6 ms·

this: > Universities, Mia notes, have protocols for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment seems part of the problem. sexual harassment should be a 'go

this: > Universities, Mia notes, have protocols for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment seems part of the problem. sexual harassment should be a 'go straight to police' offence, not a hr reprimand. if the problem is as widespread as it's made in the article, it cannot correct from within.

ceejayoz 11y ago
Many forms of sexual harassment are not crimes. Some forms (physical assaults, extensive stalking) are, but something like repeatedly asking a subordinate for a date isn't something the police would be able to intervene in.
- masklinn 11y ago
  And then there's the other problem that even for criminal sexual harassment police may or may not be willing to help (the humongous backlog in unprocessed "rape kits" being but one concrete evidence of the latter)
  - woodman 11y ago
    > ...unprocessed "rape kits" being but one concrete evidence... The size of the "backlog" is an impressive number, but it was my understanding that it is primarily due to policies that lead to collection by default - regardless of actual need. Like when the perpetrator of the crime confesses, or when the DA determines that the rape kit isn't evidence of rape. Collecting by default makes sense as it is a time sensitive issue, but there are plenty of good reasons not to process the kit. If you think that processing should be done by default that is one thing, but lack of processing certainly isn't "concrete evidence" of police apathy.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/09/02/rape-kit-testing/71561958/ http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/... > Forensic experts at the Michigan State Police have been helping to clear the backlog, with the help of millions of dollars in funding appropriated by the Legislature. > Worthy said Detroit's kit-testing initiative has identified 2,616 suspects — including 477 serial rapists — and that 21 convictions have been secured. She said 106 cases are actively being investigated and 1,350 cases are awaiting investigation.
      - woodman 11y ago
        Like I said, the numbers are impressive, but they don't really provide much information. Look at the way that sentence is structured: those "identified", were they previously unknown? I think the 21 convictions is the only real meaningful part of that story - because the meaning is unambiguous. While it is a shame that a rapist can run around free while evidence is in hand, (21 / 11341) x 100 = 0.19%. Not nearly as impressive as "11,341 examples of why cops don't care!".
masklinn 11y ago
> not a hr reprimand. Not to mention chance as good that the victim will get reprimanded as the culprit. HR's purpose, whether it's in universities or in private companies, is to protect the employer. That's who pays their bills and that's who gives the orders. If a complaint makes the employer look bad and the easiest way to make it go away is to sink the victim, that's exactly what HR will do. The only department less moral than HR is internal affairs, and most companies don't get to have one.
- ssharp 11y ago
  It's not useful comparing Universities and private companies in these cases. In the United States, Universities behavior on discrimination and harassment is subject to Title IX and the government can investigate and audit how a University handles and performs in these areas. The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both. The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > In the United States, Universities behavior on discrimination and harassment is subject to Title IX and the government can investigate and audit how a University handles and performs in these areas. That's a purely theoretical point, as numerous revelations in the last few months/years have proven Title IX to be mostly toothless and at best implemented to the letter rather than the spirit. > The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both. That HR's job is to protect the employer is neither dubious nor nebulous. > The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior. Of course it does, but as I mentioned HR will tend to do that the simplest and most expedient way possible, silencing the complainer is a common way to do it. Employees and victims should not generally assume HR is their friend or on their side. HR may side with them, but that's a very different thing than being on their side.
woodman 11y ago
This is the sort of thinking that leads to people calling 911 for disputes relating to McNuggets. Calling in armed mediators is not likely to improve your situation.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  it was a short-hand for all the nuances applicable, I think I just badly translated a local way of speech
- wfo 11y ago
  It's the sort of thinking that gets abusive people who commit crimes public criminal records (or at least records of a series of accusations) instead of slaps on the wrist which forever remain private so they can continue their abuse. The other alternative, calling in University-owned mediators who have no incentive to help you and every incentive to "just make it go away" will almost certainly not improve your situation -- as described in detail in the article.
  - woodman 11y ago
    > ...people who commit crimes... While sexual harassment is terrible, it isn't a crime. There are a lot of terrible things that aren't crimes. A push to criminalize it would have the opposite effect of what the proponents desire: the definition would be severely narrowed and companies would likely have a lot less exposure to litigation.
    - wfo 11y ago
      Actually, fortunately you are incorrect here. While certain kinds of sexual harassment are not criminal, groping is certainly a crime. I'm pretty sure threatening to destroy someone's career to force sex is a crime. If you succeed, it's rape which is quite a serious crime. Even if you just file a report, it's important to establish a pattern of abuse for when the person inevitably crosses the line and goes to court. This is far more serious than chicken nuggets; the fact that people are willing to liken it to something like that is very troubling and indicative of how deep the problem runs: many people don't even see it as a problem.
Steuard 11y ago
I don't think that you're quite conceptualizing the issue in the right way. This isn't necessarily about rape or sexual assault (though even those can be hard to get the police to take seriously). There's a huge range of behaviors that can make work awful for someone that don't rise to the level of criminal behavior. This is about, say, a guy who could torpedo your entire career with a couple of phone calls making it clear that he'll be Very Disappointed if you make a big deal about him giving you a back rub when he thinks you look stressed. (Maybe you'd object, but last week you put up with it when he put his arm around your shoulders during a lab meeting: at the time, it seemed like he was just trying to comfort you about some buggy equipment. After that, will the rest of your lab think you were okay with this stuff? Did he take that as a signal that you were interested? Maybe it's best to just keep putting up with it and not risk getting on his bad side and flushing your career away. Oh, hey, looks like he just decided that your shirt is "in the way" this time.) [If you're wondering if a scenario like that is realistic, I based it loosely on the pattern described here: http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/05/fed-up-with-sexual-harassment-serial.html http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/05/fed-up-with-sex..., which it turns out was in fact directly inspired by the repeated behavior of Geoff Marcy: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-long-con.html http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-long-con.html]
draugadrotten 11y ago
> sexual harassment should be a 'go straight to police' offence, not a hr reprimand. Police requires evidence and it's often much harder to prove in criminal court than in civil cases - just look at the different OJ Simpson trials. When you walk to the HR office you don't need any evidence at all and the judge is sometimes a 25 year old HR person fresh from university. That's a much lower bar to pass than going to the police and meeting a judge. Sexual harassment in the workplace is so much more than what is strictly illegal. It may not be possible to make it illegal to look at someone in the wrong way, but there's no law against that being written to your HR file and having an impact on your future career.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
Many (but not all) types of sexual harassment in the workplace aren't go to the police illegal in and of themselves. I know someone who was fired from his job for saying something extremely inappropriate and sexual to a coworker. Did he deserve to get fired? Hell yeah. Does he deserve criminal charges? Hell no.

