Bringing the veil down on the fruit bats
For the moment the story is not going away, though I think it should. In fact, it should never have turned up in public anyway. It has been suggested by some commentators that UCC lecturer Dr Dylan Evans had no choice but to make his case public. I just cannot see that. There is always a choice. The discipline imposed on him was a confidential matter, and if he felt he was treated unjustly he had several avenues by which that could be addressed, including at least one that he has in fact adopted. He had not exhausted all appropriate remedies.
Instead he decided to press the higher education community’s hot button and claim he had been denied academic freedom. But as we know from the documentation that he has (quite wrongly) made public, this was not an issue of academic freedom at all. Nobody in University College Cork, from the President down, has at any point suggested he can not work on, be interested in, read, write, publish and disseminate studies on the sexual habits of fruit bats, or indeed anything else. The complaint was about the manner in which Dr Evans presented the article to the complainant. The investigators found that what he did amounted to ‘a joke with sexual innuendo’ and that ‘it was reasonable for [the complainant] to be offended’. In fact, Dr Evans’ statement in the letter he circulated widely and which was published in the Huffington Post that ‘external investigators concluded that I was not guilty of harassment’ is grossly misleading, suggesting that he was cleared of any wrongdoing. He wasn’t.
We are not asked to judge any of this. Maybe the complainant was too sensitive, maybe she didn’t demonstrate openly to Dr Evans that she was uneasy. Or maybe she was completely right in her assessment. That’s not a matter for us. But for Dr Evans to pick all this up and place it in the tray marked ‘academic freedom’ is dishonest. No issue of academic freedom is involved. What he has done by making all of this public is to use the ultimate weapon in the academic armory to attempt to silence a colleague who has raised a personal issue through the university’s procedures. And what lots of no doubt honourable people have done is to allow him to proceed with that plan by backing a campaign they could not really have understood. Since people started raising doubts about Dr Evans’ case, another 500 or so people signed his petition.
This episode has not been good for the academic community. I am not suggesting Dr Evans is in the wrong regarding the original issue. I have no idea whether he is or whether he isn’t. But he is most certainly in the wrong as to how he has pursued his case in public. And a few thousand people have shown an extraordinary lack of judgement in backing him without having any real knowledge of the circumstances (though some, including Stephen Kinsella of the University of Limerick, have very honourably re-considered their stance). But through all that, we have let down those who may at some point in the future want to protect their personal space and dignity.
Explore posts in the same categories: higher education, universityTags: Dylan Evans, fruit bats, fruitbatgate, University College Cork
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
University Blog 
May 19, 2010 at 11:56 am
Hear hear.
What I also find extraordinary is that people are judging the merits of Dr Evans’ behaviour to his colleague, the complaint itself, and the hearing process as if they were privy to all of the information and can make a judgement on that basis, when all that is in the public domain is a limited amount of documents, including the report of the committee which is, of course, a summary. We don’t know what additional evidence was presented and considered, and aren’t in a position to comment.
And, of course, as you quite rightly say, Dr Evans had other recourses, including the appeal which he has now chosen. Why blast this all over the internet, causing his colleague humiliation – and, I would expect, laying himself open to disciplinary action for releasing confidential documents? Someone suffered a severe lapse in judgement here.
May 19, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I sorry Ferdinand but I disagree. I honestly wish that I could agree with you, wendymr and Kinsella. But UCC was in error and at all points along the line.
May 19, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Vincent, I find it very difficult to see, reading all your comments, why you think UCC were in error. After all, you (and I) know very little about how the process worked in detail, so I don’t know how you can make any such judgement. From what is visible it seems fine.
May 20, 2010 at 6:29 am
You make the point that we do not have all the facts because UCC cannot answer. I hold that UCC cannot use anything else in its determinations than what has been placed before us from whatever source, or to put it another way, we do not need any more. Regardless of UCC position of silence had the doc’s on display been flawed in any way, enough would have been out to dance a jig on them.
