To me it seems like a witch hunt nowadays. You need just an unverified comment to get fired and to wear a mark of blemish for life. When the mobs filled with "righteous hatred" are judge and jury of a non-existent trial we know that there is something scarily wrong with our society.

I hear these kinds of comments every time there's some pushback against such behavior.

Despite your shrill protestations, there is no "mob filled with righteous hatred" going around. Where action is being taken, it is with a preponderance of evidence.

Only those who have actually indulged in such behavior need to worry.

Have you heard of donglegate?

Excuse me? How would you find "preponderance of evidence" for a leg touch? I'm genuinely curious. Once while I was stretching on my chair in the office I bumped inadvertently with one colleague that was passing behind me. Do you think that I should be fired and my career ended if she suddenly wrote in a blog post that I touched her?

That seems hypothetical, if you did that and sent private messages etc. then I do think there should be some repercussions. I've seen those accusations happen twice and no one got fired, but both victim quit shortly after. This did get an discussion going about how to deal with it, and there were very few people who thought it was a firing offence. I hope that is changing with younger more aware people getting into the workplace.

The blog post now linked to above describes much more and much worse than a "leg touch".

Plus it's not like for this individual there is any shortage of women testifying publicly and privately to his behavior.

"You need just an unverified comment to get fired and to wear a mark of blemish for life."

Do you have an example of that?

Has this guy been fired?

For now suspended, but do you reckon that his life and his career would proceed like before? I believe that he is finished. I don't think that he should go unscathed if he really behaved inappropriately, but between that and destroying him based on an unverified comment there is an ocean in the middle.

So you think that he'll be fired next week without Google verifying the allegations?

Although we did already know that there is something scarily wrong with our society, given the ease with which many predators have routinely been molesting, coercing and raping for decades.

Yes he touched her leg without her permission. And it would be unpleasant for me if someone touched my leg without my permission. But to be honest it has happened to me before and I think ruining the person's life would be over reacting. A more appropriate response would be to have them on a temporary probationary period. Most people don't want to go out of their way to pretend they'd been harassed (although some would). But it should not be about either the plaintiff or the defendant. It should be about the actual evidence (if criminal beyond the reasonable doubt) and the punishment should always match the crime.

> I think ruining the person's life would be over reacting.

If lives are ruined, it is the harrasser's own doing. It is precisely the fact that such incidents are routinely shrugged off that harrassers feel emboldened to continue. Perhaps if they realized their careers were on the line, they would check their hormones and act more appropriately.

Furthermore, this line of thought completely ignores the lives and careers that the harassers have already ruined. By treating junior colleagues as sexual opportunities, this robs the field of future talent by pushing them out.

That is not correct. If an overreaction happens the blame would be on the person who overreacts. I do not think that even if we had evidence that disproportionately harsh consequences would prevent sexual misconduct, that the ends would justify the mean if we ruin someone's life by applying an unfair punishment for their wrongdoing outside the legal boundaries.

I would disagree that an isolate incident of inappropriate touch or a suggestive comment or attempt to initiate a sexual relationship with an underling would ruin the victim's life or career. It is a different story if it is proven that the harraser also ignored the rejection or if they used their position of power to pressure the victim for example by threatening to ruin their career. Not differentiating between these two scenarios would not be fair to the harraser in the first scenario and it wouldn't be fair to the victim in the second scenario.

I wonder if time would come when it would be addressed how many lives were ruined by SJW. I doubt that matter would be addressed by ruining _their_ lives, which is kinda sad.

The academic world runs on reputation, and nothing, nothing else. Putting someone on probation, even once, destroys their career, or at least halts it for decades.

Which is why there are documented murders that people who were in danger of getting hit with academic sanctions committed to prevent those sanctions. Even if secret, the people imposing those sanctions are the ones deciding over the future career of the targets of those sanctions, so secrecy does not matter.

