4 ms·

Yes he touched her leg without her permission. And it would be unpleasant for me if someone touched my leg without my permission. But to be honest it has happen

Yes he touched her leg without her permission. And it would be unpleasant for me if someone touched my leg without my permission. But to be honest it has happened to me before and I think ruining the person's life would be over reacting. A more appropriate response would be to have them on a temporary probationary period. Most people don't want to go out of their way to pretend they'd been harassed (although some would). But it should not be about either the plaintiff or the defendant. It should be about the actual evidence (if criminal beyond the reasonable doubt) and the punishment should always match the crime.

candiodari 9y ago
The academic world runs on reputation, and nothing, nothing else. Putting someone on probation, even once, destroys their career, or at least halts it for decades. Which is why there are documented murders that people who were in danger of getting hit with academic sanctions committed to prevent those sanctions. Even if secret, the people imposing those sanctions are the ones deciding over the future career of the targets of those sanctions, so secrecy does not matter. What I mean to say is that, firstly, there will be extreme reactions from individuals to any academic action against them. Truly extreme. At the very least they will blow up any cooperation there might exist. Second, everybody else will understand these extreme reactions, because they are justified by the ridiculous cost these sanctions impose on them. Addendum to the second one: often the supporters of people getting accused will threaten imposing sanctions on students of the professors going against their students, if they consider them valuable enough, for the more vague accusations (like plagiarism. Since technically having a single formula in a presentation unattributed is plagiarism, and everybody constantly does that, ... What I mean to say is that there is a LOT of "usual" plagiarism for more basic things and also a lot of accidental plagiarism, which results in that if you're a member of an academic board, you can bring this charge against virtually anyone at almost any time. Add to that that a lot of professors also have cases of less-than-accidental-but-currently-unpunished plagiarism to their name. Things that they committed where the victim couldn't bring a coherent case, but any of their colleagues certainly can construct a coherent case on behalf of their victims. So with one supporter in an academic board, you can get away with a lot. Without a supporter in an academic board, you're career can and will be torpedoed as soon as anyone in that board thinks it'll help them in some way to do that) There are 100 academics, minimum, for every position available (which is one reason why so many "little positions" exist, like board members of conferences). That means one flaw essentially means you don't have a shred of a chance to achieve anything. This means there are no "light" academic sanctions, and the result is that like the medival and muslim punishment for stealing, it causes extreme responses. It means that a thief in the middle east will shoot up a market rather than be arrested for petty theft, and it means a grad student will sue a university for millions to avoid a little note on their diploma saying he got suspended for a week for destroying some university property.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  So the system of managing academics need to change, to allow normal investigations without prejudicing future advancement? Sounds fixable. Otherwise we seem to have a system where no action can be taken against an academic because any action could be career threatening.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    I don't see how it can change without making a LOT more academic positions available.
mcguire 9y ago
This is probably another comment that is less meaningful given the url change.
czep 9y ago
> I think ruining the person's life would be over reacting. If lives are ruined, it is the harrasser's own doing. It is precisely the fact that such incidents are routinely shrugged off that harrassers feel emboldened to continue. Perhaps if they realized their careers were on the line, they would check their hormones and act more appropriately. Furthermore, this line of thought completely ignores the lives and careers that the harassers have already ruined. By treating junior colleagues as sexual opportunities, this robs the field of future talent by pushing them out.
- codesnik 9y ago
  I wonder if time would come when it would be addressed how many lives were ruined by SJW. I doubt that matter would be addressed by ruining _their_ lives, which is kinda sad.
- pooya13 9y ago
  That is not correct. If an overreaction happens the blame would be on the person who overreacts. I do not think that even if we had evidence that disproportionately harsh consequences would prevent sexual misconduct, that the ends would justify the mean if we ruin someone's life by applying an unfair punishment for their wrongdoing outside the legal boundaries. I would disagree that an isolate incident of inappropriate touch or a suggestive comment or attempt to initiate a sexual relationship with an underling would ruin the victim's life or career. It is a different story if it is proven that the harraser also ignored the rejection or if they used their position of power to pressure the victim for example by threatening to ruin their career. Not differentiating between these two scenarios would not be fair to the harraser in the first scenario and it wouldn't be fair to the victim in the second scenario.