Why I think UCC was in error stems from the process used to catch him. Where the accusation to give it force was constructed to show that prolonged time was involved but this was dismissed and a snapshot of time was used to replace it.
Or in other words they constructed the charge such that he had no defence where there was a defence to the original all inclusive one.
Having read many of the bits and bobs, why would anyone who has been accused under this process ever submit themselves to it given that there is disproportionate weight given by it to the accuser. The result, any result can only be bad.
May 19, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“He had not exhausted all appropriate remedies.”
You need to demonstrate and justify just what those remedies are, the order in which they should be taken, their expected efficacies, and why all but the last should be kept secret.
May 19, 2010 at 1:59 pm
John, why do I need to do any of that, it’s not really our business. We know he has other options because we know he has taken them – the rest, for now, is not our concern. These procedures are not public ones, nor should they be.
May 19, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“We know he has other options because we know he has taken them.”
Doesn’t make sense I’m afraid. The point is to demonstrate he took them in some ‘wrong’ order.
May 19, 2010 at 2:20 pm
John, not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea what you are suggesting there… I don’t know anything about the order of any steps, nor is that relevant to us. We know he has other avenues to pursue to assert his position and we know he is doing that. He therefore had no reason to make all this public. That’s all I am saying.
May 19, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Well that’s not good enough. What you’re suggesting is that he should have ‘gone public’ only as a last resort. That implies a series of steps he should have taken before that.
As for “it’s not really our business.”, this seems to me like another arbitrary, unproven sentiment – and an inconsistent one, since you have made it yours.
May 19, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Vincent is absolutely right. If UCC had insisted on its own procedures (requiring an attempt at informal resolution prior to a formal complaint) the likelihood is that this would never have become an issue. HR management and policies and quasi legal procedures are no substitute for rational adults behaving as adults and sorting out their grievances. It certainly looks now as if both parties have used ‘the system’ as a weapon to bludgeon the other in the pursuit of some (I suspect trivial) personal vendetta.
One thing which confuses me that perhaps Ferdinand could comment on is the LEGAL basis for confidentiality in personnel matters such as this (if there is one). Or is it the case that confidentiality is just an institutional nicety to be observed when it suits UCC and ignored when it doesn’t?
May 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm
But how do we know that there wasn’t an attempt at informal resolution? This is Ferdinand’s – and my – point: we have not been privy to the process, including any and all steps taken, evidence submitted, questions asked and so on.
As for making these kind of confidential documents public, I fail to see that there would be any justification for that even if he had exhausted all procedures. These are all marked confidential, they contain information that identifies individuals (even if a – very poor, in the event – attempt was made to disguise the identify of the complainant), and it’s fair to assume that no permission for this was granted by those named in or identifiable from the documents. Privacy legislation is very strict in Western countries these days, with all kinds of consequences where confidentiality is breached. I’d certainly guess that Dr Evans now has more to worry about from apparent confidentiality breaches than the alleged harassment, and I say this as a former branch president of an academic trade union who was heavily involved in negotiating disciplinary and grievance procedures and representing members in hearings.
May 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm
…and, in fact, para. 34 of the Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity policy at UCC states:
32. All aspects of the investigation, including the report and findings, must be treated as confidential by all parties concerned.
Can’t get more unequivocal than that.
http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/equality-wellbeing/health/harassment/policies/
May 20, 2010 at 10:56 am
Both Evans and his union rep are fairly clear that no informal resolution was attempted and this is explicit in the confidential documents released on the web.
I never said anything about the release of confidential information, supportive or otherwise. I simply wanted to know whether or not there is a LEGAL basis for enforced confidentiality. UCC can adopt anything they want as a policy, but that doesn’t give it force of law.
I also think it is interesting that you (implicitly) and Ferdinand (explicitly) assert that Evans made the confidential documents available. there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that contention and there are any number of parties that could have released the documents for a variety of reasons. For example, releasing those documents fuels the furore and further embarrasses UCC which is something a third party might be trying to achieve. Or it presents UCC with another opportunity to take formal disciplinary action against Evans in a circumstance that will result in a much more severe sanction than Murphy subjected him to. Now, I wonder who that might suit?
