On March 22nd, 2014, Ben Radford posted this to his Facebook page:
In 2013 Karen Stollznow accused Benjamin Radford of stalking, sexual harassment, and both physical and sexual assault. She made these accusations in a complaint to Ben Radford’s employer (the Center for Inquiry), in a guest blog written for the Scientific American Mind website and to various individuals in private communications.
These accusations and complaints against Benjamin Radford were false and Karen Stollznow retracts them. Radford was disciplined by the Center for Inquiry on the basis of them. One of Stollznow’s minor complaints (that Radford briefly stood in front of her during an argument when she wanted to walk past him) was the result of miscommunication during their relationship, but the accusations of sexual harassment, stalking, sexual assault, unwanted emails and the like were and are categorically false.
These serious and polarizing false accusations created divisiveness within the skeptical community. Most of the outrage directed at Radford as a consequence of the false accusations came from people with no knowledge of Radford’s and Stollznow’s relationship, who uncritically repeated the false accusations.
Stollznow cannot fully undo the damage to Radford’s career and reputation caused by her false accusations, but this retraction is a sincere effort to set the record straight. Karen Stollznow and Ben Radford ask that bloggers and others that have repeated these allegations against Radford please remove them from their sites and not repeat them. Any blogs or other published references to these false accusations only serve to perpetuate the harm to both parties.
This issue has unfortunately detracted from the success that both Benjamin Radford and Karen Stollznow have worked hard to achieve in skepticism and public science education. Both Ben and Karen wish to move on with their lives and careers and put this matter behind them and that their friends and colleagues also let the matter drop.
He claimed it was part of a settlement he’d reached in his lawsuit against Karen Stollznow for “defamation, fraud, and interference with beneficial contractual relations.” Days later, she said there was no settlement. Radford took the post down, and declared he’d see her in court.
I had no idea who Radford or Stollznow was at the time, but the shady behavior of the former got me hooked. I put on my skeptic hat, and started analyzing the evidence. I spent months going line-by-line over Radford’s legal website. I teamed up with a SlymePitter in an attempt to write the best analysis of the evidence out there. When that collapsed, I argued with Radford defenders over at what used to be the JREF forums. It’s no exaggeration to say that outside of Stollznow’s or Radford’s legal teams, I’m the leading expert on this case.
And Radford didn’t have one. All of
Stollznow’s claims were either plausible or probable, based on the evidence Radford himself presented. As a trivial example, Stollznow claimed that Radford offered to wisk her away to exotic locales for romantic getaways; while the text is cut off, one of Radford’s emails appears to offer sex and adventure to Stollznow in a remote cabin.
Radford never intended us to see that email; instead, the company he contracted to snapshot some of his emails grabbed the wrong one. Think about that: the cornerstone of Radford’s case was those emails, to the point that his website linked to it on every page, yet neither he nor his lawyer paid much attention to the finished product. Radford made a big to-do about forged emails, yet he never asked the company to check for forgery; they checked as an extra, it wasn’t in the instructions they were given. Radford never submitted Stollznow’s alleged forgeries for analysis, or at least didn’t publicly share the results.
These and many other oddities hint that Radford himself knew he didn’t have a case. His real intention was almost certainly to force a settlement instead and punish Stollznow for speaking out.
On May 22nd, 2015, Ben Radford posted this to his Twitter account:
In 2013 Karen Stollznow accused Benjamin Radford of stalking, sexual harassment, and both physical and sexual assault. She made these accusations in a complaint to Ben Radford’s employer (the Center for Inquiry), in a guest blog written for the Scientific American Mind website and to various individuals in private communications.
Karen and Ben were in an intimate, personal relationship that ended with acrimony and misunderstandings. But it would be wrong for anyone to believe that Ben Radford stalked, sexually harassed, or physically and sexually assaulted Karen Stollznow.
The issue has done damage to both Karen and Ben and to their careers. Through mutual discussion, all issues between them have now been resolved. Both Ben and Karen wish to move on with their lives and put this matter behind them.
They ask their friends and colleagues to let the matter drop. They ask that bloggers and others that have repeated these allegations against Radford or Stollznow please remove them from their sites and not repeat them. Any blogs or other published references to these accusations only serve to perpetuate the harm to both parties.
He claimed it was part of a settlement he’d reached in his lawsuit against Karen Stollznow for defamation. I haven’t seen any confirmation from Stollznow directly, but this one is probably legit.
