5 ms·

Over 20% of female founders are experiencing harassment or coercion and the response is to implement a reporting system to identify serial offenders? This is a

Over 20% of female founders are experiencing harassment or coercion and the response is to implement a reporting system to identify serial offenders? This is absurdly inadequate, does nothing to prevent harassment, and leaves the burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators. It should be incumbent on YC to ensure that before any angel or VC is given access to any founders that they are screened for such behavior, including a background check for incidents that happened before they got involved in YC. Anything less is just posturing.

shantanubala 8y ago
But how do you conduct a background check without a database of reports from people who have experienced harassment? Unfortunately, most of the time, this gets swept under the rug. This way, at least that background check will actually reveal information once the relevant data is collected.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- femto113 8y ago
  There's an entire industry of companies that perform background checks, this is not a novel problem. You can also require potential investors to sign a contract that they've never committed harassment, list any times they've been accused of harassment, entered into a confidential settlement, etc. with some significant penalty if they're caught lying.
  - beat 8y ago
    Unless that "significant penalty" includes somehow removing that VC from the company's cap table without harming the company, then the cure might be worse than the disease. Imagine the havoc that could be caused by a publicly shamed VC with a board seat and a 10% chunk of the company. And, as we learned from the tale of Peter Thiel and Gawker, one of the advantages of being a billionaire is you can afford to squander millions of dollars on petty vengeance.
    - femto113 8y ago
      The point is to screen out these people before they get to the investment stage. The scenario you describe is as likely (or even more likely) to happen with the system YC just put in place, since it will take at least two reports to trigger any consequences.
      - beat 8y ago
        Unfortunately, in many cases, those VCs are already on the cap tables of founders that could report. So it's a problem. Two reports triggering an exclusion from YC demos and rounds would be a strong incentive. But one report leading to an inquiry from YC might prevent incidents in the future, too, for fear of losing a key deal flow.
      - beat 8y ago
        As an aside, it really pisses me off to see your comments getting downvoted here. You're saying valuable, important things. This is what a hostile environment looks like, guys.
jnovek 8y ago
I think the idea is to get founders to report while minimizing exposure to retaliation for the founder. In the same way that a female founder should not be harassed, she should also not be required to martyr her company for the greater good of erasing this behavior. Keep in mind that a large number of sexual assault victims at large don’t report for fear of retaliation. Sexual assault is a power-driven behavior. YC does have some recourse for women who report but wish to remain anonymous, too. YC keeps track of the bad guys in the SV ecosystem and advises founders to avoid them. The have the capacity to reduce deal flow for these people and that does matter. For what it’s worth, I also believe that victims of sexual assault deserve more and, as mentioned in the article, those women who want to fight that battle have supporting resources from YC. But for those who wish to be anonymous... what else is there to do? Edit: I appreciate your enthusiasm and fervor for the topic. While I have some disagreement with your approach for the reasons mentioned above, I don’t feel like you deserve the downvotes you’re getting.
- femto113 8y ago
  I'll happily burn all my karma standing up for the idea that the victims of sexual harassment don't bear the responsibility for fixing it. Imagine that 20% of founders were getting straight up scammed by fake angels and VCs--would you suggest the founders need some way to report that anonymously? Or would you perhaps say that YC should do a better job of screening out fake investors? This is not the victims fault, it is not their problem, and it should not be on them to fix it. YC has both power and responsibility here and they are choosing not to exercise either.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    It's a chicken and egg thing. You don't have a known problem until you have victims. Providing a means for victims to report isn't dumping responsibility on them, it's enabling them to take action to prevent the behavior from happening.
    - femto113 8y ago
      Even before this survey I would assert harassment in this context was a well-known problem. _Only_ providing a means for them to report is _requiring_ them to take action to prevent the behavior from happening. I'm not arguing against a reporting system, I'm just saying it's not nearly enough, and I don't know how to describe not taking action until a victim reports when there are actions that could prevent the problem in the first place as anything other than dumping responsibility.
gist 8y ago
> and leaves the burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators How do you think an (alleged) perpetrator is supposed to prove that something did not happen prior to even having details on what has happened? Also in the case of a 'he said/she said' what do you think should happen? Accusations are easy to make. Also noting that behavior is not static. What one person interprets as 'harassment' is not the same as someone else. Also there is harassment of a non sexual nature within the sexes. Is that not important? Or only if it's 'sexual' in some way of coercion does it matter?
- danso 8y ago
  > Accusations are easy to make. You're saying this despite the article talking about a survey in which only 19 of 384 female YC founders said they "experienced one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs". And only a subset of those actually reported those incidents. The data does not seem to support the assertion that "accusations are easy to make". And there's plenty of known history that contradicts it as well, e.g. Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, the U.S. womens gymnastics team, etc.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
> This is absurdly inadequate, does nothing to prevent harassment, Considering that the nature of the response is going to be different if 20% of VCs are hitting on 100% of woman that walks though the door versus if 100% of VCs are hitting on 20% of women that walk through the door I think trying to get additional information is a good first step. >and leaves the burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators What do you expect the perpetrators to do? Admit to it? If you are wronged it's on you to report it because whoever wronged you won't. This is how the world works in every other context. >including a background check for incidents that happened before they got involved in YC. How do you define what is background check worthy? This is a hard problem. Criminal conviction is probably too high of a bar. "I was at this party 35yr ago back in high school and I swear this dude groped me, nobody else remembers this" is probably too low of a bar.
pkaye 8y ago
> ...they are screened for such behavior, including a background check for incidents that happened before they got involved in YC However a background check may not initially uncover anything because many of these incidences happen in private and due to the power dynamics many of the victims don't report it publicly.
- femto113 8y ago
  Sure, but I don't see that as an argument against doing them. Even with an imperfect process I expect at least some people with a history of harassment would be deterred from even applying. If the potential penalties for lying about your past or committing harassment are sufficiently significant (i.e. exclusion from future YC events) it would incentivize VC firms to police their own employees and partners, and send only their best behaved to founder events.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
* “Did not want to endanger my company’s funding prospects” * “I was afraid of the consequences for my ability to get future funding.” * “VCs would penalize women for coming forward by icing them out of social and professional situations and denying them funding opportunities, meaning the bad behavior rarely got outed.” You're saying that Callisto does not address any of those issues, that it's merely posturing?
- femto113 8y ago
  It's reactive rather than proactive, so yes, I view it as posturing. YC already controls access to the founders, they can leverage that to make sure that founders are kept safe. This concept is not unprecedented: I can't even chaperone a field trip at my own kids school without taking a sexual misconduct training class and signing a statement that I've never been convicted of a sex crime. YC can and should require the same sort of thing from their investors.
  - tlb 8y ago
    Other than the invitation list to demo day, YC doesn't "control access" to founders. Founders run their own companies. They get on planes and go to conferences and meet customers and investors and potential employees. YC gives them information, but they make their own decisions. The kind of people that make great founders wouldn't sign up for having their access to anyone controlled.

