2018 School Spending Survey Report
Update: Librarians Embroiled in Lawsuit Alleging Sexual Harassment
In a Statement of Claim dated July 15, 2014, Joe Murphy—a 2009 LJ Mover & Shaker—named librarians nina de jesus and Lisa Rabey as defendants in a civil lawsuit filed in Toronto, Ontario (de jesus is a Canadian citizen). Murphy is suing the two for $1.25 million in damages--$1 million for general defamation, and $250,000 for aggravated exemplary and punitive damages. On March 25, 2015, de jesus and Rabey both published retractions and apologies to the Team Harpy website, which had previously hosted their joint legal defense fund, as well as to their personal blogs and Twitter accounts.
Editor's Note: On March 25, 2015, as mentioned in the comments below by Joseph Murphy, nina de jesus and Lisa Rabey both published retractions and apologies to the Team Harpy website, which had previously hosted their joint legal defense fund, as well as to their personal blogs and Twitter accounts. In those statements, de jesus wrote in part, "I realize that a lot of people have rallied to my aid, but I have to be honest to them in saying 'I was wrong' about Mr. Murphy and I urge anyone who might take the position that they 'support' me by helping me to undo the damage I unwittingly caused to Mr. Murphy and to the cause of credible conversations about accountability and harassment." Rabey added, "I strongly encourage those who aligned with #teamharpy and decided to attack Mr. Murphy to cease to continue to defame or disparage him. Mistakes have been made and we have the opportunity to show good character by apologizing and moving on.” Sarah Houghton, who previously administered the crowdsourced legal defense fund, referred LJ's inquiry as to whether any funds remained and if so, how they would be handled, directly to Rabey and de jesus. On March 28, Rabey made blog post which reads in part "The #teamharpy lawsuit has settled out of court. There was no trial. The apologies/tweets were part of that settlement. No damages were paid out to the plaintiff. We should have the dismissal from the courts any day now, then it is officially over. Any funds left over from our fundraising will be donated to charity." LJ's original article, which was published in October 2014, appears below.
In a Statement of Claim dated July 15, 2014, Joe Murphy—a 2009 LJ Mover & Shaker—named librarians nina de jesus and Lisa Rabey as defendants in a civil lawsuit filed in Toronto, Ontario (de jesus is a Canadian citizen). Murphy is suing the two for $1.25 million in damages--$1 million for general defamation, and $250,000 for aggravated exemplary and punitive damages—as well as filing a legal injunction to prevent the defendants from “broadcasting or transmitting or publishing or posting on the internet or world-wide-web [sic] defamatory, false and harmful statements or imputations concerning the plaintiff which are intended to lower his esteem, harm his reputation and cause him damage.” The suit also requires them to take down any statements about Murphy that they made online, including comments on blog posts and retweets or replies on Twitter. Murphy, in a statement to LJ, declared that these statements “started to affect my ability to make a living in a career that I love and it affected my well being.” The statements in question were posted by de jesus and Rabey in May, naming Murphy and accusing him of predatory and inappropriate behavior. On May 3 Rabey, using the twitter handle @pnkrcklibrarian, posted a response to an undesignated tweet: “Of COURSE Joe Murphy was involved. Nothing says library futures like a known sexual predator.” (This references the position Murphy then held as director of library futures for library software provider Innovative Interfaces, Inc., which ended in July. Gene Shimshock, the company’s vice president, told LJ that Murphy had agreed to pilot the position for a year, and that he left on good terms.) On May 5, Rabey posted, “With added bonus: Rumour mill has reached me I’m apparently ruining Joe Murphy’s career. AHAHAHAHAHA…” On May 4, nina de jesus published a post on her blog, satifice.com, titled “Time to Talk About Community Accountability.” In it, she referenced Rabey’s May 3 twitter post to initiate a discussion of inappropriate behavior that, she said, has become common on the library conference circuit. This post also mentioned Murphy by name, stating, “Can I point out the fact that Joe Murphy’s behaviour is so well known that women attending lib conferences literally have instituted a buddy-type safety system to protect themselves? That—quite literally—they are afraid to be alone with him? Add this to the fact that librarians are mostly women and one begins to truly understand that this is what institutional sexism looks like.” The post then went on to address a larger issue: that this behavior persists throughout the library community and that she feels a pervasive lack of support from the community at large: “One of the reasons why situations like this continue, despite the offender being known, is that, within our communities (both libraries and beyond), there is little-to-no support for victims and/or survivors.” CODES OF CONDUCT
The conversation about harassment at conferences, of which these posts were part, does not come in a vacuum. In the science fiction, comics, gaming, and tech worlds, which were for many years predominantly male, women have experienced a pervasive atmosphere of verbal and physical harassment. Over the past few years organizations such as Geek Feminism and the Ada Initiative have helped these communities develop tools for identifying and confronting such situations. Many organizations and communities are approaching the issue by drawing up codes of conduct, which address harassment not only of women but along racial, gender identity, and disability lines. Some conference speakers and sponsors will no longer do business with an organization that doesn’t have such policies in place. (A copy of LJ’s Diversity Statement can be found here.) The American Library Association (ALA), in light of numerous reports of harassment during ALA conferences, drew up and posted its own Statement of Appropriate Conduct at ALA Conferences in November 2013. The document was drafted and discussed at length by a group of ALA members, staffers, and counsel. Librarian and software developer Andromeda Yelton, one of its authors, wrote earlier this year, “This statement is a mechanism for addressing disputes, but it is also a declaration of values: it signals to everyone who we are. Furthermore, it’s part of an ongoing dialog about inclusion in library-related conference communities.”FILING THE CASE IN CANADA
Murphy’s lawsuit is what is known as a SLAPP—a strategic lawsuit against public participation. He has chosen to file it in Toronto, and as such, based on Canadian law, it is now de jesus’s and Rabey’s burden to prove that their statements are not, in fact, libelous. To this end, they have put out a call for witnesses on their legal defense website, Team Harpy, which was established to help publicize and raise funds for their case. (As of October 1, $13,498.89 had been raised, according to librarian Sarah Houghton who administers the fund, and approximately $1,301.13 had been disbursed to de jesus and Rabey for legal expenses already incurred.) In addition, John Jackson, an academic librarian based in Los Angeles, organized a petition on Change.org asking Murphy to drop the lawsuit. As of this writing the petition has collected more than a thousand signatures, and has generated some heated discussion on Facebook. Murphy’s U.S. attorney, Marc Randazza, told LJ that, as de jesus and Rabey have not produced witnesses to date, the case would move to a summary judgment, without going to trial, “relatively soon.” THE CONVERSATION GROWS One positive repercussion of Murphy’s lawsuit, and de jesus and Rabey’s responses, has been to mobilize further discussion about harassment and marginalization in the library world. Librarians have been speaking up to share their stories; after the 2014 ALA conference, children’s and teen librarian Ingrid Abrams created a survey asking about harassment incidents, and documented the results. “I don’t think people know how wide-spread harassment is at conferences,” she wrote on her blog, The Magpie Librarian. “When I relayed [my] story…most male librarians were shocked. Female librarians expressed sympathy and then usually shared similar (or worse!) stories with me. However, I am not naive enough to believe that those who identify as female are the only ones who are harassed, intimidated, threatened, or even physically attacked at conferences. Homophobia, racism, transphobia, and able-ism can also occur.” A number of the events being discussed took place place outside of the ALA conference itself, often after hours, Yelton noted in a conversation with LJ, and cautioned that addressing such events would “need a different set of tools for a community code of conduct.” Still, she said, having a document like this in place lets people know that there are concrete actions they can take in a situation that makes them uncomfortable. Conflict resolution outlines, such as the one in Code4Lib’s code of conduct, are also helpful. As Yelton explained to LJ, a publicly documented procedure has more legitimacy, and enables participants to understand how it was carried out; it also separates the event from its emotional component. In a statement on the Team Harpy website, de jesus and Rabey “maintain that our comments are fair and are truthful, which we intend to establish in our defense. Neither of us made the claims maliciously nor with any intent to damage Mr. Murphy’s reputation…. We believe that by speaking up and speaking out we are contributing to a change in culture whereby victims and survivors no longer have to be silent about our experiences.” Neither de jesus nor Rabey wished to comment further.
