Everyone knows this. Why did you post it?
Lawsuit alleges Rob Van Houweling (UC Berkeley) repeatedly harassed PhD student.
-
There was no evidence against BJ. He slept a with the USC student years ago. Nothing about Gills claims were validated.Remember how, last January, all of PSR came out in full force to remind everyone that:
1) Bill Jacoby hadn't been found guilty of anything
2) Rebecca Gill is a mentally ill woman who cannot be trusted
3) There is no corroborating evidence against Jacoby, and
4) We should treat Jacoby as innocent until proven guilty
How wrong everyone turned out to be. The point is that PSR is not a legal court. We don't have to avoid discussing an allegation until someone has been proven guilty in court. -
That’s a lot of BS about RVH. The university isn’t going to back off a case because the student “changed her story.” The policy is not that it’s ok if it’s consensual, it’s that a fac member cannot have a relationship with, or even approach, a direct supervisee. Even in the story LL supposedly switched to RVH would have violated the policy and UC would have had every reason to come down on him. They didn’t. It’s not because LL had a credible story but changed it, it’s because none of this ever happened.
The Van Houweling situation was very different. Van Houweling was married to his wife, Molly Van Houweling, when he briefly dated Loan Le, a grad student under his direct supervision as a dissertation committee member during 2008-2009. At the time, it was well-known around the department that the two were dating, in part because Loan discussed it openly, and the two were repeatedly seen together in public. At some point, the relationship soured because Loan Le then claimed that they had never been dating. Instead, she claimed that Van Houweling had simply been flirting with her the entire time and she had responded politely but rejected his overtures. For his part, Van Houweling also denied that the two had ever been in a relationship.
After several years of unsuccessfully pursuing an academic position, Le then claimed that Van Houweling and her other dissertation committee members had blackballed her in retaliation for rejecting Van Houweling's romantic overtures. She then claimed that the emails from Van Houweling and flowers sent to her apartment constituted "proof" that Van Houweling had been stalking her. In short, Le claimed this was unwanted sexual harassment.
At that point, Van Houweling was in a tough position because he had previously maintained that he had never been in a relationship with Le - therefore, sending flowers repeatedly certainly seemed like stalking behavior. The proof of the flowers being sent was authentic, but Le claimed that they were an unwanted gesture, while Van Houweling claimed his intentions were non-romantic and that he and Le had never been in a relationship.
Nevertheless Le's administrative grievance at the university level went nowhere because she had zero credibility. It was clear she had altered her story about the nature of her relationship with Van Houweling, and while there was clear proof that Van Houweling had definitely sent flowers to her, the university simply couldn't build a case against Van Houweling because it was obvious that Le was lying about the true nature of their relationship - that is, Le was unwilling to admit that the two had been dating because her primary agenda was to claim that Van Houweling had blackballed her from academia as retaliation for rejecting his romantic gestures.
In other words, Le probably overplayed her hand. She could have just told the truth, which is that she and Van Houweling were in a consensual romantic relationship while Van Houweling was serving on her dissertation committee. (I have no idea who initiated the relationship, but that is neither here nor there)
Instead, Le insisted on a conspiracy-theory version of events, claiming that she was never in a relationship with Van Houweling and claiming that other faculty members at Berkeley were somehow blackballing her from academia (which is very likely untrue). Her lack of credibility is the reason that Berkeley never took any action against Van Houweling. There simply isn't a credible sexual harassment charge to be brought when the victim has obviously changed her story about the nature of her relationship with the harasser. -
Janine is right. The whole story is loony tunes. Anybody who knows VH laughs at the possibility that he would have an affair, and anybody who knows Laura Stoker knows that she—HERSELF A VICTIM OF AN ACTUAL STALKER—would never spy on a graduate student! Unbelievable.
-
RVH definitely behaved like a bad boy. He just didn't get caught. The good guy won, I suppose.
That’s a lot of BS about RVH. The university isn’t going to back off a case because the student “changed her story.” The policy is not that it’s ok if it’s consensual, it’s that a fac member cannot have a relationship with, or even approach, a direct supervisee. Even in the story LL supposedly switched to RVH would have violated the policy and UC would have had every reason to come down on him. They didn’t. It’s not because LL had a credible story but changed it, it’s because none of this ever happened.
The Van Houweling situation was very different. Van Houweling was married to his wife, Molly Van Houweling, when he briefly dated Loan Le, a grad student under his direct supervision as a dissertation committee member during 2008-2009. At the time, it was well-known around the department that the two were dating, in part because Loan discussed it openly, and the two were repeatedly seen together in public. At some point, the relationship soured because Loan Le then claimed that they had never been dating. Instead, she claimed that Van Houweling had simply been flirting with her the entire time and she had responded politely but rejected his overtures. For his part, Van Houweling also denied that the two had ever been in a relationship.
After several years of unsuccessfully pursuing an academic position, Le then claimed that Van Houweling and her other dissertation committee members had blackballed her in retaliation for rejecting Van Houweling's romantic overtures. She then claimed that the emails from Van Houweling and flowers sent to her apartment constituted "proof" that Van Houweling had been stalking her. In short, Le claimed this was unwanted sexual harassment.
At that point, Van Houweling was in a tough position because he had previously maintained that he had never been in a relationship with Le - therefore, sending flowers repeatedly certainly seemed like stalking behavior. The proof of the flowers being sent was authentic, but Le claimed that they were an unwanted gesture, while Van Houweling claimed his intentions were non-romantic and that he and Le had never been in a relationship.
Nevertheless Le's administrative grievance at the university level went nowhere because she had zero credibility. It was clear she had altered her story about the nature of her relationship with Van Houweling, and while there was clear proof that Van Houweling had definitely sent flowers to her, the university simply couldn't build a case against Van Houweling because it was obvious that Le was lying about the true nature of their relationship - that is, Le was unwilling to admit that the two had been dating because her primary agenda was to claim that Van Houweling had blackballed her from academia as retaliation for rejecting his romantic gestures.
In other words, Le probably overplayed her hand. She could have just told the truth, which is that she and Van Houweling were in a consensual romantic relationship while Van Houweling was serving on her dissertation committee. (I have no idea who initiated the relationship, but that is neither here nor there)
Instead, Le insisted on a conspiracy-theory version of events, claiming that she was never in a relationship with Van Houweling and claiming that other faculty members at Berkeley were somehow blackballing her from academia (which is very likely untrue). Her lack of credibility is the reason that Berkeley never took any action against Van Houweling. There simply isn't a credible sexual harassment charge to be brought when the victim has obviously changed her story about the nature of her relationship with the harasser. -
RVH definitely behaved like a bad boy. He just didn't get caught. The good guy won, I suppose.
If he behaved badly and didn't get caught, doesn't that mean the bad guy won? Who is the good guy here? Confused...
If you know him, and know what people think of him, you will understand the "good guy" thing. "Good guys" get away with doing bad boy things all the time.