Cautionary Warning about Professor David Jacobstein (SAIS Johns Hopkins)

Warning to Prospective Parents and Students

SAIS fails to implement accountability mechanisms for sexual and sex-based misconduct, and shows no interest in protecting female students who report harm. Victims are dismissed, ignored, and stonewalled. The school is driven by institutional apathy and suppression of accountability, compounding the harm for affected students.

In 2023-2025, at least three cases towards women have been documented publicly. SAIS has failed all of them. In my case, I reported misconduct by Professor David Jacobstein who engaged in sex based misconduct by explicitly expressing a pattern of assuming romantic interest from female students. My distress in being in the same space as him due to his misconduct has caused me to miss professional conferences, resulting in lost professional opportunities. Search the following:

• “JHU’s OIE Process and Follow up to ‘Cautionary Warning’”

A second case involved allegations of rape so severe that the Atlantic cut ties with the individual. SAIS took no action. Search the following:

• “The Atlantic Cuts Ties with SAIS Political Scientist Accused of Rape”

A third student reported sexual harassment by a male faculty and started a legal process against the school in 2023/2022. Again, SAIS took no action. She experienced psychological damage so severe she had to take a 1.5-year leave. Search the following:

• “Student Government Impeachment Puts Spotlight on SGA Constitution”

The article highlighted how the Assistant Dean, who was tangentially implicated in her harassment case, was allowed to sit in on a student government election that impeached the student —a breach of basic procedures in handling harassment cases that created a conflict of interest, and raises serious questions about fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.

All three professors continue to teach in SAIS as if nothing has happened. SAIS administrators routinely completely ignored inquiries about student safety, and stonewalled their responses extremely disrespectfully, in a complete abdication of responsibility.

The incidents at SAIS are not isolated incidents but part of a documented history of Title IX failures and faulty administrative responses at Johns Hopkins University. Search the following:

•             “Johns Hopkins University Failed To Notify Campus Of Alleged Gang Rape, Complaint Claims”

•             “Johns Hopkins University To Face Federal Sexual Assault Investigation”

•             “‘Until It’s Zero’ blog sparks discussion”

SAIS is not a progressive institution. What it presents during Admitted Students Day is a rehearsed illusion. Minority faculty are highlighted and inclusion is marketed. But once enrolled, you’ll see the reality. Its culture has not changed from its centrist-to-conservative roots. It also currently operate under Trump-era Title IX rollbacks that make it easier for schools to dismiss sexual misconduct cases.

White male instructors  – the instructors in the cases above – are protected by both Trump’s policy that undermine women and minorities, and an internal culture of impunity; both allow them to engage in misconduct without consequence, while students are left unsupported and exposed. If you are liberal or a minority of any kind — gender or ethnic — I strongly discourage you from attending. Before SAIS, I worked in an industry known for its conservative work culture — and even there, I never witnessed the tolerance, normalization, and indifference to misconduct at the level of SAIS.

SAIS is the least ethical and the least academically enriching institution that I have attended, compared to both my undergrad and previous graduate school that I also have degrees from. It harmed my career development, and undermined my confidence in being see as more than my gender. SAIS is the least ethical and the least academically enriching institution that I have attended, compared to both my undergrad and previous graduate school that I also have degrees from. It harmed my career development, and undermined my confidence in being see as more than my gender. I regret paying the tuition I paid here and see it as the largest waste of money I have spent in my life. The institution does not caring about your safety and dignity. My family and I absolutely regret me attending here. I regret paying the tuition I paid here and see it as the largest waste of money I have spent in my life. The institution does not caring about your safety and dignity. My family and I absolutely regret me attending here. If you are considering this school, know what you are walking into: A toxic, optics-driven institution that prioritizes appearances than student wellbeing, and enables abuse and silences those who report it. Do not mistake the brand name for integrity. It has none.

I urge prospective students and parents to take the above seriously, and not squander money on an institution that will create harm instead of confidence and opportunity.

