3 ms·

Yes, exactly. And I understand that you are not suggesting that Stanford is violating the 6th amendment, since this is not a criminal prosecution. What you're

Yes, exactly. And I understand that you are not suggesting that Stanford is violating the 6th amendment, since this is not a criminal prosecution. What you're saying is that Stanford should adopt the same line of reasoning embodied in the 6th amendment, to the extent that being accused in this fashion is a very high cost, and that the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading accusations. If the accuser thinks you did something wrong, they should stand up in public and say so.

brigandish 4y ago
I wonder if the same thing would work on social networks?
WalterBright 4y ago
Yes, exactly.
version_five 4y ago
This is a good clarification - there are so many "it's not the government, constitution doesn't apply" comments that ignore that fact that the constitution is generally good advice for large institutions and it's a valid criticism when their policies differ, even of there is no legal requirement
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  Well, yes, and if one continues that line of inquiry further one might argue that things like due process and informal conflict resolution mechanisms are a good idea in employer-employee relationships, just because of the outsize power differential.
- serverholic 4y ago
  Politics is just decision making in groups of people. Similar analyses can be used whether you're talking about government, schools, your workplace, open-source projects, your household, etc. As a general rule I tend to always interpret these discussions as "how humans interact with each other" unless the discussion itself is about the law.
- uoaei 4y ago
  The point is, in the context of law, you can't just advocate for an agreement over a gentleman's handshake: you have to be in a position to enforce it. And enforcing restrictions on speech of this sort affects far more than just college professors with unpopular opinions. The 1st Amendment also covers anonymous speech.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Does it or another part of the US constitution protect their anonymity?
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>since this is not a criminal prosecution. At some point it's a distinction without a difference. Local code enforcement office can unilaterally levy fines on the same order as what the police dish out. Stanford can unilaterally screw up it's customers lives at least as well as defending one's good name from prosecution can.
t-3 4y ago
> the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading accusations. OT: Unfortunately, prosecutors in the US have "absolute immunity" and cannot be prosecuted for bringing charges, no matter if they have financial/political/personal conflicts of interest, or the charges are illegal.
cornholio 4y ago
But should Stanford really adopt constitutional standards for criminal proceedings if it's not holding a criminal inquiry? One of the important conclusions of the "Me too" debacle was that victims cannot make their accusations in public - in fact, many tried, for many years - because they face a much higher cost of doing it than the aggressor. It's only when they are organized as a group that their individual accusations gain power leaning on one another, otherwise each accuser taken individually is taking a (major) image cost, up to removal from the field. The traditional criminal system was powerless to give victims justice before this, and deviants in ppsitions of power could victimize dozens or hundreds of people. So as long as participation in this anonymous process is entirely voluntary for the accused and the texts are treated as entirely made up until proven true, then they can be interpreted as a way of organizing a larger number of anonymous victims who don't know of one another, and a way for management to get an early warning of things they need to look into more closely. If a certain academic is accused by ten anonymous people of sexual harassment, it could be an organized smear campaign from a disgruntled student or peer. If, however, those accusations follow them across multiple departments and academic years, there might be more there than meets the eye.

brigandish 4y ago

I wonder if the same thing would work on social networks?

WalterBright 4y ago

Yes, exactly.

version_five 4y ago

This is a good clarification - there are so many "it's not the government, constitution doesn't apply" comments that ignore that fact that the constitution is generally good advice for large institutions and it's a valid criticism when their policies differ, even of there is no legal requirement

HarryHirsch 4y ago
Well, yes, and if one continues that line of inquiry further one might argue that things like due process and informal conflict resolution mechanisms are a good idea in employer-employee relationships, just because of the outsize power differential.
serverholic 4y ago
Politics is just decision making in groups of people. Similar analyses can be used whether you're talking about government, schools, your workplace, open-source projects, your household, etc. As a general rule I tend to always interpret these discussions as "how humans interact with each other" unless the discussion itself is about the law.
uoaei 4y ago
The point is, in the context of law, you can't just advocate for an agreement over a gentleman's handshake: you have to be in a position to enforce it. And enforcing restrictions on speech of this sort affects far more than just college professors with unpopular opinions. The 1st Amendment also covers anonymous speech.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Does it or another part of the US constitution protect their anonymity?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>since this is not a criminal prosecution. At some point it's a distinction without a difference. Local code enforcement office can unilaterally levy fines on the same order as what the police dish out. Stanford can unilaterally screw up it's customers lives at least as well as defending one's good name from prosecution can.

t-3 4y ago

> the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading accusations. OT: Unfortunately, prosecutors in the US have "absolute immunity" and cannot be prosecuted for bringing charges, no matter if they have financial/political/personal conflicts of interest, or the charges are illegal.

cornholio 4y ago

But should Stanford really adopt constitutional standards for criminal proceedings if it's not holding a criminal inquiry? One of the important conclusions of the "Me too" debacle was that victims cannot make their accusations in public - in fact, many tried, for many years - because they face a much higher cost of doing it than the aggressor. It's only when they are organized as a group that their individual accusations gain power leaning on one another, otherwise each accuser taken individually is taking a (major) image cost, up to removal from the field. The traditional criminal system was powerless to give victims justice before this, and deviants in ppsitions of power could victimize dozens or hundreds of people. So as long as participation in this anonymous process is entirely voluntary for the accused and the texts are treated as entirely made up until proven true, then they can be interpreted as a way of organizing a larger number of anonymous victims who don't know of one another, and a way for management to get an early warning of things they need to look into more closely. If a certain academic is accused by ten anonymous people of sexual harassment, it could be an organized smear campaign from a disgruntled student or peer. If, however, those accusations follow them across multiple departments and academic years, there might be more there than meets the eye.