5 ms·

Are you serious?! I was sexually harassed by one professor (on an aside from inappropriately hit-on by a couple others). Reporting it was scary as hell, but lif

Are you serious?! I was sexually harassed by one professor (on an aside from inappropriately hit-on by a couple others). Reporting it was scary as hell, but lifted a huge weight from my shoulders. There's not a hope in hell I would have reported his actions if there was a chance the report would be made public, because what happened was so embarassing. Students look up to their professors. Being persued sexually by one is more demoralizing than almost anything else, and humiliating. Very, very humiliating. Especially when being offered preferential treatment in class, that's unwanted, has been rebuffed, and is being spectated and/or resented by fellow classmates. You really think transparency for the court of public opinion is more important in the interest of the professor's reputation (with a naieve assumption the professor wasn't doing anything he'd be humilliated by, should those allegations go public), than it is to protect the victim—who's ALREADY been through a humilliating, self-esteem erroding ordeal?!

lmm 12y ago
I think it's very fundamental to justice - on the same scale as say innocent until proven guilty - to know what people are being punished for. Otherwise it'll be just "MIT are satisfied this person broke one of our policies" whenever they want to fire someone with an unpopular opinion.
- sdenton4 12y ago
  He's being punished for sexual harassment. What's so mysterious about that?
  - general_failure 12y ago
    I think the parent post seeks trial by mob.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    What is the definition of sexual harassment in place in this context? Is it explicitly written and, if it is, how much is left to individual discretion? That is one example of what is mysterious here.
  - lmm 12y ago
    "sexual harassment" is a very broad and subjective term. I've heard people describe walking into the same room as "sexual harassment" - extreme example, but it makes the point. What's mysterious is: what did he actually do?
    - moron4hire 12y ago
      If that room were--say--the ladies' restroom, then yes, I can very much imagine a situation where such a thing were very clearly sexual harassment.
      - blots 12y ago
        My husband uses ladies restrooms regularly, because that's where the baby change tables are.
        ash 12y ago
        The other reason for a man to use ladies restroom is to help his small daughter use it.
        moron4hire 12y ago
        I can't believe I have to explain this... I didn't say there was no reason a man should go into a ladies room. I said that it's easy to imagine a situation in which a man entering a ladies room would very definitely be sexual harassment. Like, you know, chasing after a specific woman.
        lmm 12y ago
        Given that this whole thread started with you nitpicking my example, I don't think you get to complain when someone nitpicks your example.
    - ninavizz 12y ago
      That's none of your business. How people "describe" sexual harassment in casual conversation, is not how sexual harassment is judged against policies, rules, and in common-sense consideration when evaluating punishment for making choices that violated another person's boundaries. Frankly: if the dynamic between two individuals is as such, that for one to walk into a room has been plainly stated to violate the imposed boundaries of another, THAT is harassment. Textbook. Harassment. That's what restraining orders are for.
- slavak 12y ago
  > Otherwise it'll be just "MIT are satisfied this person broke one of our policies" whenever they want to fire someone with an unpopular opinion. And unless the person in question chooses to contest the allegation, either in a court of law or a court of public opinion, they would seem within their rights to do so. Firing is between an employer and an employee, not an issue of societal justice that requires full transparency. Certainly I know that if I was fired for stealing from my employer I'd very much want them to keep the specifics private.
- kazagistar 12y ago
  I am not so sure anymore. "Justice" can turn into being punished for something over and over and over for the rest of your life. In a world where everything is remembered forever, the other side of justice, redemption, is hard to come by.
- ninavizz 12y ago
