Lawrence Krauss emails denying multiple sexual misconduct allegations

On 12/11/17 1:00 PM, Peter Aldhous wrote: Dear Dr. Krauss, Thank you for your responses, which state that the allegations made against you are false and/or distorted. That does raise a question: Why do you think that multiple women, over more than a decade, have separately made accusations against you? Sincerely, Peter Aldhous On 12/11/17 9:18 AM, Lawrence Krauss wrote: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your email. I am currently on a plane until noon pacific time, and then heading to a meeting right after landing, till about 2 pm or so. While Iam running the risk that you will report my comments, if you do, either out of context, or incompletely, I am responding with an effort to be complete, as I always try and do with reporters. If you decide to go ahead with a story, which, after reading my responses, I hope you decide is inappropriate, I would like you to quote my responses fully in order not to distort them. It is hard to know how to respond to a list of false and/or distorted allegations, along with misleading statements. I treat people I interact with with respect, and I work hard to support and mentor students, colleagues, and members of the general public, and this is supported by the institutions of which Iam a part. I do not sexually harass people. If the purpose of your reporting is to somehow argue that Universities and other institutions are lax in dealing with well known individuals like myself, then in fact the situation is quite the opposite. My high public profile opens me up to more scrutiny at these institutions, not less, and it also opens me up to a host of unfounded outside complaints and allegations that other faculty do not receive, each of which the University has to respond to. The fact that I have remained a professor in all Universities with which I have been associated, in good standing, and also an officer or an invited speaker at organizations like CFI, which have strict harassment policies, is a confirmation of the fact that their experience validates a trust in my behavior. I was asked to be an honorary director of CFI, and continue to be invited to their last 3 meetings to speak, specifically because, as they have written me after the fact, the attendees universally appreciated my talks, my courtesy, and graciousness in spending time with the attendees. Ifthe purpose of your report is to impugn my integrity or suggest I have a history of harassment, that too is false. As noted in one of your ‘miscellaneous facts’, as a scientist I try and remain skeptical, and rely on empirical evidence, rather than allegations and innuendo by people whose motives I cannot judge. I also try and judge the facts in context. The fact that Universities and other organizations employ me or have me on their boards, or invite me to meetings is because they value my contributions and my actions. The items you list are false or distorted. Item 1 refers to a consensual encounter in my hotel room in 2006 where we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate, and there were respectful and platonic encounters afterwards. There is nothing to comment on in item 3, which involves an anonymous 3rd party claim because I know nothing about it, there are no details provided, and it clearly was not taken seriously enough to result in any university action. Item 4 is confusing. Are you saying that because I decided I didn’t want to go out to a bar with a group of attendees that I was harassing them? The second part did not happen. Re incident 5: The ‘female companion’ in this case is my wife, who accompanied me on the cruise, and has attested to the fact that the claim is false. This is what I wrote at the time in response to the blog in question, causing it to be taken down. It is worth responding to Item 2 and 6 in more detail, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031270