7 ms·

On DataCamp and sexual misconduct

89 points by chasedehan 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago
Why are these posts always so impossibly vague? What's happened? What does she think has gone wrong? Why does she think should be done about it? People struggle so much to get the basics across in their writing! I have to follow a long trail of equally vague posts like an archeologist to understand what happened.
- minimaxir 7y ago
  There's been a lot written already on the background, which is linked to in this post. https://noamross.github.io/datacamp-sexual-assault/ https://noamross.github.io/datacamp-sexual-assault/
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Why be so intentionally vague? > About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident of sexual misconduct at the company. Could have been > About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident where one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee Forward-load the basic facts so we don't have to go down a rabbit hole.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      You're doing the same thing by using the euphemisms "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact". Point being: it's not productive to litigate this stuff.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        Hmm I think "an incident of sexual misconduct" is the euphemism and "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact" are the plain-spoken explanations so interesting to hear your opposite opinion. If someone told me "an incident of sexual misconduct" I'd then ask "ok... so what was it?" but if someone told me "made uninvited physical contact" I'd say "ah ok I understand."
        tptacek 7y ago
        I have had uninvited (and unwelcome) physical contact that took the form of handshakes, so obviously that language isn't shedding any real light. Those words could describe harassment, or they could describe aggravated sexual assault.
        sonnyblarney 7y ago
        "made uninvited physical contact" - I don't know if a whole lot can be understood by that. Someone giving the 2-cheek Euro kiss in North America could be 'uninvited' to many, surely. So could someone swinging someone around on the dance-floor. Maybe someone danced like Elvis (i.e. hips) and then put their arm around someone else and said something to them drunkenly. Or maybe someone was 'grabbed' or 'groped' in a way that would obviously be totally out of bounds in any context. There's definitely a range of possibilities here. I'm going to guess that if this is a serious incident, there was probably 'unacceptable groping' but maybe they should have phrased it as such - because 'unwanted touching' is, in and of itself possibly problematic, but there's a range of behaviours there, some of which don't rise to the level of really bad stuff like groping.
        neom 7y ago
        A reach into another humans space is always uninvited until it's explicitly not. Cultural norms and traditions can somewhat abstract that, but yes, even that is still a guess.
        zaroth 7y ago
        This occurred on a dance floor which seems to be useful context, but is a detail which TFA and other bloggers have called “victim blaming”. There’s no amount of detail that can cast a fully revealing light onto something like this that happens out in a public space. I used to think a video of the incident might explain what happened, and then you have cases like Convington where people can see remarkably different things happening in the same sequence of frames. What amazes me is the tarnishing of the entire company and brand which stems from this kind of PR campaign being run against the company. Is this Just Another angry Internet mob going after someone, and why is a private matter between two adults at an after hours workplace sponsored event turned into an existential crisis for the entire company? If there was an assault, shouldn’t someone call the police? Everything else it seems is trial by the court of public opinion. You want to believe this entire campaign isn’t the result of two people bumping into each other on the dance floor back in 2017, but in any case I’m still left wondering why the company itself has become the target.
      - droithomme 7y ago
        He is directly quoting the original blogpost's description by using that terminology, and he is responding to a post with the relevant link. That is the actual original description of the incident. It's not his own personal summary. > "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor."
        tptacek 7y ago
        I know he is. But the summary he's quoting is from the company, DataCamp, not the person who wrote this blog, and yet his criticism is direct at the blogger/instructor.
    - whymauri 7y ago
      I feel your frustration, but you answered your own question(s) above. Sometimes people just struggle to write succinctly and clearly. If you feel particularly strongly about this, politely written feedback on the author's comment section might be useful?
    - curiousgal 7y ago
      puts tinfoil hat on The author of post is the same person who's been heavy criticized[0] for her analysis of the StackOverflow survey dataset. Maybe she's trying to shift the attention to something else? I am not defending DataCamp or pulling an Ad Hominem, it's just a strange coincidence. 0.https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/382731/please-be-more-careful-when-interpreting-the-so-developer-survey https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/382731/please-be-mo...
    - sametmax 7y ago
      I think it's to avoid people being dismissive about it. If you are vague, people can't comment saying you are making a big fuss out of a childish behavior and say that we all have important work to do.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      Because this is HR approved language and they are apparently firing anyone that doesn’t toe the line. https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building-trust.html https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building...
      - pcstl 7y ago
        Can DataCamp fire instructors, though? My understanding was that DataCamp instructors signed a contract allowing DataCamp to use their material for a given span of time (and that this did not make them DataCamp employees) Since these people are asking others not to watch DataCamp courses, it would seem to me that their shot at actually making more courses for DataCamp has been forfeit anyway, so what can DataCamp really do against them?
        lozenge 7y ago
        The perpetrator is a DataCamp executive not an instructor.