JHU’s OIE Process and Follow up to “Cautionary Warning about Professor David Jacobstein (JHU SAIS)

TL;DR: I reported Professor David Jacobstein (SAIS)’s gender-based misconduct – involving repeated assumptions of romantic interest toward female students based on neutral academic interactions – to JHU’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE). The specifics of what happened were described in my initial post from 2 months ago – Cautionary Warning about Professor David Jacobstein (JHU SAIS): r/jhu. OIE gave factually incorrect claims about law and policy; withheld valid, legal options that promote healing; and failed to provide any accountability for harmful conduct – which are troubling. This post follows up on that experience and aims to demystify the OIE process and help others understand it before deciding whether to report. ***** The post is long, but I’ve tried to keep it as concise as possible. I’ve included details because the issues involved are serious and some people will want to know exactly what happened. If you want to understand JHU’s OIE process while skipping the specifics of my experience, skip section (1) and jump directly to (2). Everything here reflects my personal experience and views, and was written by me. The post consists of the following:

1.Professor Jacobstein’s misconduct and its ongoing negative impacts

2.How the OIE process unfolded

3.OIE’s false claims about the legality of – and withholding of – valid student options that promote healing

4.The spouse’s role in using informal power to create an atmosphere of intimidation

5.Suggestion to students for dealing with misconduct and OIE

*************************************************************

1.Professor Jacobstein’s misconduct and its ongoing negative impacts

*************************************************************

The situation begun when Professor Jacobstein, who adjuncts at JHU, was put on leave in his full-time industry position in international development as part of a mass layoff (the initial post provides the specifics and will make this post easier to follow). I was worried about the layoffs and wanted to express support for the struggling field. With his permission, I sent a message to the SAIS administration saying that SAIS had an International Dev concentration until around 2022 when they discontinued it; and that some students are worried that the industry downturn could lead to even fewer course offerings. I described his course as an example of this, and expressed support for international development offerings at SAIS. The message was shared with other professors in the field, who said they appreciated it. However, I was distressed when Professor Jacobstein unfoundedly took the message sent to the administration as signaling my romantic attraction towards him. He told me so and explicitly said he has constant thoughts about women being romantically attracted to him, which he claimed he can’t control and isn’t responsible for.

He went on to describe assuming another female student last year of also being romantically attracted to him. He clearly stated that she had made no romantic remarks or advances — but he still presumed she was attracted to him, based simply on her going to office hours. I was disturbed to see that his radar appears abnormally fixated on romantic interest — so much so that he seems to project it onto students, perceiving it even in non-romantic contexts like a student advocacy letter or office hours. His presumptions of romantic interest towards himself seem to surface strongest in situations marked by a significant power imbalance—such as the professor-student relationship.

What’s more troubling is his pattern of behavior that appears manipulative: he repeatedly invites students into what seem like supportive academic or mentorship relationships — including frequent invitations to office hours — only to later recast the student’s intentions as romantic, project and shift blame onto students, and deny responsibility for initiating and engineering the interactions from his position of authority in the first place. This allows him to indulge in imagined romantic narratives with students, while maintaining control, and preserving plausible deniability. The result is that the student who entered the interaction in good faith is left confused, humiliated, and blamed – while he exploits the power imbalance to shift all responsibility for situations he has set up onto them, while evading all accountability. Though I repeatedly told him his unfounded assumptions of romance are very uncomfortable, he consistently dismissed my discomfort. For months, he has refused to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his actions, gaslit what he did, and shown no willingness to apologize.

a) The co-instructor (Professor Tasker)’s failure to fulfill the Responsible Employee mandate

Professor Jacobstein’s class had another instructor, Professor Arjun Tasker, with whom I had exchanged emails about coursework and job hunting. But when I contacted him about Professor Jacobstein’s behavior, he abruptly stopped responding – and continued to ignore all emails I sent to him in clear distress. JHU’s Responsible Employee mandate requires faculty and staff to report any potential misconduct they become aware of. He failed to do this. What makes his actions especially unfair to students is that he is a friend of Professor Jacobstein off-campus, and instead of acting impartially and professionally, he let that personal relationship override his responsibilities as an instructor. Because of this, I can’t recommend any class in which they teach as a pair. Silence is not a neutral act. Students trust that faculty will prioritize their safety. When that trust is broken, it sends a harmful and hurtful message that student distress and vulnerabilities can be ignored, and that the faculty will turn a blind eye to each other’s misconduct.