  You're mistaken here, in confusing the internet as a court of public opinion that it is not. MIT (and all academic institutions) reviews cases in private. Behind closed doors. The same way the court system works. They make and deliver a judgement, after reviewing evidence. Doing so, protects the victims/claimants in cases. It's NOT "MIT is satisfied a person broke the policy," it's "MIT took time to review a complaint, deemed it was valid, and took action." Filing a complaint RARELY means punishment will happen. Especially in situations of sexual harassment. In my case, my professor was never even admonished. Grow. Up.
  - lmm 12y ago
    > MIT (and all academic institutions) reviews cases in private. Behind closed doors. The same way the court system works. Court records are public, and for good reason. Jury deliberations are private, but witness testimony, expert evidence, and even the advocates' arguments are all matters of record. The review systems of private institutions, of course, are not currently held to the same standards. But the reality is that in today's world this kind of public judgement can carry much the same consequences in terms of future employment etc. as a criminal conviction. So maybe it's time they were regulated the same way, with the same rights of representation, due process, appeal and so on.
    - hga 12y ago
      Indeed, and more than a few colleges that are convicting, expelling and otherwise ruining the lives of men through the proceedings of Star Chamber kangaroo courts are finding themselves losing expensive lawsuits. Not to mention suffering reputational damage. Therefore I think we're allowed to retain a bit of skepticism of this completely nontransparent case. MIT internal politics can be utterly brutal and nontransparent, see e.g. the termination with extreme prejudice of the Applied Biology department when it was part of the School of Science.
    - dalke 12y ago
      Your statement "The review systems of private institutions..." is overly limiting as public institutions are the same. Sexual harassment, like racial discrimination, ADA violations, etc., fall under EEOC guidelines, and apply to both public and private institutions. (Note: as this case wasn't an employer/employee relationship, the EEOC doesn't apply, but you are making a very broad claim.) For example of confidentially as part of the resolution process in a public organization, see the EEOC's own internal resolution guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm . You are right that the court decisions are nearly all public. Bu to be clear, you want every investigation of a violation of internal policies to be public? Including things that aren't illegal, like plagiarism, or drinking on the job when internal guidelines prohibit it, or not following the dress code? Or is there something about this case which is special, and if so, what? In the case of EEOC-related topics, your advice seems to be contrary to what's regarded as best practices. You also seem to want an entire new level of government rules and oversight. For examples: What's the publication system for those decisions? Who can access them, and for how long are they made available to the public? Are they required to be in English? Can anyone start a internal proceeding or is it limited to managers? Or to the CEO? What about customers and students? In the courts, the plaintiff can be anonymous, as it was in Roe v. Wade. Does the same hold for publishing internal cases? In EEOC guidelines, invalid accusations made in good earnest are protected from retaliatory action, including requirements for management to prohibit retaliation from co-workers that find out about the issue. Does the same hold for the now-public internal investigations? Do other employees have a right to refuse to make a statement they know will be public, and who has the responsibility for preventing the use of this resolution system as a fishing expedition? Which government authority has oversight over the process? What are the penalties for an organization which refuses to publish their internal investigations? Really, a requirement that all these proceedings be public seems open for a world of pain, and I don't see what the benefit is, given that it's ripe for abuse. If a hundred Global Warming Deniers send 5 complaints each about the corrupt practices of a climatologist, then is the employer (like the court) required to publish all of the false claims and make an investigation? Your proposal makes things less susceptible to public judgement because ... why?