        pcstl 7y ago
        I was talking more about 'people being fired for not using HR-approved language' as a justification for why people were being so coy around what exactly happened.
    - amrrs 7y ago
      Perhaps, it sounds vague because it's new for you and many other readers outside data science community or at least R community. There's been so much written and tweeted about this in past few weeks. So probably that's why the Author could have thought to avoid redundancy and kept it brief.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Because she's not talking about the misconduct, but about the response to the misconduct. One of the reasons she's not talking about the misconduct is because misogynists will seek to relitigate the orginal event with the predictable victim-blaming concern-trolling.
      - minimaxir 7y ago
        This is extremely important. There are three elements here. 1) The actual incident. 2) The need for instructors to persuade DataCamp to make a response. 3) The response itself. (3a: the noindex tag) #1 is very bad on its own, but #2 and #3 are its own problems and the ones being highlighted in recent discussions. (and provide more context for #1)
      - teddyh 7y ago
        While all this is very probably true, there’s also the possibility that it actually really is about the nail (so to speak). I can easily imagine that people have been burned before by being assured that the “nail” is not the problem, and initially believing it. This, I think, is why many people want to hear some amount of detail. Not too much, just enough to make it seem plausible to them. Which shouldn’t be too much to ask, and if someone refuses, that’s a bad sign.
        DanBC 7y ago
        All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. Well, they did try, and they got fired.
        teddyh 7y ago
        > All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. True, but it was not adequately summarized in the article which is the topic of discussion, and this was the issue discussed in this subthread. > This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. That’s not what I meant, or what anyone else in this subthread meant. I have no idea what you’re responding to.
- jxramos 7y ago
  I entirely agree, presumption of knowledge is all too evident here and it burdens newcomers getting on board with the details. I gave up in exasperation when it droned on, and even when I skipped to the latter third. I may have entirely lost the specifics in between that I was looking for but no time left on my patience budget. A simple “for those unfamiliar with the situation ...<summary paragraph>”
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  From the ref: "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor." Which again is ambiguous because we're going from - someone swung someone around on the dance floor, to 'danced with someone' which involved 'two people touching' (gasp), to someone grabbing/groping someone in an utterly unacceptable way. And boundaries are different depending on culture, and context (i.e. work, not really work, social, setting, 'consistent bad behaviour' vs. 'one time') etc. etc. etc.. Even with the 'details' it might still be a debate unless it's just blatantly bad. Edit: I'm not going to defend anyone who's done anything obviously bad, I'm saying the information that we have easy access to is a little grey.
- pravda 7y ago
  Turns out there is a video online: https://vimeo.com/18758609 https://vimeo.com/18758609 Ok, in all seriousness, WTF allegedly happened? Was he 'grinding', or whatever they are calling it nowadays? Did he grab her ass? Did he grab her tits? Did he 'Trump' her? Because there is a big difference between the first and the last items.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > Because there is a big difference between the first and the last items. Protip: there isn't when the other person is a colleague.
    - pravda 7y ago
      Daggering! That's what I was thinking of. https://youtu.be/Hyk_6otVBTs?t=79 https://youtu.be/Hyk_6otVBTs?t=79 Let's say Dave, the office cutup, gets a little tipsy and playfully starts "daggering" Susan on the dance floor. You don't think there is a difference between that and Dave lifting up Susan's skirt and 'Trumping' her?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the details of the original offense, and their focus on those outcomes is permissible and appropriate when one desires to avoid creating a pitchfork mob. EDIT: See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970
  - pcstl 7y ago
    Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without proper information? How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not without knowing what happened?
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made. Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied. If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or banned by the mods.
      - pcstl 7y ago
        "HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made." How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with absolutely no reference to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing what crime they committed! Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.
save_ferris 7y ago
Who is dumb enough to add a noindex directive to an apology post after a hundred of your employees complain about one of the most-discussed problems in our society and think that no one will notice? The bad behavior, or at least the tolerance of it, is coming from the very top of this organization, and to miscalculate on something like this signals incredible incompetence/complicity.
- minimaxir 7y ago
  Apparently the noindex tag was removed on the 17th. That's...even worse?
- Lowkeyloki 7y ago
  I can't say I'm surprised. They're a bunch of data science people. Thinking about how to not let embarrassing things get indexed by scrapers is probably second nature to them in the same way that chaos engineering is second nature to plenty of programmers. I bet the question "should this be indexed" is the data scientist equivalent of "how could a malicious user exploit this".
narnianal 7y ago