ceejayoz 11y ago

Many forms of sexual harassment are not crimes. Some forms (physical assaults, extensive stalking) are, but something like repeatedly asking a subordinate for a date isn't something the police would be able to intervene in.

masklinn 11y ago
And then there's the other problem that even for criminal sexual harassment police may or may not be willing to help (the humongous backlog in unprocessed "rape kits" being but one concrete evidence of the latter)
- woodman 11y ago
  > ...unprocessed "rape kits" being but one concrete evidence... The size of the "backlog" is an impressive number, but it was my understanding that it is primarily due to policies that lead to collection by default - regardless of actual need. Like when the perpetrator of the crime confesses, or when the DA determines that the rape kit isn't evidence of rape. Collecting by default makes sense as it is a time sensitive issue, but there are plenty of good reasons not to process the kit. If you think that processing should be done by default that is one thing, but lack of processing certainly isn't "concrete evidence" of police apathy.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/09/02/rape-kit-testing/71561958/ http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/... > Forensic experts at the Michigan State Police have been helping to clear the backlog, with the help of millions of dollars in funding appropriated by the Legislature. > Worthy said Detroit's kit-testing initiative has identified 2,616 suspects — including 477 serial rapists — and that 21 convictions have been secured. She said 106 cases are actively being investigated and 1,350 cases are awaiting investigation.
    - woodman 11y ago
      Like I said, the numbers are impressive, but they don't really provide much information. Look at the way that sentence is structured: those "identified", were they previously unknown? I think the 21 convictions is the only real meaningful part of that story - because the meaning is unambiguous. While it is a shame that a rapist can run around free while evidence is in hand, (21 / 11341) x 100 = 0.19%. Not nearly as impressive as "11,341 examples of why cops don't care!".

masklinn 11y ago

> not a hr reprimand. Not to mention chance as good that the victim will get reprimanded as the culprit. HR's purpose, whether it's in universities or in private companies, is to protect the employer. That's who pays their bills and that's who gives the orders. If a complaint makes the employer look bad and the easiest way to make it go away is to sink the victim, that's exactly what HR will do. The only department less moral than HR is internal affairs, and most companies don't get to have one.