Added To Cart
RELATED
RECOMMENDED
TECHNOLOGY
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
We are currently offering this content for free. Sign up now to activate your personal profile, where you can save articles for future viewing
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
Thank you for visiting.
We’ve noticed you are using a private browser. To continue, please log in or create an account.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
Roger Tanner
Dear Amy, You said in the comments that spreading rumors without basis in fact or evidence is OK. And apparently you believe that suing somebody for defamation is "bullying and censorship". I heard a rumor that you might be a child rapist and a murderer. Now don't censor or bully me please with your lawyer. I hate you because you might be a child rapist and pedophile. According to rumor i might have heard. Best regards! RTPosted : Jan 01, 2016 10:49
John C. Randolph
The poster using the handle "End Sexism Now" is a vicious, evil little shit for suggesting that an innocent man should confess to a crime just to serve the political agenda of the people who slandered him. This is exactly the kind of thing that Solzhenitsyn described in the Gulag Archipelago, where a prisoner who was just grabbed to make a quota would be leaned on to confess "for the good of the party." -jcrPosted : Jun 17, 2015 03:48
ImanAzol
No matter what, we should always assume the man is innocent and telling the truth. The Harpies' (how accurate a name) have committed rape and belong in jail. As we have seen in recent weeks in the news, these allegations are ALWAYS lies. Women ALWAYS lie. Oh, they don't? Well, neither do they ALWAYS tell the truth.Posted : Jun 05, 2015 08:40
Anonymous
I am a librarian who has been raped at a library conference by a conference organizer. For what it's worth, it was not Joe Murphy. I also happened to have been raped one other time before in University, which I reported to the police. I had to stand trial and give statements. The defense tore me apart - I had been drinking that night, I had made out with someone else that night, I was too slutty. My parents knew, my professors knew, everyone I know knew, and I went from being known for being smart and funny to being known for being raped. That process was the longest, hardest time of my life. It felt like it lasted forever. He didn't even get convicted. He was found guilty and then appealed and was let off. So when I was raped at a library conference, the whole time all I could think was, "I will never report this to the police." Yes, that was what went through my head as I was being raped. Because you know if you've been raped, that process sucks. It sucks so much. And if all of library land knew, I can't see a way out of the stigma, short of changing careers. All that being said, it would be nice to warn other women that there's a rapist out there at conferences. But I can't. And you know why? This guy will probably sue me. And I will be known as rape girl. And I'll never get another job. And I live in Canada, where apparently it's super easy to get sued for this kind of thing. So you know what? I'm glad this case happened. I'm glad Joe Murphy sued nina and Lisa. You know why? Because now I know to never ever name my rapist, in case he sues me. And I know never to speak out because getting trolled and doxed will never be worth it. So thank to JM for proving that there are librarians out there who would sue other librarians. And thanks to nina and Lisa for completely discrediting victims.Posted : May 21, 2015 02:34
Anna
To me, this still points to the fact that older men and young women may perceive their interactions and power imbalances very differently. I have been a librarian for two years. I've already been warned about a senior male colleague who 'collects young ladies' on my campus. It would affect my reputation, far more than his, if I went on a date unwarned, without information on how he is perceived by others on campus. I had a male with hiring authority send personal emails and quietly ask to meet up for an evening social occasion unrelated to libraries; although he was friendly and good looking, this made me very uncomfortable. I was a new MLS grad seeking a job with him--and he was a senior manager with hiring authority, indirectly asking me out. I've seen him at conferences since, with flattered young women at his side. I have let friends know, quietly-- but haven't shared his identity in public. To me as a young woman, warning about men who made advances is what women *do* for other women. I understand why the female defendants likely made the statements they did, not realizing that this is usually done in private, between vulnerable women, and not in public. And I indeed hope that the guy who filed the suit does not experience harm from strong accusations that could not be substantiated. My own uncle was driven out of teaching because of a false claim of sexual harassment by students, so I certainly understand the high stakes for all of us in these type of interactions -- and yet how much we still need and desire to work closely together to advance our profession! Ironically, young women and prominent men are probably the two most vulnerable groups in these types of situations -- a perfect storm.Posted : Apr 08, 2015 06:00
Jamie Anonymous
I thought Sarah Houghton was a witness? What happened there? Anyone know?Posted : Apr 08, 2015 03:28
Carolyn
The lawsuit is over and it is time to move along now, people. We have much work to do in libraryland, including dealing with bullies, the day to day work of running libraries, and planning for the future of libraries. Mr. Murphy still has much to contribute to libraries, and hopefully he will do so, if we can all move on. Next time you want to trash someone online or in your library organization, remember what happened in this situation, and do something good for yourself and your colleagues instead.Posted : Apr 04, 2015 12:00
Melanie
Unfortunately, I know of at least one male MLIS student who has quit the program in light of what happened with Mr. Murphy. He was quite fearful of being falsely accused as Murphy was. I guess one of my own profs was more right than she realized: "men don't belong in the library field."Posted : Apr 01, 2015 10:56
Civilization
[This comment was deleted because it violates our Comment Policy.]Posted : Apr 01, 2015 01:33
whatever
""Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of 'rape.' She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. 'To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him.' Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. 'They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.'"" To Joe, Duke, and Owen If #TeamHarpy is suffering a few Internet condemnations, it is not a pain I would necessarily spare them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration by #TeamHarpy and all feminists and social justice warriors. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. "How do I see men? How do I see the cis-gendered? How do I see people who do not look like me or think like me? If I didn't violate Joe, could I have? Do I encourage such behaviors by others? Do I have the potential to be a sociopathic part of a lynch mob? Could I be involved with gossip, fear mongering, and ruination of the innocents? What is wrong with me? What stories did I learn in college or on twitter and tumblr and at Salon that sre just out and out stupid and malicious? Those are good questions. I apologize to #TeamHarpy if I cannot be as Christian as they wish in accepting their apologies and condemning their condemnors. Perhaps they can start with a large donation to Fathers4Justice.Posted : Mar 30, 2015 02:13
Natalie Binder
