Much has transpired in the
information theory community since I posted my note in early June
2018. I've since received more emails and phone messages on this issue
than I can hope to answer individually. Below I respond to the most common
comments and questions expressed, including in face to face and phone
conversations, approximately in order of their abundance, correcting for those
that appeared in varying guises and tones multiple times by the same person. I paraphrase some for clustering (clumping together those that
are similar), brevity, coherence, elimination of inappropriate language, and
translation from Hebrew. I omit the blatant attempts to threaten,
intimidate or silence, when they are void of elements that would be
constructive for me to address publicly. I
may try to update this page at some frequency to address new FAQs as they
arise and possibly also revisit my answers to some of those that have already
been addressed, to reflect my evolving stances and subsequent developments. Get
those screenshots ready...
AQ in FAQ should be broadly construed as
standing for 'asked question', 'made comment', or combinations thereof.
FAQ: Thank you so much for your note. We've been
waiting so long for a voice such as this.
Answer:
Thanks for your email. It's good to know so many
of you are appreciative. On the other hand, that so many of you asked I keep
your support confidential is distressing. In most cases because it means you're
feeling more vulnerable than one should in a healthy environment. In
other cases, because it means you're choosing to publicly remain on the
sidelines at a time when your voice matters most.
FAQ: You are brave.
Answer:
I'm a tenured senior white male at a top place.
What have I to fear if not the man in the mirror? No courage was involved. Only
fear of that man.
FAQ: Did you anticipate posting your
note would trigger events leading to exposure of the letter and its
signatories?
Answer:
The letter was widely known and circulated
before my post. Several friends, colleagues, and even some students
from within and outside of our community have been asking me in the months that
preceded my post how I feel about that letter being the only signal emanating
from the information theory community. Those recurring questions have been
a major factor in my eventual decision to post my note. I myself
received it multiple times from people who tried to convince me to sign and to
distribute, as well as from others who were shocked by it. The identities
of many of its signatories were known, as were the attempts to get more
signatures by sending lists of those who have already signed to those who were
deliberating. At no point in the attempts to solicit my signature was
there an implication that my being a signatory would remain
confidential. I doubt any of the other signatories had reason to believe
their signing of the letter would be kept in confidence. To be honest, I'd
have posted my note regardless. Maintaining my silence in the wake of
the events was not an option.
FAQ: Your post triggered events
leading to the motion recently passed by the information theory society
to approve a statement on sexual harassment. You should be happy and proud.
Answer:
I was happy with this motion insofar as it reflects discussion and action in
the right direction, in lieu of the silence and inaction that preceded it. The
statement would have been better shorter and more explicit. It contains fuzz
that worried me at the time it was approved, but I didn't want to raise so as
not to jeopardize the decision to have a statement at all. One sentence that
worried me was "Volunteers and members are not to engage in any form of
retaliation, bullying or cyber-bullying around sexual harassment
cases". Another was that with the clause about acting respectfully
towards other members. I feared such fuzz would be amenable to manipulation via
interpretations broader than were meant by the statement writers. That
fear was confirmed shortly after the statement was released, when cited by some
in a largely successful attempt to attain exemption from taking responsibility
for - and to stifle any discussion about how to fix - damage to the society
caused by their decisions and actions. Some have been using it to spread
self-serving moral confusion and blur distinctions between aggressor and
victim, bullying and standing up to it, harassment and its
reporting.
FAQ: Your note reads like it's written by a
finger-wagging outsider. Weren't you on the Board of Governors (BoG) at the time?
Answer:
The note should have been clearer on this point.
I was frustrated by the failing attempts from within the board to trigger
meaningful discussion and action. Those who were on the BoG
and most influential by virtue of their presidential titles, with the notable
exception of the current president, seemed to be clinging to every excuse for
inaction that they could find.
FAQ: [In the context of the note posted:] Who
are you to pass judgement, are you a saint?