One part that I would like to discuss is how people as individuals rarely would act badly in such situations, but companies almost always act that way. Now I don't know the answer, but I believe this question is part of the core of the issue. In some ways companies are systems structured in a way that protect toxic individuals, and this protection is executed by normal people in their daily jobs. If you interview these people they might not feel guilty and might not even be able to tell how they participated in something immoral. And if they knew they wouldn't have participated. But it still happened. In fact you yourself might even participated in this protection scheme unknowingly in a job you did in the past. What I'm not interested in is unconstructive blaming and flame wars between different sexist groups. Anybody interested in some serious discussion? I'll write my opinion on the matter if I have the feeling discussion is possible and enough people are interested.
0815test 7y ago
> at an informal employee gathering at a bar ... Why don't companies just get rid of these "informal" but sanctioned employee gatherings, particularly in a bar environment where intoxicating substances are likely being administered as well? That's just a magnet for these sorts of problems as are detailed in OP's blogpost. The workplace should be a temperate environment.
- zaroth 7y ago
  It occurs to me that could be precisely the goal of these groups. It certainly adds a new element of risk to hosting any kind of event whatsoever when you can face such an organized PR campaign for something that may have happened between two people at your event.
  - belorn 7y ago
    I understand that alcohol culture can vary drastically in different nations, but I find it a very valid question to ask why drinking excessively should be part of any professional work environment. The theory people have given me as validation for such event is that such social activity outside of work make people cooperate better and form some kind of kinship. Personally I would like to see some research if money invested in event at bars is worth it.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > to ask why drinking excessively How did we go from just 'an informal employee gathering at a bar' to now 'drinking excessively'?
      - DanBC 7y ago
        Because in this case the executive has been told to limit his alcohol consumption at these events.
      - belorn 7y ago
        Let me give an example of a professional gathering last December, where CEO's, marketing, and people responsible for the technical operations meet yearly from several companies. First there is the presentations with coffee breaks. normal stuff. A mix of technical, legal and marketing changes for the industry. Then we go down to the bar and have a beer or two and a glass of sparkling wine before we get seated. Two large glasses of wine while eating, white and red, more beer, and offer for refilling several times through. Once everyone has finished their meal it is time for hard liquor and desert as is traditional near Christmas. Four, five, six additional rounds, with singing. This is why I address the alcohol culture as being important factor. Professional gathering like those sets the norm when people meet in informal gatherings.
wtdata 7y ago
"I think it’s likely that DataCamp management thought or hoped that their post was enough to placate instructors, and that they essentially did what we asked in the letter." Perhaps I am misinterpreting this sentence. But, there was a complain, that complain pointed actions that needed to be made, DataCamp did all they were told to do, and yet, the complainers are not happy, DataCamp didn't do what they needed to do (although they did everything they were asked to do). Now put that together with the fact that the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened, and it seems yet another post by someone that enjoys being outraged and let everyone know about it.
- ivanbakel 7y ago
  >DataCamp did all they were told to do There are three qualifiers on that in the original post. >and yet, the complainers are not happy It's very possible to be unhappy with how someone does something that you ask them to do, if they do it poorly. The post then goes on to detail what exactly the author finds to be lacking in what DataCamp did. >the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened What do you mean? It seems to explain what the company's response very clearly. If you mean it doesn't describe the contents of the initial allegation, that's not the topic of the post.
hjk05 7y ago
It sounds a lot like the mob has decided someone needs to get fired. Despite not knowing the specific details and despite a third party investigation concluding that reprimands and sensitivity training was sufficient. I don’t know what “inappropriate contact” was, in this instance, but for all I know it could have been an executive doing a dance and twirling around a secretary. After which she reported that she didn’t like that. Is that inappropriate? Yes. Should you get fired from your position because of it? No. You sit down as adults and talk it out. Of cause the mob could also be right and he might have jumped on a woman doing a lab dance and attempted to rape her. But I’d expect the third party investigation to make judgement on that which it seems they did, but he mob isn’t satisfied because the third party didn’t reach their foregone conclusion. I wonder what the victim has to say? Has anything been shared? Or first party accounts on the incident? Or is all the coverage just vague indirect references to something no-one reporting was actually involved in?
- minimaxir 7y ago
  Yes, the victim has spoken out. https://twitter.com/kara_woo/status/1114229065509003264 https://twitter.com/kara_woo/status/1114229065509003264
  - hjk05 7y ago
    I eventually figured that out, after going through 3 different blogs, the last of which states (without linking, so thanks for actually providing a link to her posts) that the victim came forwards... but still there isn’t anything from the victim about what occurred or even reflections on the current public proceedings, just a recognition of her being he victim and a thanks for support. I feel like if she’s supporting the mob calling for a firering, couldn’t she at the very least say so? And why are all these separate people that are writing long blog posts about “the incident” all being so vague about the facts? If the victim Has come forwards why not just say so and link it? Why not ask the victim what she thinks should happen now, or what happened then? I feel like every post i read raises more questions than they answer. And the general sentiment seems to be “the offenses we are vaugely referencing are so severe that you should support our case without knowing the facts” which just makes me suspucius of what the facts actually are.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
So, does anybody know what happened there? Did the "C level executive" just drunkenly hug an employee or he was dancing naked on a table dangling his carrot in front of the victim's face?