candiodari 9y ago

The academic world runs on reputation, and nothing, nothing else. Putting someone on probation, even once, destroys their career, or at least halts it for decades. Which is why there are documented murders that people who were in danger of getting hit with academic sanctions committed to prevent those sanctions. Even if secret, the people imposing those sanctions are the ones deciding over the future career of the targets of those sanctions, so secrecy does not matter. What I mean to say is that, firstly, there will be extreme reactions from individuals to any academic action against them. Truly extreme. At the very least they will blow up any cooperation there might exist. Second, everybody else will understand these extreme reactions, because they are justified by the ridiculous cost these sanctions impose on them. Addendum to the second one: often the supporters of people getting accused will threaten imposing sanctions on students of the professors going against their students, if they consider them valuable enough, for the more vague accusations (like plagiarism. Since technically having a single formula in a presentation unattributed is plagiarism, and everybody constantly does that, ... What I mean to say is that there is a LOT of "usual" plagiarism for more basic things and also a lot of accidental plagiarism, which results in that if you're a member of an academic board, you can bring this charge against virtually anyone at almost any time. Add to that that a lot of professors also have cases of less-than-accidental-but-currently-unpunished plagiarism to their name. Things that they committed where the victim couldn't bring a coherent case, but any of their colleagues certainly can construct a coherent case on behalf of their victims. So with one supporter in an academic board, you can get away with a lot. Without a supporter in an academic board, you're career can and will be torpedoed as soon as anyone in that board thinks it'll help them in some way to do that) There are 100 academics, minimum, for every position available (which is one reason why so many "little positions" exist, like board members of conferences). That means one flaw essentially means you don't have a shred of a chance to achieve anything. This means there are no "light" academic sanctions, and the result is that like the medival and muslim punishment for stealing, it causes extreme responses. It means that a thief in the middle east will shoot up a market rather than be arrested for petty theft, and it means a grad student will sue a university for millions to avoid a little note on their diploma saying he got suspended for a week for destroying some university property.

jimnotgym 9y ago
So the system of managing academics need to change, to allow normal investigations without prejudicing future advancement? Sounds fixable. Otherwise we seem to have a system where no action can be taken against an academic because any action could be career threatening.
- candiodari 9y ago
  I don't see how it can change without making a LOT more academic positions available.

mcguire 9y ago

This is probably another comment that is less meaningful given the url change.

czep 9y ago

> I think ruining the person's life would be over reacting. If lives are ruined, it is the harrasser's own doing. It is precisely the fact that such incidents are routinely shrugged off that harrassers feel emboldened to continue. Perhaps if they realized their careers were on the line, they would check their hormones and act more appropriately. Furthermore, this line of thought completely ignores the lives and careers that the harassers have already ruined. By treating junior colleagues as sexual opportunities, this robs the field of future talent by pushing them out.

codesnik 9y ago
I wonder if time would come when it would be addressed how many lives were ruined by SJW. I doubt that matter would be addressed by ruining _their_ lives, which is kinda sad.
pooya13 9y ago
That is not correct. If an overreaction happens the blame would be on the person who overreacts. I do not think that even if we had evidence that disproportionately harsh consequences would prevent sexual misconduct, that the ends would justify the mean if we ruin someone's life by applying an unfair punishment for their wrongdoing outside the legal boundaries. I would disagree that an isolate incident of inappropriate touch or a suggestive comment or attempt to initiate a sexual relationship with an underling would ruin the victim's life or career. It is a different story if it is proven that the harraser also ignored the rejection or if they used their position of power to pressure the victim for example by threatening to ruin their career. Not differentiating between these two scenarios would not be fair to the harraser in the first scenario and it wouldn't be fair to the victim in the second scenario.