Fruit bats and the limits to academic freedom
Right now it seems the whole world, and not just the academic part of it, is talking about the tale of the University College Cork lecturer and the article on the sexual habits of fruit bats. Indeed the story has been awarded the ultimate accolade of the electronic world, a hashtag name on Twitter, #fruitbatgate. There are now over 6,000 blog posts on this affair, and nearly 30,000 other references on the web. The UK journal Times Higher Education has picked up the story. A total of 2,826 people (so far) have so far signed an online petition to ‘stop UCC from abusing its harassment policy to limit academic freedom.’
I have to confess I have felt uneasy about the story from the moment I first heard it. The way it was being told suggested that a demented political correctness had persuaded the President of UCC to discipline an innocent lecturer who had merely shown an academic article to colleagues, where the topic was known to be of professional interest to him. What an assault on academic freedom! What a failure to observe fairness! What prudery on the subject of over-sexed fruit bats! In fact, what a lark with serious undertones, what an amazing opportunity for indignant finger wagging!
But is it really that simple? Actually, I don’t pretend to know the full facts here, and maybe if I did it would turn out to be that simple. But I have looked at the documentation on this case that has been put online, presumably either by or with the help of the disciplined lecturer (because I cannot see where else it could have come from). I have looked at it slightly reluctantly, because it contains very personal information written (presumably in strict confidence) by the complainant, whose name has been crossed out but who can be identified easily enough. This documentation does not wholly support the case being made by the disciplined lecturer, it seems to me.
Many of those supporting the UCC lecturer have stated that this is all about academic freedom. Whatever the merits of the case may be – and I still have an open mind – it is not about academic freedom. Academic freedom is about the right to develop, defend and disseminate scholarly views and findings, however uncomfortable these may be to others. But there are still limits. I may have the right to publish uncomfortable views, but I don’t have the right, to take an extreme example, to enter your bedroom at night to hand the published version to you and insist that you read it. I don’t have the right to harass you with my published output, or even the output of some other author that I admire.
But most of all, this story is doing massive damage to the future victims of harassment. I don’t know for sure whether there was harassment here, and it’s not for me to say. But here we now have the confidential documentation of this case published across the whole world, and what must this be doing to the person who made the complaint? More importantly still, what is it doing to those who may one day fall victim to harassment and who may now fear that if they complain they will be ridiculed in the world’s media? Indeed, what is it doing to future perpetrators who may feel that they are receiving a masterclass in how to escape from it all?
This case may well be as the disciplined lecturer says it is. But his methods are suspect, and the way in which thousands of intelligent people have bought into the case without knowing much about it is alarming.
There have been better days for academic freedom than this.
Explore posts in the same categories: higher education, universityTags: fruit bats, fruitbatgate, University College Cork
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
University Blog 
May 18, 2010 at 1:25 am
Problem only arises when people go a bit batty and start behaving like a fruit fly. Going batty and behaving like a fruit fly, are relative events in the scale of intellectual freedoms one expects on university campuses. These freedoms can always, safely be exercised in one’s own office rather than sharing it with one’s peers.
May 18, 2010 at 1:27 am
Did he honestly have any other avenue.
On your main point you close it out yourself with “This case may well be as the disciplined lecturer says it is”. For Case it is and what has happened here is a judicial procedure played out by amateurs with a life destroying sanction. With that on his record he is toxic to anyplace else and it would have followed him for the rest of his life. I sorry but this should have been carried before the High Court where due weight could have been placed. Not this embarrassing abomination.
You are of course correct that this has nothing to do with freedoms of any sort, but I’m afraid that like with the Bishops events will overrun whatever niceties that the administration in UCC are attempting.
They are in the wrong, it is as plain as that, for if he was harassing her then the sanction would not be enough and as he is innocent any sanction at all is to much. He was either harassing her to the point of Crime or he wasn’t.
While if this causes some second thoughts as to having these investigations in a formal way within institutions I think it is all to the good, for if you do not like a Judgement in the Courts then there are ways to appeal, here there seems to be none at all.