89 points by chasedehan 7y ago

Why are these posts always so impossibly vague? What's happened? What does she think has gone wrong? Why does she think should be done about it? People struggle so much to get the basics across in their writing! I have to follow a long trail of equally vague posts like an archeologist to understand what happened.

minimaxir 7y ago
There's been a lot written already on the background, which is linked to in this post. https://noamross.github.io/datacamp-sexual-assault/ https://noamross.github.io/datacamp-sexual-assault/
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Why be so intentionally vague? > About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident of sexual misconduct at the company. Could have been > About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident where one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee Forward-load the basic facts so we don't have to go down a rabbit hole.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You're doing the same thing by using the euphemisms "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact". Point being: it's not productive to litigate this stuff.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Hmm I think "an incident of sexual misconduct" is the euphemism and "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact" are the plain-spoken explanations so interesting to hear your opposite opinion. If someone told me "an incident of sexual misconduct" I'd then ask "ok... so what was it?" but if someone told me "made uninvited physical contact" I'd say "ah ok I understand."
      - tptacek 7y ago
        I have had uninvited (and unwelcome) physical contact that took the form of handshakes, so obviously that language isn't shedding any real light. Those words could describe harassment, or they could describe aggravated sexual assault.
      - sonnyblarney 7y ago
        "made uninvited physical contact" - I don't know if a whole lot can be understood by that. Someone giving the 2-cheek Euro kiss in North America could be 'uninvited' to many, surely. So could someone swinging someone around on the dance-floor. Maybe someone danced like Elvis (i.e. hips) and then put their arm around someone else and said something to them drunkenly. Or maybe someone was 'grabbed' or 'groped' in a way that would obviously be totally out of bounds in any context. There's definitely a range of possibilities here. I'm going to guess that if this is a serious incident, there was probably 'unacceptable groping' but maybe they should have phrased it as such - because 'unwanted touching' is, in and of itself possibly problematic, but there's a range of behaviours there, some of which don't rise to the level of really bad stuff like groping.
        neom 7y ago
        A reach into another humans space is always uninvited until it's explicitly not. Cultural norms and traditions can somewhat abstract that, but yes, even that is still a guess.
        zaroth 7y ago
        This occurred on a dance floor which seems to be useful context, but is a detail which TFA and other bloggers have called “victim blaming”. There’s no amount of detail that can cast a fully revealing light onto something like this that happens out in a public space. I used to think a video of the incident might explain what happened, and then you have cases like Convington where people can see remarkably different things happening in the same sequence of frames. What amazes me is the tarnishing of the entire company and brand which stems from this kind of PR campaign being run against the company. Is this Just Another angry Internet mob going after someone, and why is a private matter between two adults at an after hours workplace sponsored event turned into an existential crisis for the entire company? If there was an assault, shouldn’t someone call the police? Everything else it seems is trial by the court of public opinion. You want to believe this entire campaign isn’t the result of two people bumping into each other on the dance floor back in 2017, but in any case I’m still left wondering why the company itself has become the target.
    - droithomme 7y ago
      He is directly quoting the original blogpost's description by using that terminology, and he is responding to a post with the relevant link. That is the actual original description of the incident. It's not his own personal summary. > "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor."
      - tptacek 7y ago
        I know he is. But the summary he's quoting is from the company, DataCamp, not the person who wrote this blog, and yet his criticism is direct at the blogger/instructor.
  - whymauri 7y ago
    I feel your frustration, but you answered your own question(s) above. Sometimes people just struggle to write succinctly and clearly. If you feel particularly strongly about this, politely written feedback on the author's comment section might be useful?
  - curiousgal 7y ago
    puts tinfoil hat on The author of post is the same person who's been heavy criticized[0] for her analysis of the StackOverflow survey dataset. Maybe she's trying to shift the attention to something else? I am not defending DataCamp or pulling an Ad Hominem, it's just a strange coincidence. 0.https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/382731/please-be-more-careful-when-interpreting-the-so-developer-survey https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/382731/please-be-mo...
  - sametmax 7y ago
    I think it's to avoid people being dismissive about it. If you are vague, people can't comment saying you are making a big fuss out of a childish behavior and say that we all have important work to do.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    Because this is HR approved language and they are apparently firing anyone that doesn’t toe the line. https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building-trust.html https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building...
