This is Ben Edelman, plaintiff in the lawsuit. You can confirm I posted this message because I will put a copy on https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/ejmr.txt. Only I can edit my site. [quote]What’s the problem with this? I can sue my aunt[/quote] I guess HBS could create a policy against this. But it did not. In 2008, one year after joining HBS, I asked Dean Jean Cunningham -- the sole staff person to the HBS committee that investigated me -- what if anything I needed to do to continue my law practice at HBS. She explained that HBS has rules about expert witness work (because it can spiral into a huge time commitment and can conflict with teaching), but she said there was no rule about law practice. [quote]Apparently, after the $4 thing blew up, he entered some sort of agreement to not sue anybody else without informing the school.[/quote] No. There was no such agreement, no such policy, not even a request. Maybe some HBS leaders thought I should, what, lay low during my two year extension. For better or worse, that's not how I approached the time. One, I wanted to live life to the fullest and pursue the projects and opportunities that mattered to me. Two, I did not perceive material reputational risk (or any other concern) in suing an airline about 1) bag fees, and 2) ERRORS on bag fees, where I thought most people would see the case the way I did; plus there had never been any negative prior reaction to my other cases against airlines. I made these points in my reply to the FRB: https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-exh-26.pdf page 37 (discussing likely favorable reaction to AA lawsuit, and Cunningham's 2008 remark that no approval was needed), page 38 (criticizing the evidence cited as supposed basis for reputational risk, page 41 (positive public response to my prior aviation consumer protection work, page 31 (low likelihood of reputational risk based on experience from other cases, Cunningham's 2008 remarks). Nonetheless the FRB declined to make responsive revisions. See their list on PDF pages 51-52 of every change they made, in modifying draft report to make the final report, noting nothing relating to the supposed reputational risk of the AA lawsuit. I also pointed out a glaring error in the evidence the FRB offered of supposed reputational risk. See page 38 numbered paragraph 3, pointing out that the FRB had cited a 2015 blog about an administrative complaint, which obviously could not be a criticism of a 2017 lawsuit (different subject, which the author could not have anticipated two years earlier). In my view the FRB was way out of line to 1) criticize me for reputational risk (not a proper factor under the governing P&P rules), 2) make this criticism on such slim evidence, 3) fail to withdraw the faulty citation, 4) fail to engage with the fact that I had asked for guidance from the FRB's staff, and she had specifically told me no special approval was required. I think this validates my longstanding view that the FRB was pretty well out to get me, and was not genuinely investigating on the merits. *** This is Ben again. I have updated my ejmr.txt file to prove it. Stiglitz, yes my wife is Singaporean. Is that relevant? In 2014 some people alleged that I was disrespectful to Asian restaurant owners. That claim was far from the mark. I happen to eat mostly Asian food, which I enjoy, so I surely interacted more with Asian restaurant owners than, say, French restaurant owners. And I am critical of all businesses, large and small, that break the law. I suppose I've had pointed discussions with grocery store staff, HVAC contractors, airline personnel, plenty of others. Life is long. Meade wrote:
You really have to be positive and social with other faculty, donors, and students at BS.
Of course. Question is whether the FRB correctly reported that I was disliked by people I worked with, versus whether the FRB manipulated and even falsified evidence to argue this. I say it's the latter. Several methods of argument to get there: (1) Amy Edmonds's deposition as to overrepresentation of negative witness remarks. See e.g. https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-depo-edmondson.pdf#page=28 , document pages 184-185, discussing that of the FOUR staff the FRB interviewed (not enough, less than what was instructed), two had only positive things to say about me, but the FRB gave them one quote each. The other two had a mix of positive and negative, and according to the deposition, the FRB gave them four quotes each. Does that sound like a process designed to get to the truth? 4x over-represent the evidence on one side? Come on! (2) Edmondson remarks as to overrepresenting people who don't work with me much. See pages 169-170. There, Edmondson says she was most interested in "people who don't have so much interaction" with me. To me that sounds crazy -- surely someone I interact with a lot, like my secretary (sitting outside my office, we talk 10+ times per day) or course-head (overseeing my collaboration with ~9 other faculty in a large course) would have a much better position to evaluate. Somehow the FRB decided the opposite. (3) My broader remarks about manipulation of evidence. See https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-evidence/ , alleging manipulation of evidence through, for example, selective excerpting. I give three numbered examples, then a fourth just below. For the fourth, I compare what the FRB says the witness said, versus the witness's letter in his own words -- and I link right to that letter, so you can read it itself. The letter is totally different from the FRB's excerpt of the FRB's notes. This directly calls into question the accuracy of the FRB's supposed summary. (4) As to how students viewed me, check out the teaching evals at https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-aff-edelman.pdf#page=98 (PDF page 98. Instructor effectiveness of 6.6/7 is excellent even by HBS's high standards. Notice PDF page 100, where the average in the course I was teaching was 6.1, versus me at 6.6, solidly above. (5) My contemporaneous statement about people who came to me for help -- clearly, trusting me and liking me and valuing me. See my 2017 FRB Reply appendix "Distinctive interactions with staff, junior colleagues, and students" (https://www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-exh-26.pdf#page=42 ) for a 55-item list of interactions that I believe to be unusual and favorable. How many things like that have YOU done for the people near you? I guess someone could argue that, what, they didn't actually like me -- just wanted my help, the way you might call a plumber when you, yeah, have a leaky pipe. Maybe. I never claimed to be the most skilled conversationalist. If you want someone to go with you to a bar or chat on the phone about current events, find someone else. oF course that wouldn't be relevant to promotion standards at HBS. So far as I know, you don't actually know me. Probably we have never met. You have to draw inferences from the evidence. Many people presume that I must be a perpetual big jerk, low social skills, always annoying the people around me. I don't think that's what the people around me actually thought of me. It's not obvious how to prove that you have it wrong.