3 ms·

You hit the nail on the head but you did not actually say it. The current system is NOT part of the legal system. We are not arguing about the legal system.

You hit the nail on the head but you did not actually say it. The current system is NOT part of the legal system. We are not arguing about the legal system. We are arguing about the administrative system these administrators/professors put in the place. The exact ones ruining students lives on a whim. If you want to say the professors/admins get the right to challenge ones accuser then they can no longer be involved in the process at all. Furthermore there needs to be criminal charges and jail time involved in any situation its warranted that is found true and the same for the accuser if it is found false. However this is NOT how it is. The staff are the process. Judges, juries, and executioners. Until that changes, my opinion is: no they do not get the right to face the accuser. Curious how you feel about anonymous whistleblowers?

yodon 4y ago
> Curious how you feel about anonymous whistleblowers? If the legislation survives for 50 years (it's not quite halfway there today), I'll accept it has passed the test of time. Until then, I'll likely continue to view it as a mistake but likely not for the reasons you expect. Quoting from the Wikipedia page[0]: > Between 1994 and 2010, the court had ruled for whistleblowers in only three of 203 cases decided on their merits, GAP's analysis found. 3 cases out of 204 means the court upheld 1.5% of Whistleblower claims. I find it extremely unlikely only 1.5% of claims had merit, or that only 1.5% would have succeeded in more conventional proceedings. Anyone who throws away centuries of legal precedent in order to introduce a new legal concept to "improve things" and then produces a result that almost certainly provides worse outcomes for those it is supposed to protect was not, in my opinion, the once in a millenium legal mind that individual believed themself to be. Given the high bar it needed to achieve to justify overturning centuries of precedent and the low bar it actually achieved, I think the Whistleblower legislation, as implemented, is an empirical failure.
- keneda7 4y ago
  Those are pretty damning statistics to be honest. Just so I know I am understanding you correctly you believe that more that 1.5% of the cases did have merit and if those cases would have been handled outside of the whistleblower legislation they probably would have been more successful? Based on the statistics you provided that seems like a reasonable assumption. Do you happen to have any stats on the percentage of successful cases using more conventional proceedings. I feel like its probably a pretty hard metric to track.
- erosenbe0 4y ago
  Seems like whistelblowing by teachers prevents tens of thousands of cases of child abuse--otherwise how will little Billy's twelve consecutive black eyes get reported? And yeah, a lot of times little Billy just face plants into his toys and sometimes child services does too much or too little but it is better than nothing. Also, I believe those stats are about claims of retaliation to whisteblowers, which when adjudicated did not succeed on the merits. The information supplied by these whisteblowers may have been founded. Whistleblower legislation is not about anonymity per se--it is supposed to encourage whistleblowers to engage with officials and inspector generals rather than make anonymous leaks to the press, collude, be abused, or do nothing. Imperfect for certain but better than nothing.

yodon 4y ago

> Curious how you feel about anonymous whistleblowers? If the legislation survives for 50 years (it's not quite halfway there today), I'll accept it has passed the test of time. Until then, I'll likely continue to view it as a mistake but likely not for the reasons you expect. Quoting from the Wikipedia page[0]: > Between 1994 and 2010, the court had ruled for whistleblowers in only three of 203 cases decided on their merits, GAP's analysis found. 3 cases out of 204 means the court upheld 1.5% of Whistleblower claims. I find it extremely unlikely only 1.5% of claims had merit, or that only 1.5% would have succeeded in more conventional proceedings. Anyone who throws away centuries of legal precedent in order to introduce a new legal concept to "improve things" and then produces a result that almost certainly provides worse outcomes for those it is supposed to protect was not, in my opinion, the once in a millenium legal mind that individual believed themself to be. Given the high bar it needed to achieve to justify overturning centuries of precedent and the low bar it actually achieved, I think the Whistleblower legislation, as implemented, is an empirical failure.

keneda7 4y ago
Those are pretty damning statistics to be honest. Just so I know I am understanding you correctly you believe that more that 1.5% of the cases did have merit and if those cases would have been handled outside of the whistleblower legislation they probably would have been more successful? Based on the statistics you provided that seems like a reasonable assumption. Do you happen to have any stats on the percentage of successful cases using more conventional proceedings. I feel like its probably a pretty hard metric to track.
erosenbe0 4y ago
Seems like whistelblowing by teachers prevents tens of thousands of cases of child abuse--otherwise how will little Billy's twelve consecutive black eyes get reported? And yeah, a lot of times little Billy just face plants into his toys and sometimes child services does too much or too little but it is better than nothing. Also, I believe those stats are about claims of retaliation to whisteblowers, which when adjudicated did not succeed on the merits. The information supplied by these whisteblowers may have been founded. Whistleblower legislation is not about anonymity per se--it is supposed to encourage whistleblowers to engage with officials and inspector generals rather than make anonymous leaks to the press, collude, be abused, or do nothing. Imperfect for certain but better than nothing.