6 ms·

Keith's response to the allegations http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-keith http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-

by ry0ohki 14y ago

Keith's response to the allegations http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-keith http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-k...

danso 14y ago
People should read this before they make judgments about what might of or might not have happened edit: obviously, this is only what Keith claims on his part. I'm only saying, these are the assertions that he's adding to the record 1. Keith and the accuser were in a consensual relationship before the accuser came to work at Square. 2. Keith encouraged his accuser to join the company but asserts that he did not give his accuser any favors or preferential treatment, nor did his accuser ever report directly to him 3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment. 4. The accuser is claiming that some of the acts in the relationship were not consensual, and Keith unequivocally denies doing the "horrendous things I am told I may be accused of". 5. Keith insinuates that his accuser tried to blackmail him on the order of millions of dollars.
- corin_ 14y ago
  Truthfully people still shouldn't make judgements after reading this either. When I read his blog I felt extremely sorry for him, and if it is true then he does deserve our sympathy. But I don't know nearly enough about him to make a judgement either side, after all if the allegations were true it's not like he would have written a blog agreeing with them.
- scarmig 14y ago
  Good to get his side of the story, but everything has to be known as alleged: we don't actually know (yet) whether there actually was a consensual relationship before the accuser joined Square, for instance. It's a fairly convincing defense and good tactics to get this out there immediately to the public mind--and it rings as pretty plausible for me--but it's still just a claim that might just be cleverly engineered to protect Keith. Edited to add: There's also the altogether not-minor point that even a consensual relationship preceding and concurrent with Square employment wouldn't mean sexual harassment was impossible. Imagine the accuser, say, breaking up with Keith and getting stalked or threatened by him as a result.
  - danso 14y ago
    Yes, I meant to say that these are things that Kevin has added to the record, and they may or may not actually help his case, but they do shed more light on the exact nature of the claims. In the end, it'll be a matter of perspective...it's possible that the accuser is out to blackmail him. It's also possible that Rabois misjudged his role in the relationship, and that the accuser felt pressure to accomodate him because Rabois, indirectly or not, was his boss.
- ionforce 14y ago
  How do we verify that any of the above is true?
  - rmc 14y ago
    That's why we have a criminal justice system. Lets hope it finds truth.
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      I honestly hope this was a joke. First, this is going to be a civil trial, not a criminal one :) The goal of the civil system is definitely not to find truth, only settle disputes "fairly". This often does not require truth. This is why the evidentiary rules/burdens in a civil trial are very different. Even in the criminal justice system, the goal of the criminal justice system has never been to find truth, only produce justice or deterrence. The last part sounds a bit like a tautology, but essentially, most criminal justice systems were created with the knowledge they can't figure out what really happened in most cases (take murder, where at least one person who knows what happened is dead, and another stands accused), so the goal is usually not to find the truth. Justice is easy, truth is hard. There are also plenty of cases where truth is irrelevant to the aim of deterrence. It doesn't matter if you catch everyone who is speeding, or even that everyone you ticket was speeding, your goal is usually to get a high enough rate of catching actual speeders to deter the conduct.
      - cgio 14y ago
