|
|
|
Financing Insurance Workplace Legal issues Name choice Name change Driver’s license Birth certificate Passport Marriage Will Other documents
|
Northwestern University to discipline J. Michael Bailey in secret [via Christine Burns at Press
for Change news] CHICAGO Illinois - 29th November 2004 Northwestern University Professor
J. Michael Bailey is to be disciplined
in an unspecified manner, according to letters sent this week to trans women
who had complained about his behaviour. The Professor, whose book "The
Man Who Would Be Queen" caused an international furore when published
in March 2003, faced multiple complaints
from several transsexual women. Many of these contended that he had made them
into his research subjects without their knowing or written consent, when they
thought he was simply writing surgery referral letters for them. One of the
women also alleged that he had had sex with her whilst participating in what
she later realised to be a possible research project. The exact findings of the NWU complaints investigation are seemingly to remain
a secret. With a degree of evasion which has stunned US trans observers, University
Provost Lawrence B Dumas avoids giving any clue as to what the investigating
committee actually concluded after more than a years's deliberation. A letter
received this weekend by complainant Professor
Lynn Conway is practically identical to those also being received by the
women who claimed to have been his unwitting research subjects. It states,
Professor Conway was quick to condemn the statement: "...it's a kind-of
Catholic Church type of "Cover-Up", a retreat into total secrecy about
their findings, and from telling the public what they're going to do about those
findings." She adds, "Here we have the elite science establishment simply saying
to those were abused by rogue scientists, like the Catholic Church said to those
who were abused by rogue priests, "trust us, we've investigated and we've
taken care of it"...when in fact they never even looked at the most serious
charges." Although the committee's findings haven't been revealed, it is nevertheless
clear that Professor Bailey has not been exonerated. Had the investigating committee
found him innocent of the charges made in the complaints, it is inconceivable
that they would have passed up the opportunity to say so. Institutions only
adopt this kind of tight lipped approach when they are extremely embarassed
and hope that the problem will go away. In this case observers say the only
logical conclusion they can draw is that the committee DID find Bailey to be
at fault, but found the consequences of condemning his behaviour to be overwhelmingly
embarassing to confront. Why might that be? One good clue lies in the complaint which WASN'T investigated. The allegation
of sex with a research subject has not actually been considered by the university's
investigating panel, since the first task was to establish whether the woman
making the allegation was a research subject or not. Conway says that by failing to spell out the conclusions of the investigating
panel the university hopes to avoid the obligation to investigate this second
serious issue, which could continue embarassing them even further. Moreover, for a university reliant on contentious US Government funding, the
"was it research" question is considered by other observers to be
highly embarassing in its own right... Since its publication in March 2003, gender identity experts, trans academics
and scientists from many backgrounds have joined in condemning J Michael Bailey's
book as bad science and dangerous drivel. In peer review terms Bailey's only
fans come from the small clique of eugenically-inspired
"bio ethics" researchers, who expected his book to further their
stigmatising aims. At first Bailey claimed it to be a serious science book about his research.
When the condemnations started coming, however, he hastily changed tack and
claimed that the book was a popular work about his exploits trawling gay bars
as part of his interest in the field. Had the investigating committee found
that the subjects featured in his gay bar antics WERE research subjects however
(ignoring the ones he made up), funders would be even more inclined to think
very hard about how he has been spending their money all this time. Meanwhile, there are still more complaints in the system, regarding further
alleged acts of unprofessional conduct, so the professor is certainly not out
of the woods yet. For US-based researchers the refusal of the authorities to state their findings
in this case will leave a big question mark over what constitutes "research"
with human subjects, and what kinds of human research require informed written
consent. This is a very serious question affecting far more than J Michael Bailey's
sexploits, and some might have hoped a prestige university like Northwestern
to take this opportunity to provide some answers. For trans people around the world the "non-findings" are a huge disappointment
too... The Latina trans women who just wanted a referral letter and got an unwanted
place in a controversial book have been denied a reasonable outcome to their
complaint. All they know is that a secret committee looked at their cases in
secret and the university's provost reports that they came to a secret conclusion.
They are denied the right to know that conclusion or to know whether the sanctions
taken are reasonable or not. No reasonable person would describe that as a meaningful
complaints process. It is a denial of due process. Nobody knows yet whether,
as a result, they will take their complaints to law or not. For the rest of us, the result is also very frustrating .. in an affair where,
above all, people most likely just want to see closure. Many may choose to read
between the lines and deduce that the moral victory has already been won in
any case. The University would not have hesitated to say if it believed that
J Michael Bailey was innocent of the allegations made. The only reasonable conclusion,
therefore, is that he is considered at least partly culpable. Some might be
disappointed not to know the disciplinary outcome -- a loss of tenure, a fine,
a written warning? Who knows? That's speculation. What we DO know, however, is that other complaint allegations still have to
be heard .. the issues are so serious that they still remain confidential ..
and that this is a story which will continue to play out for months (if not
years to come) .. so watch that space over there. - Christine Burns Additional information For more on this matter, please see the report by Lynn Conway. For additional background information, please see the BBL Clearinghouse at this site or Lynn Conway's J. Michael Bailey Investigation. |
|
|
|
||
