Talk:Celeste Kidd

#MeToo advocacy section

This section of the article is incomplete, obviously prejudiced against Dr. Jaeger, and poorly supported by the citations. For example, op. cit. #15 focuses on another set of persons and a different university, and Jaeger's tenure is mentioned only in passing, and more importantly, it in no way states or implies that the tenure process was a result of or influenced by the ongoing investigation, which this article does. This section should be updated, corrected and brought inline with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:B000:6184:3783:3A4:5D5D (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Reason Article

It is noteworthy that two users, with no edits except to Celeste Kidd, Richard N. Aslin, and Jessica F. Cantlon are working to suppress and hide all evidence of the Reason article that shows that the investigation against Florian Jaeger was apparently malicious and without merit. At worst, this is sock-puppeting from one of those three individuals (or their close associates); at best, it is a politically-motivated attempt to avoid any counter-narrative -- which seems in keeping with the actions of Kidd, Aslin, and Cantlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.21.228 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need multiple reliable sources discussing the details of the alleged smear campaign per WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPF. That reason article is not enough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

lol, get outta here you absolute clown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.43.66 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Objections to the following wording?

@Augmented Seventh: objects to the following wording:

Extended content

In 2016, Kidd alledged sexual harassment by T. Florian Jaeger, a tenured professor at the University of Rochester. The university closed the investigation before it spoke to witnesses Kidd named who could corroborate her claims

, and

Extended content

In response, the university paid $4.5 million for an outside investigation led by Mary Jo White which that the professor had made unprofessional decisions in a period from 2007 to 2010, but stated that they did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment under either the policies in force in 2007 or in the policy in force in 2020. The report further found that it did not meet the standard for criminal sexual harassment or retaliation, and found that the complainants' narrative was "largely without factual basis."

.

This wording is supported entirely by the cited sources, in particular .

I submit that this is the only appropriate wording, given that the source calls into serious question the factual accuracy of the allegations made. Reverting to the previous (and current wording), below undermines this and buries the lede. 142.157.236.100 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC) 142.157.236.100 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Contradictory #MeToo advocacy section

In response, the university paid $4.5 million for an outside investigation led by Mary Jo White which confirmed all substantial allegations about the tenured professor, but suggested that the allegations did not meet the threshold for illegal sexual harassment or retaliation, and that the complainants' narrative was "largely without factual basis."

In particular, saying the report "confirmed all substantial allegations" while also stating that the report found that the complaintants' narrative was "'largely without factual basis'" is confusing and reads as contradictory.

The report seems to substantiate allegations of behavior that made co-workers uncomfortable (harsh criticism, discussing relationships at work, etc.) but none of this behavior amounted to harassment. The allegations of harassment were largely without factual basis, and were not substantiated. Saying the report "confirmed all substantial allegations" would lead a reader to think that the allegations of harassment was substantiated, when the opposite is true. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

White report did not confirm substantial allegations

The second paragraph writes that the White report confirmed all substantial allegations against Jaeger. This contradicts the cited source:

"We found that some of the complaints' allegations were true, and Jaeger's behavior and statements, at times, were viewed by many (both male and female) as insensitive, unprofessional, cruel and occasionally containing sexual innuendo, and this perception, combined with Jaeger's reputation as a womanizer, genuinely caused some female students to avoid him socially and academically," the report concluded.

"At the same time," it continued, "the complaints' narrative—framed through the language of sexual predation and retaliatory animus towards women—is largely without factual basis."

White added that many of the claims were "embellished," "distorted," or "unduly sensationalized" in an effort to "demonize" Jaeger, and she quoted one faculty member who said the EEOC complaint read "like a novel." She also pointed out that the complainants misrepresented some of the very people they claimed were victims and that they included some of the so-called "victims" in the EEOC complaint without their consent. In one instance, the complainants said that a former student whom Jaeger dated cried in a professor's office, implying that her distress was over the relationship. When investigators interviewed the woman, she told them that she was crying because her sister had been in a car accident.