Over the past few days, I've seen a lot of people use their impressions, opinions or gut feelings in place of the facts. The fact is that Joe Murphy, a colleague, was the victim of a public slander that was pretty shocking in its content as well as deeply damaging and painful for all involved. I trust that the accusers' retractions and apologies were sincere, and I believe that their serious accusations were not. I'm relieved that the situation is not what we feared it was. I'm sad this happened at all. And I don't think there is any risk to one's career in coming out and saying that under your own name. I encourage more librarians to do so. With so many of us living public lives, we are all vulnerable to rumor, innuendo and even malicious lies. Nobody knows what people are saying about us behind our backs. At the same time, nobody wants to re-victimize (or libel) someone who was abused by calling her a liar. I think (hope?) that is why more in the library community did not speak up earlier. It's why I didn't say anything until more information came out. Now I feel like that was a mistake. Anyone can be a victim and everyone deserves due process. It should absolutely be safe to say you've been victimized, but the accused should also be protected from personal and professional repercussions until the facts are established. That’s true no matter how successful we are, what gender we are, what age we are or even what our reputations are. If I was accused of something, I would want my friends and colleagues to keep an open mind, listen to me and reserve judgement until a formal determination was made. Plenty of people did that (I believe it was a majority), but more should have felt like it was okay to say it. Because if I was *falsely* accused, I would want, need and expect public support. For that, let me get in line to apologize to Mr. Murphy: I'm sorry that this happened and I wish I had done more. Fortunately, there are still opportunities to step up and speak out. I think that efforts to blame Mr. Murphy for what happened, or condemn him for seeking legal relief, should stop. It is not a SLAPP when someone defends himself against actual libel. What you think or believe about Mr. Murphy's behavior, personality or job, it doesn't justify libel. We don't ask victims to be perfect people who have never made a mistake. We don't go rifling through their private lives to see what they did to deserve an attack. We don’t sit around judging whether the victim fits the "victim profile." We don't expect a victim to pursue his case a jurisdiction that is unfavorable to him, or judge him for not wanting to have a mediation with strangers who called him a sexual predator. Finally, we don't get to make a person a scapegoat for a diffuse and difficult social problem like sexual harassment. This is especially if there is no evidence that he did anything wrong, but it's true even if he (or she or they) did. "I was trying to make a point," is no excuse. The way our system handles rape and sexual harassment is shameful. A lot of victims never get justice. A lot of abusers are never stopped. But even the people who actually committed these kinds of crimes and violations didn't create the justice system and they didn't write our laws. And I say that both as someone who has been harassed and as someone who is close to people who will never be able to take their abusers to court. I was hesitant to wade into such a controversial issue, especially considering the online harassment nearly everyone who expressed an opinion about this situation has received. I also find myself at odds with many people I respect and trust, and in the rhetorical company of some people who I don't want to be associated with. Like many other librarians active on social media, I am at the beginning of my career, and I am trying to move up in the world. All that makes me uncomfortable when I court controversy. But I'd be more uncomfortable if I didn't say anything. Because this case is settled, but I don't think this is the last time a fellow librarian will make or face an accusation. We have to do better. Our Codes of Conduct and other grievance procedures have to leave room for doubt and many opportunities for people to protest and appeal. When the stakes are so high, the need to support, protect and care for victims needs to be matched by a commitment to patience, transparency, due process and the other standards and ideals of a fair justice system. I don't think that this is beyond librarians, academics or society at large.Posted : Mar 29, 2015 04:12
Michael
Joe, I hate to say it, but you may have to continue working in reputation management-- more than a few blogs have continued to run the claims of team harpy as fact. It can be a bit like whack-a-mole and may not in fact be worth it, but you or your legal team may want to notify those blogs of the fact that the matter has been addressed and to kindly update their blogs to reflect that fact.Posted : Mar 28, 2015 09:40
Not a Murphy minion
I use a pseudonym because I'm not old and I do need a job. Although I have met both Joe and Lisa, when this first erupted I didn't consider myself a supporter of either, but rather a supporter of the truth. Yet even now, I am reading on twitter and FB that many people are still making assumptions (BTW - Mr. Casburn, what makes you think the trolls on Twitter are in any way associated with Mr. Murphy?). I'm still hearing comments such as, "this is why we need a Code of Conduct. Victims of harassment need to be protected so that people like Lisa and Nina don't have to put their reputations on the line in a public forum ever again." That has never been what this case is about. It may be what people want it to be about. In fact, even LJ positioned it that way. But this case is only about harassment when we assume what Team Harpy said about Joe Murphy is true. Because Team Harpy didn't write about harassment - they named a specific person which they now admit was a lie to advance their cause. I don't consider that putting your reputation on the line. That's just lying. They spread gossip and rumors. Their cause was noble (in case it needs repeating again, harassment is wrong), but they acted like mean girls. This case was never about harassment and protecting whistle blowers. This case was about cyber bullying. Two people spread lies that cost someone his job and when he tried to defend himself the mob blamed him. "Why didn't he ask them to stop?" "Why didn't he use this as a dialogue about harassment?" "Why did he choose Canada?" "Why is the amount so high?" Sorry, but that's victim blaming. I've been a victim of bullying. People whispered horrible things about me, teased me, ostracized me, shunned me, ridiculed me - all based on untrue assumptions that were so widely believed it was taken as fact - very similar to what Joe experienced. It's wrong. And we as a profession need to learn from this: no matter how noble the cause we cannot use bullying to advance it, regardless of the victim's socio-economic status or physical appearance (and I defend Nina and Lisa just as vigorously against the trolls that smear them based on who they are or how they look). If we want to be taken seriously as professionals that question authority and teach others not to believe what they read on the Internet, then we should practice what we preach. Quit the bullying. Accept Lisa and Nina's apologies and move on. Create a code of conduct against harassment, and while we're at it, include bullying in it, too.Posted : Mar 28, 2015 02:28
Jon
SLAPP my ass. If they're going to publicly accuse Murphy of serial rape, they'd better be prepared to prove it. That's literally all they have to do to win the lawsuit. If they can't prove it, they deserve the lawsuit. And the premise of the first "Codes of Conduct" paragraph, that harassment was recently commonplace in every male-majority community, is based on no statistics. Rather, just cherrypicked blogposts from a self-selected sample. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_biasPosted : Mar 27, 2015 10:38
Still Anonymous
You're right Mr Duke. I am a coward. Because there was no way to make any comment that would not get attacked from one side or the other. If I had openly called for waiting for evidence on the internet I would have been pilloried as a troll, and to support it openly (which I didn't felt would be wrong) would get me fun rape threats and threats of doxing. So I'm still a coward. I'll console myself with the fact that I did not join in the mob. :/Posted : Mar 27, 2015 06:38
Amanda W.
