Archive for Christian Ott

The Verdict in the Ott Case

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , , on November 17, 2022 by telescoper

Just time for a very quick post regarding the court case I mentioned last week initiated by Christian Ott.

You will recall that Christian Ott resigned from a position at Caltech in 2016 after being found guilty of gender-based harassment against two graduate students, I wrote about this case and some of the issues it raised here. Little information about the case was divulged publicly by Caltech at the time.

After leaving Caltech, Ott was offered a position at the University of Turku in Finland but that offer was rescinded after protests about this apparent case of “passing the harasser”. Syksy Räsänen and Till Sawala initiated an open letter that was signed by a large number of academics calling for Ott’s appointment to be cancelled. Syksy blogged about the case here (in Finnish; scroll down to see the English translation). Ott now works as a software consultant.

Not being at all knowledgeable about Finnish law, I wasn’t sure of the legal basis on which Ott’s case was being pursued but it seemed to involve an accusation of “aggravated defamation”; the second charge was “aggravated dissemination of information that violates privacy”.

Anyway, the relevant court issued its judgment today. The charges against Räsänen and Sawala were dismissed.I am delighted and relieved by this news. The only coverage I have seen so far is in Finnish – see here for example – but I’ll update with more when it becomes available.

Here is the text of a press release from Syksy Räsänen and Till Sawala about the verdict.

Two astrophysicists win defamation trial after calling out harassment

Two astrophysicists at the University of Helsinki, Finland, were today acquitted of “aggravated defamation” and “aggravated dissemination of information that violates privacy” in the district court of Southwest Finland in Turku [1]. They had spoken out when Christian Ott, an astrophysicist previously suspended due to harassment, was hired at the University of Turku. The prosecutor had demanded suspended prison sentences or substantial fines, while Ott demanded €60,000.

“I am relieved that our right to speak out was affirmed today, but I remain concerned how people in positions of power downplayed harassment in this case. The issue is harassment, not the fact that people are finally talking about it”, says Till Sawala, one of the defendants. “Too much attention has been paid to protecting the reputation of institutions or the perpetrators of harassment. Our attention should be on the rights of the victims and on creating a community where everyone can feel safe.”

 “I welcome the acquittal after over three years of process. I hope this case will set a precedent”, comments Syksy Räsänen, the other defendant. “No one should have to fear fines or a prison sentence for simply speaking out against harassment based on widely and reliably reported facts. The threat alone can have a chilling effect that can set back work against harassment. We had the financial resources, and support from our scientific community, to contest the baseless charges against us. If someone in a less secure position, such as a PhD student, were to be put in this situation, they might not fare so well.”

In 2015, an investigation at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) had found that Ott had committed “unambiguous gender-based harassment” of two graduate students. The case received international media attention [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Ott had been placed on unpaid leave for nine months and his suspension was extended after he breached its terms. During the Turku trial, it was revealed that Ott received his full salary of over $200,000 from Caltech in 2017.

Following Ott’s resignation at the end of 2017, in January 2018, it emerged that Ott was due to be hired at the University of Turku [7]. Just prior to this, Ott had been offered a job at the University of Stockholm, but the offer was withdrawn after staff protests. Alexandra Veledina, who had recruited Ott to Stockholm, also works in the group of Juri Poutanen, the director of the observatory in Turku.

Räsänen and Sawala wrote a letter to the University of Turku leadership expressing their concern over the appointment. Räsänen and Sawala also published a statement against harassment in astronomy, which was signed by the majority of Finnish astronomers [8]. Referring to the response of the scientific community, the University of Turku cancelled the appointment [9].


Juri Poutanen acted as a witness for the prosecution in the trial. In emails shown in court, he had told Räsänen: “In my view there is no evidence” that Ott harassed anyone. When presented with Caltech’s findings in court, he responded that ”it really makes no difference what happened at Caltech“.

Poutanen also commented that only one of his staff had expressed concerns to him. Documents and testimony in court showed that several other astronomers at the University of Turku had reported their concerns to the rector, the university leadership, and to their trade union. The staff member who had spoken to Poutanen became the subject of a police investigation after Ott filed a criminal complaint, alleging they spoke to the press about the matter. They were ultimately not charged.

The prosecutor claimed that Sawala and Räsänen’s statements about Ott’s conduct violated privacy, in part because Caltech is a private institution. The prosecutor also alleged that the defendants’ writings were defamatory, arguing that being guilty of harassment implies being guilty of a crime, of which Ott has never been charged. The prosecutor also argued that because Ott’s actions had not involved physical contact, they did not constitute sexual harassment. Ott’s lawyers claimed that the defendants had repeated false claims from a “gossip website”.