        I would argue the opposite. Truth is not easy, but it is much easier than justice. Truth exists in a definite manner. Justice has to be decided and is itself perceived by many different parties in a gamut of relevant shades (what was justice for other similar cases, what will be fair etc.) Furthermore, Justice is questioned at every other decision making moment. If I was cutting everybody's hand if they steal and then decide to just cut a finger, it will not be just to the people who lost their hands. Edit: I am referring to the canonical definition of justice, not the bureaucratic one.
  - danielweber 14y ago
- Someone 14y ago
  "2. Keith encouraged his accuser to join the company" "3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment." I would think that would make #2 poor judgment, too (encouraging someone to do something so that you have an excuse to break up? Poor judgment). Actually, I would think #2 already was poor judgment given #1.
  - jseliger 14y ago
    >I would think that would make #2 poor judgment, too We've seen a lot of article on HN about how difficult it is for women to break into the tech industry. If legal concerns make men leerier of referring girlfriends or spouses to their own companies, that will make it harder still for women to get in the door. (Notice that this is an observation, not a policy argument.)
    - eric-hu 14y ago
      Slightly pedantic, but Keith's note says: "With increasing frequency, we hung out, drank wine, and I helped prepare him for interviews with tech startups" ...so this case doesn't seem to involve women, not directly. Your observation still stands, though.
    - rdl 14y ago
      I think it is an acceptable loss for high ranking (founders, directors, officers) people to not recommend their sexual partners to their employers. If you are in a relationship, having diversity of income sources seems like a worthwhile secondary reason, but I'd kind of hate being an unrelated employee who had a founder's spouse as a coworker or manager, too.
    - PeterisP 14y ago
      It shouldn't be just legal concerns. I've come to observe that working with personally close people (girlfriends/relatives) is just bad judgement, period. There will come times of interest conflict, and it will hurt either your business or your relations. If someone works with his girlfriend (or people hook up with someone from workplace) and get a painful breakup, it tends to poison the working environment for the whole team. If there are relatives on-board, then people will be angry with a feeling of nepotism no matter if it's there or not. It just doesn't work out. So - don't encourage your GF/BF, spouse, mom or nephew to join your company, spread out. I know a couple of married couples that first hooked up in the workplace - but it all started to be nonproblematic only after one of them quit the company.
pduan 14y ago
Interesting considering his previous actions. "In 1992, to challenge Stanford's rules on political incorrectness, Rabois stood outside the dorm room of an instructor and made remarks criticized by many as homophobic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois
- homosaur 14y ago
  Seems like that action would suggest the rule was what he had an issue with, not any particular illumination on his sexual orientation. In fact, he probably wisely decided to go after a group he could claim to be a part of rather than spouting sexist or racist stuff, right?
- corin_ 14y ago
  Seems an odd anecdote to exist there without any citation at all. Assuming it's true, he was clearly doing it to make a point, and therefore maybe he picked a subject that would make the point (i.e. it had to be something that wasn't politically correct) but wouldn't tarnish his reputation - if he had stood there making racist remarks then people might consider him a racist, whereas a gay person making homophobic remarks he could, if called on it later, say "of course that's not a reason to judge me, I'm gay myself!". (Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people.)
  - jorgeortiz85 14y ago
    http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
  - joshstrange 14y ago
    > Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people. That is exactly what I thought after reading the articles on this, his response, and the Standford news article.