    - pcstl 7y ago
      Can DataCamp fire instructors, though? My understanding was that DataCamp instructors signed a contract allowing DataCamp to use their material for a given span of time (and that this did not make them DataCamp employees) Since these people are asking others not to watch DataCamp courses, it would seem to me that their shot at actually making more courses for DataCamp has been forfeit anyway, so what can DataCamp really do against them?
      - lozenge 7y ago
        The perpetrator is a DataCamp executive not an instructor.
        pcstl 7y ago
        I was talking more about 'people being fired for not using HR-approved language' as a justification for why people were being so coy around what exactly happened.
  - amrrs 7y ago
    Perhaps, it sounds vague because it's new for you and many other readers outside data science community or at least R community. There's been so much written and tweeted about this in past few weeks. So probably that's why the Author could have thought to avoid redundancy and kept it brief.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Because she's not talking about the misconduct, but about the response to the misconduct. One of the reasons she's not talking about the misconduct is because misogynists will seek to relitigate the orginal event with the predictable victim-blaming concern-trolling.
    - minimaxir 7y ago
      This is extremely important. There are three elements here. 1) The actual incident. 2) The need for instructors to persuade DataCamp to make a response. 3) The response itself. (3a: the noindex tag) #1 is very bad on its own, but #2 and #3 are its own problems and the ones being highlighted in recent discussions. (and provide more context for #1)
    - teddyh 7y ago
      While all this is very probably true, there’s also the possibility that it actually really is about the nail (so to speak). I can easily imagine that people have been burned before by being assured that the “nail” is not the problem, and initially believing it. This, I think, is why many people want to hear some amount of detail. Not too much, just enough to make it seem plausible to them. Which shouldn’t be too much to ask, and if someone refuses, that’s a bad sign.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. Well, they did try, and they got fired.
        teddyh 7y ago
        > All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. True, but it was not adequately summarized in the article which is the topic of discussion, and this was the issue discussed in this subthread. > This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. That’s not what I meant, or what anyone else in this subthread meant. I have no idea what you’re responding to.
jxramos 7y ago
I entirely agree, presumption of knowledge is all too evident here and it burdens newcomers getting on board with the details. I gave up in exasperation when it droned on, and even when I skipped to the latter third. I may have entirely lost the specifics in between that I was looking for but no time left on my patience budget. A simple “for those unfamiliar with the situation ...<summary paragraph>”
sonnyblarney 7y ago
From the ref: "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor." Which again is ambiguous because we're going from - someone swung someone around on the dance floor, to 'danced with someone' which involved 'two people touching' (gasp), to someone grabbing/groping someone in an utterly unacceptable way. And boundaries are different depending on culture, and context (i.e. work, not really work, social, setting, 'consistent bad behaviour' vs. 'one time') etc. etc. etc.. Even with the 'details' it might still be a debate unless it's just blatantly bad. Edit: I'm not going to defend anyone who's done anything obviously bad, I'm saying the information that we have easy access to is a little grey.
pravda 7y ago
Turns out there is a video online: https://vimeo.com/18758609 https://vimeo.com/18758609 Ok, in all seriousness, WTF allegedly happened? Was he 'grinding', or whatever they are calling it nowadays? Did he grab her ass? Did he grab her tits? Did he 'Trump' her? Because there is a big difference between the first and the last items.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > Because there is a big difference between the first and the last items. Protip: there isn't when the other person is a colleague.
  - pravda 7y ago
    Daggering! That's what I was thinking of. https://youtu.be/Hyk_6otVBTs?t=79 https://youtu.be/Hyk_6otVBTs?t=79 Let's say Dave, the office cutup, gets a little tipsy and playfully starts "daggering" Susan on the dance floor. You don't think there is a difference between that and Dave lifting up Susan's skirt and 'Trumping' her?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
floatingatoll 7y ago
The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the details of the original offense, and their focus on those outcomes is permissible and appropriate when one desires to avoid creating a pitchfork mob. EDIT: See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970
- pcstl 7y ago
  Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without proper information? How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not without knowing what happened?
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made. Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied. If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or banned by the mods.
    - pcstl 7y ago
      "HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made." How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with absolutely no reference to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing what crime they committed! Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.