And according to it, I am wrong to believe the evidence in front of my own eyes. That long-winded email where Radford muses he didn’t try hard enough to win over Stollznow? Those short one-line emails he sent to Stollznow? The public airing of their private correspondence? The sealed and anonymized police report that Radford somehow grabbed from Colorado and made public? The CFI report that ruled he was guilty of something? Sorry, this statement says, I should turn a blind eye to all that, and assume a highly unlikely scenario to be true because It Is Written.
Sadly, many in the skeptic movement are happy to toss out logic and reason when an authority figure says to.
There have been times we’ve posted stories on this site that turned out to be false. Whenever that comes to our attention, we issue a public retraction (or, in smaller matters, we put an update on the original story, just in case someone stumbles across it online). Why wouldn’t we do that?
I feel the same way about this story, even if Radford and Stollznow want to put it to rest: If those bloggers felt it was appropriate to write about this story in the past (and throw Radford under the bus in the process), then they have a responsibility to address the resolution now.
there comes a time, and the time is now, when those who traffic in such accusations must be called to account, particularly when they’ve erred, tarred someone’s reputation, and then, when their accusations prove to be false, quietly ignore them rather than admit error. This behavior is shameful and reprehensible, and Hemant properly calls it out.
Admittedly, they haven’t sunk as much time as I have into this case, and may not know all the details. Fair enough. For my part, that statement says “Ben and Karen wish to move on with their lives and put this matter behind them,” and I’m not helping by talking about the case further.
So, barring a change in circumstances, I won’t.
SINMANTYX 
This case is definitely a bit of a sticky wicket, a bit of a can of worms. However, while I will concede you and Brive have apparently done a yeoman’s job of parsing all, or much of, the “he said, she said” in the case (not that I have had the “spoons” to read it all), and while I’ll argue that you’re maybe to be commended for not “talking about the case further”, one might suggest that you, among more than a few others, are, maybe somewhat analogously, more focused on the letter of the law than on its spirit (1). Or are simply unclear on a number of crucial principles associated with the latter.
More particularly, while it is probably decidedly moot precisely where the guilt lies, and what are the specifics of who did what to whom and when and how, and while we might quibble endlessly over various failings in the law in general and in particular, as well as on what were the precise motivations that led to that joint statement by Radford and Stollznow, the fact of the matter is that they agreed that “it would be wrong for anyone to believe that Ben Radford stalked, sexually harassed, or physically and sexually assaulted Karen Stollznow”. Now one might parse that somewhat uncharitably and suggest that the “apology” was somewhat “mealy mouthed or conditional” (2) as it hardly constitutes any type of a retraction on Stollznow’s part, I think it of more value to commend the parties for apparently suggesting that they think the question and case is a somewhat intractable one – “honest men and women may disagree” – while still apparently calling on their supporters to “call off the attack dogs”, particularly those on the heels of Radford.
Now one might offer a reasonable argument that there are a few flies in the ointment, a few flaws in the principle, of “innocent until proven guilty”. Although it doesn’t take much effort to see – as in many if not most Muslim communities – the problematic consequences of its opposite. But the fact of the matter is that that principle (3) seems to be pretty much a foundational part of the bedrock of Western jurisprudence. In which case, for you, among others, to continue, apparently, to actually believe, in any way shape or form, that Radford is actually guilty, or to act in any way consistent with that belief, is to repudiate that principle which that joint statement rather clearly champions and promotes.
——-
1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/05/jennifer-cody-epsteins-letter-to-the-anti-charlie-hebdo-faction/comment-page-1/#comment-5212352”;
3) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#History”;
“In which case, for you, among others, to continue, apparently, to actually believe, in any way shape or form, that Radford is actually guilty, or to act in any way consistent with that belief, is to repudiate that principle which that joint statement rather clearly champions and promotes.”
Unsure why in all these, and similar conversations, the “…in a court of law.” part of that principle is thrown out the window?
I will not (in fact CANNOT) cede my freedom of conscience to the whims of the state. The state decides what the state does. The state does not dictate what opinion I must have – on any point what-so-ever.
My hands are tied only in the respect that it is inappropriate to do anything illegal in retaliation toward someone I believe has done something wrong. The force of the state is bound by due process, but my mind is not bound by the state.
