Think about it: say you are a judge and you wanted to _really_ understand why someone is divorcing their spouse. Would you listen to just one spouse or both?
It's very uncommon for student complaints to affect a professor's employment, especially a tenured one. As long as the professor brings in grant money, doesn't piss off the entire department, and graduates at least a few students, they are probably fine. It would take something beyond generic cruelty to students for a person that checks all three boxes to not "stick around" --- think something illegal or against university rules, and with clear evidence.
I'm getting sick and tired of people taking on the role of judge, jury, and executioner, with zero corroboration or hard evidence.
Here's the dirty secret: competent wifebeaters look like really splendid people to all the world. The incompetent ones without social skills are weeded out early, that leaves the good ones.
This went on for decades before there were consequences:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/geoff-marcy-exopl...
The economist snorts, and says, "If that was a real 100$ bill, someone else would have picked it up already."
I feel like you must have worked hard to not give credence to things you've heard from folks about their jobs, Phds, etc.a
Or perhaps not known many people who've been in a toxic work situation.
But grad school has been talked about as a toxic nightmare for like a decade now ...
What do you make of the Me Too movement?
And no, you don't get to pick where you apply #metoo and where you don't. You either "believe all women" or "require evidence". There's no pick-and-choose.
His case shows it's possible to make it to the top, and to stay there for decades, as an abuser.
You're emphasising whether it's possible to get to the top as an abuser, stay there as an abuser, and die before getting caught. This has little bearing on my point, although we know from the Jimmy Savile case that it is indeed possible.
> There's no pick-and-choose.
As I just stated, I'm not interested in discussing this. My point here is specific.