6 ms·

If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinat

If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they a 'snitch'? Sure. But you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special.

vvpan 5y ago
"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
- sobkas 5y ago
  In the end how many rules you can break depend on how much money you have and/or how many friends in high places you have. Because in the end it's only illegal if you get caught and find someone willing to prosecute you. And if money is the only penalty, then the law is only against poor, rich will pay and nothing will change.
- beebmam 5y ago
  The same argument could be made against laws, including plenty of laws that both you and I, and plenty of others, agree should never be broken. So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  But in practice, it is the people at the top who believe they can get away with it, like in this case. Rules for thee, but not me.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Tacitus is spinning in his grave.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  The version I like most is Terry Pratchetts: "Rules are there so that you think before you break them".
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Civil disobedience is one thing - breaking the rules in order to drive change. "Breaking the rules because I'm big and powerful so I can probably get away with it" does not deserve the nobility associated with the former. And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.
- yike321123 5y ago
  In any situation where an individual has direct power over another can you really claim any form of relationship born from this is consensual? For many people who are not women it can be easy to shrug this aside for their own "personal interests" especially those in academia where most women tend to either leave the workforce or are left outside the pool of candidates for an individual. From an outsiders perspective looking in all I can say is no they cannot.
legalcorrection 5y ago
Those rules only exist because that same class of craven snitches becomes highly litigious when they feel scorned after getting pumped and dumped by a colleague.
recuter 5y ago
Zoot Allure. And what pray tell if these people fell in love? Is this not the plot of countless romance novels and movies for a reason? Nobody is special. Must follow rules. You will be reported. Zero sympathy. No exceptions. Are we in East Germany? Imagine if you were French. Or had a pulse. I swear, society is overrun with gross troglodytes. Look, lets be real honest here. The snitch is usually an unattractive jealous busybody, regardless of "rule breakage".
- jchw 5y ago
  And we’ve blown past Godwin’s law already. That was fast. If the rule is so bad… shouldn’t they fix the rule? But it’s there for a reason, so they shouldn’t fix it. It’s not broken.
  - recuter 5y ago
    I specifically said East! East! haha. The person I responded to phrased it in a soul revealing manner: > you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special Therefore the snitch will punish you and vengefully cut you down to size. You will be equally unspecial and unhappy compared to the snitch, don't you see? We aren't talking some rule about borrowing red staplers. We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple. This is very much the toxic vibe of East Germany and USSR societies. To a tee.
    - jchw 5y ago
      The whole reason why it’s difficult to empathize is not about whether someone snitches or not, or the mentality of the person who snitches. It’s already clear that the incentives for rule enforcement is screwy. But the rule is there for a reason, a good reason, and everybody else had to follow it. I’ve heard of people leaving companies and having to effectively be demoted due to interpersonal relationships; that’s the responsible thing to do. It avoids the issues of conflict of interest and power dynamics. Choosing to simply flaunt the rules is not exactly admirable and maybe not even that romantic. The maximally romantic thing would be to give up the position as a sacrifice. Do I get why someone wouldn’t want to do that? Sure, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too…
pleaser 5y ago
Most of the examples in the article are much crazier than that though. The chocolate muffin sexual harassment case, for example.
ceeplusplus 5y ago
This comment really ignores the rest of the stories presented in the article, all of which paint a damning picture of cancel culture and wokeism (regardless of whether you consider these things legitimate causes) being wielded as political weapons by unscrupulous actors in academia.

vvpan 5y ago

"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.

sobkas 5y ago
In the end how many rules you can break depend on how much money you have and/or how many friends in high places you have. Because in the end it's only illegal if you get caught and find someone willing to prosecute you. And if money is the only penalty, then the law is only against poor, rich will pay and nothing will change.
beebmam 5y ago
The same argument could be made against laws, including plenty of laws that both you and I, and plenty of others, agree should never be broken. So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
humanistbot 5y ago
But in practice, it is the people at the top who believe they can get away with it, like in this case. Rules for thee, but not me.
chrisco255 5y ago
It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Tacitus is spinning in his grave.
_0ffh 5y ago
The version I like most is Terry Pratchetts: "Rules are there so that you think before you break them".
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Civil disobedience is one thing - breaking the rules in order to drive change. "Breaking the rules because I'm big and powerful so I can probably get away with it" does not deserve the nobility associated with the former. And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.
yike321123 5y ago
In any situation where an individual has direct power over another can you really claim any form of relationship born from this is consensual? For many people who are not women it can be easy to shrug this aside for their own "personal interests" especially those in academia where most women tend to either leave the workforce or are left outside the pool of candidates for an individual. From an outsiders perspective looking in all I can say is no they cannot.

legalcorrection 5y ago

Those rules only exist because that same class of craven snitches becomes highly litigious when they feel scorned after getting pumped and dumped by a colleague.

recuter 5y ago

Zoot Allure. And what pray tell if these people fell in love? Is this not the plot of countless romance novels and movies for a reason? Nobody is special. Must follow rules. You will be reported. Zero sympathy. No exceptions. Are we in East Germany? Imagine if you were French. Or had a pulse. I swear, society is overrun with gross troglodytes. Look, lets be real honest here. The snitch is usually an unattractive jealous busybody, regardless of "rule breakage".

jchw 5y ago
And we’ve blown past Godwin’s law already. That was fast. If the rule is so bad… shouldn’t they fix the rule? But it’s there for a reason, so they shouldn’t fix it. It’s not broken.
- recuter 5y ago
  I specifically said East! East! haha. The person I responded to phrased it in a soul revealing manner: > you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special Therefore the snitch will punish you and vengefully cut you down to size. You will be equally unspecial and unhappy compared to the snitch, don't you see? We aren't talking some rule about borrowing red staplers. We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple. This is very much the toxic vibe of East Germany and USSR societies. To a tee.
  - jchw 5y ago
    The whole reason why it’s difficult to empathize is not about whether someone snitches or not, or the mentality of the person who snitches. It’s already clear that the incentives for rule enforcement is screwy. But the rule is there for a reason, a good reason, and everybody else had to follow it. I’ve heard of people leaving companies and having to effectively be demoted due to interpersonal relationships; that’s the responsible thing to do. It avoids the issues of conflict of interest and power dynamics. Choosing to simply flaunt the rules is not exactly admirable and maybe not even that romantic. The maximally romantic thing would be to give up the position as a sacrifice. Do I get why someone wouldn’t want to do that? Sure, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too…

pleaser 5y ago

Most of the examples in the article are much crazier than that though. The chocolate muffin sexual harassment case, for example.

ceeplusplus 5y ago

This comment really ignores the rest of the stories presented in the article, all of which paint a damning picture of cancel culture and wokeism (regardless of whether you consider these things legitimate causes) being wielded as political weapons by unscrupulous actors in academia.