down than you're also accepting that one sides position is the correct one. That aint equality folks.

The other aspect of this is that it may very well harm women. If you have a choice to hire/research with someone, as a man you may well feel going for another man is the better bet. Less hassle. Just because of BS cases like this. In a similar way that men may feel reticent to approach a lost child, in case he's accused of dubious motives, so he'll just walk on by.

A good mate of mine was called by his HR dept over an incident. The details of which I wont go into for privacy reasons(you really couldnt have made it up, but there was actually nada sexual about it at all. I mean nada), but he ended up accused of sexual/gender harrassment. BTW the woman in question didnt suggest nor support this. The basic gist was that he should have known she wasnt the brightest and might have been "harrassed"(she wasnt and she wasnt) so he should have acted accordingly. Never mind her being daft. Even the woman who ran the HR dept realised it was daft, but companies are sooo twitchy about this and the legal ramifications that may follow.

EDIT it also leaves the option open for a woman who wants to score political points in her career to bring an accusation like this. All she has to do is accuse and some of the shít sticks.

kayos

And the woman in question is married to the VP of research at UCC. Sorry but surely she would understand that someone involved in behavioural science would have a real interest in such research papers.

Now the question could be asked why would he share this paper with someone involved with a more medical field. But come to think of it if you are from that field reproduction would be covered. Oh noes from now on all girls will have to be thought the reproductive systems by a female just incase the male teacher would be done for sexual harassment.

Things like this remind me of the old two ronnies skits "the worm that turned".

Zulu

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 It's not far off the leaving the toilet seat up or down argument. You want it down? You put it down. You want it up? You put it up. It's really bloody simple. If you suggest the correct way is down than you're also accepting that one sides position is the correct one. That aint equality folks.

A pet peeve of mine. If you insist it's down - fair enough, but accept the fact that you are now insisting on shrinking my "target". As such, accept a "wetter" seat.
Alternatively, insist it's up, and mitigate the risk of a wet seat altogether!
<Sorry for the OT post>

Teferi

Thaedydal wrote: »

HR says it wasn't just that one single incident that there was a pattern of behaviour. 3 sides to every story.

Oh come off it. Did you read her letter of complaint? She talks about his love of gambling and other things that have absolutely no relevance to the case (Casanova etc.) to paint the lad in a bad light.

A lot of women are going to side with her because she is a woman. This is akin to a woman falsely accusing a man of rape. Even if proved false an accusation of rape or sexual harrassment will stick with you.

Nevyn

I said there was bound to be 3 sides to it, his, hers and the truth.
I hadn't read the correspondence when I made that post and if you think that I am picking her side cos she's female
then, then I can't honestly say what I think that makes you with out getting banned.

CDfm

The person who sent me the link is a woman in the US who is an academic and who thought it might be of interest to post on tGC. She looked at it on a factual basis and is squarely on Dr Evans side.

It has appeared in the New Scientist and as such the colleges own behavior is subject to "peer review".

Teferi

Thaedydal wrote: »

I said there was bound to be 3 sides to it, his, hers and the truth.
I hadn't read the correspondence when I made that post and if you think that I am picking her side cos she's female
then, then I can't honestly say what I think that makes you with out getting banned.

*shrugs* I've lost faith in womens ability to be unbiased since those Hunky Dory advertisements. Note, however, that I did not mention you when I said it.

I would also suggest that his story is far closer to the truth than hers on the evidence shown. If she is found to be making wrongful complaints and accusations then I hope there is justice given to him.

Nevyn

You quoted my post.

The last communication I got from the ASAI says the ads were in breach of sectionsion 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 of the advertising codes and the case is going forward.

r3nu4l

1) Leave the Hunky Dory stuff out of this thread.

2) There are at least three sides to this story and in fact there's another side that is totally bizarre that I know of but won't be discussing here.

3) NewScientist and all the other blogs out there are all going with the information they have, that does NOT mean they have the full story, let's all bear that in mind.

CDfm

Just last week the lady I work with popped out with the question "whats a prostate gland" ( a relative of hers is in hospital with complications). Now this girl is married and I suppose her brothers etc wouldn't tell her.

