By Don C. Reed
This is a bizarre story, but an important one.
Hans Keirstead, as you know, is an outstanding neuroscientist, currently running for Congress. I have known him more than two decades and he is a good man.
But no one is immune from the damage of false accusations.
Several years ago, a complaint was lodged against Hans, alleging that he had slept with some of his lab assistants, at the University of California at Irvine, (UCI) where he worked.
Because UCI takes such matters extremely seriously, (as it should!) an investigation was launched by UCI’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, “pursuant to the UC Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities.”
What was said against him?
The “Whistleblower alleges that Respondent engaged in improper governmental activity and misconduct in the form of consensual relationships with graduate students and staff and sexual harassment of graduate students.”
When Hans found out about the charges, he instructed the staff to cooperate fully with the investigation.
Then followed several months of intense interviews and investigation.
And the outcome?
Innocent. According to official findings, even the words of the complainant himself, Keirstead did nothing wrong. First, the report:
“I do not find that Respondent’s conduct violated the UCI policy on Conflicts of Interests Created by Consensual Relationships, the UC Faculty Code of Conduct, or the UC Policy on Sexual Harassment, and, therefore, I do not find that Respondent engaged in any improper governmental activity.”
Submitted by: Janis Wallace, Senior Investigator
And the man who accused Hans? He actually signed a statement acknowledging the UCI complaint was a mistake.
The accuser’s final statement was “a Request for Dismissal of the entire Action with prejudice” (emphasis added) meaning the matter is over and cannot be refiled.
“…Whistleblower believed, at the time of the filing of the complaints with UCI, that the allegations were accurate, but now acknowledges that two independent investigations found the allegations to be unfounded.”
The investigation also stated that “Whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge of the events.”
Why did the “Whistleblower” file his complaint? He was revealed to be someone suing the Keirstead family for $5 million, which lawsuit was later dismissed as “frivolous”.
This person was apparently of an erratic temperament, to the extent that his ex-wife filed a restraining order against him. (Case Number S0004126, Los Angeles Superior Court, August 17, 2009).
So why is this incident being brought up right now, with the California primaries just three weeks ahead? And why were only the accusations spread, instead of the outcome, which shows Keirstead innocent?
Those who knowingly spread these falsehoods are doing so to benefit an alternative candidate or candidates.