Räsänen and Sawala argued that they were speaking about a matter of professional concern in their own scientific field, a protected category of speech under Finnish defamation law [10]. They also argued that the facts of the case were widely known and reported by many credible sources, including Caltech’s own public statements and the world’s premier scientific journals.

The court concluded that Räsänen and Sawala had spoken about a matter of public interest, based their statements on credible sources, and had at least not knowingly disseminated information they didn’t have good reason to consider true. As such, the violation of privacy and defamation charges were both dismissed.

As grounds for the financial compensation, Ott had stated that the sum of €50,000 was a “token”, intended “to hurt, but not bankrupt the respondents”. He asked for a further €10,000 in damages. Both claims were dismissed along with the criminal charges. Ott also appeared to dispute the findings of Caltech’s investigation, calling it a “kangaroo court”. According to Ott, the investigation started after “an activist got involved and urged the student to file a complaint”.  Caltech has stood by its process and findings. A 2019 investigation by NASA and the National Science Foundation found that Caltech followed the appropriate procedures in its Title IX investigation [11].

Links

Blog entries on the case by Syksy Räsänen

https://www.ursa.fi/blogi/kosmokseen-kirjoitettua/myos-me-kierros-3-we-too-round-3/

https://www.ursa.fi/blogi/kosmokseen-kirjoitettua/myos-me-taas-we-too-again/

https://www.ursa.fi/blogi/kosmokseen-kirjoitettua/myos-meus-too/

Sources referenced in the text

[1] Verdict (in Finnish):  https://telescoper.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/tuomio-r-22-619.pdf

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19153 

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/529255a

[4] https://www.science.org/content/article/caltech-suspends-professor-harassment 

[5] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/ott-harassment-investigation 

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/13/astronomys-snowballing-sexual-harassment-scandal-picks-up-even-more-cases/ 

[7] https://www.utu.fi/en/news/news/recruitment-of-christian-ott-to-the-university-of-turku 

[8] https://blogs.helsinki.fi/sawala/statement-by-finnish-astronomers-and-astrophysicists-on-harassment/

[9] https://www.utu.fi/en/news/news/university-of-turku-cancels-the-employment-contract-of-christian-ott

[10] https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039_20150766.pdf

[11] https://www.nsf.gov/od/oecr/reports/Caltech_Title_IX_Report.pdf

4 Comments »

The Ott Case Revisited

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , , , on November 13, 2022 by telescoper

It is hard to keep up with everything that is surfacing these days to do with bullying and harassment in astronomy. A number of people have contacted me about the anonymous guest post that appeared here recently, all from different universities, and all convinced that the unidentified Department referred to in the post was theirs. I can only infer that there must be a lot of this sort of thing about.

Anyway, there was news of a different sort last week when the magazine Science reported on a legal case initiated by Christian Ott against two Finnish astrophysicists, Syksy Räsänen and Till Sawala. The verdict in this case is due next week, on 17th November to be precise.

Christian Ott resigned from a position at Caltech in 2016 after being found guilty of gender-based harassment against two graduate students, I wrote about this case and some of the issues it raised here. Little information about the case was divulged publicly by Caltech at the time.

After leaving Caltech, Ott was offered a position at the University of Turku in Finland but that offer was rescinded after protests about this apparent case of “passing the harasser”. Syksy Räsänen and Till Sawala initiated an open letter that was signed by a large number of academics calling for Ott’s appointment to be cancelled. Syksy blogged about the case here (in Finnish; scroll down to see the English translation). Ott now works as a software consultant.

Not being at all knowledgeable about Finnish law, I’m not sure of the legal basis on which Ott’s case is being pursued but it seems to involve an accusation of defamation and the publication of confidential documents. As far as I understand it in Finland defamation is a criminal offence, rather as it in Germany, and can lead to a substantial fine and/or a prison sentence on conviction. I sincerely hope that it doesn’t come to either of those, as I believe that Syksy and Till took a principled stand in this matter regardless of what the law says.

According to the Science article

Sawala’s lawyer, Jussi Sarvikivi, said the prosecutor’s position appears to be that “any commentary on the Caltech finding demonstrates an intent to harm” Ott because it inevitably casts Ott in a poor light.

I had better not say any more about this until the verdict is delivered, at which point I expect the defendants to make statements. I will say though that I doubt it was Ott’s intention to draw attention again to his past behaviour but that is something this case has definitely achieved…

5 Comments »

Caltech astrophysics and harassment: Lessons learned

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , on August 13, 2019 by telescoper

This is a lengthy but important post about the recent episodes of harassment at Caltech centred around Christian Ott. I’ve blogged in relation to this myself a few times; see here. It’s not a comfortable read, which is precisely why you should read it.