May 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Brendan, the reason I assert that Evans made the documents available is, first and foremost, that he himself said he made them available. I don’t have a URL, but on several sites where he originally advertised the petition and people asked for more information he later posted to say that he had put documents online and gave the URL that contains all the publicly-posted documents. I’m aware that he later retreated from this position and claimed that someone else posted them and he was merely covering up for that person, but that – in my opinion – does not seem credible. Also affecting Evans’ credibility is the series of previous screw-ups and serious misjudgments he’s been involved in (the book that misrepresented Stephen Rose and he had to pay to have changed – and which he also claimed was a battle of academic freedom – and the failed Utopia project).
In addition, it’s also noteworthy that the documents are all ones that Evans would have had access to, some of which the complainant would not have – for example, correspondence between Evans and Murphy and IFUT and Murphy. So it couldn’t possibly have been the complainant or anyone from her side. Simple logic.
May 22, 2010 at 11:41 pm
The procedures recommend an informal resolution, they don’t require one. Furthermore the complainant was offered informal resolution and refused it as was her right.
May 19, 2010 at 4:31 pm
John, not wishing to be obtuse and all that, I really have no idea where you’re coming from in this. I don’t know whether UCC’s procedures have been handled correctly or not, and whether I know it or not is immaterial. I do know that he has further options; I do know that the complainant also has rights; and I know that this has nothing whatever to do with academic freedom.
That it’s not our business is not a ‘sentiment’, it seems to me to be a principle. I don’t know what you mean by ‘unproven’. And it’s not ‘arbitrary’ or ‘inconsistent’, because it has been my position throughout.
Peace!
May 19, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Let’s see what others think.
May 19, 2010 at 4:39 pm
The whole sorry saga reflects badly on the academics involved, and gives ammunition to those who believe Universities are a holding pen for the unemployable.
May 19, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Yes, I’d love to know, too, what other appropriate remedies were open here. I presume this means taking legal action, possibly? Expensive business, and we know how much money universities have to defend these actions, don’t we?
All this tells us yet again about the dismal state of HRM in Ireland. True, it should never have got to this stage. But it did. And the reality is that HRM, the drag act modernisation of the old “personnel” function played its part here again, and why not as it is very often staffed in country by toadying, stalinist bureaucratic types whose sole motive in dealing with people issues is to get a ‘clean kill’ for their friends in the management and hope it’s reflected in a few crumbs from the bonus pool or a promotion to level 2 on the wankfest ladder. That one of the offended parties might be related to one of the gauleiters all the better for ingratiation opportunities and feigned concern for dignity and procedure.
To be honest, I can relate to the frustration Dr Evans must have felt. Dealing with some of these snide reactionaries in similar situations, who among us can honestly say we can’t relate or would have reacted the same way?
And yes, it’s not academic freedom at all (let’s face it, Irish academics fail that test badly anyway if you happen to be an Israeli), but we should understand, perhaps, how desperate Dr Evans may have felt to go nuclear.
There is a complete breakdown of trust and transparency, obviously, in UCC management and procedures. The people responsible on the UCC side should be dismissed. Who would ever trust them again to deal fairly with this type of issue again? Perhaps they have been taking lessons from the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.
May 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm
What other remedies were open? The university’s grievance procedure, linked here: http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/equality-wellbeing/health/harassment/policies/
And it would appear that Dr Evans has taken this route, as Step 4 of this procedure is as follows:
Stage 4
There will be no further consideration of the grievance within the University. Should the employee be dissatisfied with the decision of the President (or nominee) and wish to pursue the matter further, s/he may consider that a dispute has arisen and may refer the issue to the Labour Relations Commission or other relevant state body having regard to the nature of the grievance involved.