Dear Mr. Duke, I completely understand your need to comment and more power to you. But the entire library world doesn't stink.Posted : Mar 27, 2015 03:27
Kevin Duke
An open letter to the library world My name is Kevin Duke. I am Joe Murphy's stepfather. I do not speak for Joe Murphy, or for the rest of the family. I speak only for myself. I have followed the TeamHarpy vs. Joe Murphy mess since the very beginning. I have read and re-read every post and every comment on every blog. I have googled "team harpy" more times than I can count, often setting the search to "last 24 hours" just to see if there was a new post. As you can imagine, this has been very painful, so you may ask why I did it. All I can say is have a child, or as in my case, help raise a child, and you will know. My wife, Joe's mother, had a different reaction. She was unable to read the things that were being said about her son. Until now, I have not commented on this matter. I have been a silent spectator to this strange circus - an old man standing on the edge of the crowd. You never noticed me, but I was always there. There are many reasons I have been silent. I am not a librarian, so I have no standing in your world. I also had no relevant information to contribute, even though I was one of the only people in the crowd who actually knows Joe Murphy, or, for that matter, has even met him. Joe has never, of course, harassed me, and one can not, as they say, prove a negative. I could have said that Joe was incapable of any type of harassment or predation, but I am admittedly biased, and many of you wouldn't have listened anyways. So I stood silently and listened as those who have never met Joe or met him only in passing made definitive and self-assured judgements on his character. I am reminded of my own father's advice that "it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and leave no doubt." I think that old adage applies particularly well to some of the participants in this discussion over the past year. Most importantly, I did not say anything because this was not my fight. It was Joe's fight. He fought mostly alone, and he fought well. He won the fight, although there are many who will never be able to acknowledge that fact. So now that the crowd is dispersing, I would like to step to the center and speak to the few who linger, and are willing to listen to an old man. To Lisa and Nina, I no longer bear any animosity. For a while, I did hate them. I wanted to see them suffer. I wanted to see them bankrupted by the lawsuit. I wanted them to pay. But Joe never wanted that. He only wanted an apology, even though that apology would never replace what he lost. He didn't want money. He is donating the token sum he's receiving to charity, even though he spent a small fortune defending himself. This confused and frustrated me at first, but once I saw Lisa and Nina on the ground, defeated, I understood why Joe did not want to see them hurt further. I believe that their apologies are sincere and that they feel pain not just for themselves but for the pain they caused. Forgiveness is a very difficult concept, I think one of the hardest concepts to accept or to get your head around. Few people learn it. Pride stands in the way of both the bestowing and the receiving of forgiveness. Many of you will say that Lisa and Nina do not need forgiving, that it is Joe, not they, who are guilty. You will always think this, and nothing I or anyone else will ever say will change your mind. So to you I say this: I forgive Lisa and Nina, deal with it. And if you still believe Joe was at fault, I ask that you forgive him, not for Joe's sake, but for your own. I am not a particularly religious man, but there is a sermon somewhere in here. Scripture and the law say not to bear false witness. Both are quite clear about that. Bearing false witness causes all sorts of trouble and pain. It causes riots in our souls, violence, wars, and hate. But forgiveness is even more powerful. Whatever you are convinced about in this lawsuit, and whatever you will always and forever be convinced about, lay aside the certitude of your immutable convictions, which is only pride after all, and try a little forgiveness. You will sleep better, believe me. Since Lisa and Nina have issued their apologies, I have seen others post comments that attack them and insult them. Please do not do that. Please do not bully them. It is not what Joe wants. It is the opposite of what he has fought for. For the others in the crowd, the ones with no names and no faces, the absolute strangers who threw stones at my son, and who, now that the protagonists have left the field, are in some cases still throwing stones, I have a way to go in my forgiveness. I still feel contempt for them. I still lose sleep when I think about them. I don't think of them as individuals. I think of them as types. I need to speak to them, so please let me address them by type. The first type is those who, having no information that was relevant to the issue, still felt it helpful and insightful to insult and hurt Joe. A typical comment from these people was "he never harassed me, or anyone I know, but he was rude/creepy/fill in your own epithet." It is as though, in the total absence of anyone saying that Joe actually harassed them or someone they knew (i.e., actual evidence), they felt it necessary or helpful to build a case against him on other grounds. What bothers me about this type of character assassination is that it is totally gratuitous. It serves no purpose. It proves nothing. Corroborates nothing. Just a little extra pain. It strikes me that over the course of almost twelve months, a volume of blog posts and urgent pleas for witnesses, not one - not one - person came forward to say that they were harassed by Joe Murphy or knew anyone else who was, not even anonymously. Yet this never stopped this type of person from building a case against Joe based on first impressions and innuendo. The second type is those who are resentful or perhaps even jealous of Joe's standing in the library world. A typical comment from these people is something like "Who is this guy? Who made him an expert? Why is he allowed to speak? He's too young. Why is he a 'Rock Star'." To these people I say, look at his CV, its on his website, look it up. Look at the amount he has published, corroborated with others on, publications he has edited. Judge his qualifications by the body of his work, not his age. Nothing was given to Joe. He earned his credentials through a lot of very hard work. Joe was a physics major as an undergraduate, not a gut major. After graduate school he got hired by Yale University as a science librarian, not a light gig. He busted his butt and he excelled. He wrote, read, published. When he announced that he was leaving a comfortable and prestigious position at Yale to pursue "the future of libraries" his mother and I thought he was flat out crazy. Yes his rise was meteoric. He became a Rock Star. Not because he was lucky, or even gifted, but because he worked his butt off. He overcame his basically introverted nature to be a public speaker. His self confidence was not natural, he had to earn that too. He reinvented himself again and again and again. He took risks. He taught himself. He rejected complacency. So, I could never figured it out. Is it good or bad to be a rock star? When I was a young person, a long, long, time ago, we all wanted to be rock stars. But few of us were willing to work for it, and fewer still had the talent to actually become one. Maybe that is why there are so few rock stars. Joe "rocked" the library world with his message. Perhaps that proved his undoing. He told me his ideas, which I didn't, and still don't, understand. But, as far as I can understand, in the future, what I think of as a library will be a museum for books. Technology is changing libraries, or, put differently, libraries must change or die. Libraries of the future will be different, and librarians will be different. Instead of people stamping index