4 ms·

That's what I'm asking. By mentioning "people who have complained," you're putting those people on the spot. The offender now probably knows who complained.

That's what I'm asking. By mentioning "people who have complained," you're putting those people on the spot. The offender now probably knows who complained. I bring this up because I read a NYT article [0] yesterday. A highschooler was uncomfortable with the behavior of her classmates. She complained to her parents, who went to the principal. The principal dealt with it but, in the course of doing so, it became clear who had complained. This led to an even worse situation and she had to leave the school. Maybe it's unavoidable to mention that "people have complained" but I wouldn't lead with that. I think it's better for the authority figure to say "I noticed you were doing X" and take that on themselves, at least to start with. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/nyregion/new-jersey-antisemitism-high-school.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/nyregion/new-jersey-antis...

saagarjha 7y ago
I can see the problem, but from the other side if you don’t really tell them that someone complained it can seem like you’re just unilaterally taking action. You’re just asking for “well, what does so-and-so think? Surely you’re just overreacting, they seemed fine to me…”
Zhyl 7y ago
Another option (if possible) is to take the burden yourself. "I've seen when you've been behaving in this way and I don't feel that this is appropriate for the club". Rather than the implication of "someone has complained and I am following this through" it becomes "I, on behalf of the organisation, feel that this behaviour is inappropriate. If you're going to take an issue with that, you take it up with me first and foremost." In the case of the Higheschooler you mentioned, this is less possible due to the parents obviously being told by the daughter and obviously not being party to the grievances. In this situation your options are more limited.
- jlokier 7y ago
  It was less possible for the parents to protect their daughter's identity, but it was eminently possible for the principal, who even went to the beach to see for himself. The photo was circulated to a large group after all. The principle had more than enough visibility on the harrassment and hostile environment, to apply discipline without identifying any particular target of hostility, and anyway it should have been treated as unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether there was anyone in particular targeted. There was certainly no need to identify the daughter, who was essentially a whistleblower. Now the school is being sued for failing to protect her identity, rightly in my view.
leetcrew 7y ago
"I noticed you were doing X" is a better tactic, but it depends on whether it's actually plausible that you would have noticed. if the person doubts that you "noticed" of your own accord, it reduces to the original problem.
- Valgrim 7y ago
  And why not avoid mentioning the source of the information altogether? "You were doing X." If the persons asks where the information comes from, just say "I pay attention."
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    first of all, I think that's a weaker approach. I learned in highschool that if your accuser doesn't state how they know you did something, they often don't actually know for sure and are hoping you'll incriminate yourself. my guess is that opening leads people to just deny it until your show a bit more of your hand. but my main point is that, unless the behavior happened in a very public place, the offender is likely to assume the victim reported it themselves, whether or not they actually did! the risk of retaliation probably needs to be weighed when deciding whether to confront the wrongdoer at all, unless the offense was so severe that they can be removed from the environment immediately.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    If the person didn't realize they were doing X, which is pretty common, a flat declaration like that sets the wrong tone. As the article mentioned, you're trying to help them understand what's wrong and correct it, not declare them guilty and issue a warning as punishment.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - SilasX 7y ago
    And then you’re at risk of getting snared by someone who made up the incident or is reporting in bad faith (singling the accused out for behavior the accuser and everyone else does).

saagarjha 7y ago

I can see the problem, but from the other side if you don’t really tell them that someone complained it can seem like you’re just unilaterally taking action. You’re just asking for “well, what does so-and-so think? Surely you’re just overreacting, they seemed fine to me…”

Zhyl 7y ago

Another option (if possible) is to take the burden yourself. "I've seen when you've been behaving in this way and I don't feel that this is appropriate for the club". Rather than the implication of "someone has complained and I am following this through" it becomes "I, on behalf of the organisation, feel that this behaviour is inappropriate. If you're going to take an issue with that, you take it up with me first and foremost." In the case of the Higheschooler you mentioned, this is less possible due to the parents obviously being told by the daughter and obviously not being party to the grievances. In this situation your options are more limited.

jlokier 7y ago
It was less possible for the parents to protect their daughter's identity, but it was eminently possible for the principal, who even went to the beach to see for himself. The photo was circulated to a large group after all. The principle had more than enough visibility on the harrassment and hostile environment, to apply discipline without identifying any particular target of hostility, and anyway it should have been treated as unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether there was anyone in particular targeted. There was certainly no need to identify the daughter, who was essentially a whistleblower. Now the school is being sued for failing to protect her identity, rightly in my view.

leetcrew 7y ago

"I noticed you were doing X" is a better tactic, but it depends on whether it's actually plausible that you would have noticed. if the person doubts that you "noticed" of your own accord, it reduces to the original problem.

Valgrim 7y ago
And why not avoid mentioning the source of the information altogether? "You were doing X." If the persons asks where the information comes from, just say "I pay attention."
- leetcrew 7y ago
  first of all, I think that's a weaker approach. I learned in highschool that if your accuser doesn't state how they know you did something, they often don't actually know for sure and are hoping you'll incriminate yourself. my guess is that opening leads people to just deny it until your show a bit more of your hand. but my main point is that, unless the behavior happened in a very public place, the offender is likely to assume the victim reported it themselves, whether or not they actually did! the risk of retaliation probably needs to be weighed when deciding whether to confront the wrongdoer at all, unless the offense was so severe that they can be removed from the environment immediately.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  If the person didn't realize they were doing X, which is pretty common, a flat declaration like that sets the wrong tone. As the article mentioned, you're trying to help them understand what's wrong and correct it, not declare them guilty and issue a warning as punishment.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- SilasX 7y ago
  And then you’re at risk of getting snared by someone who made up the incident or is reporting in bad faith (singling the accused out for behavior the accuser and everyone else does).