There is no cost to this for an individual staff member. In addition, Dr Evans is represented by IFUT, which no doubt will be working with him to prepare his case and provide representation before the LRC. IFUT, as can any trade union, can also provide legal representation should that be needed.
So there were certainly alternatives available to Dr Evans – one of which he is actually taking! – and I cannot agree at all that he had no option but to ‘go nuclear’, or that it’s at all obvious that there’s a breakdown in trust or transparency. Were I his union representative, I suspect I would find it very difficult to defend this particular aspect of the matter.
May 19, 2010 at 9:29 pm
1/ The fact that Dylan Evans provided links to confidential documents from his website is a serious matter—whether he released the original documents or not. Tracking the actual source of the leaked documents is a simple forensic matter.
2/ More egregious are the comments Evans posted on twitter at # fruitbatgate. These have inevitably been captured by screen shot and print. They are still on the twitter servers, and by law will be preserved for some time, the UCC lawyers will have them.
It is very hard to understand why Evans would act like this– essentially burning down the house — trashing UCC, its students and faculty.
His actions transformed him from an object of sympathy to a pariah in 24 hours and it appears that he may now be in some very serious legal trouble.
Where was the Decision Intelligence?
It was more a case of extinction by instinct and apparently not for the first time–what a train wreck!
May 19, 2010 at 10:22 pm
[…] on his “University Blog”, Prof. Prondzynski criticizes the UCC academic for publicizing confidential UCC documentation, a […]
May 19, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Considering the extremely bad judgement (in my opinion) displayed by Dr Evans in going public with this, one can only assume that it is possible that he had indeed shown equally bad judgement, perhaps, in the original incident. He has also shown himself, in my opinion, to be extremely naive in his dealings with the media.
May 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Interesting that you consider his judgment to be flawed on the basis of related behavior, but you have nothing to say about the investigators finding reason to doubt some of the complainant’s evidence, but not the rest of it. Biased much? I think all aspects of the case stink to high heaven and all parties should be investigated for abuse of process, power, confidentiality, etc.
May 21, 2010 at 3:54 am
Mary
Evans is well connected with the Brit press like the Guardian and the Daily Mail as he has published pop psychology articles there, he is also connected with a reporter in the Times who covered his last Apocolypto/Meltdown/Breakdown in a Scottish commune in 2007. In his bi- polar collapse he ran back to live with his mother– good for her.
We are sure he primed these contacts for the story.
What Evans did not understand is the power of the web, he made a pact with the devil there and it has destroyed him.
The web has a memory without friendly editors, Evans spread his venom on the Web without understanding the dynamics nor mechanics of the Web, we have seen this before— hubris turning to Apocalypse within days— and that is what has happened here.
Reflecting– why did UCC ever hire this guy?– he is a light weight popular science dilettante, PhD in Philosophy– no background in Medical Decision Quality or Medical Informatics-
UCC would be better linking up with the engineering and computer science capabilities to develop excellence in this field– Evans is toast anyway but he should never have been hired in the first place.
There have been red flags about Evans from way back– looks like he has terminally decompensated– a pain for UCC but they will learn to screen better in the future
Best
Victor
May 20, 2010 at 4:14 am
Dylan Evans has 22years until retirement, his prospects at UCC, after his violation of confidentiality and bizarre web behavior, are Zero, as are his prospects at all academic institutions and firms that value loyalty and good judgment — world wide. North Korea may be the only choice.
Also Dylan is facing massive legal bills that will have nothing to do with ” academic freedom ” but with ethics violations,libel and breach of contract.
Luckily he appears to have no dependents as he is now on his own.
He now has a negative brand which will plague him for ever.
There was a similar case in the USA involving another decision scientist –Dr. Deborah Frisch, Formerly of the University of Arizona–http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/
It is a sad saga of a decision scientist who got intoxicated with the power of the web and ignored the fact that the web is personal, permanent, search-able, public and pervasive.
There is an over abundance of Philosophy PhD’s in the market place who are younger, smarter and hungrier .