Answer:
Far from it. Opining that certain behavior is
unethical is not to imply one considers oneself a saint in that regard. I meant
myself included when writing about the need to be making
an effort for improving our norms. Shortly after making my note public, I
received an email from a colleague who expressed her support of my note while
also reminding me of a conversation we had at a conference a few years ago
about the pros and cons of circumcision that left her uncomfortable for the
wrong reason. I like to think I would have acted differently today, thanks
to her feedback.
FAQ: You call yourself a
friend of Sergio? A true friend would have signed the letter or at the very
least refrained from posting anything misaligned with it.
Answer:
My
friendship with Sergio was a major force for deciding to break my silence. I
felt and still do that the letter, widely known and known to be widely signed
by the time of my decision, has done him a grave disservice by correlating
support of him as a valued friend and colleague with a refusal to recognize
objectionable elements in his behavior. My post was, first and
foremost, an attempt to alleviate that confusion.
FAQ: Many of the signatories are your friends, mentors and colleagues. Where's your
empathy for them? What kind of a friend are you?
Answer:
The signatories - many
of whom are indeed valued friends, mentors, and colleagues - are not the
biggest victims of this saga, contrary to the attempts of some to portray them
as such. They knew what they were signing and had no good reasons to believe
their identities would not be exposed. Those of them not in complete
concordance with the content of the letter - or who feel they've been unfairly
manipulated into signing it - have ample ways to express that publicly.
FAQ: Aren't you
concerned about the rift in the information theory society? Your post was a
major contributor to it. You should feel responsible and think hard how to mend
it.
Answer:
I'm concerned, primarily
by the apparent failure of this society to foster values I deem crucial
for the health and soundness of a scientific research community. I'm not
interested in unity for its own sake, but unity around such values. I've
been having discussions, with a growing number of people - of different levels
of seniority, fields, and research orientations - who care about
information theory. We want to be part of something we can be proud
of both scientifically and ethically. Everyone is equally empowered to contribute
to what we're trying to build. If you would like to join the conversation,
send me a line and I'll add you to the forum, though bear with us as we try to
come up with a platform that will allow the kind of constructive and creative
discussions we're hoping to foster. Suggestions about the implementation
of such a platform would be particularly appreciated at this
juncture. Requests for being filled in on the progress while keeping your
interest confidential will be honored.
FAQ: I am deeply
disappointed and concerned by the fact that so few senior men in the
information theory society have publicly joined you in expressing support of
the right values.
Answer:
So am I. Several of
them have been expressing their support behind closed doors and in
communications they asked to keep private. A notable inspiring exception is
Bob Gray.
FAQ: What happened
Tuesday night at ISIT?
Answer:
I was sitting between my
daughter and son as we waited for the debut of the movie about Shannon to
start. I extended an unsuspecting hand toward Helmut as he approached us, while
telling them he was the friend I had previously told them about who inspired
our rock climbing trip. On reaching us, Helmut ignored my extended hand
and embarked on a vociferous rant using expletives to accuse me of
orchestrating his public execution. I got up from my seat and moved to the
aisle at the end of the row so as to move this "conversation" away
from my kids. Helmut was moving with me and we ended up standing close to
and facing each other with his back against the theatre wall. I told him to
stay away from my family before returning to my seat in time for the beginning
of the film.
FAQ:
Is your family OK?
Answer:
Yes. My
kids were initially shaken and my daughter used to burst into tears in the
weeks that followed when recalling the incident. In retrospect, it
was also a blessing for the valuable teachable moment about doing what's
right in the face of adversity, and standing up to bullying.
FAQ:
Were you physically violent toward Helmut?
Answer:
No. Last time I was
physically violent was in my early twenties, serving obediently as a soldier
enforcing the Israeli occupation. I am not proud of that part of my life and
decades later still coping with its psychological aftermath.
FAQ: But did you not
push him against the wall?
Answer:
No, though, according to
witnesses, it would have been merited given the situation I was in. In any
case, Helmut moved to the wall of his own volition. We were standing close
to each other, but there was no physical contact between us.
