Nope. It was a physics problem with a numeric answer. And not a terrible complicated problem (this is a first semester course in her area of specialization as a grad student, and they are only a few weeks into the semester). Also, it is the second semester she has taught the course, and she knows the problem sets well. His answer was not correct, and it was due to his computation method.
She did ask him to not call her “sweetheart”, and he sneeringly did so a few more times.
She told me it isn’t the mansplaining that annoyed her so much (she is very used to that…), but that he came in because he couldn’t get the right answer to this problem in the homework. Then wouldn’t believe her explanation.
Oh, and another male student was watching this whole thing. After the rude guy stormed out, he asked if she was doing okay. Which she appreciated – it was said in the spirit of, “Well, that guy was an a**hat”. And then she successfully helped him with his questions. As she says, a lot of her students are great. But there are a few… grrr.
I’m not saying that his numeric answer was correct. He had a computation error. I was saying that he could have had a correct method to get the answer, but have had a computation error in applying the correct method. Or, which sounds more likely, he could just have been wrong, but couldn’t bear to be corrected by a woman.
If there was a problem with his actual method, hopefully she tried to explain the problem with the method itself. As CF said, there is often more than one method that will get you the answer.
There is never an excuse for a man to hit a woman in the face, causing a black eye. Never an excuse for a man to angrily grab his naked spouse from the shower.
That is not a volatile relationship, that is abusive and violent behavior by the person acting that way. Anyone who tries to minimize or excuse those behaviors is enabling it and frankly, is not someone I hope the young people on this site look to as a role model.
Well, of course she did. And even if somehow she didn’t (although she did), condescendingly calling her “sweetheart” was completely inappropriate. She’s the TA, for crying out loud.
I think after she told him not to call her “sweetheart,” and he did it again, she would have been well within her rights to say “Ok, we are done. Get OUT. I will be discussing this with Professor Jones.” Hopefully there is no next time, but if there is a next time, I would totally respect her right to set and enforce firm boundaries of acceptable behavior from her students. Do you think her advisor would support her in this?
Even in a job without a clearance requirement, Porter shouldn’t be in the White House because there’s reliable evidence that he commitscrimes_.
If the allegations are true, then Porter repeatedly committed felonies over the course of years. There are a whole bunch of reasons to find this set of allegations highly credible. They are made on the record, with names and faces, to reliable journalists, by people with a lot to lose via public infamy. There’s the similarity of the two stories between two rivals not disposed to collude (first and second wives). There are pictures of injuries. There is a police report. There’s a blog about the abuse that well precedes the FBI interviews. There are witnesses to both wives complaining about the abuse contemporaneously.
Of course, Porter should not go to prison unless the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt after he’s had an opportunity to defend himself. But employers in general and the White House in particular should not wait for that level of proof to get someone out of leadership.
I don’t think it has to do much with policy. If Porter were exclusively in charge of agriculture regulations or something unrelated to violence against women, I’d still want him out of the government for being a habitual CRIMINAL.
Anything in one’s background - financial difficulties, issues with alcohol, violence/abuse, too many moving violations, seeking therapy for certain things - can all be causes for not getting or losing a security clearance. It has nothing to do with how good you are at your job or if your boss and/or coworkers like you. Seeking help doesn’t always mitigate and in some cases can result in getting a clearance pulled.
There are too many good people in this country who do the right things and behave appropriately for me to have much sympathy for a man who abused two wives, had friends try to convince ex-wives to not say anything in a background check, etc. he should lose his job, whatever interim clearance he had, and never get another clearance again.
Turns out the student wasn’t accounting for friction in the way he set up his equation (which is what she explained to him). He went off to a lab after storming out of the help room… and was told by the (male) TA there that he had to account for friction in his equation. Pretty sure he didn’t then call the male TA “sweetheart”.
She is reluctant to complain to the prof, but doubts the student will come to the help room again when she is there anyway. If he gives her a hard time again, she will complain.
For Porter’s position, he needed not only a security clearance, but SCI (sensitive compartmented information). No small potatoes there. Usually you have to take a polygraph. I wonder if he did, lol.
Another factor I forgot to think about: If the FBI comes to interview you, and you tell them made-up stories to make your ex-husband look bad, that’s a felony. If you later talk to the press using your own name, it can be compared against your statements to the FBI. So if the Porter allegations are false, then both wives are betting their own freedom on their ability to keep a fake story straight. That’s possible, but not plausible.
I don’t think the two ex wives are lying necessarily and they are telling their story. I appreciate his silence frankly as I don’t think the public needs to know the sordid details necessarily although i would love to know who filed for divorce and if he is left handed.
Polygraphs May or may not be required; they are not a given.
All therapy other than grief/family counseling has to be reported and the therapist will be contacted. The few sessions I had with a counselor when I was undergoing cancer treatment were looked into.
It’s all to ensure that you are a good risk and that you probably won’t be compromised, but just as importantly that you can handle the lifetime commitment. Someone who rashly throws a vase at his wife could very well rashly reveal information if angry at his employer or the govt.