N Korea may offer tenure– but then the life expectancy is short and it is very cold out there.
Lessons learned?
May 20, 2010 at 5:31 am
Have a nice day Victor.
May 20, 2010 at 6:42 am
Sally
Thanks, we will
It is worth following the case in the USA involving another decision scientist –Dr. Deborah Frisch, Formerly of the University of Arizona–http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/
She, like Evans, kept on digging a deeper hole while thinking the attention from the blog sphere would help her — the party was over yet the band played on —– sad but true
What I do not understand is why Evans continued this public act of public self immolation while he clearly must have had competent legal advice to STFU
Batty narcissism is the only explanation — got a better one?
May 20, 2010 at 7:12 am
Try this: He’s an individualist. You may see standing alone as self immolation and narcissism. You are entitled to your view.
May 20, 2010 at 6:53 am
Whilst I see your point, I have to disagree. A very wise lecturer of mine back in UCC once told us to never forger that ‘sunlight is the greatest disinfectant’.
Procedural unfairness occurred in the way proceedings were taken. Such behaviour cannot be allowed to rot under a carpet.
What would you say?
May 20, 2010 at 7:11 am
I would say: what procedural unfairness?
As for the ‘sunlight’ argument, do you believe generally (i.e. not specific to this case) that complainants in sensitive cases have no right to confidentiality?
May 20, 2010 at 7:40 am
Interesting use of mixed metaphors, sunlight/ carpets etc.
Evans did not choose ” sunlight” he chose the nuclear option — hence the advice that he relocate to N Korea.
He made a very bad decision with a very bad and irrevocable outcome.
He turned himself from an object of sympathy to a pariah in 24 hours– quite a feat.
If he were a smart movie star, for example, he would have gone the rehab/redemption route– instead he tried to burn down the very studio that hired him.
Worse he did it via the web, which is permanent, pervasive, personal and search-able.
He also tried to frame the issue as a matter of Irish Prudes and Hysterical Italians– not smart these days– particularly coming from a middle aged white Brit.
You would think that the least he could have done would be to draw a simple decision tree– assigned some probabilities and calculated a NPV.
Instead he chose extinction by instinct— Darwin Rules again.
May 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
How can you possibly know that there was procedural unfairness? The documents available present one side of the case only (and even those don’t show Dr Evans in a particularly good light). There will be other documents which have not been leaked. We also have no idea, because we weren’t privy to it, how the committee conducted its investigation. I’ve seen people claim that the ‘procedural unfairness’ results from an alleged lack of attempt at informal resolution. Again, how do we know that didn’t happen? This isn’t part of the committee of investigation’s role; it’s the complainant’s, before any formal complaint is brought. And the letter of complaint from the complainant indicates that she did try to make Dr Evans aware that she found his behaviour inappropriate.
So I say again: what proof do you have that there was any procedural unfairness?
May 20, 2010 at 8:02 am
Q1. Compare and contrast the following terms:
a) Loyalty
b) Opportunism
c) Conformism
d) Individualism
(10 marks)
May 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Oh Lordy Sally, please go away. At least until you have something to say which hasn’t already been contradicted or makes SOME sembelance of sense.
Just a friendly word of advice. Have a look at what you’re signing up for supporting there. It is not an issue of academic freedom, by a long shot. This has by now been well-documented net wide and fellow academics are now publicly apologising for signing his petition without first knowing all the facts. He also leaked those documents himself online as is well known, and he is lying about it now. Something Mr Evan’s is well versed in.
Individualistic..pfff…so out of the normal social realms is automatically ‘individualistic’ then and hence perfectly ok?..Well serial killers could be called that too then by your skewed logic. Jeepers.
May 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm
i) It’s ‘semblance’. ii) Contradicting something doesn’t make it wrong. iii) I haven’t signed anything, but I do see a real possibility of Dylan being treated unfairly. iv) I don’t think it’s a case of academic freedom either; it looks to me at this stage like mishandled HRM. v) Changing your mind doesn’t automatically make you right – neither does being honest unfortunately vi) All serial killers being individualistic wouldn’t imply all individualists were serial killers.
