HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021417.jpg

to support and mentor students, colleagues, and members of the general public. | do not sexually harass people. If the purpose of your reporting is to somehow argue that Universities and other institutions are lax in dealing with well known individuals like myself, then in fact the situation is quite the opposite. My high public profile opens me up to more scrutiny at these institutions, not less, and it also opens me up to a host of outside complaints and allegations that other faculty do not receive, each of which the University has to respond to. The fact that | have remained a professor in all Universities with which | have been associated, in good standing, and also an officer or an invited speaker at organizations like CFI, which have strict harassment policies, is a confirmation of the fact that they trust my behavior. | was asked to be an honorary director of CFI, and invited to their last 3 meetings to speak, specifically because, as they have written me after the fact, the attendees universally appreciated my talks, my courtesy, and graciousness in spending time with the attendees. If the purpose of your report is to impugn my integrity or suggest | have a history of harassment, that too is false. As noted in one of your 'miscellaneous facts’, as a scientist | try and remain skeptical, and rely on empirical evidence, rather than allegations and innuendo. | also try and judge the facts in context. The fact that Universities and other organizations employ me or have me on their boards, or invite me to meetings is because they value my contributions and my actions. The items you list are false or distorted. Item 1 refers falsely and inaccurately to a consensual encounter in my hotel room in 2006 where we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate, and there were respectful and platonic encounters afterwards. There is nothing to comment on in item 3, which involves an anonymous 3rd party claim because | know nothing about it, there are no details provided, and it clearly was not taken seriously enough to result in any university action. Item 4 is confusing. Are you saying that because | decided | didn’t want to go out to a bar with a group of attendees that | was harassing them? The second part did not happen. Re incident 5: The ‘female companion’ in this case is my wife, who can attest to the fact that the claim is false, which is what | wrote at the time in response to the blog in question, causing it to be taken down. It is worth responding to Item 2 and 6 in more detail, Re item 2: the student in question was interested in science communication, and on dozens of occasions came to me or wrote to me with questions. When she asked about advice for after graduation | DID tell her she was different than the other students in her year. The rest of them were interested in going on to graduate school, but she was interested in science communication so | told her that she might want to take a different path. Since she was the only woman in her year, as | recall, | did ask her on one of these occasions if that made it difficult for her in any way. | asked, because as a faculty member | was interested in knowing what we could do, if necessary to encourage more women to go into physics, and also because as someone she had asked for career advice from | wanted to know if that made a difference to her. Re asking her for dinner.. | have gone back over emails from that period. | have numerous requests from her asking me to go for coffee to talk, which | usually had to turn down because | was busy, and on several occasions sh specifically asked me to have coffee with her off campus to talk, and | politely declined. | did let her accompany me off campus one time to watch me do a BBC interview because she specifically requested it. | did and do have coffee and meals with students on campus, and | see nothing wrong with this. | try to treat even students as respected colleagues if possible. | was shocked when | later learned of the complaint she was apparently asked to lodge to the University, not least because there was no inappropriate interaction and also because, well after the dates you listed on which she was apparently offended, she continued to email me with joking questions or comments. Also, at a later AAAS conference, again in 2008, for which she had asked, and for which | had written her a letter of recommendation to attend, my wife and | gave her a lift in our taxi well out out of our way in order to drop her off at her hotel, and | note in an email response to her email about the conference, agin in 2008, | expressed that | would pass her regards along to my wife and vice versa. When the University later informed me of the complaint | was shocked and concerned. When | spoke to the human resources person, including relating my concerns and providing the emails in question, | was told that no formal complaint of sexual harassment was deemed at that time to be called for, and that the young woman in question had agreed to that. By that time | learned of the complaint | had already announced my intentions to leave Case to accept an offer at ASU—a very difficult decision for me because of my long-standing attachment to the University, and the excellent relations | had with my colleagues there, both among the faculty and among the administration. Because | was already in Arizona at the time | was asked not to have any further interaction with the student | agreed to that request, both to respect her sensitivities and also because it was basically moot because | was not on campus. | was also told that because it was being handled informally, that (a) it should remain confidential, which |, at least abided by, and (b) if no further complaints were lodged in that case, that the University would remove the complaint from my record after 5 years, which makes me surprised that someone violated that written agreement with you. Re item 6: You report on ASU’s response to item #6 , without including the fact that the University specifically stated there were never any allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment by me at the University, and morever the outside complaints were in fact related specifically to your item #6. Further you neglect to mention that this complaint was by an anonymous third party, not the individual who was allegedly harassed, who never lodged a complaint, and that no specific evidence was provided of the alleged transgression. | was surprised and dismayed that both ASU and ANU launched investigations on the basis of this but was told by both Universities that because of my high profile even such unsubstantiated third party complaints at private events unrelated to the University would be investigated. The complaint was investigated throughly by both ASU and ANU and both came to the conclusion that it was not credible and no university policies had been violated. . In addition ANU’s investigation, which took a full month found significant inconsistencies in the allegation, suggesting distortion and fabrication, | will quote from the ANU report. The initial complaint, which in fact resulted in a temporary suspension of my position at ANU, until it was dismissed, outlined the claim you made in the words you quoted in your note to me, but it also stated "It is the University’s understanding that a complaint was lodged directly to the conference organisers at the time of the incident.” After the month-long investigation, during which | was told | was not to interact with anyone on campus (again moot because | was a hemisphere removed) the final report absolved me of any wrongdoing, and indicated information inconsistent with the original claim and apparent later claims as follows in the report, from which | quote: "The allegations were made by an observer to the incident. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021417