Fine, a reasonable point, at least to some extent. While you’re correct that “in a court of law” implies some degree of qualification and limitation, and while I’ll readily agree (and have argued) that the law is hardly perfect, it still seems to entail some worthwhile objectives. While one of the alternatives you suggest – the court of public opinion – is maybe not obliged to subscribe to that principle, one might suggest that the result frequently seems more like a kangaroo court. With a substantially higher incidence of serious miscarriages of justice – e.g., The Ox-Bow Incident (1).
But far be it from me to insist that your mind is to be “bound by the state”. However, considering that you supposedly have some allegiance to physics and the skeptical frame of mind that that entails, I would think that you would be well aware of, and take steps to protect yourself from the effects of, the fact that what we believe to be the case very frequently turns out to be anything but – cases in point being various cognitive illusions, such as the spinning dancer (2), and the geocentric model of the universe.
And in the case in hand, one might suggest that you and H.J., among no few others, are rather too quick to discount the fact that Stollznow’s account suffers from some rather problematic and serious flaws and inconsistencies. While there might well be some plausible explanations for those, that even Rebecca Watson – no particular friend of Radford’s – would raise an eyebrow at some of those lapses, should give pause to any who make any claim to being skeptics or scientifically or fair minded. To wit (a post [3] that you apparently have yet to let out of moderation):
——
1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ox-Bow_Incident”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer”;
3) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=279751#p279751”;
Why do you assume that I agree with Rebecca or HJ? I have not formed a strong opinion about what did or did not happen between Karen and Ben – particularly because I have not reviewed the information available nor is much of that information public.
I’m simply impressing on you a simple principle of Freedom of Conscience that seemed ironically lacking among many skeptics who appear to believe that the role of the state is to make their mind up for them.
Brive1987 posted a comment here, by the by. It wasn’t worth approving, as it tried to revive the argument I already said I wasn’t interested in continuing. Didn’t help that Brive1987 took the shotgun approach, firing off about ten arguments in a singre comment. Refuting all of it would take thousands of words, and would repeat a fair chunk of what’s already been written.
There’s an odd symmetry between us, though. We view one another as conspiracy kooks, and take each other to task for fixating on the evidence for one side while ignoring the other. If I’m the most knowledgeable outside expert, Brive1987 is the second. I still regard him as the best representative for the pro-Radford argument, hence why I picked him to be the opposing side in the analysis I mentioned in the OP.
So I tell you what, Brive1987: I’m not going to debate you here, but I am willing to point to your best analysis of the case. Fire me a link.
Ok, a fair point – a mistake on my part; mea culpa; shoot me at dawn.
No doubt some of the information is not public, although I think Radford more or less laid out the bulk of his case in an Internet post some time back. And HJ and Brive seem to have done a credible job in collating it all, although they each seem to have some notable if not problematic biases. But personally, I think the truth lies somewheres in the middle with both of them “guilty” of some degree of misjudging, confabulation, and outright lying. Hence I think the best course of action is to consider the case a wash, and to leave it open as to who is the more guilty party. Unfortunately though, many people seem to be calling for blood, either to see Radford strung up by his nuts as an example of what happens to those who have the temerity to question “rape culture” or “The Sisterhood”, or to see Stollznow stoned as a lying Jezebel for having “fabricated false evidence” in the furtherance of femi-nazism. Not particularly edifying.
I’m all for “Freedom of Conscience” – more or less. However, I kind of get the impression that rather too many people – HJ apparently in there like a dirty shirt – are less interested in that principle and in the facts of the matter, and are more interested in the satisfaction of crucifying someone in the furtherance of some political crusade of one sort or another. While I would certainly reject any attempts by the “state” to make up people’s minds for them, I think that suggestion or characterization of yours bears some uncomfortable and problematic similarities to the position of anti-vaxxers, and those against genetically modified foods. Presumably the state has invested a substantial number of resources in analyzing those issues in some depth – as would seem to be the case with the Radford-Stollznow legal proceedings. And in such case, it seems rather presumptuous – “anti-intellectual”, even – to reject the attendant conclusions merely on “gut feel”. And to then justify that as a case of “freedom of conscience”.