May 18, 2010 at 3:17 am
But it wasn’t on his record. From the available documents, it’s clear that this was a confidential process, and the recommendation of training and counselling was also confidential. No-one would have found out had he not broadcast it himself.
What is obvious here is that the information that has (wrongly) been made public is far from revealing the whole story. We don’t know the whole story – nor should we – so we shouldn’t be drawing conclusions as to whether this was or was not harassment, or was or was not an attack on academic freedom.
The saddest part about this whole business is – as Ferdinand says – that as a result people may be far less likely to make formal complaints of harassment, and since such complaints are already very difficult to make and prove (I know; I have represented targets of harassment in grievance processes), that is a retrograde step for dignity at work. Someone said on the THES website that there’s no right not to be offended; well, there is a right not to be harassed, and that is a legal right, upheld by court decisions in jurisdictions all around the world. I have no idea whether Dr Evans’ behaviour constituted harassment or not, but that’s not my decision to make and it’s actually none of my business (none of anyone’s business but the parties involved, in fact). However, something about his actions led his colleague to feel harassed. Fairly or unfairly, she made a complaint. A process was followed. If Dr Evans didn’t agree with the outcome, he would have had a right of appeal within the university, or through whatever external process UCC has in place – which would and should also have been confidential. Instead, he and/or his supporters have taken this into the public domain, released confidential documents, caused the complainant’s identity to be guessed at, and (in my opinion) made himself appear to be either publicity-hungry or an idiot – and, if he is found to be responsible for leaking those documents, has quite possibly opened himself up to far more severe disciplinary action.
May 18, 2010 at 6:26 am
Wendymr I agree with what you are saying here. The complainant’s name and photograph have now appeared in the press. Imagine spending your whole career building up a solid academic reputation only to have it come to this.
May 18, 2010 at 6:41 am
Have it your own way but the investigation made findings of Opinion while UCC acted as if it had made findings of Fact. And I have little doubt that it would follow him forever.
Further, I could not care less if you ‘feel’ harassed by my answering your comment for it is not my intention.
And on the general, suppose this happened in some other Corporation where the ‘accused’ is neither as articulate or connected he would have been railed out of town because someone felt harassed.
May 18, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Vincent, I don’t remotely feel harassed by you answering my comment – but you should be aware that the law on the subject of harassment and discrimination holds that it is the effect of actions, behaviour or omissions that counts, not intention. (Of course, remedies where harassment or discrimination is held to have been deliberate are naturally more punitive).
As for the committee hearing the case, its report has far more status than an ‘opinion’. That committee’s role is to make a determination based on the evidence and testimony before it. Just as with a court of law, where evidence is contradictory the committee had to decide which was more convincing. The committee dismissed one complaint and upheld the other – that’s not an opinion, that’s a judgement.
May 19, 2010 at 9:10 am
All very well about the Law. But when a Committee of Inquiry acts in such a way as to deny a valid defence as in this case the entire process not just in UCC but everyplace is in question. They split the charge.
That produced a position for him as if he had walked in to her Office for the first time and handed her the Journal. They cannot do this, it is wrong under our system, wrong under the European system and wrong in Canon Law.
They cannot deny him his defence, and if they do, it is unconstitutional.
May 19, 2010 at 11:49 pm
No-one is denying him his defence, Vincent. In fact, Dr Evans is now pursuing Stage 4 of the UCC Grievance Procedure: an appeal to the Labour Relations Commission.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that they ‘split the charge’. And how do you know that he was ‘denied a defence’, let alone whether any such defence was ‘valid’? There is a real danger here of drawing conclusions about the case and how it was handled without knowing all the facts. My criticism of Dr Evans is based not on a judgement of how the case was handled, but on Dr Evans’ actions in posting confidential documents publicly, and the harm that has been caused as a result – to him as well as to the complainant. I’d agree with an earlier commenter that Dr Evans is now toxic, meaning that he is quite possibly unemployable should he be looking for another job – not because of the original complaint and the findings of the committee, but because, in breach of university procedures and regulations, he sent confidential documents viral on the internet.