FAQ: I heard/read you
sent Helmut a threatening email. Is that behavior consistent with the
harassment free society you purport to be promoting?
Answer:
Standing up to bullying
is not harassment but its antithesis. I wrote that email, on which I
included the BoG, shortly after the incident, at the
prodding of several witnesses, to send a message of standing up to and
reporting bullying.
FAQ: Why don't you
publicly reach out to Helmut and let bygones be bygones? It would be a much
needed message of unity and conciliation in our community.
Answer:
I appreciate Helmut as a
person and as a professional. I also have much empathy for the kinds of
pressures and forces he was operating under when reaching the decisions that he
did, including those with which I don't agree, most notably his decision to
approach me as he did when I was with my family. From a symbolic
standpoint, I would be sending the wrong message to the more vulnerable by
publicly being the one reaching out for burying the hatchet. What would
that message be? That if you express what I did in my note, and are then
attacked for it as I was, it's on you to follow up with a conciliatory
gesture?
FAQ: Look what
happened to you, a white senior male from a top place, due to the posting of
such a benign note. Look at the attempts to bully, intimidate, manipulate, and
then brand and dismiss you as a thug when you try to stand up against those
attempts. What will happen to me, a less senior woman, if I were to expose more
explosive content? I would be eaten alive and can kiss my career goodbye. No
way I ever would.
Answer:
I confess this one
gets to me most, makes me sick to my stomach, and leaves me at a loss for words
that would make for a satisfactory answer. I call on you, friends and
colleagues, to relay to me and, better yet, directly execute on ideas for
actions that can help change this perception, which I've learned is way more
pervasive than I wanted to imagine.
FAQ: The outgoing,
the current, and that who was recently appointed to become the next Editor in
Chief (EiC) of the information theory transactions -
the crown jewel of our field - are all widely known to be signatories of the
letter. That letter is consequently becoming the face of our
transactions, which may well turn out to be irreversibly damaging to its
integrity and prestige.
Answer:
Agreed.
FAQ: The outgoing,
the current, and that who was recently appointed to be the next Editor in Chief
(EiC) of the information theory transactions are all
widely known to be signatories of the letter. Is this the sign of a
forward-looking life-seeking society?
Answer:
No.
FAQ: The outgoing,
the current, and that who was recently appointed to be the next Editor in Chief
(EiC) of the information theory transactions are all
widely known to be signatories of the letter. You're on the BoG. You need to be working hard to fix the resulting damage before it's too late.
Answer:
My attempts to get the BoG to recognize that there's an issue here, not to even
talk about properly addressing it, have been futile and were the last straw
leading to my recent resignation. These attempts and their futility highlighted
for me how severely limited the current governing structures of the information
theory society (and those of the IEEE to which they are bound) are in their capacity
for adaptation and for affecting change, even that which is so desperately and
urgently needed. My remaining energy for affecting such change will be better
spent off of the BoG. I've much respect and
appreciation for several brave women on the BoG or
with formal roles within the IEEE still trying to affect real change. I am,
sadly, pessimistic about their likelihood of success for as long as they
operate within the confines of these archaic structures.
FAQ: Who put you in
charge of starting a revolution?
Answer:
No one. I'm not in charge of anything. And I
don't quite see a revolution on the horizon yet. But would consider joining one
if I did.
FAQ: Are you the one who shared the letter and
its partial list of signatories with Anima Anandkumar?
Answer:
No. But I would have if asked. The letter and
identities of most of its signatories were widely known and casually shared
among colleagues before they were posted by Anima.
FAQ: You're a scientist. Not a politician.
Just do science and keep your mouth shut.
Answer:
Sorry, I can't.
FAQ: Is all this really
worth the price you and even your family have been paying?
Answer:
There is no manual of
best practices for this kind of a saga. I'm doing and expressing what I
think is right. That it sometimes comes at a price is a valuable lesson for my
family, more than compensating for the price itself. Also, let's keep
things in perspective. Me and my family are not the victims here. We need not
lose sight of the true victims and the truly vulnerable.