cards, checking your back-pack, and telling you to "shush," librarians will be information technologists, highly specialized IT people. Librarians need to get on a steep learning curve or be swept away. Books will be stored in a place called the "cloud," instead of on shelves. Information will be accessed at light speed. Libraries will be physically different places - open, airy, fun, actually ahead on the information curve. They will have baristas. They will change the world. So, I'm just wondering how well this all went over in the library world. Scary stuff for some, perhaps. This has nothing to do with sex harassment, but maybe there were a few who saw this as an opportunity to shoot down a star that was rising a little too fast. The third type of people I still feel contempt for are the ones who said nothing. These are actually the worst and I have saved them for last. I'm talking about all the people who worked with Joe. The people who knew and understood his work. Where were they? Of course they had no evidence, they couldn't confirm or deny the truth of the allegations, but why didn't they call for calm, patience, fairness? Why didn't they say, let's wait for the facts. There is a name for this type: cowards. Their cowardice was not unjustified, because the few who did ask for balance were quickly denounced as "minions" or "trolls." These are the most pitiable group, because they live in constant fear of losing their social standing. They abandon people and do not defend friends in trouble. They are not worth any more words. So the upshot of all this is that Joe lost his job, and many "friends." He doesn't get speaking engagements any more. People in the library world don't look him in the eye, they shun him. They talk behind his back. This hurts Joe very deeply. The word "passion" is very overused, but Joe's love for libraries really is a passion, something he is willing to give up everything for, and it has been taken from him. But I am not really worried about Joe because he has a very, very strong character. He will land on his feet. He will reinvent himself again, if need be. He will not stay down. I don't know if Joe will stay in the library world, but personally, I hope he doesn't. I think the library world stinks. Sexual harassment is a horrible thing. So are all types of harassment. So is bullying. These things should never be tolerated. Let's end them. I have heard people describe Lisa and Nina as "brave." I would not describe bullying people with the crowd cheering you on as bravery. But I don't know them that well, or what challenges they have had to overcome, so perhaps they are brave. Being brave requires being tested. No one knows how brave they are until they are tested. Being brave requires facing the truth. I have read their apologies. I believe that they are telling the truth now. This must be very hard, and they must be brave. Very brave. If they are just lying now to avoid the consequences of losing a lawsuit, then they are not brave in my book. Over the past year I have watched Joe be tested. Tested very hard. Tested hard enough to break people. I must tell you, he is very, very brave, and I am very proud of him. He is my hero. At the beginning of this I gave my name. I gave my name because I'm old and I don't really need it anymore. I don't need a job. My life's work is basically over. That's a great thing about getting old. You get to a place where you basically don't give a damn. You really learn that anything other than the truth is just a waste of time. One last thing: please set the books free. The books deserve to be free. Let them go live in the clouds. Enough said. Peace.Posted : Mar 27, 2015 12:56
Tom Leykis
[This comment was deleted because it violates our Comment Policy.]Posted : Mar 26, 2015 05:54
BigBamboo
To all of you espousing the 'truth does not matter, only the advancement of the cause matters" line. Histories greatest monsters agree with you. Once truth does not matter to you, you are a monster.Posted : Mar 26, 2015 09:49
Hang your Heads in shame.
https://exitpursuedbyabear.net/2015/03/teamharpy-retraction-and-apology/ To all of you listen & believe, guilty even if proven innocent, harpies their apologists, supporters, gossip mongering, agenda driving, end justify the means, indecent, savages. For shame, take a pause in your lives each and everyone you and consider what you have done, what you have been complicit in and really take pause to consider the consequences of your actions in this and the future. Shame on you all. Comment policy noted, if you as a site do not see this as fair comment then shame on you to.Posted : Mar 26, 2015 05:47
Joe Murphy
Here is an update - A full apology to me and a complete retraction by Rabey and De Jesus https://teamharpy.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/apologies-and-retractions/Posted : Mar 25, 2015 10:55
Mike Chigurgh
I don't understand what Team Harpy is after and why they chose a guy like this to go after. I read their complaint looked at the video and saw a guy obviously inebriated and joking around. Now if he was serious...who really cares he is a male and if the female(s) is a willing participant then nothing wrong was done, I wouldn't have much respect for the woman but it is HER CHOICE. If this man (or woman) were out doing inappropriate things like being lewd in any way then fine you have a case. These librarians do not know or understand the basics of what harassment is this context. This is defamation of character, pure and simple. We always worry about what government will do when given too much power, we should worry what happens with a person or conglomerate of people that give themselves the power of the internet, no restraints and a beef with anyone they do not like or want around...that is the true danger in my opinion and Team Harpy are part of that danger.Posted : Jan 13, 2015 05:02
Michael
As someone who has been involved in the educational field, I'd like to point out that more than a few teachers have had their careers destroyed by similar whispering campaigns. It's insidious. The teacher is never accused or granted any right of defense, but suddenly job opportunities dry up. "Taking the high road" doesn't work, because the very act of not attacking the accusers is often seen as an admission of guilt. That's why defamation isn't covered by the First Amendment in the US-- it's an innately damaging form of speech. In this case we're seeing hearsay-- the two defendants are repeating comments they've been told by other people. They are repeating them as *fact*. (Important note: if you want to make certain you'll never be in their position, remember: opinion is almost always protected speech, statements of fact are not). Not only that, but in many parts of the United States, "sexual predator" is a legal term with connotations far beyond anything Mr. Murphy is alleged to have done. (For non Americans. Sexual predator is often applied to individuals who have been convicted of a crime of sexual violence. Many states have various types of laws that define sexual predators, and restrict their places of residence in addition to other requirements. Thus, claiming someone is a sexual predator may have the connotation that they have been convicted or have committed a violent sexual offense, which is not the case with Mr. Murphy.) . Mr. Murphy states that he is factually innocent of these claims and that the two librarians are therefore defaming him. Needless to say, the other side is saying that they are stating the truth. There is no "common ground" that can be arrived at. One side is wrong. In this case a court is the proper venue to resolve that question as it puts it in front of a neutral judge. Also, another point-- some posters on this board seem to argue that a finding of defamation is *certain* under Canadian law. That is, in fact, far from the case. It is entirely possible that the court will find for the defendants which will then vindicate *them* and condemn Mr. Murphy. But one last takeaway: Especially in situations like this, avoid stating "facts". Stick to "I believe," or "I have been told" statements. Doing so drastically reduces your potential for ending up in front of a court.Posted : Nov 15, 2014 06:17
