It is not an easy thing for the protagonists of the complicity with the University sexual harassers and their attacks on the victims to rectify; they have plenty of things to hide, great lies to recognize and scarce professional and personal ethics. But the institutions they belong to will do so when those holding responsibilities in them are not the current ones and when there no longer exist servitudes with them.
As everybody knows, the professor being mostly accused by many victims of gender violence in the University (even several years after) is JdM. Which complicities where there that made him remain in office until his retirement age and that he has been able to carry on with his despicable behaviour in another University (see “The Process”)? What complicities managed to stop, on June 13th, 2016, the massive campaign against his reincorporation to the UB? The Rector at the time acknowledged that he was a friend of JdM even to the press (see “El País”), something that on the other hand many people were aware of. Other relationships he held with some of the UB top officials were known too, without which it cannot be understood that he could have carried on with his behaviour for thirty odd years and that the institutional attacks were precisely against his victims.
That very Rector (who is not the current one), upon CREA’s legal requirements to be informed of the alleged report that the UB made on his activities, issued an announcement stating that there had been no report. Members of the small group of journalists who attacked JdM’s victims on June 13th, 2016, said that their information came from top Officials from the UB. EB repeatedly states in his articles that the UB told him that the Attorney General’s Office requested a change in CREA’s attitude, but at the same time affirms that the Attorney General’s Office has never investigated CREA that as a matter of fact is one of the very few truthful items on the subject. Actually, the Public Prosecutor’s Office never investigated this centre nor has it seen the need to ask for any information despite the amount of lies that University sexual harassers have continually disseminated.
How on earth can be said in a newspaper that the Public Prosecutor’s Office asked this centre to change their behaviour without having investigated it or asked for any information at all? Had this journalist checked with the victims, if only ten minutes, he would have got to know that the one who asked CREA for changes was the Rector’s team and not the Attorney General’s Office. But the aforementioned group of journalists did not want to know nor tell the truth, they did not confront anything with the victims, actually what they did was to release as true facts those lies fabricated by the harassers that are mentioned in articles 6 to 10 in the Omerta series. Only through a brief consultation with the victims he would have also known that the changes that the Rector in those days asked CREA for, were not what he repeatedly said in his articles, but on the contrary, something completely opposite: we now mention one of them and we will talk about some others at a later point in this Omerta series. The most important one out of all, was the annulment of the ethical code approved, trouble free, by the UB in 1995, which became very problematic for the harassers when an item was added that set-up solidarity with the victims of gender violence at the University.
They made us victims suffer a great deal with the so-called second-order of sexual harassment, but they have not silenced us and they will not; besides the international support we always got, we also enjoy now the ever growing support of the vast majority of journalists who are acting professionally, not in any sexist way at all, who do not support harassers any more but the victims, who do not spread lies, but inform on contrasted and verifiable facts.