Some might say its weird she didnt know but women dont have prostates. Because she is helping someone who is ill I explained it just as I would to any friend. I even pointed her to a few links on it.

By the measurement system here, even though she asked and I answered, it could have been sexual harrassment. My girlfriend has mentioned the guidelines where she works in the past -so I am not totally unaware.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I said there was bound to be 3 sides to it, his, hers and the truth.

In fairness we don't know the full story, so there may be more to it than this 'offending' Fruitbat Sex article, so I would tend to agree with you with regards to hearing the full story first. I've known of at least one case where an academic was sanctioned for things that were not publicly made known, but were valid accusations.

Given this, he is not under sanctions for 'the full story' AFAIK, only this. If he is indeed being sanctioned for a number of transgressions, then these should be listed and he should be given an opportunity to defend himself. He may ultimately still be guilty of far more than a Fruitbat Sex article, but if this is the only thing that he is accused of officially then it becomes little more than trial by a star chamber and I would sue them sideways in his shoes.

CDfm

By all accounts -this has now turned nasty and highly public.

As r3 said -its likely to end up in the courts-so when that happens it gets locked.

But we can have an interesting yap based on it on the do's and donts and it might benefit both girls and guys posting here.:)

I had a boss in the UK who used to pinch my bum in jeans at staff do's. :eek:

I certainly wont be sending the celery story round the office.

d'Oracle

Like "do not discuss fruit-bat fellatio with colleagues"?

CDfm

d'Oracle wrote: »

Like "do not discuss fruit-bat fellatio with colleagues"?

That is definiitely a no-no :pac:

ChiGung

Academics? "Bunch of bitchy little girls". I've seen them from the inside, you wouldn't believe the pettiness.

It looks like UCC have taken their side. They are going after him for breech of confidentiality now.

No matter what happens they both will be hurt by this.

d'Oracle

I just remarked at the two pigeons having it off outside the window of my office.

Could be trouble.

CDfm

d'Oracle wrote: »

I just remarked at the two pigeons having it off outside the window of my office.

Could be trouble.

Working in a zoo could be really career threatening. Hey ,come look at the pand.............:pac:

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

But we can have an interesting yap based on it on the do's and donts and it might benefit both girls and guys posting here.:)

I had a boss in the UK who used to pinch my bum in jeans at staff do's. :eek:

To begin with academia should not be taken as an accurate reflection of the real World.

There are two issues to consider - what is appropriate, or not, for white males to do, and secondly what is appropriate, or not, for non-white males to do. I use the term 'white males' loosely do define whatever group that traditionally has been seen to offend or otherwise oppress other groups. In the West it is generally white males, with Protestantism also being cited as a component in the US.

The former is a major discussion in itself and we could end up debating for months what constitutes sexism, racism, anti-Semitic, whatever-ism that would offend a reasonable person. I say reasonable, because we have seen cases where something that is innocent or even coincidentally offensive cause controversy.

The second issue is that offense cuts both ways and non-white males are no strangers to perpetuating sexist, racist or whatever-ist behavior too. In terms of sexism and sexual harassment, this first really came to the public attention (or at least mine) with the film Disclosure. Unfortunately, the message was somewhat lost in that the sexual predator was Demi Moore - had Cathy Bates taken would the role, I think the point would have been a lot better served.

I do think things are changing, but very, very slowly. I remember being told about ten years ago that men simply couldn't be sexually or otherwise harassed - it was an oxymoron - and fortunately this attitude has largely been discredited. Given this, there is still very little policing of this issue and harassment - both sexual and non-sexual, continues today. An example of the latter is the assumption in a workplace that any kind of physical labour is a 'man's job' (try suggesting in response that making the coffee is a woman's job and see where that gets you).

The above is not limited to sexism, but can also be seen with all the other 'isms'.

Macha

Good point The Corinthian.

Just this morning I was reading an article about the World Cup in South Africa. They're clearing the streets of homeless people & prostitutes (sad in and of itself). But the sentence that jumped out at me was the following one:

many cases those in need, like women with children and disabled people, are referred to places of safety, where they can access welfare services,” said Edna Mamonyane, spokeswoman for the Johannesburg Metro Police this week.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0519/1224270655623.html

As if men can never be "in need".

