8 ms·

This should all be looked upon through the lens of power structures. If you're talking about an a student launching a complaint against another student, it sho

This should all be looked upon through the lens of power structures. If you're talking about an a student launching a complaint against another student, it should be non-anonymous because they are at the same power level. If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. In this case, anonymity should be removed when it's a student complaining about another student.

lliamander 4y ago
I think we are in basic agreement. > If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. I would just nuance this by saying yes, but so long as such anonymous complaints are only the beginning of the investigation, rather than the end.
- blindriver 4y ago
  Agreed. As I mention above, anonymity should be revealed once the investigation has reached a certain point, because now the power balance has shifted and the faculty member or whatnot has lost significant power.
yodon 4y ago
When an anonymous accusation has the potential to be career ending for the accused, the simplistic assessment of relative power between parties ceases to be correct. This is why the constitution (which doesn't apply here but was very thoughtfully designed) requires that defendants be given the right to face their accusers. Valid accusations and false accusations happen in all forms of law. There are commonly power or status differentials in the context of accusations. The constitution and 200+ years of case law have left our legal system far from perfect but far better than the ad hoc, administrator-defined, corporate insurance rate protecting pretend legal systems put in place by universities and the like. The right to face your accuser is a critical right that exists to facilitate legal systems arriving at the truly best right answer.
- blindriver 4y ago
  Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith. How are either of those things determined? “Bad faith” seems to be a tool used to dismiss accusations without any objective basis, and determining if a claim is fraudulent may very well depend on the accused being able to rebut a claim based on knowing who the accuser in question is.
  - cld8483 4y ago
    Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend themselves. Such systems are weapons created by and for bureaucrats to cement their power.
    - erosenbe0 4y ago
      Mostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.
    - rebeccaskinner 4y ago
      > If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
      - 4y ago
nhchris 4y ago
The old "you have power/privileged/are the oppressor, so should not be allowed any means of defending yourself" trick. Also known as "punching up (good)/down (bad)". Quite popular these days.

lliamander 4y ago

I think we are in basic agreement. > If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. I would just nuance this by saying yes, but so long as such anonymous complaints are only the beginning of the investigation, rather than the end.

blindriver 4y ago
Agreed. As I mention above, anonymity should be revealed once the investigation has reached a certain point, because now the power balance has shifted and the faculty member or whatnot has lost significant power.

yodon 4y ago

When an anonymous accusation has the potential to be career ending for the accused, the simplistic assessment of relative power between parties ceases to be correct. This is why the constitution (which doesn't apply here but was very thoughtfully designed) requires that defendants be given the right to face their accusers. Valid accusations and false accusations happen in all forms of law. There are commonly power or status differentials in the context of accusations. The constitution and 200+ years of case law have left our legal system far from perfect but far better than the ad hoc, administrator-defined, corporate insurance rate protecting pretend legal systems put in place by universities and the like. The right to face your accuser is a critical right that exists to facilitate legal systems arriving at the truly best right answer.

blindriver 4y ago
Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.
- xienze 4y ago
  > or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith. How are either of those things determined? “Bad faith” seems to be a tool used to dismiss accusations without any objective basis, and determining if a claim is fraudulent may very well depend on the accused being able to rebut a claim based on knowing who the accuser in question is.
- cld8483 4y ago
  Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend themselves. Such systems are weapons created by and for bureaucrats to cement their power.
  - erosenbe0 4y ago
    Mostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.
  - rebeccaskinner 4y ago
    > If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
    - 4y ago

nhchris 4y ago

The old "you have power/privileged/are the oppressor, so should not be allowed any means of defending yourself" trick. Also known as "punching up (good)/down (bad)". Quite popular these days.