ssharp 11y ago
It's not useful comparing Universities and private companies in these cases. In the United States, Universities behavior on discrimination and harassment is subject to Title IX and the government can investigate and audit how a University handles and performs in these areas. The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both. The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > In the United States, Universities behavior on discrimination and harassment is subject to Title IX and the government can investigate and audit how a University handles and performs in these areas. That's a purely theoretical point, as numerous revelations in the last few months/years have proven Title IX to be mostly toothless and at best implemented to the letter rather than the spirit. > The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both. That HR's job is to protect the employer is neither dubious nor nebulous. > The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior. Of course it does, but as I mentioned HR will tend to do that the simplest and most expedient way possible, silencing the complainer is a common way to do it. Employees and victims should not generally assume HR is their friend or on their side. HR may side with them, but that's a very different thing than being on their side.

woodman 11y ago

This is the sort of thinking that leads to people calling 911 for disputes relating to McNuggets. Calling in armed mediators is not likely to improve your situation.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
it was a short-hand for all the nuances applicable, I think I just badly translated a local way of speech
wfo 11y ago
It's the sort of thinking that gets abusive people who commit crimes public criminal records (or at least records of a series of accusations) instead of slaps on the wrist which forever remain private so they can continue their abuse. The other alternative, calling in University-owned mediators who have no incentive to help you and every incentive to "just make it go away" will almost certainly not improve your situation -- as described in detail in the article.
- woodman 11y ago
  > ...people who commit crimes... While sexual harassment is terrible, it isn't a crime. There are a lot of terrible things that aren't crimes. A push to criminalize it would have the opposite effect of what the proponents desire: the definition would be severely narrowed and companies would likely have a lot less exposure to litigation.
  - wfo 11y ago
    Actually, fortunately you are incorrect here. While certain kinds of sexual harassment are not criminal, groping is certainly a crime. I'm pretty sure threatening to destroy someone's career to force sex is a crime. If you succeed, it's rape which is quite a serious crime. Even if you just file a report, it's important to establish a pattern of abuse for when the person inevitably crosses the line and goes to court. This is far more serious than chicken nuggets; the fact that people are willing to liken it to something like that is very troubling and indicative of how deep the problem runs: many people don't even see it as a problem.

Steuard 11y ago

I don't think that you're quite conceptualizing the issue in the right way. This isn't necessarily about rape or sexual assault (though even those can be hard to get the police to take seriously). There's a huge range of behaviors that can make work awful for someone that don't rise to the level of criminal behavior. This is about, say, a guy who could torpedo your entire career with a couple of phone calls making it clear that he'll be Very Disappointed if you make a big deal about him giving you a back rub when he thinks you look stressed. (Maybe you'd object, but last week you put up with it when he put his arm around your shoulders during a lab meeting: at the time, it seemed like he was just trying to comfort you about some buggy equipment. After that, will the rest of your lab think you were okay with this stuff? Did he take that as a signal that you were interested? Maybe it's best to just keep putting up with it and not risk getting on his bad side and flushing your career away. Oh, hey, looks like he just decided that your shirt is "in the way" this time.) [If you're wondering if a scenario like that is realistic, I based it loosely on the pattern described here: http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/05/fed-up-with-sexual-harassment-serial.html http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/05/fed-up-with-sex..., which it turns out was in fact directly inspired by the repeated behavior of Geoff Marcy: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-long-con.html http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-long-con.html]

draugadrotten 11y ago

> sexual harassment should be a 'go straight to police' offence, not a hr reprimand. Police requires evidence and it's often much harder to prove in criminal court than in civil cases - just look at the different OJ Simpson trials. When you walk to the HR office you don't need any evidence at all and the judge is sometimes a 25 year old HR person fresh from university. That's a much lower bar to pass than going to the police and meeting a judge. Sexual harassment in the workplace is so much more than what is strictly illegal. It may not be possible to make it illegal to look at someone in the wrong way, but there's no law against that being written to your HR file and having an impact on your future career.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

Many (but not all) types of sexual harassment in the workplace aren't go to the police illegal in and of themselves. I know someone who was fired from his job for saying something extremely inappropriate and sexual to a coworker. Did he deserve to get fired? Hell yeah. Does he deserve criminal charges? Hell no.