save_ferris 7y ago

Who is dumb enough to add a noindex directive to an apology post after a hundred of your employees complain about one of the most-discussed problems in our society and think that no one will notice? The bad behavior, or at least the tolerance of it, is coming from the very top of this organization, and to miscalculate on something like this signals incredible incompetence/complicity.

minimaxir 7y ago
Apparently the noindex tag was removed on the 17th. That's...even worse?
Lowkeyloki 7y ago
I can't say I'm surprised. They're a bunch of data science people. Thinking about how to not let embarrassing things get indexed by scrapers is probably second nature to them in the same way that chaos engineering is second nature to plenty of programmers. I bet the question "should this be indexed" is the data scientist equivalent of "how could a malicious user exploit this".

narnianal 7y ago

One part that I would like to discuss is how people as individuals rarely would act badly in such situations, but companies almost always act that way. Now I don't know the answer, but I believe this question is part of the core of the issue. In some ways companies are systems structured in a way that protect toxic individuals, and this protection is executed by normal people in their daily jobs. If you interview these people they might not feel guilty and might not even be able to tell how they participated in something immoral. And if they knew they wouldn't have participated. But it still happened. In fact you yourself might even participated in this protection scheme unknowingly in a job you did in the past. What I'm not interested in is unconstructive blaming and flame wars between different sexist groups. Anybody interested in some serious discussion? I'll write my opinion on the matter if I have the feeling discussion is possible and enough people are interested.

