There was a lot more and a lot worse than that, as you'll see if you read the post that's now pointed to above. See my top comment for explanation of the change.

> I'm not totally okay with blackballing brilliant people for touching someone's thigh.

Are you saying you'd be fine with it if they weren't brilliant? Or that touching the thigh of a junior in your organization, who you are also hitting on in texts, should just be OK in general, for both brilliant and non-brilliant managers?

I mean either way I think you were born a few decades too late, but for clarity's sake, I'm curious what you're getting at.

I'm not okay with letting brilliant people be harassed. Even from a purely cost/benefit standpoint, allowing a toxic environment will drive out more talent than we'd lose by eliminating the harassers.

Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast publicly until the investigation finishes. If he did do what he said, then the investigation should confirm it, and then he should get blackballed for harassment because it's not ok.

But first step should be proving it, not blackballing someone because of allegations. I think we can all agree that removing someone who harassed is a good thing, while removing someone who is only alleged to have harassed is a bad thing. And that distinction probably needs to be made by someone qualified, not an activist or the general public.

> Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast publicly until the investigation finishes.

As we've seen over and over, very often there's no investigation unless the matter is broadcast publicly. So much easier to sweep things under the rug.

Good point.

Still, maybe we should publicize that allegations have occurred without specifying against who? And making it public if an organisation refuses to investigate. That should give the same public result without the need to attack someone who is only alleged.

Did we read the same article? More than touching her thigh, the accusation described a prolonged unreciprocated infatuation with her. That would surely make me uncomfortable in my workplace.

The second set of allegations you're referring to were directed at Carlin, not Scott. Two different accused individuals.

If he hadn't sent those "innuendo-laced messages" he could have gotten away with it and your post would not be misrepresenting what happened.

I worked with Clawdia Chauchat once, she changed my opinion. Harassment must be dealt with sternly and harshly.

Eye for an eye, no mercy, no forgiveness.

"Eye for an eye" - so she can 'touch his thigh' back?

All of this requires a lot of context.

Because it was not your thigh.

This is a complex issue but why is them being brilliant relevant here at all?

There is an abusive and potentially criminal pattern of behavior spanning years.