anon
Wow -- I may be late to the party, but the level of flabberghast at this whole ridiculous fiasco compels me to write something here... Red flag #1: The women being accused call themselves "harpies" and one of them makes her living publishing articles about "institutional oppression." Red flag #2: The women being accused did not witness nor do they offer any proof of the allegations they have made. Red flag #3: The other "harpy" has published on her blog that purported victims need not offer proof of anything, must always be believed, and that rumor is enough to condemn alleged offenders. Didn't we all read The Crucible in school? Do we not have a history of witch hunts to guide us? Do we not remember the Red Scare of the 1950s and the damage it wrought? The accusers have comported themselves int he worst possible manner and undermined any accusations they might make. Whether or not there's any "there" there, it's been rendered meaningless by their arrogance and self-righteousness.Posted : Nov 14, 2014 02:30
Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries
I have been stating that public libraries being statutorily created for the use and benefit of the citizens act outside the law by allowing porn that does the opposite and instead harms citizens, that US v. ALA holds that blocking porn in libraries does not violate the First Amendment even if porn is otherwise "constitutionally protected speech," that no library has been sued for blocking porn, that under Bradburn v. NCRL librarians need not unblock porn, that ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom advises librarians they are not judges and may not make a determination as to what is child pornography, and that OIF now actively trains librarians/trustees to destroy (or not record in the first place) public evidence documenting sex crimes in libraries. Likely for those reasons and more, I am now a defendant in what I perceive to be a SLAPP suit, at a minimum egged on by ALA's OIF. The alleged defamatory material can be seen at the link under my name (assuming Library Journal allows speech OIF seeks to silence). I am the library profession's only consistent voice speaking out on sexual harassment of librarians. Indeed, #TeamHarpy may never have happened if people had only addressed the harassment concerns I raised earlier. I hope OIF does not succeed in silencing me.Posted : Nov 08, 2014 08:59
Not a sock puppet
“To my knowledge, no one has thus far charged Mr. Murphy with criminal behavior.” Rabey did when she called him a sexual predator: http://teamharpy.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/lawsuit_statement-of-claim_2014-07-29.pdf (see page 9) ------ Canada's laws about "sexual predators" aren't super relevant to an American citizen's comments about another. Calling someone something is not the same as charging them with something. Libel is illegal - will there be a counter suit by teamharpy because they've been maligned as being guilty of libel? Because I sure haven't seen any proof of > $1 million worth of reputation damage. Will LJ be sued over its coverage of this issue? I have to believe that more librarians are reading this article than read all the Twitter/blog coverage of it. Strange days, indeed.Posted : Nov 01, 2014 01:09
Rebecca
Numbers are our friend. Intuition in our guide. Courage is our strength. We have to speak up every time. That may be something as simple as telling the perpetrator directly, "I'm sorry but you are making me very uncomfortable right now", or it may mean going to HR, supervisors, conference planners, etc. The younger women in our profession may not realize what a coup it is to even have something like a code of conduct. If enough of us say something when something happens, we begin to make it very uncomfortable for harassers and abusers. We cannot trample individual rights, however. As I said, nobody knows the facts in this case, but if what Murphy claims is true, nothing can justify what has happened to him. I don't agree with those who say he should have engaged in public dialogue. If he was a victim of libel, he should have recourse that doesn't involve his participation in a, at-large social media discussion that would probably be very painful and unpleasant for him. Likewise, someone who is a victim of sexual harassment or assault should not have to talk it out with her perpetrator. Of course, all of this is easier said than done. I sat in committee meetings for two years with the man who assaulted me. I did nothing and I regret it profoundly. I will never do nothing again.Posted : Oct 31, 2014 10:08
Rebecca
At this point, the truth is irrelevant, since only Joe Murphy and his alleged victims (if there are any) know for certain. I don't think Lisa Rabey and Nina de Jesus were being malicious in the way they went about publishing their comments about Murphy, but they were being incredibly stupid. Blogging is journalism and they were playing at being amateur journalists. They could have done a few simple things to eliminate or minimize their exposure and still have made their point forcefully. Instead they embraced their youthful hubris and it's come back to bite them. They invoked Rumsfeld (!!) by saying, "You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have." OK. But why would you go to war at all if you're just a couple of weekend warriors. They are just kids who fell in the deep end and I wish them luck because they are pretty screwed. As a woman who has been harassed and assaulted, this angers me. I want change desperately but I don't want to "go to war" with people whose competence I question, whose word I cannot take at face value and whose behavior on social media is erratic, hostile and unpredictable. I stand behind the Anita Hills of this world. I was a 25 year old MLIS grad during those hearings and I have never forgotten how proud I was of her. Hill stood up with poise and dignity under withering fire. Women like her fight for what they know in their hearts is right and they remember that it's not just what they are fighting for that counts, its how they fight. I'm sorry I cannot say that I am proud of Rabey and de Jesus. I wish I could be, but they are not heroes. They are like the magician's apprentice who now needs someone else to put the water back in the bucket.Posted : Oct 31, 2014 09:30
Anon Lady
[This comment was deleted because it violates our Comment Policy.]Posted : Oct 31, 2014 03:16
Jim DelRosso
The amount he's suing for, and the fact that he filed in Canada, make it pretty obvious that it's a SLAPP suit. It should be treated that way, and librarians should oppose the suit on those grounds alone. But going further than that: when even the most basic attempts to combat harassment at conferences — the ALA and SLA Codes of Conduct, for example, not to mention the actual enforcement of same — receive the pushback they have, no one should have the gall to criticize #teamharpy because they didn't go about this "the right way." What the right way would’ve been always seems poorly defined in those criticisms, or utterly divorced from reality, because better means to address this kind of situation basically don’t exist. As others have noted, that's why whisper networks develop in the first place, and lawsuits like this are designed to force any discussion back into those networks. I also salute Sarah coming forward and identifying herself as a witness. She is profoundly brave, and I hope that her action will put paid to the notion that no witnesses exist. The fact that she had to do this, the fact that people so blithely dismiss the valid reasons why other witnesses have not identified themselves -- the lawsuit itself not least among them -- is infuriating.Posted : Oct 31, 2014 01:36
Kristin
