You may know the atheist celebrities Michael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss, and David Silverman have all been accused of major consent violations in their treatment of women at events. Infidelity or flirtation don't trouble me. But violating consent does. I don't regard that as of any relevance to the merit of their published scholarship or the value of its continued use in our community. But it does warrant caution in employing them in a capacity that interacts with the public. Though not every claim made about them may be believable or true, the conclusion that they've probably been disregarding consent has merit, for reasons that are notably absent in my case (on which you can see my summary). Here is why I believe it is credible and well-documented in these other cases:
David Silverman: Of the allegations made against Silverman, some involve financial and professional misconduct his own board of directors investigated and confirmed to their satisfaction (principally, "he had not disclosed financial and personal conflicts of interest relating to the promotion of his book" and he attempted to secure "the appointment to a senior position of a woman with whom Silverman was allegedly having a sexual relationship" without disclosing that conflict of interest to the board). I know several members of that board of directors personally; I'm confident they would not have acted on unverified information in these matters.
There were also two allegations of sexual harassment and assault, which I am less certain they adequately investigated. They are inherently less verifiable than the professional misconduct allegations. However I know the victim of the assault personally, identified in the news as R. She fully informed me of the incident very soon after it occurred, having been quite surprised by it, soon asking if I knew of his acting that way with anyone else, and what we could do to ensure he didn't.
R had certain parties approach Silverman about that; I did likewise. I also know other friends of mine who had consensual interactions with Silverman that corroborate some details of his behavior with R, in ways that confirm her account. I can also vouch for her honesty, because I know her well: she is a free spirit, and rather hard core, and would not have even been troubled by anything he did, if only he had started with a proper consent negotiation, a fundamental ethic in the kink community. It was his skipping of that step that scared and disturbed her.
Silverman has since gone on the record insisting he did have a consent negotiation with R and that she is lying about what occurred. In his version of events everything was explicitly consensual. You can now examine his defenses yourself on his own website and as told to Atheist Republic.
I can confirm the version of what happened with R described in the news is probably false. It omits crucial context R informed me of personally. But I don't know that's the version R actually relayed to them or to Silverman's board of directors. I suspect Silverman, being overly self-assured and not experienced or educated in the kink scene, assumed someone into being dominated did not need or want a consent negotiation prior to acting. The result is sexual assault, however; which is why that ethic is so prominent, and doms should be adhering to it. It is disturbing that he did not. I suspect he mistook R's flirtation and seductive banter for a consent negotiation, contrary to what he now insists. Maybe after being told this in 2015 he changed his behavior and was more careful about seeking consent. But a more recent charge brought by Rebecca Vitsmun against him for touching the exposed small of her back without asking, or even reason to believe it appropriate, suggests not.
Silverman's other reported interaction, with Rose St. Clair, I had not heard about until the news reported it, and I don't know her personally. But the account does not sound ridiculous or implausible to me, and his board of directors verified enough of it to be concerned (confirming, for example, what she told of the incident to several people soon after it happened). In that instance, according to her, St. Clair was seeking an internship at Americam Atheists; Silverman allegedly arranged to have sex with her instead, then told her she couldn't apply for the internship because of that. That would be textbook sexual harassment. But Silverman says she pursued him, he explicitly told her in advance that he could not offer her a position, that she explicitly consented anyway, and was not perceptibly too drunk to do so.
It's possible Silverman was, here, like many a hyper-privileged man, insensitive to the actual feelings of St. Clair in the matter and took advantage of her career interest to have sex with her, disregarding what she was seeking from him professionally. Or she may have misremembered the actual sequence of events or omitted compromising details when relaying the story to others, which is all equally commonplace and thus equally plausible. But if her account is the more accurate, we have another lack of a proper consent negotiation; as such would have included, for example, explicit discussion of her career goals and whether she would prefer to pursue those over a sexual relationship, before starting one. She says Silverman never asked her that; he says he did. It's the former that would be sexual harassment: a prospective employer, using someone's interest in working for them as leverage to have sex, then declaring the position was thereby unavailable to them. The evidence is weak but mostly on her side, given Silverman's propensity for lying (there are quite a few examples you can find in the record, such as in the Vitsmun case, and his once trying to get out of the previous accusations by falsely claiming to have been polyamorous), and the fact that she related her account to others many years before she went public.
I may amend my assessment if new evidence comes forward. Silverman has denied the allegations, claims to have initiated lawsuits, and has published evidence in his defense (see links above), though none of it really exonerates him. On balance, I think it's more likely than not he has violated consent on multiple occasions.
Comparatively: I have never had sex or even pursued sexual contact with any employee of mine, actual or prospective; I haven't even been accused of doing so. And I've certainly never been accused of sexually assaulting anyone, or indeed of even sexually touching anyone without consent. Conspicuously contrary to what's been said of Silverman, I've only ever sought consent, and always heeded the response. I've never even been accused of doing anything other than that.
Lawrence Krauss: A lot of unverified claims have been made about Krauss, and I suspect some are false or exaggerated, or that important information has been left out that would change the overall assessment of what happened. But I think there is enough information to suggest he has violated women's consent, and isn't repentant about it, but intent only to deny it and possibly lie about it (a completed investigation now supports that conclusion and more information has come to light).
I must admit the news report of Melody Hensley's encounter with Krauss is too badly articulated to assess. We're told he briefly assaulted her (with unasked-for kissing and groping), got a condom, and she fled. But I do not believe Krauss would have "pulled out a condom" before any clearly consensual kissing had occurred, indeed before any clothes were even removed. Hensley has stated that whatever happened "wasn't consensual," and he has said it was. On balance, I am inclined to disbelieve both of them. Because (as you'll see in a moment) I think there is enough evidence Krauss prefers lying to telling the truth (so his account of what happened I don't trust), but the news's description of Hensley's account is also not narratively plausible. I don't know what happened. But if I were to place bets, I'd bet Hensley did engage in some consensual activity with him, but then asked him to stop, and he was unresponsive enough to disturb her. Which would be concerning, if a bit more complicated.
