4 ms·

Really, employers, universities, etc. should not even be involved in these kinds of claims. They are not competent to investigate them. If a crime has been com

Really, employers, universities, etc. should not even be involved in these kinds of claims. They are not competent to investigate them. If a crime has been committed, there is a judicial system that can and will deal with that, with established standards regarding presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

falcolas 8y ago
To be fair, there are a number of behaviors which create negative environments for men/women/minorities/majorities which are not against the law. I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts.
- max76 8y ago
  Also, sexual harassment laws differ from state to state. It would make sense for an organization operating in multiple states to adopt a universal policy for the entire organization.
- hoaw 8y ago
  > I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts. What is missing is a suggestion for how you could avoid that. If business and institution are free to handle these things as they please, which they generally would be granted under labor law and free speech, there are those that are going to disagree with you and there are those that are going to be outright bad at it. Just like they are at handling a lot of other things. If sexual harassment is as important as not being deemed "a team player" at a company or the right of colleges to design their own admissions process (sometimes to the detriment of Asian students) we can expect people to be mistreated, at the least subjectively so, for this as well. You can certainly can judge those involved, but I think it is hard to make a case against the problem as such. Because if you have e.g. extensive rights for companies and extensive free speech, there will be downsides as society changes. But that is an expected part of the process, unless you want to change the process and thereby labor law and the rights of colleges or introduce something like the right to be forgotten.
snackbugs 8y ago
With such disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse in law enforcement professions, you really can't say they are competent to investigate them either. So whose responsibility is it? https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-viole...
happytoexplain 8y ago
Isn't the topic at hand how businesses should handle the balance between keeping harassment out of the workplace, but not, in the name of that cause, overzealously punishing people who are implicated as having harassed somebody? Surely you're not suggesting that 100% of such cases fall into either: A. Crimes the victims of which should go to the police with. or B. So harmless that no business should ever take any action on it. I would probably agree with an argument, if you were to make it, that the punishments in some of these cases that are driven by the reaction of larger social groups are too quick and too harsh. However, it sounds to me like you're making a much more extreme case that I have to disagree with.

falcolas 8y ago

To be fair, there are a number of behaviors which create negative environments for men/women/minorities/majorities which are not against the law. I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts.

max76 8y ago
Also, sexual harassment laws differ from state to state. It would make sense for an organization operating in multiple states to adopt a universal policy for the entire organization.
hoaw 8y ago
> I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts. What is missing is a suggestion for how you could avoid that. If business and institution are free to handle these things as they please, which they generally would be granted under labor law and free speech, there are those that are going to disagree with you and there are those that are going to be outright bad at it. Just like they are at handling a lot of other things. If sexual harassment is as important as not being deemed "a team player" at a company or the right of colleges to design their own admissions process (sometimes to the detriment of Asian students) we can expect people to be mistreated, at the least subjectively so, for this as well. You can certainly can judge those involved, but I think it is hard to make a case against the problem as such. Because if you have e.g. extensive rights for companies and extensive free speech, there will be downsides as society changes. But that is an expected part of the process, unless you want to change the process and thereby labor law and the rights of colleges or introduce something like the right to be forgotten.

snackbugs 8y ago

With such disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse in law enforcement professions, you really can't say they are competent to investigate them either. So whose responsibility is it? https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-viole...

happytoexplain 8y ago

Isn't the topic at hand how businesses should handle the balance between keeping harassment out of the workplace, but not, in the name of that cause, overzealously punishing people who are implicated as having harassed somebody? Surely you're not suggesting that 100% of such cases fall into either: A. Crimes the victims of which should go to the police with. or B. So harmless that no business should ever take any action on it. I would probably agree with an argument, if you were to make it, that the punishments in some of these cases that are driven by the reaction of larger social groups are too quick and too harsh. However, it sounds to me like you're making a much more extreme case that I have to disagree with.