lmm 12y ago

I think it's very fundamental to justice - on the same scale as say innocent until proven guilty - to know what people are being punished for. Otherwise it'll be just "MIT are satisfied this person broke one of our policies" whenever they want to fire someone with an unpopular opinion.

sdenton4 12y ago
He's being punished for sexual harassment. What's so mysterious about that?
- general_failure 12y ago
  I think the parent post seeks trial by mob.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  What is the definition of sexual harassment in place in this context? Is it explicitly written and, if it is, how much is left to individual discretion? That is one example of what is mysterious here.
- lmm 12y ago
  "sexual harassment" is a very broad and subjective term. I've heard people describe walking into the same room as "sexual harassment" - extreme example, but it makes the point. What's mysterious is: what did he actually do?
  - moron4hire 12y ago
    If that room were--say--the ladies' restroom, then yes, I can very much imagine a situation where such a thing were very clearly sexual harassment.
    - blots 12y ago
      My husband uses ladies restrooms regularly, because that's where the baby change tables are.
      - ash 12y ago
        The other reason for a man to use ladies restroom is to help his small daughter use it.
        moron4hire 12y ago
        I can't believe I have to explain this... I didn't say there was no reason a man should go into a ladies room. I said that it's easy to imagine a situation in which a man entering a ladies room would very definitely be sexual harassment. Like, you know, chasing after a specific woman.
        lmm 12y ago
        Given that this whole thread started with you nitpicking my example, I don't think you get to complain when someone nitpicks your example.
  - ninavizz 12y ago
    That's none of your business. How people "describe" sexual harassment in casual conversation, is not how sexual harassment is judged against policies, rules, and in common-sense consideration when evaluating punishment for making choices that violated another person's boundaries. Frankly: if the dynamic between two individuals is as such, that for one to walk into a room has been plainly stated to violate the imposed boundaries of another, THAT is harassment. Textbook. Harassment. That's what restraining orders are for.
slavak 12y ago
> Otherwise it'll be just "MIT are satisfied this person broke one of our policies" whenever they want to fire someone with an unpopular opinion. And unless the person in question chooses to contest the allegation, either in a court of law or a court of public opinion, they would seem within their rights to do so. Firing is between an employer and an employee, not an issue of societal justice that requires full transparency. Certainly I know that if I was fired for stealing from my employer I'd very much want them to keep the specifics private.
kazagistar 12y ago
I am not so sure anymore. "Justice" can turn into being punished for something over and over and over for the rest of your life. In a world where everything is remembered forever, the other side of justice, redemption, is hard to come by.
ninavizz 12y ago
You're mistaken here, in confusing the internet as a court of public opinion that it is not. MIT (and all academic institutions) reviews cases in private. Behind closed doors. The same way the court system works. They make and deliver a judgement, after reviewing evidence. Doing so, protects the victims/claimants in cases. It's NOT "MIT is satisfied a person broke the policy," it's "MIT took time to review a complaint, deemed it was valid, and took action." Filing a complaint RARELY means punishment will happen. Especially in situations of sexual harassment. In my case, my professor was never even admonished. Grow. Up.
- lmm 12y ago
  > MIT (and all academic institutions) reviews cases in private. Behind closed doors. The same way the court system works. Court records are public, and for good reason. Jury deliberations are private, but witness testimony, expert evidence, and even the advocates' arguments are all matters of record. The review systems of private institutions, of course, are not currently held to the same standards. But the reality is that in today's world this kind of public judgement can carry much the same consequences in terms of future employment etc. as a criminal conviction. So maybe it's time they were regulated the same way, with the same rights of representation, due process, appeal and so on.
  - hga 12y ago
    Indeed, and more than a few colleges that are convicting, expelling and otherwise ruining the lives of men through the proceedings of Star Chamber kangaroo courts are finding themselves losing expensive lawsuits. Not to mention suffering reputational damage. Therefore I think we're allowed to retain a bit of skepticism of this completely nontransparent case. MIT internal politics can be utterly brutal and nontransparent, see e.g. the termination with extreme prejudice of the Applied Biology department when it was part of the School of Science.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Your statement "The review systems of private institutions..." is overly limiting as public institutions are the same. Sexual harassment, like racial discrimination, ADA violations, etc., fall under EEOC guidelines, and apply to both public and private institutions. (Note: as this case wasn't an employer/employee relationship, the EEOC doesn't apply, but you are making a very broad claim.) For example of confidentially as part of the resolution process in a public organization, see the EEOC's own internal resolution guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm . You are right that the court decisions are nearly all public. Bu to be clear, you want every investigation of a violation of internal policies to be public? Including things that aren't illegal, like plagiarism, or drinking on the job when internal guidelines prohibit it, or not following the dress code? Or is there something about this case which is special, and if so, what? In the case of EEOC-related topics, your advice seems to be contrary to what's regarded as best practices. You also seem to want an entire new level of government rules and oversight. For examples: What's the publication system for those decisions? Who can access them, and for how long are they made available to the public? Are they required to be in English? Can anyone start a internal proceeding or is it limited to managers? Or to the CEO? What about customers and students? In the courts, the plaintiff can be anonymous, as it was in Roe v. Wade. Does the same hold for publishing internal cases? In EEOC guidelines, invalid accusations made in good earnest are protected from retaliatory action, including requirements for management to prohibit retaliation from co-workers that find out about the issue. Does the same hold for the now-public internal investigations? Do other employees have a right to refuse to make a statement they know will be public, and who has the responsibility for preventing the use of this resolution system as a fishing expedition? Which government authority has oversight over the process? What are the penalties for an organization which refuses to publish their internal investigations? Really, a requirement that all these proceedings be public seems open for a world of pain, and I don't see what the benefit is, given that it's ripe for abuse. If a hundred Global Warming Deniers send 5 complaints each about the corrupt practices of a climatologist, then is the employer (like the court) required to publish all of the false claims and make an investigation? Your proposal makes things less susceptible to public judgement because ... why?