May 18, 2010 at 1:56 am
TBH he is toxic everywhere now that these docs are now linked all over the place, as shown by the many comments on blogs from those who can’t sign the petition fast enough and from those vehemently against signing it. Why the “investigators” did not include comment from the supposed third party in the room at the time is perplexing indeed. No winners here – not the complainant, not Dr Evans, not UCC’s HR apparatus and not Prof Murphy.
May 18, 2010 at 6:37 am
It is really disconcerting. I really think that complainants will be seriously deterred. This is an amazing example of how easy it is to create a lynch mob online and remarkable how so many academics are prepared to jump to conclusions instantly without recourse to evidence or detailed information. So much for critical thinking and the scientific method. Outrage, a sense of persecution and 140 characters make a powerful mix.
I see Dr. Evans is now tweeting about other matters in UCC with the implication that somehow he is being punished for being concerned about the influence of drug companies on medical research. Though he hasn’t mentioned his own funding in the past from Cadbury’s to ‘prove’ that chocolate consumption is good for you, or indeed his bizarre ‘utopia experiment’. ( http://bit.ly/bRo7xQ
http://bit.ly/cz741B ).
I’m also saddened by the tweets and blog comments about UCC’s response where they rightly point out that this is a matter that has serious privacy and confidentiality aspects. Now they are being portrayed as clamping down on discussion.
Is there any point in asking that people calm down on this and that it is resolved through appropriate processes? But what to do about future cases? What can we learn about the challenge of dealing with accusations of harassment?
May 18, 2010 at 7:36 am
Like everyone else on this blog, I don’t know enough about this issue to comment.
May 18, 2010 at 7:49 am
I would like to add my voice to the growing conensus here that, as the original blogger has pointed out, we don’t know enough to comment. In fact I am probably more qualified not to comment on this matter than others, having not read the original paper and not knowing any of those involved.
May 18, 2010 at 7:54 am
But surely Sally that doesn’t disqualify you from opening up a few open-ended imponderables and presenting them as a contribution to academic debate.
May 18, 2010 at 7:58 am
🙂
May 18, 2010 at 8:28 am
Maybe the issue here is about human sex and the sensitivities of those who see it primarily as a form of exploitation. I think we have a lot to learn from the Australians here.
A few years ago, an academic from the University of Queensland caused a bit of a stir by claiming that sex was a form of sport.
The Press got hold of it and thousands of outraged Australians wrote in complaining that this trivialized sport.
May 18, 2010 at 9:11 am
Hurrah for victims! Hurrah for their supporters!
Ferdinand doesn’t really want to take a position, but does want us to consider the horror of academics sneaking into our bedrooms at night brandishing peer reviewed papers (look at the impact factor on that).
Iainmcl doesn’t want to take a position but does want us to know that one of the parties is a fruitcake (maybe that should be a Fruit ‘n Nut cake).
Vincent is John Waters, but in a tough way and he doesn’t care how you feel (so there).
John and Sally ‘don’t know enough’ and intend to stay that way, lonely and shivering up on the moral high ground.
I think the problem with you academics is that most of you think and behave more like children than adults, never having had to live and work in the ‘real’ world. This case is proof positive of that. If UCC had followed its own guidelines the matter should have been resolved between rational adults without recourse to some sort of quasi judicial procedures. But, like children in a playground, there has to be a victim(s), there has to be a bully(s), and no end of volunteers to join either gang.
Grow up!
May 20, 2010 at 12:00 am
The alleged victim felt harassed and filed a formal complaint per UCC policy. The complaint was investigated and one count of the charge was upheld. The university president, again per the policy, ordered the harasser to undergo training and counseling.
