3 ms·

> so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review? No. But if the consequence of an anonymous report causes you to lose your job, and

> so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review? No. But if the consequence of an anonymous report causes you to lose your job, and potentially be blacklisted from any other academic jobs in the future, it seems prudent that some process would exist to make sure things are fair. Otherwise it can be abused and weaponized by people in ways most people wouldn't want to see. I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here. It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused.

freejazz 4y ago
>I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here. Maybe work on your reading comprehension? People are literally saying that due process should apply... I had a dozens-long interaction with someone insisting that the constitution is a set of principles that apply to any human interactions... there's massive misunderstanding proliferated around here, so I don't agree at all. > It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused. No shit - did you see anyone arguing that they should just be processes that are rife for abuse? The question is "what is the standard?"