One of the worst things about the way institutions handle investigations into harassment and related disciplinary matters is that the system does not include any provisions to bring closure to the victims. Indeed, victims are sometimes not even informed as to the outcome of the investigation.

You can make your own mind up about the behaviour of Caltech as an institution. All I’ll say is that far more people were affected than I was previously aware of.

cjhandmer's avatarCasey Handmer's blog

Caltech astrophysics and harassment: Lessons learned

Casey Handmer 2019

What is this?

In the wake of major catastrophes, it is common practice for organizations to publish a “Lessons Learned” report to help prevent future occurrences. The largest public catastrophe in which I’ve ever been involved occurred in the Caltech astrophysics department between 2010 and 2019. Former Caltech professor and internationally disgraced astrophysicist Christian Ott harmed, harassed, and abused numerous students, postdocs, and research fellows. Despite thousands of hours of investigation, no public “findings” or “lessons learned” report has ever been made available. This document is my attempt to fill this need.

Why?

It has been historically conventional to conceal this sort of institutional malpractice, with the effect that the hard-learned lessons are forgotten and that harassment, particularly of underrepresented minorities, is still common. The intent of this document is to undermine the traditional assumption that abused students will graduate or…

View original post 11,100 more words

2 Comments »

`Pass-the-Harasser’ … to Turku

Posted in Education, Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , , on February 2, 2018 by telescoper

I noticed yesterday evening that there has recently been a substantial increase in the number of people viewing my posts about Christian Ott, the former Caltech Professor who eventually left his job there after harassing and committing ‘gender-based discrimination’ against two female students there.

It wasn’t difficult to find out why there had been an upsurge in interest: Christian Ott has got a new job, at the University of Turku, in Finland. As far as I understand the situation – and please correct me if I’m wrong – he was `head-hunted’ for this position, so his appointment was not the result of an open competition and it seems the position was specifically created just for him.

UPDATE: the post was advertised here, but the gap between the deadline for applications – 10th December 2017 – and the appointment being announced is too short to be consistent with the usual processes of academic appointments. Moreover, the advertised job descriptions includes teaching duties; see below for why this is relevant.

Not surprisingly both the appointment itself and the circumstances by which it was brought about have provoked considerable reaction. A group of Finnish astronomers and astrophysicists has written a Statement on Harassment, which you can sign in support (here if you’re Finnish and/or based in Finland) and here for other concerned academics. I have signed the second one.

I have two personal comments to make. The first is that I’ve seen people say that Ott should get a `second chance’, and it would be unfair for his past transgressions to force him out of academia.

This is what I wrote in an earlier piece about this:

It remains to be seen what Christian Ott does. I am not familiar with his work but he is, by all accounts, a talented scientist so he may well find a position at another institution. If he does, I hope, for his and for his future colleagues’ sake, that he has learned his lesson.

I think that makes it clear that I have no desire to see Christian Ott ruined, but I don’t think that means that I think due process should be subverted to help him, as appears to be the case here. In fact I’m bound to say that if I were a Head of Department I wouldn’t under any circumstances have offered this man a position, after what he did.

Had Ott committed a different disciplinary offence (such as plagiarism or other research misconduct) he would not have found it so easy to get another job than because it was `just’ harassment. Why should these offences be treated so differently?

Once again, research esteem seems to trump everything else. That attitude is one of the most poisonous elements in modern academia. The `Great Man of Science’ is indeed a dangerous myth.

The second thing is that, as far as I understand it (and again please correct me if I’m wrong), Ott’s new position is as an `independent researcher’ and he will have no teaching duties and minimal contact with students. I suppose that is supposed to make everything alright. It doesn’t. Indeed, there are many academics who would regard a cushy research-only contract as a reward rather than a cost. It’s a slap in the face for teaching staff at Turku that funds have been found to create a bespoke position in the way that has been done here.

As always, comments clarifications and corrections are welcome through the comments box.

UPDATE: 7/2/2018. The appointment of Dr Ott has been cancelled.

17 Comments »

Christian Ott’s Resignation

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , , on August 2, 2017 by telescoper

I heard this morning an unconfirmed report that Christian Ott, the Caltech Professor who had previously been suspended for harassing two female students, and required to attend “rehabilitation”, had finally resigned from his position. Now I have found confirmation in the form of a news item and the following statement (from this source):

Ott

Ott was due to return from his suspension this summer, but instead he will remain off campus and leave the institution for good at the end of December this year.