Logic can be fun – try it. All the best.
May 20, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Hi Sally, thanks for the spelling correction, well done. I never maintained that my points (e.g. others apologising for signing etc) automatically equalled a right as you say.
With reference to Mr Evans being treated unfairly and it all amounting to mishandled HRM, I can only advise that you look at all the information now available.
All serial killers being individualistic wouldn’t imply all individualists were serial killers? Really? Well thanks for pointing that out, given that I hadn’t implied it – I thought though that you meant that Mr Evans’ outrageous behaviour (spelt right?) of plastering confidential documents all over the net, slagging off students and univeristy on twitter, basically outing this woman as petty revenge in his pissing contest and still now repeatedly lying to all and sundry was him being ‘individualistic’? I stand corrected.
An interesting thread on the whole story, from the 15th to date. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bat_sex_is_not_protected_by_ac.php
Interesting how the change in tone in it reflects what’s happened net-wide in recent days, i.e. stubborn and hasty signing of petitions without knowing any of the details, through to the now disbelief at what is emerging. A sorry tale.
All the best to you too.
May 21, 2010 at 6:27 am
Michael, having demolished every other point in your comment, let’s have a go at:
“… serial killers could be called [individualists] too …”
What are you saying here?
p.s. Have you been taking lessons in fairness and balance from Uncle Victor? 🙂
May 21, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Tell you what Sally dear, you just go ahead and think to yourself that you ‘demolished every other point’ (literally laughing out loud as they say) if you like, though could you please link me the webpage/reference where you did this? I’m always amazed at otherwise rational people who will explain themselves over and over to an idiot on the internet, I’m not about to start myself.
Victor is actually stating facts. Not heresay, not musings, but the facts pertaining to what Mr Evans did (to himself & everyone involved) over the last working week. If you think they’re not fair and balanced then go research it yourself, FYI this means going and finding out about something all by your little self with no help & before you go making a jackass of yourself on blogs and the like.
Only the misogynists and the bewildered are supporting Mr Evans now, or thinking that he’s been treated unfairly.
Again, let me know where exactly you demolished my points, or just come back on here with absolutely nothing to say & try & disguise that fact with ‘witty’ remarks, smiley faces & multiple choice questions..whatever you’re okay with.
May 22, 2010 at 8:03 am
Hey, chill out, mate. The main issue at hand here in terms of unfairness is the mystery third person present at the showing of the blowjob paper which *wasn’t* followed up, even after the professor asked for this to happen. That in itself is fishy, and speaks of dodgy procedures (afflicted by flawed humans, no doubt).
May 22, 2010 at 9:33 am
Nice blogsite Alexander!
May 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm
If you “Walk Back The Cat” in this case you see that Evans has run into a box canyon, a very foolish thing for a decision scientist to do.
Incredible really–even North Korea would not touch him with a ten foot poll– Evans has become radioactive, confinement to a lead lined Bedlam is more appropriate.
The whole frame of academic freedom has completely evaporated —
Evans is now see as a vindictive bully, malicious gossip and as a whimpering and unstable nutcase.
At best—–
In the old days such meltdowns could take place locally—
Evans flamed out on the Web, which is permanent, pervasive, personal and search-able.
Ironic that Evans claims a knowledge of Risk Intelligence— a case of the cobblers children having no shoes— I guess–
May 20, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I think it’s this sort of gloating and kicking a man when he’s down that I find objectionable. I hope I’m not the only one.
May 20, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I don’t know all the details of this case, so I’m reluctant to comment. As Pontius Pilate reportedly said, “What is truth?” Or check out the film Rashomon re the same issue. (The harder you look, the more elusive “truth” becomes. Post-modernism, perspectivism and all that…)
However, looking at it another way, the root of the problem seems to be fairly clear. If the injured party felt offended by the fruit-bat paper, the appropriate response was to tell the offender to get lost and get a life.