b) Ongoing negative impacts of Professor Jacobstein’s misconduct

There was a conference called “2025 Changing Aid” that took place at 4-7pm of Friday Mach 21st at American University – with leaders in international development attending – that I wanted to attend. I wanted to meet others in the field and hear their thoughts on where the industry is headed to better navigate it. But after realizing that Professor Jacobstein would also be present, I felt deeply uncomfortable and had to forgo attending. Because he stated that his thoughts about female students being attracted to him are subconscious, constant, and not controllable, it is now very uncomfortable for me to see him in a professional environment. Even outside of JHU, his presence forces me to relive what happened, without an apology or closure – and to enter into a state of unnatural mental bind where I must either pretend nothing occurred, or acknowledge what happened and endure the fallout. Watching him interact with others while I carry the weight of his inappropriate behavior – and having to calculate how to preserve my emotional and professional safety in a place where I should be free to focus on external topics – is distressing and unfair. His spouse – a Solidarity Center staff who could have been in attendance due to also working in this space – had also acted inappropriately, which compounds my distress. I’ll mention this in more detail later, as it deserves attention alongside the institutional issues.

Students don’t pay tuition just for classroom instruction – we invest in access to professional spaces, opportunities for post-grad career growth, and meaningful academic and professional relationships. This has compromised all of these. As someone new to DC hoping SAIS would help me build a career and community, this has been deeply disheartening. Professor Jacobstein often spoke about “connecting people,” but this rings hollow coming from someone whose misconduct has kept me from entering spaces I had a right to access, and refused to make amends for half a year despite knowing how much distress he caused. In this sense, attending SAIS has created lasting discomfort that now limits my access to professional spaces I would otherwise access without hesitation, due to the instructor’s explicitly expressed gender bias associating female students with romance – which was worsened by his spouse’s similarly gender-biased behavior. This occurred despite my genuine goals in aid shaped by experiences prior to coming to this school, and a strong academic record here. I find it unjust and hurtful that, in return for my effort to express support at a time of industry uncertainty, I was met with misconduct and my ongoing discomfort and professional setbacks. His misconduct is negatively impacting my career development and sense of wellbeing beyond the classroom. If you’re considering international dev courses, I recommend taking them with any other instructor. No one should pay $70,000 for a bad experience that leaves ongoing negative impact.

**************************************

2. How the OIE process unfolded

**************************************

Though I had doubts about OIE to begin with, the OIE process still left me disappointed by the following:

– OIE denied my request for appropriate staff. I requested for staff with experience representing students. Instead, every staff assigned was a former private attorney who had defended institutions like JHU against students. In fact, the OIE has zero staff whose career is centered on advocating for the individuals impacted by misconduct (and not the institution). There is a conflict of interest here where OIE staff are employed and paid by JHU, making OIE a body that is by default not independent when investigating any misconduct at JHU, but instead prioritizes liability protection for the institution above all else.

 – A classmate whom OIE spoke to thought the process was not a proper inquiry. She thought OIE did not ask her any questions about what happened in this case, but were fishing for tangential information about the people involved that they could use to protect the institution, while being dismissive of any student concerns. She spoke about the behaviors she thought were violations, but OIE completely avoided acknowledging them. In her opinion, the conversation was not a legitimate inquiry, and the line of questioning was biased, which made her deeply uncomfortable.

 – The way OIE communicates exhibits a disregard for proper engagement. When I emailed them questions—such as whether there would be consequences, or whether a policy had been violated—they would respond without addressing it at all, instead pivoting to an unrelated topic as if nothing had been asked. Similarly, when I pointed out inaccuracies in their statements, they completely ignored it. This disrespectful pattern disregards basic conversational respect and the student’s right to receive meaningful responses. Their communication lacked basic human sensitivity and any acknowledgment of the impact this situation had on me, which felt cold and one-sided.

– To date, OIE has answered none of the questions that I submitted about findings or accountability. The only response I received was a vague statement that they had spoken with Professors Jacobstein and Tasker, and my classmate; that they conveyed my concerns about Professor Jacobstein to SAIS; and that the complaint goes on his record.  

🔹 Concerns with the proposed Mutual No Contact Directive (NCD)

After closing their process without sharing any findings or providing transparency, OIE presented me with a single option: a mutual No Contact directive (NCD) between myself and Professor Jacobstein. This proposed to ban communication, but allow sharing of spaces, and included no apology or acknowledgment of the negative impact. Though OIE framed this as a ‘supportive’ measure for me, after carefully considering it, I declined it, due to this measure having the potential to worsen the negative impact – given Professor Jacobstein’s gaslighting and refusal for any accountability. Specifically,

– In practice, it is awkward, unnatural, and often unworkable to have two people in the same space who are forbidden from communicating. When a power imbalance exists, groups frequently opt to “solve” this by asking the junior party to leave the shared space, while the senior party remains, even if the NCD does not explicitly require it. I witnessed this in an office setting: a junior member targeted by misconduct was told the NCD was a ‘supportive’ measure for her, yet ended up having subtle pressure put on her to leave shared spaces by those around them, and was eventually quietly pushed out of multiple projects – because the NCD was too awkward for everyone else to live with, and it was easier to ask her to leave than the senior person. If this happens, my access to important spaces could be limited, while the professor’s remains unaffected.

 – A mutual NCD Imposing identical restrictions on both of us—despite the fact Professor Jacobstein is the one who violated boundaries — misrepresents the situation by implying shared responsibility, when only one party engaged in misconduct. This means he could disclose the NCD to others without context, or even imply that I am the source of the problem, which compounds the harm.

 – SAIS’ role includes supporting the growth of students’ growth, networks, and career opportunities. This is what students come to the school and are paying for. It is not the school’s responsibility to extend the off-campus careers or networks of professors. Professors have already had years to build their networks, and in fact they receive payment in return for facilitating student growth – a role Professor Jacobstein has compromised his ability to fulfill. Imposing identical restrictions on how to act in professional spaces – despite the asymmetry in roles, responsibility, and misconduct —is unjust because it undermines the very purpose of the program for the student, while preserving all that the professor who undermined that function receives from the program.

 – The mutual NCD gives the professor a permanent excuse to avoid apologizing – by claiming he’s prohibited from communication. If he sees me in public, he can be assured I won’t mention what happened. It justifies his refusal to take accountability, while obstructing healing by leaving me with no apology nor closure.

What I have seen is that when someone in a position of authority fails to take responsibility for the harm caused by their misconduct, they can continue to cause harm—regardless of a superficial NCD—because the power imbalance allows them to game the NCD in ways the junior person cannot. To be effective, protective measures must rebalance the power inequality, which a “mutual” NCD that applies to both equally does not accomplish. An effective NCD prioritizes the well-being of the impacted person, including an emphasis on protecting his/her space. I explained this and asked OIE how they planned to address the issues I raised. They never responded. I then requested an alternative NCD that addresses these concerns while promoting healing: a unilateral NCD (unilateral meaning the NCD applies to the professor) where he avoids or leaves shared spaces with me, and does not result in me leaving a space; and which grants him a one-time exception to communicate with me to issue an apology. OIE refused to consider any part of this, citing factually incorrect claims about its legality.

*************************************************

3. OIE’s false claims about the legality of – and withholding of – valid student options that promote healing

*************************************************

In an email, OIE – specifically, Linda Boyd – falsely stated that my request was “illegal” by asserting that because I had graduated as of July 2025, my request is meaningless since it wouldn’t restore my access to JHU spaces, and that it would “burden” Professor Jacobstein by limiting his access inside JHU—therefore rendering it “illegal”. (This made it clear that, despite their refusal to answer questions about consequences, they have imposed no accountability measures. He can go on as if nothing has happened next term not because nothing happened, but because OIE has chosen to impose no consequences for harmful conduct).

🔹 OIE’s response

They claimed my suggestion was “illegal,” citing two contradictory reasons:

– That because as of July 2025, I had graduated and will no longer access campus, so the request would be meaningless,

– That limiting his access to shared spaces with me would be a burden on him when he is at campus.

They also falsely claimed that NCDs can only regulate communication, not physical spaces.

They further insisted that in general, they do not facilitate an apology, regardless of what the misconduct was, and will not support a No Contact if the affected person wants an apology.

OIE’s reasoning for illegality is contradictory. If the measure is meaningless because – as they stated – I no longer access campus after graduation, then limiting shared spaces with me cannot burden him when he is at campus. They simultaneously claimed that my presence at JHU is too insignificant to merit support, yet too significant to be avoided. In contrast, I cited a specific, dated professional conference that I had to forgo due to the professor’s presence — a real and measurable disadvantage. Meanwhile, their rationale relies on vague, speculative scenarios that have not occurred. Their response enables repeated harm by shielding an instructor who engaged in misconduct from hypothetical discomfort at the expense of meaningfully addressing the actual harm and lost opportunities already experienced by a student.

Furthermore, OIE’s offer of a Mutual NCD contradicts its own claim that no longer accessing campus after graduation makes my request illegal — because under that interpretation, the Mutual NCD would also be considered illegal. The fact that it offered a NCD shows that graduation does not inherently make a NCD illegal, suggesting that OIE applies legal standards inconsistently and selectively, depending on what is convenient for them.

OIE’s logic exhibits a double standard. If the roles were reversed — if I had engaged in misconduct towards him — the university would almost certainly treat his avoidance of me not as a burden, but as a protective measure for him. The fact that they frame this as a burden for him makes it clear that I did not show any romantical interest towards him — except in his own imagination. Despite this, they argue that his logistical inconvenience in avoiding shared space with me would be too great, while failing to recognize that my distress in being forced to share space with someone who violated boundaries is a burden at all. Their position protects his access to shared spaces with me at my expense, suggesting that OIE treat the convenience of those who caused harm as outweighing the well-being of those who experience it. In doing so, again the university enables repeated harm by absolving those responsible for misconduct from real consequences, while forcing affected parties into retraumatizing situations with no substantial support.

🔹 What I found through research and legal consultation

Though I originally had no interest in bringing legal arguments into this situation, because OIE abruptly did exactly that, I consulted a law firm for a general opinion, and did some research to assess the accuracy of OIE’s statements. Here’s what I confirmed:

– No Contact measures can legally restrict shared physical space on and off-campus, not just communication — despite what OIE claimed.

–ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a mechanism that many schools offer as a way for both parties to agree on measures like apologies or separation in shared spaces – clearly listing it on their OIE website, though policy details vary by school.

–Restrictions under Title IX regulations at 34 CFR 106.30(a apply only narrowly to measures a university imposes without both parties’ consent. ADR allows the parties to legally agree to broader measures that they themselves, as the directly involved individuals, consider appropriate to their specific circumstances.

– Unilateral No Contact measures (unilateral meaning the restriction is placed solely on the respondent to the complaint) are legal in university settings through ADR, and is especially appropriate in cases with a power imbalance, where equal restrictions would not result in equitable outcomes.

– ADR can be implemented after a formal complaint has been submitted, without requiring a full investigation or any specific outcome of that investigation.

– Apologies can be included in ADR agreements, especially if the affected person identifies it as important for their healing.

The law firm noted that in general, the type of suggestion I made is legal, and that it had observed multiple past cases involving JHU’s OIE where, in its view, student safety and well-being were not adequately protected. While their comment was a general comment and not legal advice, I found it disturbing — it made me question how I can trust OIE to act fairly in my case. It felt as if OIE believed that simply invoking the word “law” and relying on students’ unfamiliarity with it would be enough to make them accept OIE’s claims without question and shut down valid suggestions. It was also disappointing that other schools are doing more than JHU to support students in these cases.

 🔹 JHU’s own policy

After searching internal records, I found that JHU’s OIE policy does in fact list ADR as an option—which they previously referred to as “ADR” in 2024 and now term “informal resolution” in 2025 – but it’s buried in obscure places and was never disclosed to me.

Even more concerning:
– As of 2024, JHU’s OIE made ADR unavailable specifically to students who allege Title IX sexual harassment, while offering ADR to other student groups – which effectively punishes them for seeking institutional accountability.
-This blocks supportive remedies like apologies or unilateral separation– measures that are completely legal through ADR – for students most affected by misconduct.
– As of 2025, OIE has removed this specific restriction from its formal documentation.

–For clarity, I have not alleged sexual (=physical) misconduct. I believe what I experienced is sex(=gender)-based misconduct — a distinct category; in my case, this took the form of bias against women that unfairly romanticizes women’s actions in academic/professional spaces. Despite this, prior to or throughout the process, OIE never informed me about ADR or any healing-focused options, despite outreach and questions.

I emailed OIE what I wrote above, asking for an explanation for their false statements, failure to inform, and withholding of supportive options. They never responded to any of what I asked.

🔹 Bottom Line

OIE

– Gave factually incorrect claims about law and policy.

– Withheld valid, legal options that promote healing.

– Failed to provide any accountability for harmful conduct.

– Appears to prioritize institutional convenience and liability protection over student well-being.

*************************************************

 4. The spouse’s role in using informal power to create an atmosphere of intimidation  

**************************************************

Although the OIE process focused on the professor, I want to point out another harmful dynamic: his spouse’s inappropriate actions.

What happened:

– His spouse’s inappropriate actions (which I described in the previous post) felt passive-aggressive, relying on silence and performance, rather than honest communication.