When I posted about this episode last year, I wrote:

The first thing to say is that I find it very hard to believe that Ott will ever be able to return to his workplace after the revelations of his behaviour even if he does attend “rehabilitative training”. I very much doubt that the faculty or students would want him back. It surprises me that Caltech could even imagine that this is a realistic possibility.

It was never going to work, for all kinds of reasons, and Caltech should have realised that ages ago. I don’t, incidentally, think it’s fair to say his presence on campus would have been `divisive’. I think opinions at Caltech were pretty much united, based on the people I know there: they didn’t want him back.

It remains to be seen what Christian Ott does. I am not familiar with his work but he is, by all accounts, a talented scientist so he may well find a position at another institution. If he does, I hope, for his and for his future colleagues’ sake, that he has learned his lesson.

But it is not Christian Ott’s future that is the most important consideration. The two individuals involved in the case have had to put up with behaviour that simply shouldn’t have happened, and which should have been dealt with much more decisively before so much damage was done to the lives and careers of the young women involved.

This is a depressing story in many ways, but it seems clear to me likely that the Caltech management were afraid to dismiss Ott fearing a lawsuit and associated reputational damage. Unlike the equivalent posts in the UK, positions like Ott’s are fully tenured in the USA so a dismissal can potentially be challenged on a number of legal grounds, especially if such procedures that were in place were not properly followed. Of course it may also be that the procedures were inadequate anyway, which makes litigation even more likely to be successful. If these were the considerations that influenced Caltech’s decision, then I hope they now realise that they would in the long run have been far better advised to do the right thing, and weather any short-term storm.

The only proper reaction now for Caltech to this sorry business is to undertake a complete overhaul of the way it deals with harassment and related forms of misconduct. If done properly that might also help heal the scars this case has left. Not that Caltech is far from being the only institution with a problem in this regard…

8 Comments »

Fake Authors in Physics

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on May 30, 2017 by telescoper

Back to work – and exam business – after the Bank Holiday weekend (during most of which I was a bit under the weather), I thought I’d try to get back into the swing of blogging with a brief post about fake authorship.

What provoked me to write this was a strange news item about a Caltech professor who apparently created a fictitious female collaborator called `Ursula C. T. Gamma’ and got her name added as author on scientific papers as well as official email lists on the Caltech website; she also appears in an acknowledgement:

Finally, we thank Ursula C. T. Gamma for continued inspiration.

The professor responsible for all this was none other than Christian Ott, whom I’ve mentioned in a blog post before, because he was placed on unpaid leave by Caltech for harassing two female colleagues.

I don’t know what Ott hoped to gain by inventing a female co-worker. Was it just for a joke, or was there some ulterior motive? I’m not going to speculate here.

If you’ll excuse a bit of frivolity this episode reminded me that a few years ago I toyed with the idea of adding my cat, Columbo, under the pseudonym `Felix Columbo’, as a co-author on a paper I was writing. That would have been for my own amusement – and also because I thought Felix Columbo was a cool name for a physicist, but in the end I didn’t do it largely because I heard about F.D.C. Willard:

The American physicist and mathematician Jack H. Hetherington, Michigan State University, in 1975 wanted to publish some of his research results in the field of low–temperature physics in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters. A colleague, to whom he had given his paper for review, pointed out that Hetherington had used the first person plural in his text, and that the journal would reject this form on submissions with a sole author. Rather than take the time to retype the article to use the singular tense, or to bring in a co-author, Hetherington decided to invent one.

The co-author he invented was his cat, whose name was Chester. The cat’s father was called Willard and the letters F.D.’ stand for `Felis Domesticus’ (the species name for a a house cat).

Other physicists have done similar things. For example, Nobel laureate Andre Geim has written a paper with a hamster as a co-author.

More famously, George Gamow added the name of Hans Bethe to a paper he was writing with his PhD student Ralph Alpher, simply so its authors would be Alpher, Bethe and Gamow. Bethe did subsequently work on the topic discussed in the paper – nucleosynthesis – but hadn’t significantly to the paper. It is reported that Alpher was upset by Gamow’s actions. The paper was published in the Physical Review in 1948 and is a classic in the field of physical cosmology.

As well as being an outstanding physicist, George Gamow was a very colourful and amusing fellow. I’m sure his decision to add Bethe to this paper was just meant as a bit of fun. Likewise with the cat and the hamster. These days, however, authorship of scientific papers is taken far more seriously than it was, as a means to assess research activity and distribute resources. You could argue that this emphasis on authorship is an unhealthy development, but nevertheless that’s the way things. A responsible senior scientist should know that. Adding a phoney author – even if intended as a joke – could well be construed by some institutions as a form of research misconduct.

