The media absolutely screwed Ben on this story. He’s a hero—the only business school professor I’ve ever known who even considered fighting for the little guy, let alone who actually did—and did not deserve the treatment he received.
Andrew King posted an incisive series on LI:
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
Many discussions on X including a closer look at the restaurateur who intentionally overcharged customers for years. Ex-partner says he hid income and drove a $279k SUV, while I cycled. Who's the bully? And tragedy: He offered drugs to a date, who declined. She was dead, overdose, the next morning.
Preformed conclusion. When chair Amy Edmondson received evidence that presented me favorably, she said she was "anxious". Called that subject "not the right one to pick"--meaning the "right" subject would be one that presented me negatively. Opposite of following the evidence.
Recurring problems:
Selective excerpting.
Remarks contrary to the witness's own words in a contemporaneous letter or in deposition.
Speculation about contexts the witness did not observe.
Confusion about key facts the witness criticized.
The HBS committee that evaluated me offered 13 negative quotes. Turns out just two witnesses contributed almost half these quotes (6/13). Two other quotes were falsified and are not found in interview notes. My new video critiques this sloppy work: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxRi...