 |
| Luis Jaime Castillo Butters |
Late last month I reported on a series of allegations against the man regarded as Peru's most powerful archaeologist, Luis Jaime Castillo Butters. A number of women accused Castillo, a former Minister of Culture, of sexual harassment, sexism, bullying, and retaliation. The revelations have had a huge impact in Peru: Castillo's institution, the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP), launched an investigation, and several student and faculty groups have gone on record opposing sexual harassment and other abuses of power. Feminists in Peru have also mobilized.
Castillo, for his part, has rallied his loyalists, who have been active on social media defending the man to whom many owe their careers. Castillo also gave a lengthy interview to the publication Peru21, whose reporter lobbed a number of softball questions and failed to challenge the contradictions and inconsistencies in Castillo's account.
I noted in the original post that many of Castillo's accusers were members of a growing collective of women, in Peru and in North America, who are fighting to put an end to abuses. I am happy to publish here an open letter they have written.
What follows is the open letter in English and then in Spanish; new testimony from one of Castillo's victims not included in the original report; and then transcripts of Castillo's interview with Peru21 in English and in Spanish (this interview includes a number of statements about me and my reporting, almost all of which are false, but I will deal with that another time.)
Update July 11: The Spanish version of the letter below has now been published by the Peruvian publication Mano Alzada ("Raised Hand.")
July 10, 2020
Luis Jaime Castillo Butters,
We are some of the women whom you have dismissed time and time again—whose boundaries you have negated, whose humanity you have disrespected, whose bodies you have exploited, whose innocence you have stripped. We are not all of the people you have damaged. You should know that there are many more. But we are enough.
We listened to your interview. We heard how you again attempted to silence us in the ways only you know best. But your threats won’t work. They never really did, did they? Deep down, you know that. We never stayed quiet. We told many throughout the years and will continue to break the silence.
You lash out at us for being anonymous. Because it makes you feel threatened. Because the tables have turned. And you feel your power slipping away. You fear our anonymity because you think you know who we are, but you can’t be sure. After all, you have wronged so many women.
We came forward for multiple reasons—because it is time, or because the pain you caused began to heal, or because we built an international network of support. All of us, however, are driven by our ethical responsibility to protect those who may unknowingly cross your destructive path. We fight to prevent you from further harming students and colleagues. It is time to put an end to your abuse. It is time to dismantle the architecture of impunity that has enabled and facilitated your rise to power. Enough is enough.
We analyzed your recent interview with Perú21 for you and for others who question our narratives and our character. The full transcription is available below. As we listened to you speak, we were not surprised at the ease with which you lie and distort. You try to obfuscate and distract, using ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and straw man arguments to counter our accounts. You use the typical defenses of an abuser, which is clear to those familiar with how they behave and speak. Knowing you, we expected nothing more.
We have questions for you too—questions that the journalist should have asked but, perhaps, was too afraid to do so. After all, you did make this thinly veiled threat:
CASTILLO: [28:12] Look, I am not telling you to vote for me, but I would also ask you—because once, I have had a problem with Perú21, with the issue of mines, so—what I have given you is my version and I hope that you don’t, you don’t, you don’t misrepresent yourself—one always runs this risk, right?
That was towards the end of the interview; let’s start at the beginning. You say that we are anonymous, faceless women, identified only by a series of letters. And yet you also say you know who we are. You fail to present a coherent narrative.
CASTILLO: [4:07] Yes, of course. What happens is that, since the world of archaeology is very small, right?, we can deduce—I can deduce—who the people are who are appearing.
CASTILLO: [5:50] So... and if it's anonymous, and you don't have people's names, how do you defend yourself? I think we are facing a very complex situation because these days, right ?—they can destroy the reputation of any person, let's say, in a… in a—with five letters, right?
By fixating on our anonymity, you attempt to distract from—and invalidate—our experiences. You should know—we did not make these accusations as anonymous informants. We have names, faces, memories of your abuse, and corroborating witnesses.
You also dismiss our accounts by claiming that you have individual testimonies, ranging in number throughout your interview from 20 to 100, that will say otherwise. You present this as evidence that what we describe did not happen.
CASTILLO: [11:46] But none of the things that are said there, let's say, are correct. And to repudiate them, I have the testimony of more than 100 of my students who were present in [unintelligible]. A hundred students, some Peruvians, some foreigners, who were present in those years and can confirm that everything this gentleman says is false.
CASTILLO: [18:24] Look, which seems correct to me, because here we have the information released by three people, against the opinion that 20-30 are sure to give, right? And they are going to tell a completely different story, surely.
CASTILLO [19:56] …the opinion of three people, against the majority opinion of 40-50 cannot PREVAIL, you know?
We are more than three, a number you repeat throughout your responses. But it doesn’t matter. Even if you violated a single person, it doesn’t matter what 100 people think of you. You still did what you did, and the truth will prevail.
So please, go ahead and collect your letters from the people who owe you favors, who are afraid of you—or even worse, from those who have naturalized sexual harassment and abuse to such a degree that they do not believe the voices of women. And to those who cast doubt on our integrity, we ask, “What do we stand to gain beyond a sense of long overdue justice?” Luis Jaime Castillo—as much as you try to deny it, this happened to us and you know it.
From there, you move to strike down the validity of our arguments based on jurisdiction. You negate some of our accounts of sexual harassment and abuse of power by stating that the foreign students were never “your” students. In fact, you fixate on the accounts of the foreigners and gloss over those of Peruvian students.
CASTILLO: [20:14] And never have we had a single complaint until the reports of this man and the three American students have appeared. Also, they were not my students. They weren't my students. There were three archaeologists who basically came here with their professors to look for a research project. They were never my students, at the time of the events. They were not from the Catholic University, they had no relationship with the Catholic University. There were three archaeologists who came to Peru to look for a research opportunity.
Are you saying that a student can only experience legitimate sexual assault and harassment if a professor serves on his or her committee or if they share the same institutional affiliation? Many of us were participants in the San José de Moro Archaeological Field School Program which partnered with the Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) and in some years, Harvard University. You were the Principal Investigator. Nevertheless, even if we were not enrolled field school students at the time of the events, you still do not have the right to do what you did.
Shortly thereafter, you attack the manner in which we came forward, looking to incite fear in others by invoking a faceless mob looking to burn down the academy.
CASTILLO: [22:02] And of course, it offends me a lot but, on the other hand, it takes away my desire to continue in my research, because if that's how it’s going to be from now on and we are going to give credence to allegations that come from Twitter, and that come from blogs—look—we better find something else to do, because if they are going to stop, right?
We did not begin by leveling these complaints on Twitter. We have been candid about your ethical issues all these years with our fellow students and classmates, our mentors, and members of our network. Your misconduct is an open secret in academia.
Do you know why survivors choose to come forward through press and social media? It’s because our institutions and their limited reporting avenues designed to protect the abuser have failed us time and time again. No one can judge the methods through which we have—and will continue to—tell our stories. Perhaps this frightens you.
You didn’t have a sterling reputation that was destroyed by a single journalist’s reporting. You have always been known as an abuser and a bully that wears his privilege as a badge of honor. You abused your power in the open because you thought you were invincible. That is why so many are positively responding to our call for change. They waited for this day too.
You indulge in fear-mongering through hyperbolic statements by maintaining that women speaking out about their abuse will result in unfounded accusations against all professors and academics—a desperate and cowardly argument. Many studies have demonstrated that false reporting is rare.[1]
CASTILLO: [22:22] They are going to denounce all the professors, all the academics. And what is going to happen is that they [professors] will never ever want to have a single student, you know?
CASTILLO: [28:31] What I have told you, note this, it’s what’s true. I am not fabricating anything and unfortunately, as I’ve said, I see a very serious problem, because ALL the professors from ALL the fields—from ALL the universities—are currently under attack. And not under attack for behavior, because there are scoundrels, right? But for the fact that a post in a blog is enough, an anonymous accusation is enough to destroy the career, reputation, and honor, of the professor and his family, right? Well, yeah. This is where we are; in reality this could happen to not only a professor, a journalist, a politician—it could happen to anyone, right?
Luis Jaime Castillo—this is not a witch hunt. Survivors are not coming after everyone in academia, only those who have abused in a position of power. Our goal is not to strip academia of men, but to rid academia of abusers. You say that testimonies like ours will stop professors from accepting students in the future—why don’t abusers just stop abusing? It really is that simple.
Besides painting us as pitchfork-wielders looking to carry out mob justice, you also maintain that we have a distorted sense of reality because we don’t know—or have—what it takes to be academics, professors, or archaeologists. That we are fragile, emotional, and weak. That we lack grit and stamina.
CASTILLO: [24:23] And of the students, obviously, living there, they had there, look, I—look, I mean, in that scope, I now think that it is a tense environment; it is an environment—the environment of archaeological research is that of many emotions, a lot of stress, a lot of physical exertion, right? They get tired, obfuscated, or because they work from Monday to Saturday from 6 in the morning to 7 at night and then live with people [unintelligible], you know? These periods of research in the field are very, very intense, [unintelligible] shall we say, all these situations. One of these people that I think is Student B, for example, is a person who was in the project and says that she felt a lot of tension, right? And of course! A professor's job is like your editor's job to tell you to "finish the article" before you set foot outside the building. Right? The job of a project manager is to demand and move forward and sometimes, obviously, that generates—that can come across strongly, but unfortunately this is real life, and this is work, you know? In the university, the students believe that this isn’t the case, that the world is going to be, let's say, similar to what the university is, but those already in the working world will have realized that this is not the case.
Your sexism is on full display. We reject the manner in which you belittle us, the way you suggest that what Student B experienced can be explained as mere “tension” on your project. Student B does not need for you to speak for her—she spoke perfectly well on her own without your paternalistic and misogynistic posturing.
Moreover, Student B knows what it takes to be successful in academia. She did not need to kiss your ring. She and the other brave people who came forward succeeded just fine without your career advice and without your connections. We also reject your language toward women whom you refer to as “chicas.” We are not girls, nor were we girls when we met you. We are women, and years later, many of us are now responsible for the safety and well-being of our own students.
Luis Jaime Castillo—we also know what hard work is. Our families instilled in us an ethos of hard work and perseverance, and most of us come from humble backgrounds. Nothing was handed to us. We had to fight for what we have, and it has made us strong. We will outlast you. And we are many. And we are growing. As a reminder, this is how Michael Balter introduced us in his piece:
On June 2, just a few days after The Harvard Crimson broke the Urton story, I was contacted by a member of a women's collective organized to counter abuses in archaeology, especially in Peru. The core group numbers about 15 members at the time of this writing, including scholars from Peru, North America, and elsewhere. The collective is bolstered by a growing number of other supporters around the world currently numbering in the hundreds.
Mr. Balter’s representation of us and our supporters is correct. We are an organized collective defined by our solidarity toward one another and our commitment to a shared vision. We stand together. We came forward with our names and faces to Mr. Balter, and he has kept his promise to protect our identities through every step of this journey. He fact-checked and corroborated our claims with additional witnesses and sources. He did not share any information that we did not approve of beforehand.
We want to make this crystal clear—we went to Mr. Balter because he is as fearless as we are. He doesn’t care about who you are—just that you have wronged many people. You continue to intimidate, threaten, and bully to keep us quiet and to find out more about us and our supporters. You continue to try to uncover who we are. But we decide when and if we become public. We control this process—not you.
If you are really as innocent as you claim, then it will not be difficult to rebut the points we laid out above. We look forward to seeing your “proof.”
Signed,
The Women You Failed to Keep Quiet
P.S. To the students and alumni who have raised their voices, we appreciate the support. For those who have been intimidated from coming forward—we see you, we hear you, and we support you. Be assured that we will persist. We do this for you and for future generations of archaeologists in Peru. As we have stated above, we have a growing international network of support, including financial resources, to assist in the event that Luis Jaime Castillo Butters and his allies retaliate.
[1] See: http://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence; https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/busting-the-myths-about-sexual-harassment
10 de julio de 2020
Luis Jaime Castillo Butters,
Somos algunas de las mujeres que, a lo largo del tiempo, te has encargado de invalidar—una y otra vez—cuyos límites y fronteras has invadido; cuya humanidad no has respetado, cuyos cuerpos has explotado y cuyas inocencias te has robado. No somos todas. Debes saber que somos muchas más. De todos modos, somos suficientes.
Escuchamos tu entrevista. Escuchamos cómo nos has tratado de callar una vez más usando tus formas habituales. Pero, queremos que sepas, que tus amenazas no funcionan. En realidad, nunca funcionaron. Y eso, en el fondo lo sabes: nunca lograste callarnos; nuestras palabras e historias se las hemos contado a muchas personas, y seguiremos rompiendo el silencio.
Nos críticas por mantenernos en el anonimato. Porque te hace sentir amenazado. Porque se han cambiado las reglas, y te das cuenta de que tu poder se está siendo desarmado. Tienes miedo del anonimato porque crees saber quiénes somos, pero no estás del todo seguro. Después de todo, les has hecho daño a tantas mujeres.
Hemos roto nuestro silencio de manera pública por varias razones—porque ha llegado el momento, porque el dolor que nos has causado ha comenzado a sanar y porque ahora contamos con una red de apoyo internacional. Lo hacemos también, porque todas tenemos una responsabilidad ética de proteger a las personas que se cruzarán en tu camino. Luchamos por negarte la posibilidad de hacer más daño a tus estudiantes y colegas. Ya ha llegado el momento para poner fin a tus abusos. Ha llegado el momento de desmantelar la arquitectura de impunidad que ha facilitado tu ascenso al poder. Pero esto ha llegado a su fin.
Hemos analizado la entrevista que le brindaste a Perú21. Queremos responderte a ti y a todas aquellas personas que hayan creído—por algún momento—lo que dices ahí, cuestionando nuestras historias y nuestras voces. La transcripción de la entrevista puede ser encontrada al final de esta carta. Particularmente, no ha sido una sorpresa para nosotras el escucharte hablar de esta manera, lo fácil que es para ti mentir y tergiversar nuestra historia. Intentas distraer, contrarrestando nuestras voces con argumentos ad hominem y argucias. Utilizas las defensas típicas de un abusador; algo claro para cualquier persona quien tiene una idea de cómo es que los abusadores hablan y actúan. Pero debemos reiterar que, conociéndote, no esperábamos nada diferente de ti.
Tenemos algunas preguntas para ti—preguntas que el periodista debió hacerte, pero quizá estaba demasiado asustado para hacerlo. Después de todo, hiciste esta amenaza pensando que pasaría desapercibida:
CASTILLO: [28:12] Mire, yo no le digo que vote por mí, pero, también le pediría—porque alguna vez, he tenido un problema con Perú21, con el asunto de las minas, entonces—yo lo que le he dado es mi versión y espero que no, no, no, no se tergiverse—siempre corre uno el riesgo, ¿no?
Pero antes de ir al final de la entrevista, comencemos por el inicio. Mencionas que somos anónimas, mujeres sin rostro, identificadas solo con letras. Pero también mencionas que sabes quiénes somos. Te equivocas al no ofrecer una narrativa coherente.
CASTILLO [4:07]: Sí, claro. Lo que pasa es que, como el mundo de arqueología es muy pequeño, ¿no?, podemos deducir—yo puedo deducir—quiénes son las personas que están apareciendo.
CASTILLO: [5:50] Entonces... y si es anónimo, y usted no tiene los nombres de las personas, ¿cómo hace para defenderse? Creo que estamos ante una situación muy compleja porque [6:04] hoy en día, ¿no?—pueden destruir la reputación de cualquier persona, digamos, en un… en un—con cinco letras, ¿no?
Tratando de ponderar el anonimato intentas distraer e invalidar nuestras experiencias. Deberías saber que no hacemos estas acusaciones como informantes anónimas. Tenemos nombres, rostros, memorias de tus abusos y testigos para corroborar todos los hechos.
Descartas nuestras historias, mencionando que tienes entre 20 y 100 testimonios que pueden decir lo contrario. Presentas esto como evidencia que lo que contamos realmente no pasó.
CASTILLO [11:46] Pero ninguna de las cosas que se dice ahí, digamos, son correctas. Y para descartarlas, tengo el testimonio de más de 100 de mis alumnos que estuvieron presente en [ininteligible]. 100 alumnos, algunos peruanos, extranjeros, estuvieron en esos años y pueden confirmar que todo lo que dice este señor es falso.
CASTILLO: [18:24] Mira, lo cual me parece correcto porque aquí tenemos la versión vertida por tres personas, contra la opinión que van a dar 20-30 y van a contar una historia completamente diferente, seguramente.
CASTILLO: [19:56] …la opinión de tres personas, contra la opinión mayoritaria de 40-50 no puede prevalecer, ¿se da cuenta?
Pero, somos mucho más de tres, pese a que repites esto a lo largo de tus respuestas. Pero, eso no es importante porque así hayas abusado de una sola persona, no importaría lo que 100 personas tengan para decir sobre ti. Igual, hiciste lo que hiciste y la verdad prevalecerá.
Así que, por favor, recopila las cartas de la gente que te debe favores, que te tiene miedo; o, peor aún, que ha naturalizado el hostigamiento y abuso sexual a tal magnitud que no les cree a las mujeres que levantan la voz. Y, a aquellos que ponen en duda nuestra integridad, les preguntamos: ¿Qué vamos a ganar, más allá de un sentido de justicia tan esperada? Luis Jaime Castillo, por más que intentes negarlo, esto nos pasó y tú lo sabes bien.
Más adelante tratas de invalidar nuestros argumentos en base a la “responsabilidad legal” sobre nosotras. Niegas responsabilidad sobre nuestras historias sobre hostigamiento sexual y abuso de poder que te acusan al mencionar que éramos estudiantes extranjeras y que nunca fuimos “tus estudiantes”. Es más, centras la discusión en nuestros testimonios, ignorando totalmente las historias de las estudiantes peruanas.
CASTILLO: [20:14] Y jamás hemos tenido ninguna queja hasta que han aparecido estas informaciones de este señor y de tres estudiantes norteamericanas. Además, no eran mis estudiantes. No eran alumnas mías. Eran tres arqueólogas que vinieron aquí, básicamente, con sus profesores para buscar un proyecto de investigación. Nunca fueron mis alumnos, en el momento en que se narran los hechos. No eran de la Universidad Católica, no tenían ninguna relación con la Universidad Católica. Eran tres arqueólogas que vinieron al Perú a buscar una oportunidad de investigación.
¿Estás insinuando que una estudiante solo puede experimentar abuso sexual y hostigamiento si es que es su profesor o profesora? ¿O si es que son del mismo instituto? Muchas de nosotras participamos en la escuela de campo de San José de Moro, vinculado a la Universidad Católica (PUCP) y en algunos años, a la Universidad de Harvard. Tú eras el Investigador Principal. Sin embargo, aún si no hubiéramos estado matriculadas en la escuela de campo en el momento que pasaron estos eventos, no tenías el derecho de hacer lo que hiciste.
Poco tiempo después, atacas la manera en la que hemos decidido pronunciarnos, buscando provocarle miedo a otras personas al sugerir una mafia sin rostro que intenta quemar la academia.
CASTILLO: [22:02] Y claro, a mí me ofende mucho pero, por otro lado a mí me quita las ganas de seguir en el círculo de investigación, porque si así va hacer de aquí en adelante y vamos a darle oídos a denuncias que vengan de Twitter, y que vengan de blogs—mire—mejor nos buscamos otra cosa que hacer, porque si van a parar, ¿no?
Asimismo, nuestras historias y acusaciones contra ti, no comenzaron en Twitter. Hemos sido abiertas sobre tus problemas éticos todos estos años. Se lo hemos dicho a nuestros compañeros de clase y colegas, a nuestros(as) mentoras (es) y personas de nuestra red. Tu mala conducta es un secreto a voces en la academia.
¿Sabes por qué las sobrevivientes deciden hacer sus denuncias públicas a través de la prensa y de las redes sociales? Es por las formas de nuestras instituciones, y sus precaria vía para hacer denuncias, las cuales están diseñadas para proteger al abusador. Estas mismas nos han fallado, una y otra vez. Nadie puede juzgar la manera en la que nosotras hemos y continuamos decidiendo cómo contamos nuestras historias. Quizá eso te asusta.
La tuya no es una reputación estelar que ha sido destruida por el reportaje de un periodista. Siempre has tenido una reputación de ser un abusador que se presenta con todo su privilegio como un escudo de protección. Abusaste de tu poder de manera abierta porque te creías invisible. Por eso hay tanta gente que está respondiendo de manera positiva a nuestro llamado por el cambio. Ellas(os) también han querido esto por mucho tiempo.
Presentas tu narrativa invocando el miedo a través de declaraciones hiperbólicas al sostener que las mujeres al hablar del abuso del que hemos sido víctimas, resultará en acusaciones infundadas contra todos los profesores y académicos. Un argumento desesperado y cobarde. Muchos estudios han demostrado que los informes falsos son poco frecuentes.[1]
CASTILLO: [22:22] Van a denunciar todos los profesores, a todos los académicos. Y lo que va a ocurrir es que nunca jamás van a querer tener un solo alumno, ¿se da cuenta?
CASTILLO [28:31] Lo que yo le he dicho fíjese es lo que es la verdad. Yo no me estoy inventando y lamentablemente, como le digo, yo veo un problema muy grave, porque TODOS los profesores de TODAS las áreas—de TODAS las universidades—en este momento, están bajo ataque. Y no bajo ataque por su comportamiento, porque hay sinvergüenzas, ¿no? Sino por el hecho que basta una nota en un blog, basta una acusación anónima, para destruirle la carrera, la reputación, la honra, del profesor y su familia, ¿se da cuenta? Entonces, bueno. En esos estamos, en realidad no solamente a un profesor, de un periodista, de un político—de cualquier, ¿no?
Luis Jaime Castillo—esto no es una cacería de brujas. Las sobrevivientes no salen detrás de todos los individuos en la academia, solo detrás de aquellos que han sido abusivos con su poder. El propósito aquí no es dejar a la academia sin hombres, sino dejar la academia sin personas abusivas. Así que en vez de decir que los académicos dejarán de recibir estudiantes porque historias de abuso se están visibilizando, ¿qué tal si los abusadores dejan de abusar? En realidad, es así de sencillo.
Aparte de presentarnos como portadoras de horcas quienes buscamos justicia de manera mafiosa, también mencionas que tenemos una visión distorsionada de la realidad porque no sabemos o tenemos lo que se necesita para ser académicas, profesoras o arqueólogas. Que somos frágiles, emocionales y débiles. Que nos falta empuje y fortaleza.
CASTILLO: [24:23] Y de los alumnos, evidentemente, viviendo ahí, ellos tenían ahí, mire, yo—mire, osea, en ese ámbito, yo creo que ahora es un ambiente tenso; es un ambiente—la investigación arqueológica es un ambiente de mucha sensación, de mucho estrés, de mucho esfuerzo físico, ¿no cierto?, donde la gente evidentemente—¿no? Se cansa, se ofusca, o porque se trabaja de lunes a sábado de 6 de la mañana a 7 de la noche y luego vive con gentes [ininteligible], ¿se da cuenta? Estos periodos de investigación en el campo son muy, muy intensos, [ininteligible] digamos, todas estas situaciones. Alguna de las personas que creo que es la [25:08] Estudiante B, por ejemplo, es una persona que estuvo en el proyecto y dice que ella sentía mucha tensión, ¿no cierto? Y, ¡claro! El trabajo de un profesor, es como trabajo de tu editor que te dice “termina la nota” antes de poner un pie fuera del edificio. ¿Se da cuenta? El trabajo del director de un proyecto es exigir y avanzar y a veces, evidentemente, eso genera, esa sensación de que hay mucha fuerza, pero lamentablemente así es la vida real, y así es un trabajo, ¿se da cuenta? En la universidad, los estudiantes creen que no, que el mundo va a ser, digamos, parecido como es la universidad, pero quien ya está en el mundo laboral se habrá dado cuenta que eso no es así.
Tu sexismo está clarísimo. Rechazamos la manera en la que nos empequeñezcas, sobre todo cómo sugieres que lo que vivió la Estudiante B era meramente “tensión” en tu proyecto. La Estudiante B no necesita que hables por ella. Ella habló fuerte y claro sin la necesidad que intervengas por ella de una manera tan paternalista y misógina.
Además, la Estudiante B sabe muy bien qué es ser exitosa en la academia. No tuvo que besarte el anillo. Ella y cada una de las mujeres valientes que han expuesto tus abusos, han triunfado sin tu ayuda académica o tus conexiones. También rechazamos tajantemente tu lenguaje paternalista y misógina hacia las mujeres, llamándonos “chicas”. No somos chicas, ni lo fuimos cuando te conocimos. Somos mujeres, y muchos años después, ahora tenemos la responsabilidad de velar por la seguridad de nuestras propias estudiantes.
Luis Jaime Castillo, también sabemos lo que es el trabajo duro. Nuestras familias nos inculcaron una buena ética de trabajo y persistencia, ya que muchas de nosotras hemos luchado toda nuestra vida. Nada nos fue regalado. Hemos luchado por lo que tenemos y eso nos ha hecho fuertes. Nosotras sobreviviremos esto y te transcendemos.
Porque somos muchas, porque cada vez somos más. Solo un recordatorio, esto es como el Sr. Balter nos introduce:
El 2 de junio, solo unos días después de que el Harvard Crimson sacó la historia contra Urton, fui contactada por una persona de un colectivo de mujeres que está organizada para contraatacar los abusos en la arqueología; sobre todo en el Perú. El núcleo de este grupo tiene cerca de 15 personas al momento en el que esto se está escribiendo. Incluye profesionales del Perú, América del Norte y muchos otros lugares. Este colectivo se está reforzando con un gran número de redes de apoyo alrededor del mundo, con el número actual de personas apoyando su lucha, en los cientos.
La representación que hace el Sr. Balter sobre nosotras y nuestras redes de apoyo es correcta. Somos una colectiva organizada que está definida por la solidaridad que nos mostramos entre nosotras, al igual que una visión y un compromiso compartido. Estamos juntas. Le hemos dado nuestros nombres y afiliaciones al Sr. Balter. Él ha mantenido su promesa de proteger nuestra identidad durante todo este proceso. Él ha verificado y corroborado nuestras denuncias con testigos y fuentes. No compartió ningún tipo de información sin nuestra aprobación previa.
Para ser claras, nosotras nos aproximamos al Sr. Balter porque nos escucha y es tan valiente como nosotras. A él no le importa quién eres—sólo le importa que has perjudicado a un número grande de personas. Continúas tratando de intimidarnos al decir que tendríamos que dejar de usar el anonimato y mirarte a la cara y así saber más de nosotras y nuestras redes de apoyo. Tratas de sacarnos a la luz. Pero, sabes, nosotras vamos a decidir si es que y cuando nos presentamos al público. Nosotras controlamos este proceso, no tú.
Si de verdad eres tan inocente cómo mencionas en tu entrevista, no será difícil para ti refutar los puntos que te estamos presentando. Estamos atentas a tu “evidencia.”
Firman,
Las Mujeres Que No Pudiste Silenciar.
P.D. A todas(os) las(os) estudiantes y ex estudiantes que han alzado la voz, agradecemos su apoyo. A todos(as) los que han sido intimidadas(os) para no salir a contar sus historias—las vemos, las escuchamos y estamos de su lado. Tengan por seguro que persistiremos. Hacemos esto por ustedes y por las futuras generaciones de arqueólogas(os) del Perú. También queremos que sepan que al pasar de los días nuestras redes internacionales van creciendo; nuestro apoyo incluye recursos financieros para asistir a quien lo necesite si es que Luis Jaime Castillo Butters y sus aliados(as) deciden actuar con represalias.
The testimony of Student F: A case of bullying and intimidation.
In the previous post on the allegations against Castillo, I cited the testimony of five students about their negative experiences with him, ranging from sexual harassment to retaliation. Since that publication, a sixth student, Student F, has asked to tell her story. Since she is still in a vulnerable position in her career and could be retaliated against, I have agreed to her request for confidentiality.
"I worked at San Jose de Moro as a graduate student in [exact years redacted to help protect her identity.] While I luckily did not experience any direct sexual advances or serious sexual harassment from LJC, I did hear him make sexist comments on a regular basis [among other things, Castillo called young women working at the site his "little guinea pigs."]
"I experienced serious bullying and intimidation, until finally, when I finished my fieldwork in Peru for my PhD and thought I could leave the project behind, he threatened to sue me for the data I collected on his project and to personally prevent me from completing my PhD. I am extremely lucky that I completed my PhD with my supervisor's support. But I was told that I might not ever work in Peru again. Thankfully, I made enough of my own contacts and friends that this was not true, but in subsequent years working on other projects in Peru I was told by project directors and even other graduate students that LJC had told them I was both unprofessional and difficult to work with. He basically ruined my reputation before I even had a chance to build one, and I have spent the last years trying to reverse that damage."
To protect Student F's identity I am not going into detail about the data she collected and why Castillo went back on agreements they had made about her being able to use it, other than to say that it represented the most petty imaginable power play on his part. Fortunately, Student F was able to recover her reputation, after many years, and is now successfully pursuing her career in archaeology.
Castillo's interview with Peru21 (English and Spanish versions.)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1422541557937390 (Posted July 2, 3:28 PM)
Journalist: What are your comments on... that is, until, until... this ex officio investigation, this beginning of... that, well, the Catholic University’s [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú or PUCP] sexual harassment commission has started?
CASTILLO: Let's see... simply put—I'm being subjected to a defamatory attack, right? For three weeks coming from a man named Michael Balter, yes? This man, Balter, is an internet journalist who only—who publishes—he has a blog and Twitter that is basically dedicated to destroying the careers, the reputations of a number of professors in all fields of science. And generally, they are high-profile people—members of the science-related academy, say, institute directors, right? And almost all of his research revolves around the topic of sexual harassment or sexual conduct, right? Even though the things he reports do not necessarily have that connotation. But he will always give it that twist. And he is going to do it, basically, because today, the worst thing you can do with an academic—with a teacher—is to accuse him of that type of behavior, right? It is dishonor, it is [unintelligible] that you can’t do anything to wash it off, right? So the case started because about a month ago, let's say, Harvard University reported that a well-known— very famous—professor named Gary Urton, was accused by three students, right? Of actual sexual harassment, of sending them letters and things. Because of that, and since I was very— I was very close to Dr. Urton. The man, this Balter, began to point to me as some kind of accomplice. [2:01] And afterwards, right? They started sending him information—that I think—is false, exaggerated, misrepresented, right?... About my... especially, about the [unintelligible] that I was doing in my research projects. I direct a research project that is the longest-standing in Peru—that has 30 continuous years of field research in a place called San José de Moro. [2:27] So, what this gentleman has published about the students is a report in which, basically, let's say, in which three foreign students allege that in this project, there was an atmosphere of harassment, but beyond harassment, problematic behavior. Where people got drunk, where there were comments alluding to people, their weight, their behavior—that they consider were abusive, because... There are also three direct allegations saying that I have had relationships with students. One of them is a—with a person who is referred to in the text as "my woman," so that I ... [unintelligible]. That student—this girl is a student of mine who is doing her Ph.D. in the United States, right?, with whom I have a very deep academic and familial relationship—very deep. [Unintelligible] very close, yes? And she is outraged that the guy pointed her out because he contacted her, she rejected him, and he contacted her again, harassed her for information and when she did not give him the same story [as the others], he put out this [unintelligible] saying that she was my lover and that because she was my lover, she had obtained all kinds of— what are they called?—of academic successes. Which is an insult. [Unintelligible].
Journalist: That—you have been learning about this recently, well, about the complaint.
CASTILLO: [4:07] Yes, of course. What happens is that, since the world of archaeology is very small, right?, we can deduce—I can deduce—who the people are who are appearing. [4:18] There are also two alleged PUCP students who have contacted him who say that I made a pass at them— wait—which I absolutely and emphatically deny. I've never made a [unintelligible] approach. So, this—
Journalist: And with these two students who would be the Peruvians, right? Because the rest are also mostly foreigners, let's say, do you have any reason, can you imagine any type of reason why they made this report, or contacted him, or he contacted them and they spoke?
CASTILLO: [5:04] Eh, I don't know, because I don't know who they are. I imagine because I haven't had ... One says that I… I… I… I invited her for a drink and then suggested some things, the other said that she had a relationship with me. And I absolutely deny those two complaints, right? And I hope that these people make their allegations in the university process, because, look, it is very easy to do so on the internet, right? [5:28] it is very easy to destroy a person's honor. If I say that you slept with three minors tomorrow, you are toast, you know? Because the internet is going to use it, it is going to harass you, it is going to contain you, and it is going to bury you. Do you understand? [5:50] So... and if it's anonymous, and you don't have people's names, how do you defend yourself? I think we are facing a very complex situation because [6:04] these days, right ?—they can destroy the reputation of any person, let's say, in a… in a—with five letters, right?
Journalist: And, let's say, uh, let's say, ahead of these complaints in the last month regarding the report of the journalist Balter, previously, there was no, let's say, you didn't receive any notice, let's say, did any of these girls approach you, or did someone…
CASTILLO: [6:31] Never.
Journalist: This proposition is all born out of... [Castillo interrupts]
CASTILLO: [6:34] Never. NEVER have I had a complaint. Yes, I have never had a complaint about behavior... NEVER have I had a complaint, there has never been a complaint ... there has never been a comment. Now people know, let's say, that gossip circulates. OF COURSE. I've been—I'm an archaeologist, a public figure; I've been a minister; I've been a vice minister; I've been a director of the [unintelligible] project and of course, some [unintelligible]. But also, let's say, it's like a kind of bullying. I am a target. [7:11] A lot of people—a lot of people see the opportunity to attack me, to attack an entire—an entire patriarchal and power structure, and, right? So there is that, right? But clearly, look, what can I tell you? [7:33] I deny all the things that are said in that report because where it is not frankly a lie, right?—like in the case of this story, it is [unintelligible] or in another case where it says that they threw me out of—I was editor of a VERY IMPORTANT journal [Latin American Antiquity] in the United States. I resigned. And I have the letter here that I can forward to you, from my co-editor, which is—which says to Mr. Balter, “What you are saying is a lie. Nobody threw us out. We resigned”—but still, Balter goes and publishes it [the allegation that Castillo was pushed out of the position], and it is in his report, in the last paragraph.
Journalist: Sure, he mentions that, well, you had preferences, something like this.
CASTILLO: [8:16] It's absolutely that, so the co-editor who is Dr. Silverman, right? She has sent a letter saying that this is FALSE. And it is false—and it is absolutely false about the student. I suppose the two accusations are false—the students who do not give their name, who don’t even give a reference. He simply says, "An anonymous person wrote to me and said they had experienced this." "Another ANONYMOUS person wrote to me and said she had experienced this." [8:44] Look, that's not JOURNALISM. You are a journalist, you [unintelligible] cannot... But this guy on his blog obviously crosses all the boundaries of professional ethics. Do you understand? Look, the man—this—unlike you, he never called me to corroborate if this [unintelligible].
Journalist: That was my—my question too. He didn't… was there any contact by mail, say, telephone, Twitter… or I don't know, or some kind of contact?
CASTILLO: [9:17] None. The first time I found out about his existence was two days after the Urton affair when he called me a sexual predator, right?—on his blog. Right now, I am doing two things— the first—I have asked for an investigation that you have seen—the investigation that the Catholic University’s harassment commission has opened. I asked for it [unintelligible]. It was my initiative to open an investigation.
Journalist: Uh-huh. It was your initiative, say, the request?
CASTILLO: [9:53] Yes. It was an initiative of mine in a letter to the provost three weeks ago. And number two, I'm filing a lawsuit, right —for defamation against this man. And I am going to make him go to court to... look, [10:12] as I’ve said, the man has made a series of accusations that are absolutely false and in many cases, there is a misrepresentation. "It seemed to me," "I FEEL," right? "I WAS TOLD"—excuse me, you [Balter] can't vouch for a person, destroy their name, destroy their family, right?—with that type of investigation. "It seemed to me that Mr. Castillo was telling me to dress that way to receive guests" —excuse me—Mr. Castillo did not tell you to dress that way. "Mr. Castillo made me dance for the people that visited”—how can you come up with that, you know?! It is STUPIDITY! [10:50] At no point [unintelligible] was I was telling my students to dig in a bikini. Right? He doesn't say this in this blog post—he says it in a previous post. Can you [the interviewer/reporter] imagine, yes, can you fathom such an absurd thing? I mean, in the northern sun, a student in a bikini would be sunburned beyond belief in a half hour. So what I’ve told you, what this source has told you [unintelligible] this guy’s [Balter’s] level of exaggeration, right? Or that I told my students to dress in one way or another. Now, I don't know why, as the sources are anonymous, I don’t know exactly who they are. I CAN GUESS, right? I have one—a few "hints." And the truth is that I cannot understand how these people have reached the conclusions they have reached, or if the conclusions they have reached are Mr. Balter’s. [11:46] But none of the things that are said there, let's say, are correct. And to repudiate them, I have the testimony of more than 100 of my students who were present in [unintelligible]. A hundred students, some Peruvians, some foreigners who were present in those years and can confirm that everything this gentleman says is false. Now he says that I am, since I am a very powerful man, threatening the sources—look—I have sent a cease and desist letter to the people who have insulted me online—right?—insulted me and I have sent letters to four people because I have received the meanest insults you can imagine. I am not threatening them [the sources] because none of the people I have sent letters to are witnesses in any way. I don't know them—they have nothing to do with this story, you know? So—they are not witnesses to those that I'm threatening. What is happening is that a citizen, when his honor is [unintelligible], his only recourse is to initiate the defamation process. His other option is to keep quiet and somehow accept a guilt that he doesn’t have. Do you understand?
Journalist: And Doctor [Castillo] ... this ... and, let's say, then [Castillo interrupts]
CASTILLO: [13:11] Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Contrary to [unintelligible], this man is so venomous that many people just don't want to say anything [to support me] that would make them a target of his. I mean, many colleagues and students do not want to make statements out of fear that afterwards, this man [unintelligible], right? He will attack them—that's the reality, right? This is truly a case of defamation; this is truly a case of, say, behavior and ... look, that is... yeah. So, that's the issue. He harassed my students to get them to testify against me—not one—but eight of my students have been harassed by this Mr. Balter to obtain complaints against me—complaints that obviously do not exist.
Journalist: And Doctor [Castillo]... let's say, I mean, there are two specific actions that you are taking. Well, the first one is the investigation where you’re telling me you sent a letter to the provost and well, this investigation has finally been opened and they will draw their conclusions and you, I imagine, will also help, will contribute when—in all the things that they request of you.
CASTILLO: [14:41] Of course, of course, I have [unintelligible] the investigation. Look, I have no choice, what else can I do, well, right? And I do it [unintelligible]. I hope that the commission carries out a proper investigation, with due process. The commission cannot, for example, take testimonies from anonymous subjects, because as I have already told you, anonymous testimony is a very dangerous thing. The Holy Inquisition was the one that worked with anonymous testimonies. You know? [Unintelligible] when they tortured people to see if allegations were true. You didn't have to say who it [the accuser] was. So, I think that we have moved past that phase some time ago. Obviously, there has to be a set of things [rules]. And one of them is that—anyone who is accused of something, should and can confront their accuser. How else do I defend myself? You know?
Journalist: And Doctor [Castillo], and let's say, I mean—eh, putting ourselves a little—eh, when we evaluate these scenarios, and let's say, anonymous testimonies are allowed in this investigation—I imagine that, that, that there will be people who will want to keep [anonymity], let's say, about everything we have talked about, right? For all the things that, let's say, that they accuse you of and that you also, flatly deny. But, let's say, when faced with the possibility of anonymous reporting, what, what, what—how would you take that, or how…?
CASTILLO: [16:15] Look, no commission or any court in the world can accept anonymous complaints—NONE, you know? Because I can accuse anyone of anything by hiding behind anonymity. No court in the world, nor on the planet, not even in, say, the most... most extreme dictatorship, can approve a judicial process that—in which there are only anonymous accusations,. NONE, right? I mean, it's out of the question and I think that's what is—is fundamental. You, I mean, look, we live in a state of law where a number of things are presumed, one is the innocence of the people until proven otherwise. However, on Twitter and on the internet and social networks, people are condemned without trial—people are condemned for exactly what they accuse them of. Remember, in the court of public opinion, you are put on trial by a mere accusation.
Journalist: And Doctor [Castillo], the other thing you were telling me about which is the unclear criminal complaint, have you started it or are you going to start it—what is the status of that?
CASTILLO: [17:29] We are in the preparatory phase. We have already completed the first step, which is to send a [cease and desist] letter to people to give them the option to, what do you call it?—so that they can correct themselves. That is the first step in the defamation process—to send a letter that he already received—already gave him how, gave him the notice—he gave us signs that he had received it and with that we already leaped over that first step and now we are going to file criminal and civil complaints against him and against those who turn out to be responsible.
Journalist: And in the other process, that of the commission, have you been told something? Have they already summoned you? Have you been asked for any information or not yet?
CASTILLO: [18:15] No, not yet. I believe that the commission is, first, evaluating the process through interviews with my students. [18:24] Look, which seems correct to me, because here we have the information released by three people, against the opinion that 20-30 are sure to give, right? And they are going to tell a completely different story, surely. The thing is, look, if you have read Balter's report it seems like the only thing we were doing in that research project—which is a research project on the HIGHEST level, recognized ALL over the world, ok? It is one of the BIGGEST research projects that has lasted 30 years, no less than 30 doctors have been trained. But when you read Mr. Balter's blog, it seems like all we did was party, you know? It seems like all we did was get drunk. It would seem like the only thing we were doing was making stupid comments about people; it seemed to the others, that this was the reason, let's say, that—that this was the raison d'être of the project, right? [19:18] This is a very serious research project that has been sponsored and funded by ALL the academic institutions in the world. So, you know? [19:30] This process ridicules research in the field of archaeology, ridicules people. What people don't realize is that maybe, of course—look—we—we all are against harassment; we all are against exploitation, discrimination, mistreatment, right? But that can’t, but... [19:56] the opinion of three people, against the majority opinion of 40-50 cannot PREVAIL, you know? In this project, researchers from all over the world have worked [at San José de Moro] who have come from Sweden, France, Spain, Germany, the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc. [20:14] And never have we had a single complaint until the reports of this man and the three American students have appeared. Also, they were not my students. They weren't my students. There were three archaeologists who basically came here with their professors to look for a research project. They were never my students, at the time of the events. They were not from the Catholic University, they had no relationship with the Catholic University. There were three archaeologists who came to Peru to look for a research opportunity. One of them did a magnificent thesis. The other went elsewhere to do her research in southern Peru, and the third abandoned archaeology. In all three cases, I was not even part of their doctoral committees. I didn't even direct their theses, you know? Also, none of the three, who are Students A, B, and C—or A, B, and D—A, B, and E—none of them report that I did any kind of, say, harassment; it just says "she told me this," "she told me that I should wear fewer clothes." Well, I have witnesses who can claim that I never told you that. I said something else—that they had to wear field clothes. The other says that I used her as an "escort," and I have 20 students who can say, "Sir, that's not the case," right? In other words, we had many events where many visiting scholars came, so I told the students that they had the opportunity to meet them. Hence, they have been "escorts." For goodness’ sake, right?
Journalist: And Doctor— [Castillo interrupts]
CASTILLO: [22:02] And of course, it offends me a lot but, on the other hand, it takes away my desire to continue in my research, because if that's how it’s going to be from now on and we are going to give credence to allegations that come from Twitter, and that come from blogs—look—we better find something else to do, because if they are going to stop, right? [22:22] They are going to denounce all the professors, all the academics. And what is going to happen is that they [professors] will never ever want to have a single student, you know?
Journalist: And Doctor [Castillo], well, to conclude, well... you definitely reject all the accusations and, and— [Castillo interrupts]
CASTILLO: [22:42] ALL [of them].
Journalist: Good, of course, exactly. Everything with the investigation has begun, if you are going to file the lawsuit, you have already started it, and, let's say, outside of this—these accusations, I would like your opinion regarding—how much—regarding how this develops, because the article also mentions that in the archaeological environment there is a lot of—it is a setting that fosters a lot of sexual harassment, and, let's say, outside of the accusations towards you, let’s say, what is your observation regarding this hypothesis, or this complaint as well, no? Of the archaeological environment itself—eh, if there are related—or if there have been cases, or if you've seen cases, have you seen any? Have you reported any, I don't know?
CASTILLO: [23:36] Look, I have not seen any, nor have I reported, right? I know it is an environment—look, what happens is that archaeology is a very particular discipline—it is a field discipline, where people have to adapt to a rural environment, right? Where there are many students together and there can be many things introduced. [23:58] In my project, the research assistants were prohibited from having relationships with the students. Prohibited. And that is from more than 20 years ago—they could not have ANY relationship. Now, I can't ban a research assistant from having a relationship with a student, can I? Excuse me, with a student—with another research assistant, right? [24:23] And of the students, obviously, living there, they had there, look, I—look, I mean, in that scope, I now think that it is a tense environment; it is an environment—the environment of archaeological research is that of many emotions, a lot of stress, a lot of physical exertion, right? They get tired, obfuscated, or because they work from Monday to Saturday from 6 in the morning to 7 at night and then live with people [unintelligible], you know? These periods of research in the field are very, very intense, [unintelligible] shall we say, all these situations. One of these people that I think is [25:08] Student B, for example, is a person who was in the project and says that she felt a lot of tension, right? And of course! A professor's job is like your editor's job to tell you to "finish the article" before you set foot outside the building. Right? The job of a project manager is to demand and move forward and sometimes, obviously, that generates—that can come across strongly, but unfortunately this is real life, and this is work, you know? In the university, the students believe that this isn’t the case, that the world is going to be, let's say, similar to what the university is, but those already in the working world will have realized that this is not the case. [25:47] Archaeology is like that—it's a hierarchical job, but now if that's true, in my project—the 30 years of the project, there has never been any kind of discrimination, right? For no reason, neither gender, nor sexual orientation, absolutely none—that is, I think—I don't know about the other projects, but I've never done it. Look, of the 50 students who have completed a doctorate or their master's degrees [under me], more than half are women, much more than half—probably 30 of the 50. That is to say, that there has never been discrimination, there has never been—but of course, some people feel discriminated against because they were not part of it, you know? [26:30] So, in the article, there is a person who says "Dr. Castillo says, to his students working with him, that they were going to have an academic career,"—well, isn't that [the sign of] a good teacher? In other words, to give your students all the possibilities they could have, because obviously I have never said no to any [unintelligible] student... but of course, the answer is yes, but the work is hard. You have to go to the field; you have to do a number of things. Because this is life, right? Yes, I have been concerned with these students, throughout most of my career, with fostering so they can pursue their doctorates, and often in foreign universities, right? And that's something I've always considered friendship. In that context, ¿right,? There is a professor named Professor B who has been considered a [unintelligible]. Well—I've given you a lot more information than you can put it in an article.
Journalist: Don't worry, Doctor Castillo, thank you for your words, for this communication—that is what I wanted to ask you. Are you going to issue a statement? Have you thought about that possibility?
CASTILLO: [27:38] Look, in the private sphere, within the university, yes, I just sent a letter to the provost which will also be forwarded to FEPUC [PUCP Student Federation], right? But the problem is that everything that you tell us on the web can be distorted. You know that, don't you? So, of course, my lawyers, my advisers, tell me that it’s better not to make big statements. Look, I hope, I guess—what you have published, what El Comercio or La República has published, has been [unintelligible]. [28:12] Look, I am not telling you to vote for me, but I would also ask you—because once, I have had a problem with Peru 21, with the issue of mines, so—what I have given you is my version and I hope that you don’t, you don’t, you don’t misrepresent yourself—one always runs this risk, right?
Journalist: No, we don't— [Castillo interrupts]
CASTILLO: [28:31] What I have told you, note this, it’s what’s true. I am not fabricating anything and unfortunately, as I’ve said, I see a very serious problem, because ALL the professors from ALL the fields—from ALL the universities—are currently under attack. And not under attack for behavior, because there are scoundrels, right? But for the fact that a post in a blog is enough, an anonymous accusation is enough to destroy the career, reputation, and honor, of the professor and his family, right? Well, yeah. This is where we are; in reality this could happen to not only a professor, a journalist, a politician—it could happen to anyone, right?
Journalist: Ok, ok, Professor [Castillo]. Thank you for this. And a question: So, that statement that you are sending to the provost, uh, let's say, you are not going to share it or are you not able to share it?
CASTILLO: [29:26] Well, first, things have to run their course at the university.
Journalist: Sure, but, let's say, you’ve already sent it?
CASTILLO: [Castillo pauses] [29:34] Yes, yes, a kind of defense. [Unintelligible].
Journalist: Sure. Done, Professor Castillo, thank you. Thank you—thank you for your words.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1422541557937390 (Publicado 2 de julio, 3:28 PM)
Periodista: ¿Cuáles son sus comentarios sobre… buen, hasta, hasta… esta investigación de oficio, este inicio… que ha iniciado, pues, la comisión de hostigamiento de la Católica?
CASTILLO: A ver… en sencillo es—estoy siendo sujeto a de un ataque difamatoria, ¿ya? Desde hace tres semanas que viene de un señor que se llama Michael Balter, ¿ya? Este señor Balter es un periodista de internet que solamente—que publica—tiene un blog y Twitter que se ha dedicado básicamente a destruir la carrera, la reputación de una serie de profesores en todos los campos de la ciencia. Y generalmente, es gente de alto perfil—miembros de la academia relacionada a la ciencia, digamos, directores de institutos, ¿ya? Y casi todas sus investigaciones giran al torno del tema del acoso sexual o de conducta sexual, ¿ya? Aún cuando no necesariamente las cosas que él reporta tienen esa connotación. Pero él le va a dar siempre ese giro. Y lo va a hacer, básicamente, porque hoy día, lo peor que tú puedes hacer con un académico—con un profesor—es acusarlo de ese tipo de comportamientos, ¿no? Es una deshonra, es un [ininteligible] que no se quita con nada, ¿no? Entonces, el caso comenzó porque hace como un mes, digamos, la Universidad de Harvard informó que un profesor muy conocido—muy famoso—que se llama Gary Urton, que fue acusado por tres alumnas, ¿no?, de verdadero acoso sexual, de enviarles cartas y cosas. A raíz de eso, y puesto que yo era muy—pero muy próximo al Dr. Urton. El señor, este Balter, me comenzó a señalar a mí también como una suerte de cómplice. [2:01] Y luego, ¿no?, le comenzaron a mandar información—creo yo—falsa, exagerada, tergiversada, ¿no?... sobre mis… sobre todo, sobre la [ininteligible] que yo realizaba en mis proyectos de investigación. Yo dirijo un proyecto de investigación que es el más, de más larga data en el Perú—tiene 30 años continuos de investigación de campo en un lugar que se llama San José de Moro. [2:27] Entonces, lo que ha publicado este señor de los alumnos es un informe en que básicamente, digamos, unas tres alumnas extranjeras me acusan de que en ese proyecto tendría un ambiente de acoso, pero más que acoso, de comportamiento errado. La gente se emborrachaba, donde había comentarios alusivo a las personas, a su peso, a su comportamiento—que ellas consideran que eran abusivo que era, pues... También hay tres acusaciones directas que yo he tenido relaciones con alumnas. Una de ellas es una—con una persona en que en el texto se refieren como si fuera "mi mujer," por lo que yo… [ininteligible]. Esa alumna—esta chica es una alumna mía que está haciendo su doctorado en los Estados Unidos, ¿ya?, con la que yo tengo una relación académica muy profunda y familiar—muy profunda. [Ininteligible] muy cercana, ¿ya? Y está indignada porque el tipo la haya señalado sino porque la contactó, ella lo rechazó, la volvió a contactar, la acosó para que le de información y cuando no se la dió igual sacó este [ininteligible] diciendo que ella era mi amante y que por haber sido mi amante, había obtenido todo tipo de, ¿cómo se llama,? de logros académicos. Lo cual es un insulto. [Ininteligible].
Periodista: Eso—usted lo ha podido conocer en estos días, bueno, apropósito de la denuncia.
CASTILLO: [4:07] Sí, claro. Lo que pasa es que, como el mundo de arqueología es muy pequeño, ¿no?, podemos deducir—yo puedo deducir—quienes son las personas que están apareciendo. [4:18] También aparecen dos supuestas alumnas de la Católica que le se han contacto que dicen que yo tuve una aproximación con ellas—espera—lo cual yo niego absoluta y enfáticamente. Jamás he tenido una aproximación [ininteligible] Entonces, este—
Periodista: Y con estas dos alumnas que serían las peruanas, ¿no? Porque el resto también son en su mayoría extranjeras, digamos, ¿usted tiene, alguna razón, imagina algún tipo de motivo por el que hayan hecho esta denuncia, o se han contacto con él, o él las haya contactado y ellas hayan hablado?
CASTILLO: [5:04] Eh, no lo sé, porque no sé quiénes son. Me imagino porque no he tenido... Una dice que yo… la… la… le invité un trago y luego le sugiere unas cosas, la otra que tuvo una relación conmigo. Y niego absolutamente esas dos denuncias, ¿no? Y espero que en el proceso de la universidad que estas personas hagan su denuncia, porque, mire, es muy fácil en internet, ¿no cierto?, [5:28] es muy fácil destruir la honra de una persona. Si yo pongo que usted se acostó con tres menores de edad mañana y está perdido, ¿se da cuenta? Porque el internet lo va a usar, lo va a hostigar, lo va a contener y lo va a sepultar. ¿Comprende? [5:50] Entonces... y si es anónimo, y usted no tiene los nombres de las personas, ¿como hace para defenderse? Creo que estamos ante una situación muy compleja porque [6:04] hoy en día, ¿no?—pueden destruir la reputación de cualquier persona, digamos, en un… en un—con cinco letras, ¿no?
Periodista: Y, digamos, usted eh, digamos, frentera de estas denuncias en el último mes a propósito del informe del periodista Balter, anteriormente, no hubo, digamos, no recibió ningún aviso, digamos, alguna de estas chicas se le acercó, o alguien....
CASTILLO: [6:31] Jamás.
Periodista: Todo nace el propósito... [Castillo interrumpe]
CASTILLO: [6:34] Jamás. Jamás he tenido una queja. Sí, NUNCA he tenido una queja al respecto proceder... NUNCA he tenido una queja, nunca ha habido una denuncia... nunca ha habido un comentario. Ahora las personas saben, digamos, que los chismes circulan. SEGURO. Yo he sido—soy un arqueólogo, una figura pública; he sido ministro; he sido viceministro; he sido director de un proyecto de la [ininteligible] y claro, algunos [ininteligible]. Pero además, digamos, es como una especie de bullying. Soy un target. [7:11] Mucha gente—mucha gente ve la oportunidad de atacarme, atacar a toda una—a toda una estructura patriarcal y de poder, y, ¿no? Entonces, ahí hay eso, ¿no? Pero, claramente, mire, ¿que le puedo decir? [7:33] Yo niego todas las cosas que se dicen en ese informe porque donde no es francamente mentira, ¿no cierto?—como en el caso el cuento este que [ininteligible] o en otro caso donde dice que a mí me me botan de—yo era editor de una revista [Latin American Antiquity] MUY IMPORTANTE en los Estados Unidos. Renuncié. Y tengo aquí la carta que te la puedo pasar, de la editora conmigo que es... le dice al Señor Balter, “Es mentira lo que usted está diciendo. Nadie nos botó. Renunciamos”—pero aún así, Balter va y lo publica, y está en su informe, en el último párrafo.
Periodista: Claro, menciona de que, bueno, que tenía unas preferencias, una cuestión así.
CASTILLO: [8:16] Es absolutamente eso, entonces la co-editora que es la doctora Silverman, ¿no cierto?, ha mandado una carta diciendo que eso es FALSO. Y es falso—y es falso bien sobre lo del estudiante. Yo supongo que son falsas las dos acusaciones—las estudiantes que no dan su nombre, no dan ninguna referencia. Simplemente, "Me escribió una persona anónima y me dijo que había tenido esto." "Me escribió otra persona ANÓNIMA y me dijo que había tenido esto." [8:44] Mire, eso no es PERIODISMO. Usted es periodista, usted [ininteligible] no se pueda... Pero este tipo en su blog evidemente traspasa todas las barreras de la ética profesional. ¿Se da cuenta? Mire, el señor—este—a diferencia de usted, nunca me llamó para corroborar si esta [ininteligible].
Periodista: Eso era mi—mi pregunta también. Él no...¿hubo algún contacto por mail digamos, teléfono, por Twitter...o no sé, o algún tipo de contacto?
CASTILLO: [9:17] Ninguno. La primera vez que me enteré de su existencia fue a los dos días del asunto de Urton cuando me llamó predador sexual, ¿no?—en su blog. Ahora, yo estoy haciendo dos cosas—la primera—he pedido una investigación que la que usted ha visto, la investigación que ha abierto la comisión de acoso de la Católica. Yo se la pedí al [ininteligible]. Fue iniciativa mía para que se abra una investigación.
Periodista: Ajá. ¿Fue una iniciativa suya, digamos, el pedido?
CASTILLO: [9:53] Sí. Fue una iniciativa mía en una carta dirigida al rector de hace tres semanas. Y número dos, estoy haciendo una demanda, ¿no?—por difamación contra este señor. Y lo voy hacer ir al tribunal a que se... mire, [10:12] como le digo, el señor ha hecho una serie de acusaciones que son absolutamente falsas y muchos casos, hay una tergiversación. “A mí me PARECIÓ,” “yo SENTÍ,” ¿no cierto? “A mí me DIJERON”—discúlpame—usted no puede garantizar a una persona, destruir su nombre, destruir a su familia, ¿no?—con ese tipo de investigación. "A mí me pareció que el señor Castillo me estaba diciendo que me vista de esa manera para recibir a gente"—disculpe—el señor Castillo no te dijo que te vistas de esa forma. "El señor Castillo me hacía bailar para la gente que visita”—¿Cómo se les ocurre, se da cuenta?! ¡Es una ESTUPIDEZ! [10:50] En ningún momento [ininteligible] que yo le decía a mis alumnas que excavaran en bikini. ¿Ya? No lo dice en este blog—lo dice en un post anterior. Usted se puede imaginar, sí, ¿usted se puede imaginar que cosa tan absurda? Ósea, en el sol del norte, una estudiante en bikini, quedaría calcinada en media hora. Entonces, que yo le he dicho, que esa fuente le haya dicho [ininteligible] el nivel de exageración de ese tipo, ¿no? O que les decía a mis alumnas que se vistan de una determinada manera u otra. Ahora, yo no sé por qué, como las fuentes son anónimas exactamente quiénes son. PRESUMO, ¿no? Tengo una—unos “hints.” Y la verdad es que no puedo entender cómo estas personas han llegado a las conclusiones que han llegado, o si las conclusiones a las que han llegado son las que hace el señor Balter. [11:46] Pero ninguna de las cosas que se dice ahí, digamos, son correctas. Y para descartarlas, tengo el testimonio de más de 100 de mis alumnos que estuvieron presente en [ininteligible]. 100 alumnos, algunos peruanos, extranjeros, estuvieron en esos años y pueden confirmar que todo lo que dice este señor es falso. Ahora, él dice que yo, que soy un hombre muy poderoso, estoy amenazando a mi fuente—mire—yo le he mandado una carta notarial a las personas que me han insultado en la red—¿ya?—insultado y he mandado cartas a 4 personas, porque he recibido los insultos más ruines que se puede imaginar. No los estoy amenazando porque ninguna de las personas a las que yo les he mandado cartas es testigo de alguna manera. No los conozco—no tienen que ver con esta historia, ¿se da cuenta? Entonces—no son testigos a los que estoy amenazando. Lo que pasa es que un ciudadano, cuando su honor es [ininteligible], el único recurso con él que cuenta es iniciar un proceso por difamación. Lo otro es quedarse callado y de alguna manera aceptar una culpa que no tiene. ¿Usted me comprende?
Periodista: Y Doctor... este... y, digamos, entones [Castillo interrumpe]
CASTILLO: [13:11] Perdón, perdón, perdón. En contraparte de [ininteligible], este hombre es tan venenoso que muchas personas simplemente no quieren declarar nada que lo convierta en un objetivo de esto. Osea, muchos colegas y estudiantes no quieren hacer declaraciones por temor a que luego, este señor [ininteligible], ¿no cierto? Vaya atacarlos a ellos—esa es la realidad, ¿ya? Esto es un caso verdaderamente de difamación; es un caso verdaderamente de, digamos, de un comportamiento y... mire, osea... bueno. Entonces, ese es el tema. Ha acosado a mis estudiantes para que declaren en contra mía—no uno—8 de mis estudiantes han sido acosado de este Señor Balter, para que haya denuncias en contra mío—denuncias que evidentemente, no existen.
Periodista: Y Doctor... digamos, osea, son dos acciones en concreto que está haciendo. Bueno, la primera que es la investigación que usted me comenta que le envió una carta al rector y bueno, finalmente se ha abierto esta investigación que sacarán sus conclusiones y usted, me imagino, también ayudará, aportará cuando—en todas las cosas que le sean solicitadas.
CASTILLO: [14:41] Por supuesto, por supuesto, yo me ha [ininteligible] la investigación. Mire, no me queda otra, que cosa mas puedo hacer, osea, ¿no? Y lo hago [ininteligible]. Yo espero que la comisión haga una investigación correcta, asumiéndose el debido proceso. La comisión no puede, por ejemplo, tomar testimonios de sujetos anónimos, porque ya le digo, un testimonio anónimo es una cosa muy peligrosa. Quien operaba con testimonios anónimos era la Santa Inquisición. ¿Se da cuenta? [Ininteligible] cuando torturaban para ver si era cierto. Usted no tenía que decir quién era. Entonces, yo creo que ya hace tiempo hemos pasado esa fase. Evidentemente, tiene que haber un conjunto de cosas. Y una de ellas es que—cualquier persona que es acusado de algo, debe y puede consultar a su acusador. ¿Cómo si no me defiendo? ¿Se da cuenta?
Periodista: Y Doctor, y digamos, osea—eh, poniéndonos un poco—eh, evaluando los escenarios, y digamos, puede presentarse testimonios en esta investigación que sean anónimos—me imagino que, que que, que habrá personas que querrán guardar, digamos, por todo lo que hemos conversado, ¿no?, por todas las cosas que, digamos, que también lo acusan y que también, desmiente tajantemente. Pero, digamos, al enfrentarse ante la posibilidad de que haya denuncias anónimas, usted qué, qué, qué—¿cómo tomaría eso, o cómo...?
CASTILLO: [16:15] Mire, ninguna comisión o ningún tribunal del mundo puede aceptar denuncias anónima—NINGUNA, ¿se da cuenta? Porque yo puedo acusar a quien sea de lo que sea escondiendome detras del anonimato. Ningún tribunal del mundo, ni del planeta, ni siquiera en la, digamos, en la dictadura más este... más extrema puede pasar un proceso judicial que—en simplemente acusaciones anónimas. NINGUNO, ¿ya? Osea, que está fuera de cuestión y creo que eso es lo—lo elemental. Usted, osea, mire, nosotros vivimos en un estado de derecho donde se presume una serie de cosas, una es la inocencia de las personas hasta que no se demuestre lo contrario. Sin embargo, en el Twitter y en el internet y las redes, la gente es condenada sin procesos—la gente es condenada por el mismo hecho que lo acusen. Recuerda, en el tribunal de la opinión pública, usted es fichado por solamente la mera acusación.
Periodista: Y Doctor, lo otro me decía que es una denuncia penal inconcreto, ¿ya le inició o le va a iniciar—cual es el estado?
CASTILLO: [17:29] Estamos en la fase preparatoria. Ya le hicimos el primer paso que es enviarle una carta [notarial] a las personas para darle la opción para, cómo se llama?—a que se rectifican. Ese es el primer paso en el proceso de difamación. Mandar una carta que ya la recibió—ya dió como, dió el informe—nos dió señales de que la había recibido y con eso ya saltamos ese primer paso y ahora vamos a denunciar penal y civil contra él y contra los que resulten responsables.
Periodista: ¿Y en el otro proceso que es el de la comisión le han dicho algo? ¿Ya lo han citado? ¿Le han pedido algún tipo de información o todavía no?
CASTILLO: [18:15] No, todavía no. Yo creo que la comisión está, primero, evaluando el proceso a través de entrevistas con mis alumnos. [18:24] Mire, lo cual me parece correcto porque aquí tenemos la información vertida por tres personas, contra la opinión que van a dar 20-30, ¿no cierto?, y van a contar una historia completamente diferente, seguramente. Lo que pasa es que, mire, si usted ha leído el informe de Balter pareciera que lo único que hacíamos en ese proyecto de investigación—es un proyecto de investigación de ALTÍSIMO nivel, reconocido en TODO el mundo, ¿ok? Es uno de los MÁS grandes proyectos de investigación que ha durado 30 años, se han formado no menos de 30 doctores. Pero cuando usted lee el blog del Señor Balter, pareciera que lo único que hacíamos era fiestas, ¿se da cuenta? Pareciera que lo único que hacíamos era emborracharnos. Parecería que lo único que hiciéramos era hacer comentarios estúpidos sobre la gente; pareciera que los otros, que dice que este es el razón, digamos, del que... del que—que la razón de ser del proyecto, ¿no? [19:18] Este es un proyecto de investigación serísima que ha contado con auspicio y financiación de TODAS las instituciones académicas del mundo. Entonces, ¿se da cuenta? [19:30] Este proceso ridiculiza la investigación en el campo de la arqueología, ridiculiza a las personas. Lo que no se da cuenta la gente es que quizás—claro, mira—nos—todos estamos en contra del acoso; todos estamos en contra de que se haya aprovechamiento, de discriminación, maltrato, ¿ya? Pero eso no se puede, pero... [19:56] la opinión de tres personas, contra la opinión mayoritaria de 40-50 no puede PREVALECER, ¿se da cuenta? En este proyecto, ha trabajado investigadores de todo el mundo que han venido de Suecia, de Francia, de España, Alemania, de Estados Unidos, de Canadá, de México, etc. Y jamás [20:14] hemos tenido ninguna queja hasta que han aparecidos estas informaciones de este señor y de tres estudiantes norteamericanas. Además, no eran mis estudiantes. No eran alumnas mías. Eran tres arqueólogas que vinieron aquí, básicamente, con sus profesores para buscar un proyecto de investigación. Nunca fueron mis alumnos, en el momento en que se narran los hechos. No eran de la universidad Católica, no tenían ninguna relación con la Universidad Católica. Eran 3 arqueólogas que vinieron al Perú a buscar una oportunidad de investigación. Una de ellas hizo una tesis magnífica. La otra se fue a otro lado a hacer su investigación en el sur del Perú, y la tercera abandonó la arqueología. En los tres casos, yo ni siquiera era parte de su comité doctoral. Yo ni siquiera dirigí sus tesis, ¿se da cuenta? Además, ninguna de las tres, que son las Estudiantes A, B y C—o A, B y D—A,B y E—ninguna de ellas refiere que yo tuve algún tipo de, de, digamos, acoso; simplemente dice “me dijo esto,” “me dijo que yo debía usar menos ropa.” Bueno, yo tengo testigos que pueden afirmar que yo nunca les dije eso. Yo dije otra cosa, que tenían que usar ropa de campo. La otra dice que yo la usaba como “escort,” y tengo 20 alumnos que pueden decir, “Señor, eso no es el caso,” ¿no? Osea, teníamos muchas reuniones donde venían muchos investigadores, entonces, yo les decía a los alumnos que tenían la oportunidad de conocerlos. De ahí que hayan sido “escort.” ¡Por favor!, ¿no?
Periodista: Y Doctor— [Castillo interrumpe]
CASTILLO: [22:02] Y claro, a mí me ofende mucho pero, por otro lado a mí me quita las ganas de seguir en el círculo de investigación, porque si así va a ser de aquí en adelante y vamos a darle oídos a denuncias que vengan de de Twitter, y que vengan de blogs—mire—mejor nos buscamos otra cosa que hacer, porque si van a parar, ¿no? [22:22] Van a denunciar todos los profesores, a todos los académicos. Y lo que va a ocurrir es que nunca jamás van a querer tener un solo alumno, ¿se da cuenta?
Periodista: Y Doctor, bueno, ya para ir finalizando, bueno... definitivamente usted rechaza todas las acusaciones y, y— [Castillo interrumpe]
CASTILLO: [22:42] TODAS.
Periodista: Bueno. Claro, exactamente. Todo se ha iniciado la investigación, si va a usted denunciar la demanda, ya la inició, y, digamos, fuera de esto—esta acusación quisiera su opinión en cuanto a—en como se desarolla, porque también en la acusación se menciona de que, en el ambiente de la arqueología hay mucho—es un escenario donde se propicia mucho el acoso sexual, y, digamos ya, fuera de la acusación que se le viene a usted, digamos, ¿cuál es su observación frente a esta hipotesis, o esta denuncia también, ¿no? del ambiente arqueológico en si—eh, si prima—o si ha habido casos, o si usted ha visto casos, ha visto alguno? ¿Ha denunciado alguno, no sé?
CASTILLO: [23:36] Mire, yo no he visto, ni he denunciado, ¿no cierto? Sé que es un ambiente—mire, lo que pasa es que la arqueología es una disciplina muy particular—es una disciplina de campo, donde la gente tiene que acomodarse a una ambiente rural, ¿no cierto? Donde hay muchos estudiantes juntos y pueden haber muchas cosas introducidas. [23:58] En mi proyecto estaba prohibido, ¿no cierto?, que los asistentes de investigación tuvieran ninguna relación con los estudiantes. Prohibido. Y eso de hace más de 20 años—no podían tener NINGUNA relación. Ahora, yo no le puedo prohibir a un asistente de investigación que tenga una relación con un alumno, ¿no cierto?, perdón, con una alumna—con otro asistente de investigación, ¿no? [24:23] Y de los alumnos, evidentemente, viviendo ahí, ellos tenían ahí, mire, yo—mire, osea, en ese ámbito, yo creo que ahora es un ambiente tenso; es un ambiente—la investigación arqueológica es un ambiente de mucha sensación, de mucho estrés, de mucho esfuerzo físico, ¿no cierto?, donde la gente evidentemente—¿no? Se cansa, se ofusca, o porque se trabaja de lunes a sábado de 6 de la mañana a 7 de la noche y luego vive con gentes [ininteligible], ¿se da cuenta? Estos periodos de investigación en el campo son muy, muy intensos, [ininteligible] digamos, todas estas situaciones. Alguna de las personas que creo que es la [25:08] Estudiante B, por ejemplo, es una persona que estuvo en el proyecto y dice que ella sentía mucha tensión, ¿no cierto? Y, ¡claro! El trabajo de un profesor, es como trabajo de tu editor que te dice “termina la nota” antes de poner un pie fuera del edificio. ¿se da cuenta? El trabajo del director de un proyecto es exigir y avanzar y a veces, evidentemente, eso genera, esa sensación de que hay mucha fuerza, pero lamentablemente así es la vida real, y así es un trabajo, ¿se da cuenta? En la universidad, los estudiantes creen que no, que el mundo va a ser, digamos, parecido como es la universidad, pero quien ya está en el mundo laboral se habrá dado cuenta que eso no es así. [25:47] La arqueología es así—es un trabajo jerárquico, pero ahora si eso es cierto, en mi proyecto—los 30 años del proyecto, jamás ha habido ningún tipo de discriminación, ¿no? Por ninguna razón, ni de género, ni de orientación sexual, absolutamente ninguna—es decir, yo creo que—no sé de los otros proyectos, pero yo jamás he hecho. Mire, de 50 estudiantes que han hecho doctorado o sus maestrías, más de la mitad son mujeres, mucho más de mitad—probablemente 30 de las 50. Es decir que nunca ha habido discriminación, nunca ha habido—pero claro, alguna gente se siente discriminada porque no fue parte de eso, ¿se da cuenta? [26:30] Entonces, en el artículo, hay una persona que dice "el doctor Castillo dice, a sus estudiantes que trabajaran con él, que iban a tener una carrera académica,”—bueno, ¿eso no es un buen profesor? Es decir, darles a sus estudiantes todas las posibilidades que podrían tener, porque evidentemente yo nunca le he dicho que no a ningún estudiante [ininteligible]... pero claro, la respuesta es sí. Pero el trabajo es duro. Hay que ir al campo; hay que hacer una serie de cosas. Porque así es la vida, ¿se da cuenta? Sí, me ha preocupado que, a lo largo de mi carrera, a estos estudiantes, promoverlos a que lleguen a un doctorado y muchas veces en universidades extranjeras, ¿no? Y eso es algo que yo siempre he considerado una amistad. En ese contexto, ¿no cierto,? hay una profesora que se llama la profesora B que ha considerado un [ininteligible]. Bueno—te he dado mucha más información para lo que puede poner en una nota.
Periodista: No se preocupe Doctor Castillo, muy amable por sus palabras, por esta comunicación—eso le quería preguntar. ¿Usted va a emitir algún comunicado? ¿Ha pensado en esa posibilidad?
CASTILLO: [27:38] Mire, en el ámbito de lo privado, dentro de la universidad, sí, acabo de mandar una carta al rector que va a llegar a la FEPUC [Federación de Estudiantes de la PUCP] probablemente, ¿no? Pero el problema es que todo lo que todo lo que nos diga en la web puede ser distorsionado. Usted lo sabe, ¿no? Entonces, claro, mis abogados, mis asesores, me dicen mejor no hacer grandes declaraciones. Mire, espero que, supongo que—lo que usted ha publicado, lo que ha publicado El Comercio o La República, ha sido [ininteligible]. [28:12] Mire, yo no le digo que vote por mí, pero, también le pediría—porque alguna vez, he tenido un problema con Perú 21, con el asunto de las minas, entonces—yo lo que le he dado es mi versión y espero que no, no, no, no se tergiverse—siempre le corre uno el riesgo, ¿no?
Periodista: No, nosotros no— [Castillo interrumpe]
CASTILLO: [28:31] Lo que yo le he dicho fíjese es lo que es la verdad. Yo no me estoy inventando y lamentablemente, como le digo, yo veo un problema muy grave, porque TODOS los profesores de TODAS las áreas—de TODAS las universidades—en este momento, están bajo ataque. Y no bajo ataque por su comportamiento, porque hay sinvergüenzas, ¿no? Sino por el hecho que basta una nota en un blog, basta una acusación anónima, para destruirle la carrera, la reputación, la honra, del profesor y su familia, ¿se da cuenta? Entonces, bueno. En esos estamos, en realidad no solamente a un profesor, de un periodista, de un político—de cualquier, ¿no?
Periodista: Ok, ok, Profesor. Entonces, muy amable. Y una consulta: Entonces, ese comunicado que usted está enviando al rector, eh, digamos, ¿no lo va a compartir o no lo podría compartir?
CASTILLO: [29:26] Bueno, primero, tiene que seguir su curso en la universidad.
Periodista: Claro, y pero, digamos, ya lo envíó?
CASTILLO: [Castillo pausa] [29:34] Sí, sí, una suerte de descargo. [Ininteligible].
Periodista: Claro. Listo, el profesor Castillo, muy amable. Muy, muy amable—muy amable con sus palabras.
Update August 9, 2020: Correcting the record when lies are told.
It has come to my attention that a certain archaeologist at an East Coast university is telling lies to colleagues at her own institution and at PUCP about my interactions with her. Below, with her name redacted, is the entire email exchange I had with her and a PR person from her university (which is also redacted.) I hope this will correct the record. This individual is protecting Castillo first and foremost, with whom she had a sexual relationship. The lies about the reporter who politely asked if she would talk to me him partially waive her right to anonymity, but I am still not naming her.
June 3, 2020:
Dear ________,
I am an anthropology/archaeology writer who often covers misconduct in our field.
I am investigating numerous allegations concerning Luis Jaime’s treatment of women.
I don’t know if you are at the point where you might want to discuss this issue, but I thought I would get in touch and ask. I can assure you complete confidentiality if so.
Best regards,
Michael Balter
June 9, 2020:
Hello again _______,
[a director of media relations at the university in question]
I don't want to cause you any trouble and pain, because you may well be a victim yourself. But it may be necessary for me to mention you in my reporting, and so I want to give you every opportunity to tell me your story. You can be anonymous if you want to be, so please consider getting in touch on a private email address.
Best wishes,
Michael
June 9:
Michael
On behalf of _______, who has shared with me your multiple requests for comment, she will decline to comment for your story. I am struck by your willingness to grant her anonymity, only if she agrees to speak with you. I have never seen a reporter deal with the topic of sexual misconduct and sources in that manner.
Please direct all further inquiries on her behalf to me, if you could, or take this as a blanket response to prevent further inquires. She doesn’t wish to hear from you again.
Thank you,
[a director of media relations at the university in question]
June 9:
_______,
Thank you for your message.
By multiple requests for comment, of course, you mean two, one initial and one followup email.
As for the anonymity question, that is a misunderstanding on your part, and possibly hers. I was willing to grant anonymity if she would talk to me, and confidentiality for what she might say, but I never promised not to name her. Those are two separate things. She has had a long relationship with Castillo and that is relevant to issues of appropriate relationships between senior and junior colleagues.
At any rate I have no reason to contact her again now that it has been clearly communicated that she does not want to talk to me.
Best, Michael
Just a brief comment here, as Castillo has also been telling this lie to colleagues. If a statement is being made about someone, especially one that could reflect badly on their ethics and reputation, the decent thing to do is ask that individual if it is true. Believing whatever you hear about someone creates the risk that you are believing lies. This is such a basic principle, but one that seems to be easily forgotten even by those who claim to have principles and proclaim them loudly. Despite the fact that the this colleague is lying about my interactions with her--and thus protecting Castillo and his power to abuse other future victims--I am not naming her. But I am saying that she is lying to friends and colleagues about this reporter and what he did.
39 Comments
They all conveniently forget that real people with real trauma are the ones who reached out to Balter. If Balter reached out to others, it is because he was doing his due diligence and searched for corroboration before posting online.
The ones accused also conveniently forget that it is their institutional failure to listen and act that drove those victims to alternative means of seeking justice. I am one of those victims, so am speaking from experience.
I do not go looking for these cases, and I would have quit doing this long ago were it not for the fact that nearly every week I am asked for help. And the reason is precisely what the commenter says: The failure of institutions to protect vulnerable students and other colleagues.
Besides his threats against students and budding archaeologists, he was known to have fired archaeologists working at the Cultural Ministry who were former students of Krzysztof Makowski simply out of spite.
I don't know who would want Balter's kind of fame. No money, no prestige, no institutional kudos, no popularity with the cool crowd. I don't know if anyone remembers, but he used to be quite popular before he started Metoo stories, because he was useful to promote our research. He's now a persona-non-grata among the North American archaeology community due to his investigative Metoo reporting. You don't like his methods? That's OK, don't share his stuff and don't read his posts. But please don't harass and criticize people who go to Balter or share his material.
During my research, I noticed that he would only block people after lengthy conversations where the other side would begin to accuse him of centering himself and doing it only for self-serving purposes. Honestly, I'd block those people too. I think it's terribly counterproductive to focus on Balter, even if you think he's made mistakes, every single time he posts a new article. Especially if Balter is all you complain about and not the alleged abusers. It gaslights victims who have come forward to him as well as discourage others who are considering coming to him. You are also literally centering Balter for him when you do this, distracting from the actual content of the reporting. I speak as someone who had come to Balter about things I've seen. During this whole process, he was sympathetic, honest, direct, hard-working, and respectful.
I was initially wary due to the things that people had written on Twitter and Facebook about him, but when I did my own research, I found that the complaints were mostly misguided or self-serving. There were a few instances where I could see grounds for complaint, but in some of those cases, Balter actually corrected his mistakes and admitted he should not have done something (like fish for information on closed Facebook groups). Even something like fishing for information on closed Facebook groups is not automatically unethical, given what investigative journalists are taught. It may offend our sensibilities as academics since we like to keep things in-house and use "proper" institutional reporting mechanisms, but in the journalism world, this is par for the course. These critics are never gracious and never acknowledge when he does correct his supposed mistakes. Just realize that you are also criticizing the victims/survivors who literally have no other choice other than Balter. No other news organization would risk litigation over people who are not famous in the broader sense. Balter also has a good track record of actually helping to instigate change. Speaking from experience, Balter is a diligent, transparent, and sympathetic advocate. I'm not saying he's a perfect person and has never made mistakes. But I've seen him correct many mistakes when someone is not impugning his motives for social media cookies. I'm glad I did not listen to all the gossip.
Signed, A survivor and witness for other survivors
I second this assertion. I also recently spoke with Michael Balter about some of the things I’ve seen during my ten years as an archaeologist. I have been an anonymous source with several journalists in a different highly sensitive context, and my recent interactions with Mr. Balter raise no alarms. Regarding social media use, I follow a lot of journalists and writers on Twitter, and I routinely see highly respected journalists soliciting information via tweet for pieces in progress.
I was skeptical of Mr. Balter’s intentions at first, but only because I’ve so rarely encountered honest, straight-forward characters in archaeology. Upon quick glance, his other non-commissioned writing appears to be motivated by principles of equality, democracy, and solidarity. I get it. I sometimes do hard things without compensation just because I believe in the cause. Given the record numbers of #BLM protestors in the United States this summer, I suspect a growing number of people identify with this motivation.
I earned my MA and PhD in anthropological archaeology at UCLA during the era that Ran Boytner developed the Institute for Field Research. During that time, I suspected some UCLA faculty lied to me and my colleagues about the nature of Dr. Boytner’s departure from UCLA. I heard rumors of Dr. Boytner’s and other Peruvian archaeologists' horrible conduct, which Mr. Balter has recently substantiated on his blogging platform. I had an uneasy feeling about field schools being moved away from what little protections universities offer to women. Trying to succeed in a PhD program is hard enough without these additional burdens; the substantiation of these rumors has been validating. If I thought any UCLA faculty were incorrectly accused by Mr. Balter's writing, I would be the loudest protestor right now. Rather, I appreciate his work enough to help sponsor it through GoFundMe.
But IFR and the Peruvian archaeology examples are just the tip of the iceberg. My entire junior-level career in North and Central American archaeology was punctuated by sexism, knowledge of faculty sexual misconduct, and awareness that many faculty are complicit in denying, hiding, or ignoring their colleagues’ transgressions. This toxic behavior, together with the bullying and gatekeeping noted elsewhere, limited the educational value of my graduate training and presented challenges to maintaining my mental health. I won’t speak for others, but many of my colleagues have echoed these sentiments.
This is a story that needs to be told. All throughout my graduate career, I was advised by well-intentioned faculty to never rock the boat. “You better be careful with that,” was a phrase I heard more than once from well-intentioned faculty when I expressed frustration with unacceptably low standards. Maybe it’s time for the faculty who sexually exploit, bully, and gatekeep to be told “you better be careful with that.”
"This man, Balter, is an internet journalist who... has a blog and Twitter that is basically dedicated to destroying the careers, the reputations of a number of professors in all fields of science.”
He freely associates himself with those whose careers and reputations were “destroyed” by appearing in the blog. So it’s either he conducted independent investigations into all these cases and concluded those abusers to be actually innocent and did not deserve this fate, or, more likely, that integrity of their careers and reputations are the standards by which he judges the merit of these cases.
Evidence for my first case comes an article published by two American scholars in Latin American Antiquity (Volume 25, Number 2). In this article, published I 2014, the authors present the results of an excavation conducted seven years earlier at a site located on the south coast of Peru. I do not want to discuss the scientific content of the article. It is a sentence included in the acknowledgment section what should concern us. Here, both authors thank “Luis Jaime Castillo of Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru (PUCP) in Lima for introducing us to project co-directors A.C.M. and F.F.P. […]” (full names provided in the original text). It is curious that the authors do not thank the co-directors themselves, but Castillo in his role of “provider of human resources”. Perhaps La Catolica should be thankful to Castillo, too, given that A.C.M. and F.F.P. (both well known in Peruvian archaeology for being members of the most exclusive inner circle of Castillo) were later granted tenure track teaching positions in the Archaeology Program of that university. These are the only two teaching positions that have been opened in the Archaeology Program the last 10 years. What are the odds of something like this happening, had the application requirements for these positions been arranged to meet the high educational standards of a (seemingly) prestigious university? In light of this evidence, I think that the list of Castillo´s victims should be expanded to include all current archaeology students of La Catolica, who pay high tuition fees in the expectation of getting a good education. Instead of getting what they deserve, they end up entangled in the web of Castillo´s manipulative plots.
My second case refers to the only archaeology journal published by La Catolica, called Boletin de Arqueología PUCP. This journal was founded in 1997 by a Faculty member who never got along with Castillo. Even though this professor managed to raise this journal to a high level of international recognition, in the year 2012 La Catolica authorities decided to take editing responsibilities away from him. In a mysterious turn of events, Castillo was appointed as new director. Ever since, this publication has lost its scientific focus, for it has been commonly used by Castillo to serve his sectarian interests. Wide access has been granted to Castillo´s students and followers, while those holding different opinions have been censured. If one looks at the issues published after 2012, for instance, it will not be difficult to find several articles written by A.C.M. and F.F.P.
In the past few days, we have learned some of the ways through which La Catolica´s authorities seem to have ignored, or even covered up, Castillo´s actions. We have learned that the San Jose de Moro project was ran without any supervision, and that lawyers hired by the university have sent threatening letters to potential victims. Here, I have presented two additional cases that demonstrate that La Catolica has allowed Castillo´s abusive conducts to grow unchecked. If someone is going to lead an impartial investigation on Castillo´s actions, perhaps it is not a La Catolica commission the best candidate for reaching an objective verdict.
Let's refocus the conversation and anger on the importance of investigating very serious allegations rather than erasing the merits, work, and histories of colleagues that (to best of my knowledge) have not been accused of any misconduct.
Their long-standing grievances are actually understandable. But they're mobilizing the LJC scandal to try to topple the power structure, and demolish anyone associated with Catholica - to clear up those positions for their own set of archaeologists. The comments section of this blog is a very small vanguard of a larger push in Spanish-language social media and press.
Aunque quien se gana la corona en desidia es Jahl Dulanto. En sus clases sólo contaba chismes sobre los amoríos y las peleas de la gente de arqueología, apenas cumplía con un 25% del sílabo (le pongo 25% porque soy buena gente) y para evitarse problemas con la calificación, ponía la misma nota a todo el salón. Igualmente, Enrique López Hurtado, terrible profesor, faltaba a clases sin avisar más que escolar en pera. Y para llevarse bien con todos los alumnos (y para que ellos no se quejen), siempre los halagaba exageradamente por cosas insignificantes.
Los únicos buenos profesores que se pueden rescatar en Arqueología PUCP: K. Makowski, P. Kaulicke, I. Santillana, R. Vega Centeno, H. Ikehara, S. Barraza.
Es de suponer que este problema no sólo se restringe a la especialidad de Arqueología, sino probablemente se extienda a otras, especialmente a aquellas más pequeñas. La PUCP delega el manejo de la especialidad a sus profesores confiando en su capacidad y en su buena naturaleza. No obstante, cuando el dueño de casa no está, las ratas hacen fiesta. La PUCP debería supervisar mejor el servicio de sus profesores.
2: One thing is going after someone accused of abuse of power and sexual harassment, but going after women related to him without actual proof is simple unacceptable. If that's the case, que should question every single person that has been recommended by him.
3: Is Catolica actually doing something about this issue? Based on the previous post, there are already more than enough witnesses and testimonies to close and investigation and find him guilty. Have they already contacted Balter?
I was on the graduate admissions committee for the Anthropology Dept. at UCLA in the early 2000s. ONe of Castillos students was given an outstanding recommendation letter by him and after admission to the graduate program, Castillo said we never should have admitted them and that they were not good students and were going to succeed. They didn't, after being given a fabulous scholarship deal. Rumor has it their father is one of the wealthiest of Peruvians and consistently donated $10,000 per year to LJCs field school.
One thing is advisors doing their best to get their students jobs, another is to build careers thanks to the systematic abuse of power of their godfather. These women and men knew and benefited from that power structure. This is not what academia should be about.
One thing is advisors doing their best to get their students jobs, another is to build careers thanks to the systematic abuse of power of their godfather. These women and men knew and benefited from that power structure. This is not what academia should be about.
This is one of the ways my own abuser kept me from saying anything for as long as he did: by implying that if anyone found out what had happened between us, I would be discredited in academia and my career/reputation would be over. This is unfortunately a pernicious attitude in our culture, and to suggest that someone’s position and/or career is due to their sexual assault is itself an abusive act. It gives abusers another tool to control their victims. If we truly want to support survivors, we need to thoroughly dismantle this attitude and stop blaming them for things that were done to them and were out of their control. We (survivors) hold ourselves back enough as we recover from abuse, we really don’t need other people doing it for us.
The last thing I would like to say is concerning the email exchange shared above, and the nature of your (Balter’s) reporting on this student in the original article. To make public accusations about a sexual relationship (one that, given the power dynamic described, would most certainly be non-consensual, if it even existed) without this person’s consent because they would not provide information for your article is absolutely inexcusable. If you are truly seeking to give a voice to victims and pursue justice, there is no need to involve someone--a student, importantly--who asked not to be a part of this article. Their pain is not yours to air unless they’ve explicitly asked you to do so. I really respect the strides you’ve made in the past to give survivors a means to tell their stories, but the line between allyship and exploitation largely rests on the collaboration with and cooperation of those you are purporting to support. This section of the story made me uneasy to read because it felt uncomfortably set in the “exploitation” camp.
I hope to see justice for LJC’s accusers. I know there are too many of him in archaeology, and they are so, so hard to hold accountable with the way academia is structured. I just ask that we don’t punish other potential victims of his as we deal with the damage he’s already caused.
I received just such a comment today, in Spanish, which I have decided not to post, even though I agree with the gist of it. The comment named a number of colleagues and supporters of Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, men and women, who claim to be victims either of Castillo or my reporting. The comment concluded: "ELLAS NO SON VÍCTIMAS, SON VICTIMARIAS."
In some cases I agreed with this characterization, based on my reporting and the often blatant lies that have been told on social media by Castillo's defenders, some of whom do indeed pretend to be victims when they are not. In other cases, I did not know enough to be sure about it. I do not (and cannot on Blogger) edit comments, and so I choose not to publish this particular one.
If anyone wants to contact me privately about such matters and such individuals, please feel free to do so and we can take it from there.