6 ms·

Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to

by chasing 14y ago

Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to overreact, but who really knows since we don't know anything else about how these people did their jobs. Bloggers expend endless hours slicing and dicing the minute meanings of otherwise inconsequential things, hoping to peg blame where there simply might be none. Have I summarized this who episode about right?

pekk 14y ago
Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.
- niggler 14y ago
  "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent? "posting said photograph to Twitter" When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show) "enlist an army against someone" It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired. " It's full scale bullying." You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse. "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
    - niggler 14y ago
      I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
    - dalke 14y ago
      I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
- dalke 14y ago
  Please explain the statement "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor." PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind? Here is a picture of people at PyCon 2013. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ . Do you think the photographer got permission from each of the people to take the picture? Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases. I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr? I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
- chasing 14y ago
  "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job. Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Title VII protections for the workplace give protection against retaliation to people who make a complaint about sexual harassment. Even if it causes negative impact on the company. Even if the complaint was made in public. Even if it was in a workplace which was not under control of the company. She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor. While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic: http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and-retaliatory-termination-of-adria-richards.shtml http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and...
    - subsection1h 14y ago
      Can Adria be fired for stating publicly that SendGrid supported her complaints when in fact the company didn't support her complaints? https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
      - dalke 14y ago
        "Can Adria be fired for stating publicly ..." It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement: > The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or litigation under Title VII ... > The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26. To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes. > Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity. "If I have an employee who ..." The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes." "Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections. Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge." That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management later decided that she wasn't? Given that a company is supposed to support an employee's Title VII civil rights, I think that there is a reasonable person (the law says 'a reasonable person' not 'every reasonable person') who would say that tweet is nowhere near the bounds of what is impermissible in a Title VII action.
rmrfrmrf 14y ago
Any summary that minimizes the tech community's oppression of women is insufficient.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Any comment that doesn't mention that she publicly shamed the wrong guy is an obvious troll attempt.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Come on now, he's being extremely charitable to Adria here. Some guys making a dongle joke is not oppression of women. It is at best a distant tangential symptom of the problem.
  - dalke 14y ago
    You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment. Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC: "In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
- MetaCosm 14y ago
  Can we stop the drumbeat of victimization? You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment. Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.

by chasing 14y ago

pekk 14y ago

Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.

niggler 14y ago
"Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent? "posting said photograph to Twitter" When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show) "enlist an army against someone" It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired. " It's full scale bullying." You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse. "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
  - niggler 14y ago
    I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
  - dalke 14y ago
    I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
dalke 14y ago
Please explain the statement "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor." PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind? Here is a picture of people at PyCon 2013. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ . Do you think the photographer got permission from each of the people to take the picture? Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases. I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr? I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
chasing 14y ago
"The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job. Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
- dalke 14y ago
  Title VII protections for the workplace give protection against retaliation to people who make a complaint about sexual harassment. Even if it causes negative impact on the company. Even if the complaint was made in public. Even if it was in a workplace which was not under control of the company. She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor. While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic: http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and-retaliatory-termination-of-adria-richards.shtml http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and...
  - subsection1h 14y ago
    Can Adria be fired for stating publicly that SendGrid supported her complaints when in fact the company didn't support her complaints? https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
    - dalke 14y ago
      "Can Adria be fired for stating publicly ..." It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement: > The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or litigation under Title VII ... > The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26. To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes. > Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity. "If I have an employee who ..." The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes." "Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections. Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge." That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management later decided that she wasn't? Given that a company is supposed to support an employee's Title VII civil rights, I think that there is a reasonable person (the law says 'a reasonable person' not 'every reasonable person') who would say that tweet is nowhere near the bounds of what is impermissible in a Title VII action.

rmrfrmrf 14y ago

Any summary that minimizes the tech community's oppression of women is insufficient.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
Any comment that doesn't mention that she publicly shamed the wrong guy is an obvious troll attempt.
dasil003 14y ago
Come on now, he's being extremely charitable to Adria here. Some guys making a dongle joke is not oppression of women. It is at best a distant tangential symptom of the problem.
- dalke 14y ago
  You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment. Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC: "In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
MetaCosm 14y ago
Can we stop the drumbeat of victimization? You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment. Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.