The substantial allegations of sexual predation and retaliation were not confirmed, in fact quite the opposite. Those were by far the most substantial allegations against Jaeger. 2620:10D:C090:600:0:0:1:13A4 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Create new page for Florian Jaeger and move contents there?

Both here, and and on Jessica F. Cantlon, much of the content pertains to Florian Jaeger, and people other than the page subject. It seems like people are using these two pages to cover Jaeger's investigation and subsequent exoneration. For example, none of the contents in the block quote added in this revision directly involve Kidd, and are primarily the subject of Florian Jaeger.

It would be more appropriate to create a page for Florian Jaeger, and concentrate much of the investigation details there, instead of using this page and that of the other complainants to essentially serve as the de-facto Florian Jaeger page. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@TreeForest1 If you want to do a deep dive into Florian Jaeger's investigation, you would be better off creating a page for him. I've reverted the large block quotes you added earlier, since they do not pertain to Kidd.

Furthermore, you've repeatedly removed references and sources detailing Jaeger's exoneration. Many of your cited sources are direct statements made by either Kidd or her counsel. Your revision of the this page raises serious BLP concerns regarding Jaeger. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What I included is necessary context for a BLP. The White report is not some definitive guide to what went on, it is a defense document produced by the university and used to frame their legal strategy (which was rejected by the judge in the case). The plaintiffs complaints are *about* the investigations, including White's, so it's not appropriate to frame them as some conclusive findings, especially about Kidd and Cantlon, or the other more than a dozen others involve in the case. TreeForest1 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — TreeForest1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Nimchimpski (talk · contribs).

I would suggest doing some research on what the plaintiffs said about the White report before you keep adding it back into the article. It's not a neutral investigation by any means, and certainly not definitive, especially in the context of the judge's ruling (which rejected White's exact arguments). So if you want White to be in a BLP, you need to include more of the context. TreeForest1 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — TreeForest1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Nimchimpski (talk · contribs).

You didn't include context, you removed it. Specifically, you removed the main sources that detailed Jaeger's exoneration not just in the White report, but also 3 other investigations that all exonerated Jaeger. By all means, include those. If anything, there is greater BLP concern around removing the former. Given the facts available, your revision could be libelous towards Jaeger.

This article, and related ones, have been flagged with BLP concerns before. The consensus was to retain the sources, including the Reason article, critical of the complainants. If you feel that this still raises BLP concerns, then flag it again. Until then, the consensus from the previous discussion on the BLP noticeboard should stand. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the idea that Jaeger was "exonerated" is wrong, especially in this context of a BLP of someone who reported him. Please read the link above, where the plaintiffs are clear about what the problems were with White's investigation (and the earlier ones -- see the lawsuit). If a deeply flawed investigation fails to find he did something wrong, that's not an "exoneration." TreeForest1 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — TreeForest1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Nimchimpski (talk · contribs).

The principles behind WP:BLP is to ensure accuracy, not to depict the article subject in a positive light. It applies to all living persons, including Florian Jaeger. In this scenario, your revisions do not fulfill the three core principles of WP:BLP, in particular WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR (the latter not so much in the content of your edits, but in your justification of them in the talk section).

Neutral point of view here is at play in the repeated instances where you have repeatedly removed information favorable to Jaeger. Of particular note:

• The block quote describes behavior that violate UofR's current harassment policies, and you've removed edits that provide the context that the behavior did not violate the policies at the time. Literally the next sentence in the linked source is, "But the report finds that Jaeger did not sexually harass any individual woman or breach university policies in place at the time." It is misleading in the extreme to omit the fact that behavior described in the block quote didn't violate university policy at the time.
• There is absolutely no mention of the fact that several of the complainants' claims were disproven. Jaeger was said to have had non-consensual romantic activity with specific people, and those very same people told investigators that all such intimate activity with Jaeger was consensual.
• "In 2020, a federal court disagreed with the conclusions of the Mary Jo White Report" this is not an accurate description of what a judge's motion to dismiss means. The judge did not issue and agreement or disagreement with the contents of the white report. Denying a motion to dismiss means that the plaintiff can attempt to prove their claims in a trial of facts - it is not an expression of agreement with the plaintiff's claims.