What I mean to say is that, firstly, there will be extreme reactions from individuals to any academic action against them. Truly extreme. At the very least they will blow up any cooperation there might exist. Second, everybody else will understand these extreme reactions, because they are justified by the ridiculous cost these sanctions impose on them. Addendum to the second one: often the supporters of people getting accused will threaten imposing sanctions on students of the professors going against their students, if they consider them valuable enough, for the more vague accusations (like plagiarism. Since technically having a single formula in a presentation unattributed is plagiarism, and everybody constantly does that, ... What I mean to say is that there is a LOT of "usual" plagiarism for more basic things and also a lot of accidental plagiarism, which results in that if you're a member of an academic board, you can bring this charge against virtually anyone at almost any time. Add to that that a lot of professors also have cases of less-than-accidental-but-currently-unpunished plagiarism to their name. Things that they committed where the victim couldn't bring a coherent case, but any of their colleagues certainly can construct a coherent case on behalf of their victims. So with one supporter in an academic board, you can get away with a lot. Without a supporter in an academic board, you're career can and will be torpedoed as soon as anyone in that board thinks it'll help them in some way to do that)

There are 100 academics, minimum, for every position available (which is one reason why so many "little positions" exist, like board members of conferences). That means one flaw essentially means you don't have a shred of a chance to achieve anything.

This means there are no "light" academic sanctions, and the result is that like the medival and muslim punishment for stealing, it causes extreme responses. It means that a thief in the middle east will shoot up a market rather than be arrested for petty theft, and it means a grad student will sue a university for millions to avoid a little note on their diploma saying he got suspended for a week for destroying some university property.

So the system of managing academics need to change, to allow normal investigations without prejudicing future advancement? Sounds fixable. Otherwise we seem to have a system where no action can be taken against an academic because any action could be career threatening.

I don't see how it can change without making a LOT more academic positions available.

This is probably another comment that is less meaningful given the url change.

Touching someone in a very personal way, at a professional conference, during the professional conference?

Obviously we can only ever speak for our personal opinions, but at a professional conference, during the working hours of that conference, I want professional behaviour. I'm there to hear and talk about my profession; some dickhead who sees it as an opportunity to cheat on his wife feeling me up? I take a dim view. Even some tosser trying his luck with a "cheeky" remark (and those tossers always know just how to pitch it for plausible deniability - I know when I've heard someone being out of line, but they act so hurt and so innocent when you bring it up) ruins the mood, and not just for the target.

How much is "enough evidence" vs "this would be a PR disaster if the accuser went to the press and we held on to the accused", though?

> Would you want that?

That's a dangerous question to ask. By framing it that way, you turn a clear cut matter of overstepping professional boundaries into a personal question.

Kind of tautological. The thing no one wants is non-consensual behavior, which by definition is something you do not want. So yes it is personal to the extent that you own your consent.

Sure. The question asked if you would want unwanted messages, which is certainly tautological. It's a pointless question if interpreted literally.

I interpreted it more as asking people to think about how they would feel in that situation. That's dangerous, because it opens the door for people to say, "it wouldn't be that big a deal to me."

That would be fine if personal feelings were relevant, but they're not. It's unacceptable for someone to treat others this way, regardless of whether they accept others treating them the same way in return.

Right, that was my point, no one can define consent for someone else.

Maybe if there's some compelling evidence or something. But one person's word shouldn't be enough to end someone's career at a company, especially if it's not even at the office.

To me, it seems to be "harassment" if the female isn't interested, but that can be a very fine line between the natural relationship between men and women that almost always requires the man to make an advancement and put himself out there.

But his career didn't end. They suspended him pending the results of the investigation. If the investigation turns up nothing, they would presumably reinstate him.

However his reputation already took a hit.

It would appear his reputation has been well known for a long time, that is precisely how everyone immediately knew who he was even though he wasn't explicitly named in the blog post.

This doesn't seem to be a case of a good man being dragged down by an angry mob. This is a well known jerk being shown the door.

What you think of as "the natural relationship between men and women" is not natural at all. It might seem natural to you, but it is an artefact of the culture you live in.

If you are a phisically attractive man, women WILL make advances at you and try to have sex with you. I don't know about the U.S., but here in Europe and in Canada it certainly is the case.

Try to think of men and women as exactly the same, just with different genitals and bodies. This might be an oversimplification, but it is nearer to the truth then our common preconceptions about men and women. Before I got to that conclusion I used to have only male friends and I didn't get along well with women. Now my closest friends are women.

If you seriously believe this "natural relationship" stuff, you might be part of the problem. Also, you're restricting yourself to a certain kind of relationship to women and you're probably missing out on some great experiences, including sexual encounters.

I'm married. I have only my own dozens of years of anecdotal experience of myself and others. Your world view of "exactly the same" can't be changed, but simple testosterone and estrogen differences alone would argue a lot of differences for the average person.

When women start asking men out at a similar rate as men, then maybe there isnt a "natural relationship" anymore. A large preponderance of data from places like Tinder, OK Cupid, etc completely contradict you in a very statistically signifiant way. Call it cultural all you want. I'm just going to call it common sense.