Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
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:
"The allegations were made by an observer to the incident.
- The complaint did not identify, nor disclose the identity of the conference attendee who was allegedly
touched in
an unwelcome manner.
- The conference attendee who took the ‘selfie’ photo did not lodge a formal complaint to the conference
organisers
at the time of the incident (November 2016).
- The conference attendee who witnessed the incident, did not lodge a formal complaint to the conference
organisers
at the time of the incident (November 2016).
-The photo submitted as part of the complaint does not provide evidence of any physical contact.
- The complainant alleged that a photo exists, showing your hand on the breast of the conference attendee who
took
the ‘selfie’ photo. This photo was not made available to the Australian National University, although it was
requested
in the course of the investigation.”
(And for the record I often put my hand up in front of a camera if there is a flash, as I specifically request
selfies not to include flashes, so that I don’t end up with a series bright spots in front of my eyes for the next
half hour. Moreover, I have no idea if the other eyewitnesses you quote, who were not involved in any
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031436