Reader Alexander Stingl writes:
One of the items in Pogge's defense struck me as odd; namely, the use of a "polygraph" as defense. While I am not sure what the current status of polygraphs in the American legal context is, but in science&technology studies the technology counts largely as debunked and - outside of people who write spy stories for television - isn't taken seriously (I just accepted a paper on polygraphs in fiction, for a special issue on how science fiction and science mutually influence each other). It's not permissible in Germany in legal contexts to the best of my knowledge. So, is Pogge's use of the device a "publicity stunt" or does it have bearings on any legal or Yale's regulatory procedures?
Polygraph test results are generally not admissible as evidence in American courts (the state of New Mexico is an exception). The exclusion dates to a court decision from the 1920s, but almost all American courts, state and federal, continue to follow that approach. The reason is that we know that some serial liars are very good at passing these tests, and some totally truthful witnesses regularly fail them. Polygraph tests try to pick up typical biomarkers of being untruthful, but the correlation is imperfect. If, in fact, Professor Pogge passed a polygraph test, as he asserts, nothing would preclude Yale from considering that, but it would not be admissible were the matter adjudicated in federal court or state court in Connecticut. Given the unreliability of such tests, there is no reason a complainant should subject herself to one.
UPDATE: Professor Pogge's response has moved from a Yale site to his personal site; the link, above, has been fixed.