I’m a senior executive in a large company. I see this sort of thing all the time. There is nothing unusual about either the UCC sexual harassment policy or the handling of this particular case.
Instead of telling people to grow up, you should find out about life in the real world.
May 20, 2010 at 7:08 am
“The alleged victim felt harassed and filed a formal complaint per UCC policy.”
UCC policy is to first attempt resolution in an informal fashion, without resort to a formal complaint. For some reason UCC did not follow its own policy in this matter which might conceivably have avoided the situation that has arisen now. Really, really bad decision making by UCC.
“The complaint was investigated and one count of the charge was upheld.”
There is no charge there is a complaint. Using quasi legal terminology is a fudge. In regard to the aspect of the complaint that was upheld it is questionable whether a single incident of this type is actually an offence under UCC policy.
“The university president, again per the policy, ordered the harasser to undergo training and counseling.”
By definition, a single incident is not harassment. By using the term ‘harasser’ you are betraying your prejudices. Even if the incident were contrary to UCC policy, 2 years supervision and counselling is a disproportionately heavy penalty for a single incident.
Would you also recommend disciplinary action against the complainant on the grounds she made a false allegation against her colleague and was found to have done so by the investigating committee?
“I’m a senior executive in a large company. I see this sort of thing all the time. There is nothing unusual about either the UCC sexual harassment policy or the handling of this particular case.”
You are a senior executive in a company where you see ‘harassers’ (your words) and disciplinary action ALL THE TIME? Have you considered that it might be time to review your HR policies and offer training on the issues, starting with the senior executives?
“Instead of telling people to grow up, you should find out about life in the real world.”
In the world in which I live (and work) personality clashes and disagreements occur all the time. They get resolved because we’re adults and act accordingly. We all understand that formal complaints are a last resort, largely because HR policies and procedures (and the people that enforce them) just result in a farce like this one and/or a trip to the Four Courts.
May 18, 2010 at 9:20 am
Shall we grow up and go and live in the real world with Brendan?
May 18, 2010 at 9:22 am
No, I think I’d rather have Ferdinand thrust an academic paper in my face.
May 18, 2010 at 10:48 am
http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23fruitbatgate
May 18, 2010 at 11:41 am
To me the crux of this case is whether, as the accused lecturer Dr Evans claims, the article was indeed of relevance and interest to both him and the complainant.
Academic freedom has bugger-all to do with this. That only relates to publishing scientific views that may be politically incorrect or otherwise deemed taboo; not with showing a scientific paper to someone else with possible sexual under- or overtones intended.
If the lecturer nor the claimant are working on bats, nor on sexual behaviour in animals, then the claimant has got a point. If one of them does, then Dr Evans has a point – without that meaning that this wasn’t sexual harrassment.
May 18, 2010 at 12:14 pm
[…] Ferdinand von Prondzynski Tags: academic freedom, dylan evans, political correctness, sexual harassment, ucc, university college cork […]
May 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm
As far as I’m aware, I started the #fruitbatgate tag on twitter.
I felt it was the right thing to do when I signed the petition for Dr Evans, because I felt his case deserved as much attention as possible.
When I read the Huffington Post article on the matter, before the other documents had come out, my thinking went like this: of course potentially more went on between the two sides than Dr Evans claims in his short letter appealing for help–this is after all one guy’s side of the story. Nevertheless, as an academic, he knows the cost to him personally and professionally will likely be very high from going public with his story, yet he’s choosing to do so. Why? Because he feels very wronged, because, according to the letter quoted in full in the Huffington Post from Dr Evans:
“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 felt compelled to support a fellow academic who I saw as being mistreated by UCC management following the outcome of an investigation into his behaviour, and whose career was jeopardized as a result of the outcome of this process, which he claimed went entirely in his favour.