Zardoz

As someone who worked in UCC for a number of years and was also involved in disciplinary issues it doesnt surprise me that UCC is involved.
Time and time again that institute has shown itself to believe it is above the law and its disciplinary procedure is nothing more than a kangaroo court.
Kudos to Dr Evans for going public and showing the world what a joke of a place UCC is .

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

As if men can never be "in need".

I would be a little bit more forgiving of that one. Just as it is wrong for one to cite sexual inequality in places like Saudi Arabia in a discussion on sexual equality in Ireland (or the West in general), South Africa is not exactly Ireland in this regard. Women there are still treated in a far more sexist fashion and the idea of women being more more "in need" than men is borne out by their fairly well documented (at least in the black community) disadvantaged position in that society.

Of course, if it was a European or American official who had said that, then I would completely agree with you.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would be a little bit more forgiving of that one. Just as it is wrong for one to cite sexual inequality in places like Saudi Arabia in a discussion on sexual equality in Ireland (or the West in general), South Africa is not exactly Ireland in this regard. Women there are still treated in a far more sexist fashion and the idea of women being more more "in need" than men is borne out by their fairly well documented (at least in the black community) disadvantaged position in that society.

I hadn't thought about it that way. To be honest the first thing I thought was South Africa is a country that experiences significant gender inequality and these are largely a result of gender stereotypes, including the idea that men cannot be needy. So of course this sort of attitude will be more prevalent somewhere like that.

I suppose it's the chicken/egg argument.

CDfm

Don't you think though in an area like psychology or sociology where people may have their own strong views on gender behaviour that it is very easy for things to be interpreted or amplified out of all proportion.

Just say I am working with someone and the ask me to do something and I refuse for whatever reason say its ethical grounds, if the person, is female they can play the gender or harrassment card.

They may do so either maliciously or, if they genuinely wrongly believe it to be the case innocently.

Nonetheless, I am sunk either way.

Galvasean

I'm glad I work in such a liberal environment. We trade innuendos for fun. Helps stave off the boredom.

nkay1985

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness we don't know the full story, so there may be more to it than this 'offending' Fruitbat Sex article, so I would tend to agree with you with regards to hearing the full story first. I've known of at least one case where an academic was sanctioned for things that were not publicly made known, but were valid accusations.

Given this, he is not under sanctions for 'the full story' AFAIK, only this. If he is indeed being sanctioned for a number of transgressions, then these should be listed and he should be given an opportunity to defend himself. He may ultimately still be guilty of far more than a Fruitbat Sex article, but if this is the only thing that he is accused of officially then it becomes little more than trial by a star chamber and I would sue them sideways in his shoes.

Yeah I get the sense that this is the scenario here.

It's awful that the law makes it so easy for a malicious person to seriously damage another person's life. I'm not saying this is the case here but the debate this ignites is certainly interesting.

The Corinthian

nkay1985 wrote: »

It's awful that the law makes it so easy for a malicious person to seriously damage another person's life. I'm not saying this is the case here but the debate this ignites is certainly interesting.

As I said earlier, academia should not be taken as an accurate reflection of the real World. I think most anyone who has worked or even done a postgrad (when you're doing a primary degree you're largely sheltered from the politics) will have realized that academic institutions are run in a bizarre manner - and I use the term 'institution' with good reason...

CDfm

this article amused me in a little dogs hump peoples legs way and i cant believe that we have reached a stage where telling someone their zipper is done could be construed as harrasment

i know we shouldnt compare fora but tLL is likely to be more explicit than tGC and women do have far more open discussions about lots of stuff like that than guys.

Hush dear, not in front of the women

May 22, 2010 4:19 PM | By - ©The Times, London
Bats are one of the few nonhuman species to engage in fellatio. Fruit bats indulge in oral sex.