If he didn’t pick up on that, then that’s when the kind of action–a formal complaint that may affect a person’s whole future career–might have been appropriate.
It seems to have been an extreme over-reaction. If anything good comes out of this sad affair, it may discourage people from such extreme over-reactions in future.
May 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Truth is accuracy.
May 20, 2010 at 10:43 pm
At this point the case is way beyond the matter of the fruit bat paper.
The issue is Evans behavior this week on the Web in which—
1/ He has accused UCC of conspiring with drug companies and others to punish him and silence him
2/ He has accused a senior UCC faculty member and officer of conspiring, with his wife– the complainant– to file false charges against him for personal gain and motives.
3/ He has accused the complainant of conspiring with her husband, a UCC officer and faculty member, of conspiring to fire another UCC employee for personal gain and motives.
4/ Has released Strictly Confidential UCC documents on his Facebook site
5/ He has released, what he claims are personal emails, from the complainant without consent and with no proof that they, in fact, genuine.
He did this in an attempt to portray her as a liar and as guilty of filing false allegations
6/ He has made written allegations prejudicious to UCC in a separate matter that is under litigation
7/ He has trashed UCC, its faculty and its reputation.
8/ He has trashed his students and labeled them as crazy radical Christian fanatic.
And that is some of the milder stuff– before breakfast– as it were.
Evans made all these allegations numerous times on the web in the last few days, where they are permanent, pervasive and search-able.
The above matters are the issue now, not the fruit bat kerfuffle
Evans is in very serious trouble indeed, WAY more serious and beyond any fruit bat incidents.
May 21, 2010 at 5:17 am
On reflection and in reviewing his web behavior and the London Times article on Evans when he was in Scotland my colleagues in the Dept of Psychiatry feel that he indeed bi poplar if not schizophrenic, it is hard to make these diagnosis from remote– but a local judge could mandate an evaluation before Evans does more harm to himself or others, a lesson for the Web– the Times got it right in a diplomatic way.
May 21, 2010 at 6:15 am
Addendum
If Evans is found insane now— that does not help him with in regard to his past actions and future penalties and what does this say about those who fuel his madness by signing the petition? what liability do they have?
As We said previously this is a sad saga is not over, review the similar USA case http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/
Internet madness is hard to cure and so many people make excuses based upon their own agendas — it fuels itself– maybe the Evans case will be a warning but we doubt it– the pull is to strong
Having worked in China, USA, India and Ireland, Ireland is a special place and we hope we helped out
May 21, 2010 at 2:37 pm
As I have previously indicated the part that disturbs me in the UCC affair was the handling of the complaint itself before it reached the President’s office. If I had been accused of such a thing and a report had been written about it without speaking to a witness to it, I would consider it a poor show.
I am not in any way appalled by the Independent’s choice to name the complainant in this case, but that is because my expectations of that newspaper group are already so low it is difficult to be further disappointed. It was of course possible, with a bit of detective work, to look at the “so-called” redactions and guess out the name and compare it to the UCC staff list, but tens of thousands of people who read that rag would never have done so.
The Independent made a choice here and I think a lot of the people fired up about the treatment of the complainant should consider informing “the Duckworth School of Journalism” that they need not count on any revenue from them in the future.
May 22, 2010 at 5:59 am
Do not blame the Independent–
The future litigation targeting Evans will include simple IT forensics.
Evans spoke to the Independent, he also spoke the Cork Independent– and alleged that the complainant published Strictly Confidential UCC document on the Web— What? on his Face Book page ?– that would require his password or hacking in–a criminal matter these days.
Evans also claims that it is general practice to release such documents in the USA— FALSE
If he had released / leaked the documents to an accredited news agency and they had published them then he would have some protection under the
” freedom of the press laws” in the US.