The revision at the time of writing includes details critical of Jaeger, and even goes as far as falsely accusing him of violating university policies (by virtue of including the block quote and not including the fact that this behavior was not prohibited at the time), Meanwhile, none of the content in the available sources that casts doubt on the complainants is included.

Your justification for removing reliable sources and omitting information casting doubt on the veracity of Kidd's complaint sounds like original research. In particular, you seem to have reached the conclusion that the White report was flawed. Your replies on the talk thread seem to indicate that you've read the lawsuit and the complainants' testimony yourself and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are right - at least that's what seems to be your justification for removing mentions of the fact that all four investigations into Jaeger's conduct exonerated him.

There are four facts that this article needs to include to maintain WP:NPOV:

1. Four investigations into Jaeger's conduct were conducted. All four of them concluded that Jaeger did not harass anyone or break any university policy.

2. Kidd and the other complainants' have stated that the investigation was flawed.

3. The relationships that Jaeger did have with students was permitted by UofR policy at the time.

4. No trial of facts on the the complainants' claims about a flawed investigation were ever held.

You do raise a good point that it's important to include the context that Kidd and the other complainants' have contested the outcome of the multiple investigations into Jaeger. But that's no justification to omit points 1, 3, and 4. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Look, I'm begging you to do some actual research and not just edit things to meet your preconceptions. When you write, "There is absolutely no mention of the fact that several of the complainants' claims were disproven. Jaeger was said to have had non-consensual romantic activity with specific people, and those very same people told investigators that all such intimate activity with Jaeger was consensual.", you are saying something demonstrably false. Where is it "said" that he had non-consensual romantic relationships?

The one (of many) statements by the plaintiffs that I have linked makes it clear that these claims are *not* made by the plaintiffs, and in fact they say the *opposite* in that article, and even argue that it's a red herring introduced by White to make the defense sound stronger.

For your (1), the neural point of view is NOT to take the side of the investigations and imply or assert that they were definitive--that is the *entire* issue here. Certainly the fact that the university revamped its policies and investigative procedures in response to the lawsuit is informative about how effective its policies were before. The fact that he was censured for his inappropriate behavior is informative about whether the behavior was, in fact, inappropriate (regardless of the policies). The court decision, almost entirely opposed to White's analysis, in informative about whether her legal threshold and analysis held water. These are all important context for a NPOV. TreeForest1 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC) — TreeForest1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Nimchimpski (talk · contribs).

"Do some actual research" is precisely why your edits are violating WP:NOR and the other WP:BLP guidelines.

The one (of many) statements by the plaintiffs that I have linked makes it clear that these claims are *not* made by the plaintiffs, and in fact they say the *opposite* in that article, and even argue that it's a red herring introduced by White to make the defense sound stronger.

Again, you're linking to an article written by the page subject. This is in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, in particular using the subject's published work as a source

For your (1), the neural point of view is NOT to take the side of the investigations and imply or assert that they were definitive--that is the *entire* issue here.

Nobody is suggesting that we present the contents of the investigations uncritically. The page needs to present the outcomes of the investigations - and all four investigations did reach the conclusion that Jaeger did not harass anyone or break any university policy - and it should cover the fact that the complainants' disagreed with the conclusions of the investigations.

Certainly the fact that the university revamped its policies and investigative procedures in response to the lawsuit is informative about how effective its policies were before.

False, the policies were updated in 2014, before any lawsuit was filed.

The court decision, almost entirely opposed to White's analysis, in informative about whether her legal threshold and analysis held water. These are all important context for a NPOV

The Judge rejected a motion to dismiss, that isn't agreeing or disagreeing with the contents of the White report.

Your edits are in clear violation of the WP:BLP guidelines and I will continue to revert them. If you believe you're in the right here, post this page to the BLP noticeboard. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Well. Look who it is arguing this. Same as it ever was. ~2025-40105-75 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

And I'm begging you to abide by Wikipedia:No original research. You can't just proclaim that reliable sources are unreliable on the basis of your original research. 67.168.114.136 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)