I think now that I was wrong in my wholesale and uncritical support of Dr Evans, without first verifying the facts of his case. I believe I got swept up by the whole affair, and I’ve reflected quite critically on my actions in the past few days as a result of this.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case-I do still feel UCC treated Dr Evans harshly following the investigation-this case is now no longer about academic freedom, if it ever was, nor is it about overly politically correct management. It is now a case of bullying. Dr Kennedy did not want to be named, I’m sure, as part of this dénouement. As a result of complaining Dr Evans behaviour to UCC management, she has had her face, name, and reputation put on the front page of major Irish newspapers, and posted all around the world. This is a serious breach of her privacy, as well as a clear warning to other would-be complainants about the consequences of their actions. Personally, if a private matter between the university, a colleague, and myself, became public, I would sue.
This story is fascinating. A titillating hook, followed by a self-serving plea for help from the internet, leads to a social media fire fueled by people like myself that should know better, should know to check these things, should know, at heart, that whatever the truth of the case, this is one side’s story.
We must not forget that, at the heart of the story, is a human resources matter that should have stayed private, until all avenues were exhausted. I know Dr Evans’ supporters may claim he felt he had no alternative to go public, and I can see the rationale for doing something like that, but he case was with UCC management, not with Dr Kennedy, at that stage. Yet there she is, on the pages of the Irish Independent.
May 19, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Stephen, thank you for this balanced and thoughtful comment. It is admirable when people reflect, as you do, on their own opinions and are able to balance the first intuitive gut reaction with a rational consideration as new information comes available. My reaction and subsequent change of mind was similar to what you describe, although I never even signed the petition as I wanted to wait for more information. Now I wish I had never heard of it.
It was a lesson that we all should be not too quick in judging others when we only have very limited and one-sided information, that it is all too easy to be manipulated by a story that presses the right buttons.
And that, as you say, we should not forget that at the heart of it are humans whose lifes and reputations have been damaged much much more by the public campaign than by any of the original issues of the case.
Perhaps there were mistakes made in the original case. Well, we all make mistakes, and I don’t think anybody can claim never to have overreacted in some situation. None of these seem to have been so important that it couldn’t have been corrected, or that people couldn’t have lived with it.
This changed when the story was blown out into the internet. Now it will follow everybody to the rest of their lives. That’s why all these things are and should be handled confidentially.
May 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Fruitbat spotted in vicinity of UCC hanging upside down under tree in blatantly provocative pose. John and Sally seen filming.
May 18, 2010 at 1:34 pm
John and Sally spotted in vicinity of UCC hanging upside down under tree in blatantly provocative pose. Fruitbat seen filming.
May 18, 2010 at 1:35 pm
As I see it, these fruitbat supporters and their academic hangers-on are guilty of nothing short of inverted snoggery.
May 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Inverted snoggery? Don’t you mean “snobbery”? “snog” means something very different in Ireland. lol.
The usual expression is “reverse” snobbery.
May 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I don’t know, I think that ‘inverted snoggery’ sounds rather interesting 🙂
May 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Very good for the heart, apparently.
May 19, 2010 at 3:33 am
This issue is not about bats or academic freedom.
Different people can feel harassed by different things at different times (and it’s often hard to judge beforehand – particularly for the gauche).
And academic freedom doesn’t mean you’re free to harass.
So it boils down to how management should react when Employee A still feels harassed by Employee B when an independent investigation finds s/he hasn’t been.
To go ahead and discipline Employee B anyway seems the best way to leave them both feeling harassed.
Counselling for Employee A would appear to have been the better option.
May 19, 2010 at 4:50 pm
It seems that Dr Evans has resorted to the ‘curtailment of academic freedom’ defence before. Does evolutionary psychology have anything to say about such patterns of behaviour?
Basically, he produced a cartoon-style book for publication, in which another scientist – Steven Rose – was depicted with a speech bubble in which was a daft statement, the likes of which Rose would never say. Rose complained, and the publishers were required to paste stickers over his face to obliterate it in each copy of the book.
