Skip to main content
Skip to content
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Case File
d-32482House OversightOther

Department chair disputes sexual harassment complaint and university investigations

The passage details internal university handling of a sexual harassment allegation against a faculty member, but it involves only academic personnel and lacks concrete new evidence, financial flows, o Faculty member received informal, then formal investigations at ASU and ANU after an anonymous third Both universities concluded the allegation was not credible and cleared the individual of wrongdoi

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #031256
Pages
2
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage details internal university handling of a sexual harassment allegation against a faculty member, but it involves only academic personnel and lacks concrete new evidence, financial flows, o Faculty member received informal, then formal investigations at ASU and ANU after an anonymous third Both universities concluded the allegation was not credible and cleared the individual of wrongdoi

Tags

confidentialitysexual-harassmentacademic-misconductinstitutional-misconductuniversity-investigationlegal-exposurehouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
department chair I was interested in knowing what we could do, if necessary to encourage more women to go into physics, and also because as someone she had asked for career advice from I wanted to know if that made a difference to her. Re asking her for dinner.. I have gone back over emails from that period. I have numerous requests from her asking me to go for coffee to talk, which I usually had to turn down because I was busy, and on several occasions she asked me to have coffee with her off campus to talk, and I politely declined. I did let her accompany me off campus one time to watch me do a BBC interview because she specifically requested it, and I believe she found it useful. I did and do have coffee and meals with students on campus, and I see nothing wrong with this. I try to treat students as respected colleagues if possible. I was shocked when I later learned of the complaint she was apparently asked to lodge to the University, not least because there was no inappropriate interaction but also because, well after the dates you listed on which she was apparently offended, she continued to email me with joking questions or comments. Also, at a later AAAS conference, again in 2008, for which she had asked, and for which I had written her a letter of recommendation to attend, my wife and I gave her a lift in our taxi well out out of our way in order to drop her off at her hotel, and I note in an email response to her email about the conference, again in 2008, I expressed that I would pass her regards along to my wife and vice versa. When the University later informed me of the complaint I was shocked and concerned. When I spoke to the human resources person, including relating my concerns and explaining the situation, I was told that no formal complaint of sexual harassment was requested. By that time I learned of the complaint I had already announced my intentions to leave Case to accept an offer at ASU—a very difficult decision for me because of my long-standing attachment to the University, the excellent relations I had with my colleagues there— both among the faculty (many of whom in physics I had hired while department chair)) and among the administration, along with a very attractive counter-offer by Case. Because I was already in Arizona at the later time I was asked not to have any further interaction with the student I agreed to that request, both to respect her sensitivities and also because it was basically moot because I was not on campus. Following this episode, as indicated in the letter to the student, I did assess what might have led to misinterpretations by this student, and became more careful in offering advice when talking to students. I was also told by human resources that because it was decided to handle this informally and not formally, that (a) it should remain confidential, which I, at least abided by, and (b) if no further complaints were lodged in that case, that the University would preserve its confidentiality and remove the complaint from my record after 5 years, which makes me surprised and concerned that someone violated that written agreement with you. Re item 6: You report on ASU’s response to item #6 , without including the fact that the University specifically stated there were never any allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment by me at the University, and moreover that the ‘outside complaints’ were in fact related specifically to your item #6. Further you neglect to mention that this complaint was by an anonymous third party, not the individual who was allegedly harassed, who never lodged a complaint, and that no specific evidence was provided of the alleged transgression. I was surprised and dismayed that both ASU and ANU launched investigations on the basis of this but was told by both Universities that because of my high profile even such unsubstantiated third party complaints at private events unrelated to the University would be investigated. The complaint was investigated by both ASU and ANU and both came to the conclusion that it was not credible and no university policies had been violated. In addition ANU’s investigation, which took a full month, found various inconsistencies in the allegation, which suggest distortion and fabrication, I will quote from the ANU report. The initial complaint, which in fact resulted in a temporary suspension of my position at ANU until it was dismissed, outlined the claim you made in the words you quoted in your note to me, but it also stated "It is the University’s understanding that a complaint was lodged directly to the conference organisers at the time of the incident.” After the month-long investigation, during which I was told I was not to interact with anyone on campus (again moot because I was a hemisphere removed) the final report, from which I quote below absolved me of any wrongdoing, reinstating my position, and indicated information inconsistent with the original claim and apparent later claims:

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Fragmentary Text Mentions ‘Cacioppo’, ‘Nusbaum’, and ‘Chicago Social Brain Network’ in Unclear Context

Fragmentary Text Mentions ‘Cacioppo’, ‘Nusbaum’, and ‘Chicago Social Brain Network’ in Unclear Context The passage consists largely of incoherent fragments with no clear factual allegations, dates, transactions, or identifiable misconduct. It only loosely references a few names (Cacioppo, Nusbaum) and an organization (Chicago Social Brain Network) without any substantive connection to wrongdoing or power structures, offering no actionable investigative leads. Key insights: Mentions a possible individual named Cacioppo.; Mentions a possible individual named Nusbaum.; References the Chicago Social Brain Network and a publication titled “Invisible Forces and Powerful Beliefs”.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Empty House Oversight Document Lacks Substantive Content

Empty House Oversight Document Lacks Substantive Content The provided file contains only a title and no substantive text, offering no names, transactions, dates, or allegations to pursue. Consequently, it provides no investigative leads, controversy, novelty, or power linkages. Key insights: Document contains only a header and filename.; No mention of individuals, agencies, or actions.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Email hints at alleged personal connections to Ghislaine Maxwell and possible intimidation by unknown parties

Email hints at alleged personal connections to Ghislaine Maxwell and possible intimidation by unknown parties The passage contains vague references to "new iterations of Ghislaine Maxwell" and mentions individuals linked to a Stone Ridge board, but provides no concrete details, dates, transactions, or actionable leads. It suggests possible intimidation or surveillance, yet lacks verifiable facts or clear connections to high‑profile actors, limiting investigative usefulness. Key insights: Mentions Ghislaine Maxwell in a cryptic context.; References Stone Ridge board membership and a former classmate relationship.; Alleges personal communications were tracked and bribed.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Bill Siegel email chain discussing 'The Control Factor' and anti‑Islamic conspiracy narrative

The passage is an internal email and interview transcript promoting a conspiratorial worldview about 'Islamic Enemy' and 'Civilization Jihad.' It mentions Jeffrey Epstein as a sender but provides no c Email originates from Jeffrey Epstein's address, but only contains a casual invitation and a link to Bill Siegel outlines a theory called the 'Control Factor' that frames Islam as a coordinated threa

20p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017

15 July 7 2016 - July 17 2016 working progress_Redacted.pdf

Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Irons, Janet < Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:47 AM Richard C. Smith     Hello Warden Smith,     mother is anxious to hear the results of your inquiry into her daughter's health.   I'd be grateful if you could  email or call me at your earliest convenience.  I'm free today after 2 p.m.  Alternatively, we could meet after the Prison  Board of Inspectors Meeting this coming Thursday.    Best wishes,    Janet Irons    1 Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent:

1196p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires

The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu

88p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.