– When I saw her acting this way, I asked the professor if she was okay with him speaking to female students. He said yes — but her behavior clearly provoked discomfort.

Why it was troubling:

– There were no inappropriate actions on my part — just the fact that I’m female.

– If there were genuine concerns about how a student had acted, she could’ve spoken to her husband directly. Instead, she used indirect gestures to inappropriately pressure and intimidate a student without openly acknowledging doing so, while maintaining an appearance of neutrality.

– Her position as his spouse puts an implicit pressure on students to refrain from naming or addressing behavior that feels inappropriate or intimidating, out of concern for preserving a functional relationship with the professor. She aggravated this pressure by using indirect and performative gestures. By operating from the margins while benefiting from her husband’s institutional role, she created a toxic atmosphere that pressured the student to self-censor and endure discomfort, all while shielding herself from being called out for inappropriate actions – which felt like a form of psychological bullying.

– Rather than addressing any concerns directly with her husband, she chose to provoke discomfort in a student who had done nothing wrong – possibly because it was easier and more convenient to target someone with less power than deal with discomfort between her and her husband. This was a prioritization of her own convenience at the expense of a student’s distress, and an offloading of the consequences of personal issues onto students. Her actions exploited her proximity to institutional authority, unjustly forcing students to bear the burden of what were fundamentally her and her husband’s issues.

– Taken together, her actions communicated intimidation and coercion in a way that disproportionately targeted me as a female student, without any legitimate fault on my part.

Why this matters:

– Her behavior occurred at the intersection of gender bias with power imbalance, which enables opportunistic targeting – where with more senior women in the professor’s peer group, the risk of repercussions rises if she acts intimidatingly, but she can find it easier to intimidate female students because they are perceived as less powerful targets.

– The gender bias and intimidation they conveyed is worsened by the power imbalance, where both the professor and his spouse are older and more experienced in a field he teaches students in, because the overlap means the negative consequences of their behavior spill over into both educational and professional spaces for students.

– The professor dismissed my concerns entirely about both his and his spouse’s inappropriate actions. His enabling of her misconduct and his refusal to apologize for his own signals that these could happen again.

– DC is small, and future encounters are possible. I’m truly uncomfortable they’ll act inappropriately again.

The broader issue:

– Implicit intimidation and passive-aggressive behavior like this, tied to gender bias and power imbalance – even from someone not formally a part of the university – still cause harm by negatively impacting students and creating a culture of toxicity.  JHU—and similar institutions—should realize these are a part of the problem.

*************************************************

5. Suggestions to students for dealing with misconduct and OIE

*************************************************

OIE gave me an impression that it is a liability mitigation mechanism designed to collect information from individuals who experienced misconduct that the institution can use later to shield it from any legal and reputational consequences. It is not there to support students impacted by misconduct. Given this, I suggest the following to those who experience misconduct:

– Seek accurate legal information from an independent law firm regardless of whether you decide to interact with OIE, given that OIE made false claims about the legality of student options. If you do choose to report, make sure to get this information before reporting.

– Share what happened publicly – if doing so won’t put you at other serious risks. Sharing specific dates and details can help alert other students. Going public can prevent OIE from sweeping misconduct under the rug and imposing their narrative over what you experienced. But it’s not without risk. Depending on your situation, it is also worth consulting a lawyer to better understand your rights and any risks involved.

– Only report to OIE if you are prepared to have an entity that has misrepresented key information about law and policy and prioritized institutional protection handle what you went through, in a non-transparent process that is ineffective and disrespectful – which may compound the distress you have already experienced. The complaint goes on the record of the individual the complaint is about, which has to be weighed against the negative aspects of interacting with OIE. If you do go through an OIE process, don’t assume they are trying to conduct a fair investigation. They may be trying to avoid doing just that. Document each deviation from due process.

Given the unequal power dynamic between professors and students, and the fact that OIE staff are employed by JHU and so are by default not independent, OIE’s intentionally opaque process does little except to leave more questions than answers. I believe clear information offers better protection than any agreement ever could, because there is no way for me or any student to know if the professor fails to uphold any agreement privately, which limits its real-world value. This post is written in a careful and structured tone due to the nature of the issue, but that doesn’t mean what happened wasn’t distressing. I hope that even years from now, someone who’s experienced misconduct and is wondering whether to report can find this in a moment of distress and feel more informed—especially in a system where too little is explained and too much is hidden. I’m posting this so others will know what to expect—and protect yourself and each other.