[quote][b]Originally Posted by Andrew Brown in The Guardian (Nov 1999)[/b]
The author, Dylan Evans, a post-graduate student at the LSE, has apologised to Rose, and the publishers, like the professor, feel that the whole affair is over, or will be, as soon as all the stickers are on and the book is out. [b]But Evans has also complained on an internet mailing list, and to various newspapers, that the affair raises questions of academic freedom.[/b] “There is something very worrying when academics resort to threats of legal action to settle intellectual disputes. Indeed, when academics become so litigious, this raises serious questions about the freedom of academic debate.” Rose replies that this was not an academic dispute; it was a simple matter of factual accuracy. He also says that he had never threatened legal action, just pointed out to the publishers that he had been advised that the original speech bubble was defamatory. [b]”The advice I would have for Dylan Evans is very simple. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”[/b]
Under the contract with Icon Books, Evans has to bear all the costs for the restickering, so it has obviously proved a costly and painful mistake for him. [b]But his attempts to recast the story as one of persecution for daring to talk about the role of genes in human development are not entirely convincing.[/b]
Source: http://www.dylan.org.uk/brown.html [/quote]
Sounds familiar?
May 19, 2010 at 10:27 pm
“not entirely convincing”
I am no apologist for Evans, but neither is your contribution.
May 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Probably just as well we have a new minister or we’d have #fruitbattokeefegate when it gets escalated into the Dail (just watch).
May 20, 2010 at 2:56 am
Saw the #fruitbatgate tag on Twitter and ended up here.
This article from 2007 about a Utopian community he founded as a research project: The aim was to set up an idyllic rural commune, so how did things go so horribly wrong? shows that he’s been troubled and unstable man for a while.
In 2005 he’s a Senior Lecture roboticist at the University of West England, when he had an inspiration, sold all his belongings and set up this “Utopia.” It collapsed in 2007 when “Dylan had a meltdown…withdrew all the funding, started talking darkly about a ‘bloodless coup in Utopia’ and fled home to his mum’s in Reading to ‘try to sort his head out’.”
Here’s some more:
“Not surprisingly, his old friends were sceptical. “The whole thing was bonkers, completely mad,” says Romay. “He’s a lovely man and fabulously clever, but he doesn’t have a practical bone in his body. I kept telling him – we’d all been there, done that, back in the Seventies, anyway.” So would he listen? “No, of course he wouldn’t. He was the academic – he thought he knew best. And he wanted to turn it into a book.”
and:
“It turns out Dylan’s paranoid mutterings about a bloodless coup aren’t entirely misguided. They don’t want him back. “He flips from an academic genius talking about physics and philosophy into a guy on the verge of a nervous breakdown,” says James.”
I’m not an academic, but I’ve worked at a university and in the consulting and biotech firms that surround academia. Guys like this are a dime a dozen, incredibly creative but socially inept. They coast for quite a while on dazzling people with their confidence and wild ideas, but eventually reach the age where one has to have produced results to be taken seriously, and that is something they are just not capable of doing.
So this guy quit his Senior Lecturer gig in 2005, as a ” former roboticist, psychoanalyst, philosopher and linguist” hatched a plan to write a book about a community of volunteers playing post-apocalypse, that collapses in some sort of nervous breakdown, and TWO YEARS LATER is in Ireland as a “evolutionary psychologist”? Claiming “I can live with the sanctions, but I can’t live with a factual finding of sexual harassment against me. It has very serious career implications for me.”? And the trail of disaster he’s left in his life previous to this means nothing? This guy is going to ride the right-wing mens-rights gravy train for years. He’ll get his book deal now.
And a woman who studies nutrition in the elderly is somehow being seen as crazy and hurtful to “academic freedom.” I really hope the truth about this guy comes out, but somehow a lot of people just aren’t going to care.
May 22, 2010 at 2:26 am
And I just found this comment on a science blog discussing the case:
On 29th January, just before his interview with UCC admin to investigate charges of sexual harrassment, he tweeted as follows:
Staring at boobs increases male life expectancy – http://bit.ly/cMcQkx – best bit of scientific research ever!