Current Font Size:
NO OFFENCE: Bats fellate other bats. Deal with it

Sorry, are you offended? Is it the existence of fruity bat behaviour that offends you, or that we chose to break the news in a family newspaper? Animals, apparently, copulate often, and enthusiastically. Some do it with the same sex. Some are monogamous, but most are shameless harlots. Teenage olive baboons resemble the UK's premiership footballers let loose in a dodgy nightclub; one distracts the alpha male while the others team up for a group session with the missus.
Sometimes, these facts are a little too bald for the more sensitive among us. Dr Dylan Evans, a British scientist at an Irish university, has been disciplined for sexual harassment after he showed a female colleague a peer- reviewed article entitled: "Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time".
After an investigation by the university, Evans was cleared of engaging in a pattern of sexually inappropriate behaviour, but rebuked for the bat incident. His punishment was a two-year period of monitoring and appraising, and special training.
What was in the special training? Could it be:
Rule one: Do not discuss the sexual habits of animals with any lady colleagues in case they faint.
Rule two: If your work involves researching sexual behaviour, please ensure that you obtain disclaimers from all colleagues before using any of these words: "sex", "penis", "bottom".
Rule three: Try to find euphemisms that will not offend. "Lady garden" is nice, if you must refer to female down-below regions. "Making love" is a pretty phrase.
Rule four: If you fear that scientific debate is being stifled by fear of harassment accusations, tough. We must protect lady scientists, and their pretty little ears must be defended.
The investigation into Evans concluded that he showed his colleague the paper in the spirit of "sexual innuendo". He claims that it was part of a continuing debate about non-human sexual activity and what that tells us about our own behaviour.
Why does it matter? What is wrong with modern womanhood that we insist on parity in all things, yet retain the right to behave like heroines in 19th-century novels who accidentally stumble across some copulating horses? It is bad enough that the modern office environment makes us pretend that humans don't have sex; now we must all collude in the myth that animals are built like Barbie and Ken, all smoothed-over genitalia and wholesome innocence.
There are doubtless genuine cases of sexual harassment out there. But all are betrayed by women who whinge about trivia - up to and including fellating bats.

Galvasean

Dylan better not tell his co-workers about this....

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

Dylan better not tell his co-workers about this....

From what I recall from documentaries, male lions are a bit "sexist" and don't do their fair share of the work.

CDfm

And the chimp story is just so typical of males

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090407-chimps-meat-sex.html

Galvasean

Well, if anything good comes from this fiasco, maybe more people will be made aware of behaviour in animals once thought exclusive to humans.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

Well, if anything good comes from this fiasco, maybe more people will be made aware of behaviour in animals once thought exclusive to humans.

And that our needs and enjoyments are similar to theirs.

It would be nice to see that harmful accusations like this may also be used as weapons.

The Corinthian

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0522/1224270868918.html

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0522/1224270868918.html

I guess sex does sell. Or at least kinky animal sex does.

RedDragonJack

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/lecturer-i-didnt-get-fair-hearing-in-batsex-case-2442885.html

kangaroo

Sanctions against lecturer in bat sex case lifted by court
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1202/1224284572626.html

and

‘Bat’ lecturer succeeds in quashing sanctions
http://www.irishexaminer.com/home/bat-lecturer-succeeds-in-quashing-sanctions-138255.html

UCC seem to be spinning it:

In a statement, UCC said it welcomed the court’s decision to uphold its finding that Dr Evans was guilty of sexual harassment.

vs

She made a formal complaint and the external investigation found that while Dr Evans had no intention to offend, the incident fell within the definition of sexual harassment under the university’s Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity policy.

Mr Justice Kearns yesterday declined to quash the investigation findings but said he was quashing the sanctions imposed on foot of those findings.

The judge also awarded costs to Dr Evans.

Dr Dylan Evans, a behavioural science lecturer in UCC’s department of medicine, should have been admonished or received a verbal warning rather than being required to undergo counselling and two years of monitoring, president of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said yesterday.

CDfm

It does nothing for UCC to do a spin on it.

As a College and institution this has already harmed their own reputation and this case has become a cause celebre among academics.

I first heard about the case from a lobbyist in the US . She was fairly shocked at what was happening Dr Evans, and, UCC's behavior.

FoxT

UCC, along with other colleges are campaigning for fees to be reintroduced.

They should show that they are serious about this by spending less money on internecine warfare.