shantanubala 8y ago

But how do you conduct a background check without a database of reports from people who have experienced harassment? Unfortunately, most of the time, this gets swept under the rug. This way, at least that background check will actually reveal information once the relevant data is collected.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
femto113 8y ago
There's an entire industry of companies that perform background checks, this is not a novel problem. You can also require potential investors to sign a contract that they've never committed harassment, list any times they've been accused of harassment, entered into a confidential settlement, etc. with some significant penalty if they're caught lying.
- beat 8y ago
  Unless that "significant penalty" includes somehow removing that VC from the company's cap table without harming the company, then the cure might be worse than the disease. Imagine the havoc that could be caused by a publicly shamed VC with a board seat and a 10% chunk of the company. And, as we learned from the tale of Peter Thiel and Gawker, one of the advantages of being a billionaire is you can afford to squander millions of dollars on petty vengeance.
  - femto113 8y ago
    The point is to screen out these people before they get to the investment stage. The scenario you describe is as likely (or even more likely) to happen with the system YC just put in place, since it will take at least two reports to trigger any consequences.
    - beat 8y ago
      Unfortunately, in many cases, those VCs are already on the cap tables of founders that could report. So it's a problem. Two reports triggering an exclusion from YC demos and rounds would be a strong incentive. But one report leading to an inquiry from YC might prevent incidents in the future, too, for fear of losing a key deal flow.
    - beat 8y ago
      As an aside, it really pisses me off to see your comments getting downvoted here. You're saying valuable, important things. This is what a hostile environment looks like, guys.

jnovek 8y ago

I think the idea is to get founders to report while minimizing exposure to retaliation for the founder. In the same way that a female founder should not be harassed, she should also not be required to martyr her company for the greater good of erasing this behavior. Keep in mind that a large number of sexual assault victims at large don’t report for fear of retaliation. Sexual assault is a power-driven behavior. YC does have some recourse for women who report but wish to remain anonymous, too. YC keeps track of the bad guys in the SV ecosystem and advises founders to avoid them. The have the capacity to reduce deal flow for these people and that does matter. For what it’s worth, I also believe that victims of sexual assault deserve more and, as mentioned in the article, those women who want to fight that battle have supporting resources from YC. But for those who wish to be anonymous... what else is there to do? Edit: I appreciate your enthusiasm and fervor for the topic. While I have some disagreement with your approach for the reasons mentioned above, I don’t feel like you deserve the downvotes you’re getting.