The boob research, btw, turned out to be a hoax.
(The tweet is still there on Evans’ Twitter page. Can’t figure out how to link directly to it, though).
The tweet itself is unprofessional on its own, but the timing of its posting demonstrates a complete absence of good judgement. It really does look like a pattern, doesn’t it?
May 22, 2010 at 3:19 am
Evans is a clear and present danger to UCC.
Evans WAS just a clown, NOW he is a very serious liability to UCC and its students, faculty, staff and donors.
UCC should lock him out the IT network tonight, ban him from campus tonight and fire him this weekend– for just cause, and they clearly have very many.
He is toxic, paranoid and irrational, rabid actually–if you read his postings over the last few days.
May 21, 2010 at 3:02 pm
A clip of the John and Sally inverted snoggery session (see above) has come into my possession that explains all (taken by a fruitbat funnily enough so it comes out the right way up in the end). I offered it to an Irish newspaper but they said that there had to be pouting academics in it. I explained that John and Sally dabbled and he said he could see that, but everyone was smiling and he needed some sort of principle to be affronted – otherwise he couldn’t use it. I said that I might be able to post it to a notable academic blog where it would seen by at least three academics – and that I could do it in a sufficiently crass way that it would be sure to offend at least one of them, academics having long thrown off the yoke of open-mindedness that once oppressed them. So with the permission of our estimable host, I offer, in the name of academic freedom, to post the entire John and Sally inverted snoggery clip here. I shall take silence as a yes. Please mention my name.
May 21, 2010 at 6:10 pm
We see that Evans has got the message and is looking for another job
“evansd66
1. At Wexford Races, interviewing bookies…
about 2 hours ago via txt http://twitter.com/evansd66
We do not think he has much chance— if you betray trust in the gambling business the consequences are crippling—– or terminal.
If you betray trust in academia you just become a pariah— as Evens is now. He can walk, rather than hobble, away— after paying attorney fees that is-
How is that petition working out for you Evans?
As Kissinger said—-
” The battles in academia are so bitter—
because the stakes are so LOW—-“
May 21, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Victor you’re sick.
May 21, 2010 at 10:55 pm
He should’a took the blue.
May 21, 2010 at 10:57 pm
..and a lie down.
May 22, 2010 at 12:15 am
Evans claims to know about Risk Intelligence.
In Risk Science there is a key rule.——
” Never make a bet so big that you can never make a bet again if you loose ”
This is what Evans has done this week in his posting and allegations on the Web.
Evans Doubled Down
In the game of Blackjack, the term “double down” means the player option of doubling their bet and receiving one and only one more card.
This is of course a good deal if the player has a good hand.
It is even better if the player has a good hand and the dealer has a bad hand.
In Evans case he has a bad hand and the dealer has a good hand
A bad decision and bad outcome!
May 24, 2010 at 5:12 am
Finally we get the truth v 97.8593
We can now reveal the massive global Pharma/ Academic conspiracy that Dylan Evans, aka The Pink Panther, aka Austin Powers, has uncovered, – the crafty intrepid, crazy investigator that he is–
Now Evans has changed his story— yet again! — today he claims, in the Irish Daily Mail, that the whole # fruitbatgate thing was a hit job on him because he was investigating a vast secret conspiracy between Pharma and Academia— yawn
quote from a blogger
” The way you expose a pharmaceutical-funding corruption scandal is to show a paper on bat fellatio to the wife of a possible corruptee.
Works every time.”
see —http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bat_sex_is_not_protected_by_ac.php
Evans has completely lost his marbles– time for the white coats and the funny farm again, like when he went psychotic after his Scottish commune blew up.
Evans has done a lot of damage to the cause of Academic Freedom by crying wolf, lying and, in the end going bat-shit crazy
Evans should get free Haldol for life— and a one way ticket to N Korea– as a reward
July 6, 2010 at 8:57 am
High Court forces UCC to halt disciplinary proceedings against Dylan Evans