In fact–
Evans released Strictly Confidential UCC documents directly to the Web — a very different matter– EG–Just last week Steve Jobs went after a blogger who released Apple confidential information on the Web, the blogger was arrested and his home searched and his computer seized by the police– that blogger is now in very serious trouble– as is Evans.
Evans situation is, in fact, much worse because he is/ was an employee of UCC.
UCC needs to lock Evans out of its IT system and Campus before he does more damage to UCC, its faculty, students and donors.
Evans created these serious problems for himself in this past week by his allegations and posting on the Web– these are permanent, pervasive, personally trace-able and search-able.
May 22, 2010 at 1:53 pm
@Alexander Johannesen And you think there was a third person present because Mr Evans say’s there was yes?
Of course it must then be the case.
May 22, 2010 at 9:53 pm
But that’s not what I said. There was a claim of a third person, which is reasonably easy to find out about. A claim of a *witness* that isn’t followed up on is not only fishy, it is outright disgraceful. (If it is then followed up on and investigations find this to be a lie, *then* you’ve got a smoking gun pointing the other way …)
May 22, 2010 at 11:45 pm
How do we know the investigators were told of this third person? The complainant said she was alone in the office. Considering how Evans is manipulating the data, it’s quite possible this third person wasn’t there. Especially considering Evans didn’t mention the third person in either his response to the investigators or in his letter to Murphy, I feel the presence of the third person is dubious.
May 23, 2010 at 2:13 am
It might be dubious, but it *is* a claim of a witness that must be taken seriously. And, again for the umpteenth time, easy to check. Was he there or not? If yes, ask for further clarification. If no, nail the sucker. But this should be followed up and revealed for either valuable info or a lie.
May 23, 2010 at 12:20 am
There are two matters, the second 2 is the focus now
1/ What happened last Nov and the follow up investigation by independent outside investigators.
We do not have the evidence in that matter
All we know about it is what Evans chose to selectively post on the Web along with his petition, which frames him as the poor victim of some draconian strangling of his academic free speech– pathetic– and he has changed his story on that at least 4 times.
2/ What Evans did last week and apparently continues to do–that is—
Posting Strictly Confidential UCC material on the web, defaming and making outrageous allegation allegations on the Web and in the press that
Defame his employer UCC
Defame his colleagues at UCC
Defame his students at UCC
All this material is on the Web, we have all the evidence in the public domain,
If I were Dr Kennedy– the complainant– I would sue Evans for every penny he has and every penny he will ever make moving forward.
Evans will loose such a case, in our opinion, and he will have to pay both sides legal costs in addition to handing over his current assets and all future earnings–
Evans brought this on himself this last week by his own behavior– which is documented and attributable directly to Evans.
His petition will do him no good in these matters, in fact it will harm him, as he misrepresented the the facts in his call for petition–that will open him to potential class action litigation from all who signed it so far.
In addition, this matter will bring intense scrutiny to Evans whole life after his 18th yr.
Eg
1/Did he represent himself as an engineer, biologist or psychologist when his degree is in philosophy only?
2/Is there any history of plagiarism or fraud?
3/What are the implications of his history of medical psychiatric treatments and illness?
4/Did he lie on his application for employment at UCC?
5/How about a history of alcohol/ drug abuse, sexual assault?
Evans brought the lawyers on stage by his actions this last week, and they will go through his whole life with a fine tooth comb– everything will be made public.
Again Evans brought the lawyers on by his behavior last week, if he had just STFU — no troubles– a slap on the wrist– but because of his behavior over the last few days—-
Now he is in very serious trouble and alone
What is that song by the Police?
“Every move you make, every breath you take, we will be watching you”
That appears to be Evans fate– what a case of Zero Decision Intelligence—
June 18, 2010 at 2:26 pm
[…] on his “University Blog”, Prof. Prondzynski criticizes the UCC academic for publicizing confidential UCC documentation, a […]
July 6, 2010 at 8:56 am
High Court forces UCC to halt disciplinary proceedings against Dylan Evans