Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

After her postdoc ends, Barbara needs a job & asks for a profesisonal recommendation, a specialist career requirement in science. The investigation cites written response by Prof Speed who tells a potential employer he won't provide rec b/c "things btw Barbara & me are not good"

Prof Speed then FORWARDS this response to Barbara. She (rightly) sees this as coercion, to force her to bend to his will. In science more so than in other fields, if a supervisor won't give you a recommendation it is a "kiss of death," especially from someone so influential.

Me: "I told @Science_Academy to take very direct action publicly about what they would do with their sexual harassment policies &also pointed them to other materials and practical steps that they could take to be more transparent about where they stand on sexual harassment."

Me: "As leaders in the Australian science community, this type of institution (@Science_Academy) can set the tone for the rest of the science community and they should be using their influence to minimise the harm of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination."

Me: "It's important that they don't stay silent because silence tells the rest of the science community that any woman who speaks out is going to be met with a wall of nonresponse, non-action, that she's alone and it discourages survivors from coming forward & reporting..."

The Superstars of STEM event is featured. Women scientists talks about gender discrimination they've suffered. Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel AO says "I personally find it frustrating when I hear someone strident complaining about the situation today w/o acknowledging progress."

The gaslighting here is cranked up to 11 Other than Prof Patcher, the high-profile men featured in this media story perfectly illustrate how men shut down women & femmes & refuse to have the right conversations or do the right things when it's inconvenient to their worldviews

The @Science_Academy Chief Executive is also featured talking about a forthcoming sexual harassment policy which did not exist while I worked there or when I asked the Academy for it & other changes in 2015 & again in 2018. It's being released to coincide with this media report

.@StartupShelley speaks on being authentic & truthful on sexual harassment. Well I told WiSA about Prof Speed case as soon as it was public. They did nothing. I called her out for various tweets where she empathises to men harassers (a "witch hunt"). Eg https://twitter.com/search?q=%23metoo%20from%3Aothersociology&src=typd …

So you see the gaslighting is not just by senior White male scientists. It is also by White women in STEM who do not do stand up for all women. Just some women, some of the time, on particular issues. Glad WiSA had a change of heart but their comments here are hollow. Do better

Fact that WiSA say had conversations around "Show me the evidence" sends a LOUD message to ALL women in sci that this org DOES NOT BELIEVE WOMEN & FEMMES. Any organisation that refrains from condemning harassment & discrimination, even after an investigation, is not "authentic."

In an especially damaging interview, Director @WEHI_research refuses to discuss SH cases in his org. He's asked how people could make a SH complaint after leaving if no policies are public? He suggests contacting HR or "I'm googlable on the web." Response to SH is not "google me"

"I think people would feel comfortable doing that" Director WEHI says. No. If a Director thinks women will contact a senior WHite male via googling to report sexual harassment, there are many layers of problems to this approach. Flabbergasted at these flippant comments.

Director WEHI expresses frustration that harassment policies should be made public. (NB. This is equity & diversity 101) He rings HR. He then changes his answer to be more positive. Front stage / backstage of equity & diversity illustrated. best practice only when convenient.