by ry0ohki 14y ago

Keith's response to the allegations http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-keith http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-k...

danso 14y ago

People should read this before they make judgments about what might of or might not have happened edit: obviously, this is only what Keith claims on his part. I'm only saying, these are the assertions that he's adding to the record 1. Keith and the accuser were in a consensual relationship before the accuser came to work at Square. 2. Keith encouraged his accuser to join the company but asserts that he did not give his accuser any favors or preferential treatment, nor did his accuser ever report directly to him 3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment. 4. The accuser is claiming that some of the acts in the relationship were not consensual, and Keith unequivocally denies doing the "horrendous things I am told I may be accused of". 5. Keith insinuates that his accuser tried to blackmail him on the order of millions of dollars.

corin_ 14y ago
Truthfully people still shouldn't make judgements after reading this either. When I read his blog I felt extremely sorry for him, and if it is true then he does deserve our sympathy. But I don't know nearly enough about him to make a judgement either side, after all if the allegations were true it's not like he would have written a blog agreeing with them.
scarmig 14y ago
Good to get his side of the story, but everything has to be known as alleged: we don't actually know (yet) whether there actually was a consensual relationship before the accuser joined Square, for instance. It's a fairly convincing defense and good tactics to get this out there immediately to the public mind--and it rings as pretty plausible for me--but it's still just a claim that might just be cleverly engineered to protect Keith. Edited to add: There's also the altogether not-minor point that even a consensual relationship preceding and concurrent with Square employment wouldn't mean sexual harassment was impossible. Imagine the accuser, say, breaking up with Keith and getting stalked or threatened by him as a result.
- danso 14y ago
  Yes, I meant to say that these are things that Kevin has added to the record, and they may or may not actually help his case, but they do shed more light on the exact nature of the claims. In the end, it'll be a matter of perspective...it's possible that the accuser is out to blackmail him. It's also possible that Rabois misjudged his role in the relationship, and that the accuser felt pressure to accomodate him because Rabois, indirectly or not, was his boss.
ionforce 14y ago
How do we verify that any of the above is true?
- rmc 14y ago
  That's why we have a criminal justice system. Lets hope it finds truth.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    I honestly hope this was a joke. First, this is going to be a civil trial, not a criminal one :) The goal of the civil system is definitely not to find truth, only settle disputes "fairly". This often does not require truth. This is why the evidentiary rules/burdens in a civil trial are very different. Even in the criminal justice system, the goal of the criminal justice system has never been to find truth, only produce justice or deterrence. The last part sounds a bit like a tautology, but essentially, most criminal justice systems were created with the knowledge they can't figure out what really happened in most cases (take murder, where at least one person who knows what happened is dead, and another stands accused), so the goal is usually not to find the truth. Justice is easy, truth is hard. There are also plenty of cases where truth is irrelevant to the aim of deterrence. It doesn't matter if you catch everyone who is speeding, or even that everyone you ticket was speeding, your goal is usually to get a high enough rate of catching actual speeders to deter the conduct.
    - cgio 14y ago
      I would argue the opposite. Truth is not easy, but it is much easier than justice. Truth exists in a definite manner. Justice has to be decided and is itself perceived by many different parties in a gamut of relevant shades (what was justice for other similar cases, what will be fair etc.) Furthermore, Justice is questioned at every other decision making moment. If I was cutting everybody's hand if they steal and then decide to just cut a finger, it will not be just to the people who lost their hands. Edit: I am referring to the canonical definition of justice, not the bureaucratic one.
- danielweber 14y ago
Someone 14y ago
"2. Keith encouraged his accuser to join the company" "3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment." I would think that would make #2 poor judgment, too (encouraging someone to do something so that you have an excuse to break up? Poor judgment). Actually, I would think #2 already was poor judgment given #1.
- jseliger 14y ago
  >I would think that would make #2 poor judgment, too We've seen a lot of article on HN about how difficult it is for women to break into the tech industry. If legal concerns make men leerier of referring girlfriends or spouses to their own companies, that will make it harder still for women to get in the door. (Notice that this is an observation, not a policy argument.)
  - eric-hu 14y ago
    Slightly pedantic, but Keith's note says: "With increasing frequency, we hung out, drank wine, and I helped prepare him for interviews with tech startups" ...so this case doesn't seem to involve women, not directly. Your observation still stands, though.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I think it is an acceptable loss for high ranking (founders, directors, officers) people to not recommend their sexual partners to their employers. If you are in a relationship, having diversity of income sources seems like a worthwhile secondary reason, but I'd kind of hate being an unrelated employee who had a founder's spouse as a coworker or manager, too.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    It shouldn't be just legal concerns. I've come to observe that working with personally close people (girlfriends/relatives) is just bad judgement, period. There will come times of interest conflict, and it will hurt either your business or your relations. If someone works with his girlfriend (or people hook up with someone from workplace) and get a painful breakup, it tends to poison the working environment for the whole team. If there are relatives on-board, then people will be angry with a feeling of nepotism no matter if it's there or not. It just doesn't work out. So - don't encourage your GF/BF, spouse, mom or nephew to join your company, spread out. I know a couple of married couples that first hooked up in the workplace - but it all started to be nonproblematic only after one of them quit the company.

pduan 14y ago

Interesting considering his previous actions. "In 1992, to challenge Stanford's rules on political incorrectness, Rabois stood outside the dorm room of an instructor and made remarks criticized by many as homophobic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois

homosaur 14y ago
Seems like that action would suggest the rule was what he had an issue with, not any particular illumination on his sexual orientation. In fact, he probably wisely decided to go after a group he could claim to be a part of rather than spouting sexist or racist stuff, right?
corin_ 14y ago
Seems an odd anecdote to exist there without any citation at all. Assuming it's true, he was clearly doing it to make a point, and therefore maybe he picked a subject that would make the point (i.e. it had to be something that wasn't politically correct) but wouldn't tarnish his reputation - if he had stood there making racist remarks then people might consider him a racist, whereas a gay person making homophobic remarks he could, if called on it later, say "of course that's not a reason to judge me, I'm gay myself!". (Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people.)
- jorgeortiz85 14y ago
  http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
- joshstrange 14y ago
  > Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people. That is exactly what I thought after reading the articles on this, his response, and the Standford news article.