5 ms·

Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved.

Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.

SwellJoe 9y ago
Agreed, it's not an abuser's place to decide for their victim what details are made public. But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place blame on them for how they interpreted a situation, "I'm sorry if you felt X" is the opposite of an apology, it is redirecting blame.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Direct aplogies to victims are addressed to those victims, they do not tend to be written as open letters for the world to read and don't usually attempt to whitewash the situation in which the encounter took place so the perpetrator looks better. If he'd left that part out it would be a lot better, if he left out the self congratulatory bits it would look better still. If that had been the only case then the book could be closed but it appears that that one encounter really was the tip of the proverbial iceberg and I really hope for mr. McClure that there isn't any worse down the line for him because this could end up being both expensive and possible a legal issue. Just this encounter alone would be enough to get him booked in many places.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    Oh, I agree with you on that. It's just easy for there to be a lookie-loo sort of situation where people want to know the sordid details and end up re-centering the narrative on the abuser and the story they want to tell. McClure's public apology, above all, should have been honest and sincere; more detail isn't strictly necessary, to be honest and sincere. It sounds like it wasn't honest or quite sincere. And, it sounds like his private apology, in this case, was decidedly dishonest and redirected blame.
jacquesm 9y ago
> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.
- jhanschoo 9y ago
  I was wondering how true this was. It's here: >With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out. https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0 https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0 The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...) did not go into these specifics. Below is all it discusses about her: >In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you.” >Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
    For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated fairly by in the remainder of the interview process. The point is that he hit on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING these advances would GET her the job. Sex and romance in the workplace is always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move into it. Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong. And if you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately compensated already.
x0x0 9y ago
He wouldn't have had to name names. His "apology" went along these lines: > I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate [...] I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong. Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group. All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times. Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl. I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kept-australian-lp-in-the-dark https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep... edit: fixed Christine's name

SwellJoe 9y ago

Agreed, it's not an abuser's place to decide for their victim what details are made public. But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place blame on them for how they interpreted a situation, "I'm sorry if you felt X" is the opposite of an apology, it is redirecting blame.

jacquesm 9y ago
Direct aplogies to victims are addressed to those victims, they do not tend to be written as open letters for the world to read and don't usually attempt to whitewash the situation in which the encounter took place so the perpetrator looks better. If he'd left that part out it would be a lot better, if he left out the self congratulatory bits it would look better still. If that had been the only case then the book could be closed but it appears that that one encounter really was the tip of the proverbial iceberg and I really hope for mr. McClure that there isn't any worse down the line for him because this could end up being both expensive and possible a legal issue. Just this encounter alone would be enough to get him booked in many places.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Oh, I agree with you on that. It's just easy for there to be a lookie-loo sort of situation where people want to know the sordid details and end up re-centering the narrative on the abuser and the story they want to tell. McClure's public apology, above all, should have been honest and sincere; more detail isn't strictly necessary, to be honest and sincere. It sounds like it wasn't honest or quite sincere. And, it sounds like his private apology, in this case, was decidedly dishonest and redirected blame.

jacquesm 9y ago

> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.

jhanschoo 9y ago
I was wondering how true this was. It's here: >With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out. https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0 https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0 The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...) did not go into these specifics. Below is all it discusses about her: >In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you.” >Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
  For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated fairly by in the remainder of the interview process. The point is that he hit on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING these advances would GET her the job. Sex and romance in the workplace is always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move into it. Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong. And if you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately compensated already.

x0x0 9y ago

He wouldn't have had to name names. His "apology" went along these lines: > I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate [...] I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong. Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group. All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times. Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl. I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kept-australian-lp-in-the-dark https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep... edit: fixed Christine's name