0815test 7y ago

> at an informal employee gathering at a bar ... Why don't companies just get rid of these "informal" but sanctioned employee gatherings, particularly in a bar environment where intoxicating substances are likely being administered as well? That's just a magnet for these sorts of problems as are detailed in OP's blogpost. The workplace should be a temperate environment.

zaroth 7y ago
It occurs to me that could be precisely the goal of these groups. It certainly adds a new element of risk to hosting any kind of event whatsoever when you can face such an organized PR campaign for something that may have happened between two people at your event.
- belorn 7y ago
  I understand that alcohol culture can vary drastically in different nations, but I find it a very valid question to ask why drinking excessively should be part of any professional work environment. The theory people have given me as validation for such event is that such social activity outside of work make people cooperate better and form some kind of kinship. Personally I would like to see some research if money invested in event at bars is worth it.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > to ask why drinking excessively How did we go from just 'an informal employee gathering at a bar' to now 'drinking excessively'?
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Because in this case the executive has been told to limit his alcohol consumption at these events.
    - belorn 7y ago
      Let me give an example of a professional gathering last December, where CEO's, marketing, and people responsible for the technical operations meet yearly from several companies. First there is the presentations with coffee breaks. normal stuff. A mix of technical, legal and marketing changes for the industry. Then we go down to the bar and have a beer or two and a glass of sparkling wine before we get seated. Two large glasses of wine while eating, white and red, more beer, and offer for refilling several times through. Once everyone has finished their meal it is time for hard liquor and desert as is traditional near Christmas. Four, five, six additional rounds, with singing. This is why I address the alcohol culture as being important factor. Professional gathering like those sets the norm when people meet in informal gatherings.

wtdata 7y ago

"I think it’s likely that DataCamp management thought or hoped that their post was enough to placate instructors, and that they essentially did what we asked in the letter." Perhaps I am misinterpreting this sentence. But, there was a complain, that complain pointed actions that needed to be made, DataCamp did all they were told to do, and yet, the complainers are not happy, DataCamp didn't do what they needed to do (although they did everything they were asked to do). Now put that together with the fact that the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened, and it seems yet another post by someone that enjoys being outraged and let everyone know about it.

ivanbakel 7y ago
>DataCamp did all they were told to do There are three qualifiers on that in the original post. >and yet, the complainers are not happy It's very possible to be unhappy with how someone does something that you ask them to do, if they do it poorly. The post then goes on to detail what exactly the author finds to be lacking in what DataCamp did. >the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened What do you mean? It seems to explain what the company's response very clearly. If you mean it doesn't describe the contents of the initial allegation, that's not the topic of the post.

hjk05 7y ago

It sounds a lot like the mob has decided someone needs to get fired. Despite not knowing the specific details and despite a third party investigation concluding that reprimands and sensitivity training was sufficient. I don’t know what “inappropriate contact” was, in this instance, but for all I know it could have been an executive doing a dance and twirling around a secretary. After which she reported that she didn’t like that. Is that inappropriate? Yes. Should you get fired from your position because of it? No. You sit down as adults and talk it out. Of cause the mob could also be right and he might have jumped on a woman doing a lab dance and attempted to rape her. But I’d expect the third party investigation to make judgement on that which it seems they did, but he mob isn’t satisfied because the third party didn’t reach their foregone conclusion. I wonder what the victim has to say? Has anything been shared? Or first party accounts on the incident? Or is all the coverage just vague indirect references to something no-one reporting was actually involved in?

minimaxir 7y ago
Yes, the victim has spoken out. https://twitter.com/kara_woo/status/1114229065509003264 https://twitter.com/kara_woo/status/1114229065509003264
- hjk05 7y ago
  I eventually figured that out, after going through 3 different blogs, the last of which states (without linking, so thanks for actually providing a link to her posts) that the victim came forwards... but still there isn’t anything from the victim about what occurred or even reflections on the current public proceedings, just a recognition of her being he victim and a thanks for support. I feel like if she’s supporting the mob calling for a firering, couldn’t she at the very least say so? And why are all these separate people that are writing long blog posts about “the incident” all being so vague about the facts? If the victim Has come forwards why not just say so and link it? Why not ask the victim what she thinks should happen now, or what happened then? I feel like every post i read raises more questions than they answer. And the general sentiment seems to be “the offenses we are vaugely referencing are so severe that you should support our case without knowing the facts” which just makes me suspucius of what the facts actually are.

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago

So, does anybody know what happened there? Did the "C level executive" just drunkenly hug an employee or he was dancing naked on a table dangling his carrot in front of the victim's face?