Far less ambiguous is his behavior with Christina Rad, which she has convincingly described on her own YouTube channel. I know Rad personally, and can vouch for her character and her credibility in this matter. She would not be making this up. She relates how he fondled her thigh without even asking consent. One can suspect it's unlikely he'd do that if it were only the one time; and indeed, the news relates the account of a woman identified as A, whose thighs she claims he also fondled without asking. Notably, Rad knows A personally, and provides more information than the news report about what happened with her, in the same video. Which reveals key information illuminating how Krauss might be lying about these incidents:
Krauss released a detailed rebuttal to the allegations against him. In that, he asserts A propositioned him (by asking him to join her in a hot tub), and that made him uncomfortable, and he offers a witness verifying this. He curiously never actually says he didn't touch her. And notably, the witness could not have seen whether he did. Rad reports that A was actually a promoter for Skeptics in the Tub (yes, you can check, that was an actual thing at the time: prominent skeptics would be filmed being interviewed in a hot tub), thus explaining why she would be asking Krauss to join a hot tub discussion. Not only does Rad vouch for A's credibility in her account (an endorsement I trust), but I believe this is evidence that Krauss is omitting information in a dishonest attempt to deny what happened. A says she was surprised Krauss would respond to her promotional inquiry by fondling her. Given all that Rad has said, I don't see any good reason to believe A is lying or mistaken about that.
Other prominent skeptics have said they know other people who've told them Krauss has treated them this way, including Jerry Coyne, Matt Dillahunty, and Sam Harris, whose video on Krauss I pretty much agree with (which is rare; I don't commonly agree with Harris on almost anything, especially issues like this). So this appears to be a trend with Krauss. And rather than admit this and pledge to change his behavior (as many of his peers and colleagues tried to get him to do), it appears to me that he might be trying to lie his way out of it instead.
Comparatively: Notably, unlike these incidents with Krauss, I have never even been accused of fondling anyone. Nor have I been accused, as Krauss has, of doing or saying anything inappropriate with any employee or student of mine. Krauss has also been accused of propositioning people at parties, but I don't consider that inappropriate. That's asking for consent. He's also been accused of trivial things like ogling and flirting, which I don't consider serious enough to warrant much concern. But violating people's consent, that I'm persuaded he may have done. Yet I haven't even been accused of doing that.
The most one might say is that Lauren Lane, through counsel, attempted to claim I only touched her knee and hugged her without consent, but that would not be sexual, and in any case email and witness affidavits show that to be false; and Amy Frank later claimed, through counsel, that I touched her arm and leg, but not in any sexual way. Which is also false, but all I can offer as evidence is that none of the witnesses present corroborate this claim and it was absent from her original complaint. But even these claims are not comparable to what Krauss was accused of.
Michael Shermer: I've written this case up thoroughly already, years ago. Only one credible allegation has been publicly made regarding Shermer (every other to date has been ambiguous, unverified, or not very serious): that he had sex with Alison Smith in his hotel room after an event party when she clearly lacked the competence to consent, and that he participated in creating her inability to consent.
To summarize why the evidence is good enough to be concerned in this case, let's imagine we had to follow a simple formula to recreate with happened: we believe true every statement made by Shermer or Smith that neither they nor any other witness has contradicted (including each other); and we disbelieve every statement made that is so contradicted unless it is corroborated by another witness to the fact. If we followed that rule, we'd have to conclude the following sequence of events occurred:
Smith propositioned Shermer at a party (Smith has not denied this); Shermer then started taking shots with Smith, but hid his and only pretended to drink them, while she actually drank each one (he has admitted to this); Smith became ill from drinking too much and said she was too far gone and done for the night and left; Shermer then pursued her, offered to walk her back to her room, and walked her to his room instead; Smith was so drunk she doesn't recall what happened after that, except that when she woke it was obvious they'd had sex; she was so drunk at that point that she had to call a friend to help her, and Smith had to be physically assisted out of the hotel by her friend (someone I know personally and trust, and who told this to multiple parties, even from the time it happened).
Smith's account has always been consistent, with many of the details verified by third parties and no details contradicted by anyone but Shermer. Shermer's account of what happened, by contrast, has gone through three contradictory versions: first he denied ever having sex with Smith (making up an elaborate story about how someone must have gotten the mistaken idea that he had); then he claimed he was too drunk to remember what he did; then he claimed he and Smith walked all over town for hours to ensure both were sober before they had sex. I believe Shermer has established himself to be a questionable witness to what happened, and prone to making up elaborate stories. His final version contradicts the witness who said Smith was very much not sober after they had sex. Was she capable of consent? Doesn't seem likely.
I suspect Shermer simply did not think he needed to test Smith's capacity to consent before having sex with her (yet one must, because her being positively responsive in that state is not sufficient), and assumed that because she had made a pass at him hours before, that she had already consented (an assumption many will not approve, myself included). Men, especially hyper-privileged men, are not usually taught that these things matter. I suspect he thought he had her consent. Had Shermer been honest from the start, I believe he would have been educable and his behavior correctable. Smith has even said she would have accepted that outcome as sufficient. He chose a different path.
Comparatively: It should go without saying, but no one has even accused me of having nonconsensual sex with them. I have always ensured a proper consent negotiation, and done what's possible to test competence to consent. I've also not been caught spinning elaborate contradictory lies about anything I've done. I've been very honest and straightforward, even about my failings and mistakes.