Dear fucking Christ, Steersman. First of all, Radford filed his case in
New MexicoColorado District Court as a civil tort, which means the burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence,So it’s not true that the court analyzed those issues “in some depth,” had the case proceeded it would have received far less scrutiny than anti-vax or GMO claims and faced a much lower burden of proof. But it didn’t proceed. From the Motion to Dismiss:
This is the legal equivalent of Draw By Agreement; neither side wins or loses, because the game isn’t played to completion, yet the game is still considered finished and cannot be replayed. There was no legal conclusion on the merits of this case, and thanks to mutual agreement by Radford and Stollznow there never will be. You’re spreading misinformation about this case, which is a problem according to the Joint Statement (emphasis mine):
This is yet another example of your continued incoherence; you claim to have great respect for the courts, yet here you are violating a court-approved joint statement by spreading misinformation about the case. If you had an ounce of respect for either Stollznow or Radford, you’d apologize to both for this behavior.
By the “court”, I included, with some justification (1), the counsel for both Radford and Stollznow who must have concluded – based on some “in depth” analysis of the facts presented to them – and impressed upon their clients that their cases were anything but slam dunks. Hence the largely non-commital assertion that “it would be wrong for anyone to believe that Ben Radford stalked, sexually harassed, or physically and sexually assaulted Karen Stollznow”.
You might note that that doesn’t say that Radford was guilty of those crimes, or that Stollznow was retracting those accusations – it “merely” emphasized that “it would be wrong” for anyone to believe the accusations, i.e., they might be true, and they might be false; i.e., the parties and their lawyers and the encompassing system – the court – concluded, presumably after some “in depth” analysis, that the evidence didn’t support either the accusation or its retraction. Otherwise it would presumably have gone to trial, i.e., a judge and/or jury would have analyzed the evidence and provided a ruling.
How is it “spreading misinformation” to reiterate and emphasize the insistence – in the joint statement – that is is “wrong for anyone to believe” the accusations against Radford? Or to point out that the statement does not retract those accusations? I am not – in any way, shape, or form – supporting any allegations against either Radford or Stollznow; I’m only pointing out, for about the 3rd or 4th time, that that joint statement is apparently an admission, by both parties, that neither of their cases are sufficiently credible to justify the time and costs of placing them in front of a judge and/or jury.
—
1) “_http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/court_1”;
BWAHAHAHAHA, this is the lamest goalpost shift I’ve ever seen!! Let’s see if I have your timeline correct:
Except, that’s not how lawyers work. I’ll let the Canadian Bar Association fill you in, with emphasis from me:
Lawyers are obligated to represent their clients, even if they know the case is hopeless. Emphasis mine, again:
This complaint only ends when a judge says so, or Radford decides he’s gotten what he wanted from Stollznow, and we know for a fact the former didn’t happen.
It’s not. Try to pay attention to what I’m saying, rather than what my fantasy self is saying in your imagination.
BWAHAHAHAHA, this is the lamest goalpost shift I’ve ever seen!! Let’s see if I have your timeline correct:
Except, that’s not how lawyers work. I’ll let the Canadian Bar Association fill you in, with emphasis from me:
Lawyers are obligated to represent their clients, even if they know the case is hopeless. Emphasis mine, again:
This complaint only ends when a judge says so, or Radford decides he’s gotten what he wanted from Stollznow, and we know for a fact the former didn’t happen.
It’s not. Try to pay attention to what I’m saying, rather than what my fantasy self is saying in your imagination.
You don’t and which largely proves you’re a fucking A-class idiot. And a narrow-minded, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted one to boot. But let me count the ways. For starters, you said:
For one thing, I didn’t assert that Radford’s lawyers “told him to drop the case or settle”; I merely suggested that both lawyers must have – “b. Used to indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty (1)” – told both their clients that “their cases were anything but slam dunks”. I hardly think that advising a client on the likely outcome, based on the available evidence, constitutes “making decisions for clients”, and is likely to be well within their scope of obligations and responsibilities. But way to put words into my mouth there, HJ.
And the justification for that inference was that, as you so cleverly noted, Radford apparently didn’t get “what he wanted from Stollznow”. Maybe you think he wouldn’t have gone for the throat – gotten the explicit and fulsome retraction he clearly wanted – if his lawyer, and Stollznow’s lawyer, thought his case was unassailable?
Christ in a sidecar. You might pay attention to your own advice – and what you’ve actually said here. That comment of mine was in direct response to this accusation of yours – which I might note is in black and white, and not in my imagination:
So, what “misinformation” have I been spreading? I certainly can’t see any, and you’ve admitted that my reiteration of that portion of the joint statement, the bulk if not entirety of my argument, doesn’t qualify as such. Looks like you’re just blowing smoke out of your ass.
——
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/must”;
Pingback: Legal Superpositions | SINMANTYX