Somebody came out publicly last night as a witness for Rabey and de jesus. She is extremely brave for doing so considering how many heartless trolls there are out there. But regardless of how many women may come out publicly as a witness, you trolls will just say they're all liars anyway just like you always do.Posted : Oct 30, 2014 05:35
Ruth
Speaking of "whisper networks" and their value, there is an excellent blog post going around right now titled "Do you know about Jian" http://www.nothinginwinnipeg.com/2014/10/do-you-know-about-jian/ It concerns the Jian Gomeshi situation but has bearing on any situation where nobody feels they have quite enough harm to be believed/to not have negative consequences/to even know what the proper responses is. And thus, people respond by taking care of each other on the underground whisper networks. In this case "Do you know about Jian?" A relevant passage: "Still, the follow-up question, then, the one I keep seeing asked: if so many people knew, why didn’t anyone stick their neck out to stop it? My question is: would you?" In my opinion, Rabey and de jesus heard enough on the whisper networks, asked themselves that question, and said yes.Posted : Oct 30, 2014 04:25
Nicholas Schiller
There has been mention of library values and disappointment. Here is the key value that I see at play here: the appropriate response to speach we disagree with is more speech. There are many, legion, and more methods of addressing the comments made other than engaging in what appears to be libel-tourism. it's not too late to choose a better way to address the issue. We are being asked to accept that the only reasonable response to another person voicing a negative interpretation of our actions is a lawsuit, a lawsuit--mind you--that was shopped to the most libel-tourism friendly jurisdiction possible. I've read the public documents and Mr. Murphy has never been accused of a crime or criminal activity. Just listen to the lyrics of Pharrell's song "hunter' for a socially acceptable image of a "sexual predator." We all know that there are many instances of harassing behavior that fall well within the law. It appears that we are being asked (demanded) to interpret the statements from the harshest possible context and the case is being heard the most libel-tourism friendly jurisdiction available. That combination of extremes requires us to set aside our values that prioritize "fair comment and criticism" above an individual's demand to frame their reputation positively. That's not something I'm willing to do. Moving forward, a postive step would be to drop the suit. It is possible to disagree, dispute, contradict, deny, or re-frame the comments without resorting to legal threats. So I'm joing many others in asking Mr. Murphy to drop his lawsuit and pursue his grievance through more professionally acceptable methods.Posted : Oct 30, 2014 05:10
Anonymous lady
This guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82HLJcyzXQ8Posted : Oct 30, 2014 02:57
Kristin
It's perfectly reasonable that a witness would be told by legal council that it is smarter to not declare anything publicly until trial, especially people fearing retaliation by the public or fearing somebody who is litigious. Considering the culture of fear built around reporting harassment publicly, how can you blame them? You can't say: "Don't you dare reveal who did this to you in public, show me the PROOF first!" and then say "Well nobody has publicly admitted to this, I guess these women are LIARS."Posted : Oct 30, 2014 01:10
Alexandria
Ingrid, I am sorry. I did not think that I needed to do research. It said it was to defend their right to free speech and everyone commenting about it made it seem like the real story was that Murphy sexually assaulted someone and then sued the whistleblowers. Who would NOT donate to something like that? I understand that a refund is not my right, caveat emptor and all that, but I am within my rights to feel cheated if that is not what happened. Nobody has any first degree knowledge of him doing anything with the exception of a video of him bragging like an ass that he "hooked up"? Please give me a catholic indulgence, or just forgive me, if I'm starting to feel like I may have been misled or too quick to follow the dominant narrative. Or please give me something I can hold on to so that I dont feel misled anymore. I want to believe the victims but if there are none, then what are we doing except forming a mob with pitchforks?Posted : Oct 30, 2014 12:38
valerie
i've personally witnessed and been subjected to harassment at library conferences (though not by JM, to be clear) and i've never spoken up about it out of fear of professional repercussions. i know lisa rabey personally and i know she was speaking up out of genuine concern about actual things that were told to her specifically about JM. IANAL, so i can't speak about the legal concerns, but i can speak for her character, 100%. she felt that people were being bullied into silence, which is a real concern in our profession (well, all professions, probably, but i know from personal experience that this is happening among our own.) she chose to speak up in defense of the people who were afraid to do so for themselves. whether she chose her words wisely, or the way you would have chosen your words, or whether this is actually libel, all can be debated, but it seems to me that all those people who were afraid to speak up about their experiences have now been validated in that decision, and will likely not speak up in the future, and that worries me a great deal.Posted : Oct 30, 2014 12:38
Alexandria
I am confused about this. I thought that the two defendants in the lawsuit were actually victims of sexual misconduct or that they at least personally witnessed it. That is why I donated money to the legal defense fund. Is that not the case, or is that just some agenda-based misinformation by Mr. Murphy's minions? If this is Murphy lying, Team Harpy should countersue. But, if they neither felt nor saw this, then I think I want my money back.Posted : Oct 30, 2014 12:02
Anon
A reminder that informal whisper networks were warning women about Murphy's behavior at conferences as early as 2010, if not before. Statistically, it is much more likely that women not report feeling unsafe than it is that women make false claims. Please read this on the Jian Ghomeshi situation and reflect on how it applies to librarianship, and the atmosphere that we librarians contribute to: https://www.facebook.com/elisabeth.demariaffi/posts/10152579030685819?fref=nf.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 09:53
DCdotNerd
For anyone interested in why Mr. Murphy brought his case in Canada, this article (from an attorney trade magazine, but not at all legal-ese heavy) does a really good job of summarizing how in the US, the First Amendment free speech protections came to be stronger than protections from defamation. https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm A great quote comes from the end, about "libel tourism" (which sounds to me exactly like what Mr. Murphy has done): But perhaps the biggest and most dramatic evidence of Sullivan’s enduring impact has been in the United Kingdom, which last year loosened its ancient strict liability system for libel to give more free speech a chance, and to shed its image as a preferred venue for claims against American authors and publishers by Saudi bankers and Russian oligarchs, among others, looking to do an end run around the First Amendment. The changes afford some important new protections for authors of material considered of public interest. The new law also tightened up standards for permitting noncitizens access to U.K. courts in an effort to roll back their reputation as a haven for “libel tourism.” The overhaul came after Congress cracked down on the ability of federal courts to enforce foreign libel judgments that were obtained in forums inconsistent with U.S. legal standards. “The British said, ‘We have been shamed by this. We have become the laughingstock,’’’ says Laura Handman, a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. The moves, she notes, are not nearly as radical as Sullivan, but then again, Sullivan was truly singular.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 09:48