And how are your real co-workers (especially students and postdocs) supposed to feel if you decide they haven’t contributed enough to merit authorship of a collaborative paper, when they see you adding names of people who don’t even exist?

20 Comments »

Harassment and Confidentiality

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc with tags , , on January 13, 2016 by telescoper

News of yet another sexual harassment scandal in Astronomy has broken, this time at Caltech. The individual concerned was not named by Caltech but has subsequently been identified as Christian Ott (whom I don’t know at all), who was investigated following complaints by two female PhD students. The complaints were upheld and Ott has been suspended.

This case would be difficult enough to comment on even without the complex backstory, some of which is in the public domain: two of the three protagonists appear in this article which dates from 2014. Clearly a lot has happened since then and it would be intrusive and unhelpful for me to speculate publicly about things know I nothing about.

What I will say, as clearly as I possibly can, that it is that due process has been followed and that there is no question the right decision was reached. My only surprise is that Dr Ott was not summarily dismissed.

In the interests of full disclosure I should make it clear that I do know one of the complainants in a professional capacity, Sarah Gossan, who was an undergraduate Astrophysics student at Cardiff while I was there and who started a PhD at Caltech in 2012.

Also for the record I should state that one of my duties as a Head of School here at the University of Sussex is to investigate and deal  with allegations of harassment or other misconduct by staff. I obviously can’t comment on individual cases I have dealt with, but will say that it is probably my least favourite job but someone has do it.

If such a complaint is upheld it can lead to summary dismissal (for very serious misconduct) or, at very least, a formal written warning. It’s worth also stating that the standard applied is that of a Civil rather than Criminal Court, i.e. the decision is based on the “balance of the evidence” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Concerning the Caltech/Ott case, according to this source:

The university investigation, which concluded in September, found that Ott violated the school’s harassment policies with both women. Ott, a 38-year-old rising star who had been granted tenure the year before, was placed on nine months of unpaid leave. During that time he is barred from campus, his communication with most of his postdoctoral fellows will be monitored, and, with the exception of a single graduate student, he is not allowed to have contact with any other students. Before returning, he must undergo what a school official calls “rehabilitative” training.

The first thing to say is that I find it very hard to believe that Ott will ever be able to return to his worksplace after the revelations of his behaviour even if he does attend “rehabilitative training”.  I very much doubt that the faculty or students would want him back. It surprises me that Caltech could even imagine that this is a realistic possibility.

Another feature worthy of comment is that Caltech itself did not name the perpetrator, although his name very rapidly appeared in the public domain. Disciplinary procedures of this type are also treated confidentially in all UK universities with which I am familiar (including the University of Sussex). I think there are good reasons for this, primarily to protect individuals from false or malicious allegations, but also to protect the complainant(s) from unwelcome publicity or other unwanted attention. However, it has to be said that this often also ends up protecting the culprit too. If  a person ends up getting the sack as as  result of sexual harassment then news will almost certainly leak out about why Dr Bloggs has left suddenly. However, if it leads to a warning then this outcome is generally not disclosed. In such a situation, Dr Bloggs could move to another institution and carry on where he left off.

They have been suggestions in the USA, discussed in this article, that legislation could be intoduced to force institutions to disclose information about harassment cases when an individual moves from one to another. I think this is an idea well worth thinking about, but I am not sure how workable it is in practice.

Failure to act strongly when such behaviour is proven just sends out the message that the institution doesn’t take sexual harassment seriously. In my view, confidentiality is needed during an investigation – to protect both sides and indeed the person doing the investigation – but if the conclusion is that misconduct has taken place, it should  be ackowledged publicly. Justice has to be seen to be done. Sexual assault, of course, is another matter entirely – that should go straight to the police to deal with.

I’ve talked about protocols and procedures, but these can only ever apply a sticking-plaster solution to a problem which is extremely deeply rooted in the culture of many science departments and research teams across the world. These tend to be very hierarchical, with power and influence concentrated in the hands of relatively few, usually male, individuals. A complaint about harassment generally has to go up through the management structure and therefore risks being blocked at a number of stages for a number of reasons. This sort of structure reinforces the idea that students and postdocs are at the bottom of the heap and discourages them from even attempting to pursue a case against someone at the top.

The unhealthy power structures I’ve discussed will not be easy to dismantle entirely, but there are simple things that can be done to make a start. “Flatter”, more democratic, structures not only mitigate this problem but are also probably more efficient by, for example, eliminating the single-point failures that plague hierarchical organisational arrangements.

We are very far indeed from eliminating harassment or the conditions that allow it to continue but although cases like this are painful, I think they at least demonstrate that we are beginning to acknowledge that there’s a problem.

 

25 Comments »