femto113 8y ago
I'll happily burn all my karma standing up for the idea that the victims of sexual harassment don't bear the responsibility for fixing it. Imagine that 20% of founders were getting straight up scammed by fake angels and VCs--would you suggest the founders need some way to report that anonymously? Or would you perhaps say that YC should do a better job of screening out fake investors? This is not the victims fault, it is not their problem, and it should not be on them to fix it. YC has both power and responsibility here and they are choosing not to exercise either.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It's a chicken and egg thing. You don't have a known problem until you have victims. Providing a means for victims to report isn't dumping responsibility on them, it's enabling them to take action to prevent the behavior from happening.
  - femto113 8y ago
    Even before this survey I would assert harassment in this context was a well-known problem. _Only_ providing a means for them to report is _requiring_ them to take action to prevent the behavior from happening. I'm not arguing against a reporting system, I'm just saying it's not nearly enough, and I don't know how to describe not taking action until a victim reports when there are actions that could prevent the problem in the first place as anything other than dumping responsibility.

gist 8y ago

> and leaves the burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators How do you think an (alleged) perpetrator is supposed to prove that something did not happen prior to even having details on what has happened? Also in the case of a 'he said/she said' what do you think should happen? Accusations are easy to make. Also noting that behavior is not static. What one person interprets as 'harassment' is not the same as someone else. Also there is harassment of a non sexual nature within the sexes. Is that not important? Or only if it's 'sexual' in some way of coercion does it matter?

danso 8y ago
> Accusations are easy to make. You're saying this despite the article talking about a survey in which only 19 of 384 female YC founders said they "experienced one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs". And only a subset of those actually reported those incidents. The data does not seem to support the assertion that "accusations are easy to make". And there's plenty of known history that contradicts it as well, e.g. Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, the U.S. womens gymnastics team, etc.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

> This is absurdly inadequate, does nothing to prevent harassment, Considering that the nature of the response is going to be different if 20% of VCs are hitting on 100% of woman that walks though the door versus if 100% of VCs are hitting on 20% of women that walk through the door I think trying to get additional information is a good first step. >and leaves the burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators What do you expect the perpetrators to do? Admit to it? If you are wronged it's on you to report it because whoever wronged you won't. This is how the world works in every other context. >including a background check for incidents that happened before they got involved in YC. How do you define what is background check worthy? This is a hard problem. Criminal conviction is probably too high of a bar. "I was at this party 35yr ago back in high school and I swear this dude groped me, nobody else remembers this" is probably too low of a bar.

pkaye 8y ago

> ...they are screened for such behavior, including a background check for incidents that happened before they got involved in YC However a background check may not initially uncover anything because many of these incidences happen in private and due to the power dynamics many of the victims don't report it publicly.

femto113 8y ago
Sure, but I don't see that as an argument against doing them. Even with an imperfect process I expect at least some people with a history of harassment would be deterred from even applying. If the potential penalties for lying about your past or committing harassment are sufficiently significant (i.e. exclusion from future YC events) it would incentivize VC firms to police their own employees and partners, and send only their best behaved to founder events.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago

* “Did not want to endanger my company’s funding prospects” * “I was afraid of the consequences for my ability to get future funding.” * “VCs would penalize women for coming forward by icing them out of social and professional situations and denying them funding opportunities, meaning the bad behavior rarely got outed.” You're saying that Callisto does not address any of those issues, that it's merely posturing?

femto113 8y ago
It's reactive rather than proactive, so yes, I view it as posturing. YC already controls access to the founders, they can leverage that to make sure that founders are kept safe. This concept is not unprecedented: I can't even chaperone a field trip at my own kids school without taking a sexual misconduct training class and signing a statement that I've never been convicted of a sex crime. YC can and should require the same sort of thing from their investors.
- tlb 8y ago
  Other than the invitation list to demo day, YC doesn't "control access" to founders. Founders run their own companies. They get on planes and go to conferences and meet customers and investors and potential employees. YC gives them information, but they make their own decisions. The kind of people that make great founders wouldn't sign up for having their access to anyone controlled.