Ruby
ONE of the defendants lives in Canada. You could have chosen to base your lawsuit in the country that both you and the other defendant reside in. Yet you based the lawsuit in Canada. Where the law just HAPPENS to lean dramatically in your favor, and in favor of anyone attempting a SLAPP lawsuit. You're damaging your own reputation with this behavior, sir.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 09:27
Daniel Cornwall
I don't have the information I need to decide whether Mr. Murphy is a harasser. I also believe that "sexual predator" was an unfortunate choice of words on Rabey and de jesus' part. But I don't think a lawsuit was the right answer. Regardless of whether Rabey and de jesus' allegations are false, a successful lawsuit will discourage harassed women from speaking out if they believe they do not have an iron-clad court case. Our profession is poorer for this. I'd like to remind Library Journal readers of three things: 1) Prior to the 2014 ALA Midwinter Conference, ALA did not have a conference code of conduct or any sort of formal way to report conference harassment. Anyone who was harassed by anyone at an ALA conference did not have a mechanism to report it. 2) SLAPP lawsuits are usually ones claiming defamation. See http://slappedintexas.com/examples-of-slapp-suits-in-texas/ for examples. Plantiffs uncomfortable with what's being said will claim what's being said is all lies and sue to make it stop. This doesn't mean that all defamation suits are necessarily SLAPP suits. But it seems to me that Mr. Murphy was definitely interested in stopping a conversation. From what I can tell, he went straight to the court system rather than rally his supporters or asking Team Harpy in an open forum to prove their claims. So I believe this lawsuit can fit within the definition of a SLAPP. I'd have more sympathy if it was clear Mr. Murphy had tried other avenues besides the Canadian courts to deal with the accusations. 3) While Mr. Murphy has talked about direct economic harm, which could be a possible justification for a lawsuit, I haven't seen specific examples of that harm. Interestingly, under Canadian law, he doesn't have to prove damages or even assert specifics. See A Primer on the law of defamation in Ontario (Province where suit was filed.) – Charity Law Bulletin Non. 125, 9/26/2007, Carters Professional Corporation http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2007/chylb125.htm for more. I'm very sorry if Mr. Murphy has been falsely accused and I encourage to keep making his case in public as he has done here. But I still hold that the profession as a whole suffers when we librarians insist on taking each other to court, even under significant provocation. I also believe that this case (regardless of the merits) will inhibit a discussion on harassment within librarianship that needs to happen.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 09:24
Michelle
I don't know any of the involved parties. Maybe he is a sexual predator, or maybe the women involved are being defamatory. Personally, I don't think the world will find out what's actually going on here unless it goes through judicial process. It is clear to me that both sides of this case are going to have plenty of witnesses and plenty of discussion for the jury* to discuss. *I will have to admit that I don't know much, if anything about Canadian judicial process other than that I haven't heard any complaints about it.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 09:08
Todd Kyle
The prudent course of action when you feel you have been harmed by harassing behavior is to confront the perpetrator and express your concerns about his/her behavior; if this is unsuccessful, or it you do not feel safe doing so, you then need to take recourse to an authority than can deal with it confidentially and professionally--perhaps, in this case, ALA as part of their Code of Conduct administration. To publicly shame the accused, without evidence or due process, skirts the law and makes a mockery of all our profession stands for. Frankly, if my behavior makes a woman uncomfortable, I want her to tell me. My private shame will be enough.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 08:05
Chris
I've been following this story since Rabey's first tweet. I'm rather shocked at how many automatically assume Murphy is a predator and that this lawsuit is silencing victims. I am seeing a lot of gut reactions on social media, which frankly surprises me, as our profession spends so much time debating the need to question authority and make informed decisions. Yet, I see little evidence of anyone questioning Rabey or De Jesus. Does harassment exist? Yes. Should victims be silenced? Of course not. But we need to separate the forest from the trees. In this particular case, is Murphy a harasser? I don't know. I have seen no evidence that he is. He has not been convicted of that crime nor disciplined for it (as far as I know). Nor have Rabey or De Jesus presented any evidence that he is. Neither has identified as a victim of his, but both claim that "of course, everyone knows this." It smacks of gossip. I encourage all librarians, and apparently the staff at Library Journal as well, to really read Rabey's and De Jesus' blogs. Go back a few years. What are they really saying? Be critical. Make an informed decision, don't just assume they are right because their cause is noble. This case isn't about sexual harassment. Harassment is wrong and we need to address it. No one is arguing that. This case is about two people labeling someone and costing that person future income.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 07:42
Karen Coyle
Lisa, you may wish to add a link to the Wikipedia article for Marc Randazza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_RandazzaPosted : Oct 29, 2014 07:38
the.effing.librarian
this whole issue is sad. but it was much more sad for me that when one librarian was called a sexual predator, almost no librarians stood up to say that was wrong.Posted : Oct 29, 2014 05:29
Joe Murphy
This is not a SLAPP suit. This is pure defamation and the lawsuit is in response to obvious and destructive libel. Characterizing this as a SLAPP suit demonstrates a bias and likely a lack of familiarity with the term. I by no means am interested in suppressing any legitimate discussions about sexual harassment, nor do I mind truthful conversations about me. What is missed, and what the whole "teamharpy" concept misses is that this attack on my character was pure defamation - and the perpetrators' comments make that clear. It is as if someone struck another, and then said "but they deserved it." The lawsuit was brought in Ontario, CA because that is where a perpetrator of the defamation resides. There are no allegations of harassment or assault against me. The defamation was vicious character assassination based on nothing. Name calling to cause damage. It seems remarkable that this detail is consistently overlooked (and that librarians aren’t asking for the facts, sources). The fact that there has been a failure to interview a single person who claimed that I have sexually harassed them, much less acted as a "sexual predator,” would be surprising if it wasn't for the fact that there is no such victim. Do you think that perhaps De Jesus and Rabey are lying and not acting in good faith? Maybe that is a question worth asking. The damage persists as my name continues to be associated without cause to conversations about harassment in our industry. Thank you, Lisa. I appreciate you reaching out to me for this. Joe MurphyPosted : Oct 28, 2014 11:43
Becky Yoose
It's interesting to see the article include the *US* lawyer comment on the case since, as the article states above, the case is being tried in Canada.Posted : Oct 28, 2014 09:46