I think she probably realized, that's why she brought her mom and conservative clothes.
Sometimes one way to win is to play along and lead your opponent into a trap.
Granted the trap didn't work as https://www.linkedin.com/in/rdevaul is still a director at X. Propositioning people and telling them about your open relationships during an interview process then inviting them to a drug infused festival should lead to not being a director anywhere in my opinion but maybe I am old-fashioned.
It didn't quite work out as well in the sense that he got to keep his job. And that's how sexism usually works with powerful people. They get golden parachutes, spend time at "sex addiction retreats for a 1 week" and they are "cured" and so on. But they are usually not punished for their behavior.
The unprofessionalism should obvious by reading this "job title".
one may be forgiven for wondering how long that will continue
Some people bring their 5 or 10 year old kids!
There is a movement to get “Consent” ratified as the 11th principle, and I have to image for most of the people who aren’t for it, it’s because they don’t see the image problem the event has from stories like this, and wonder why people need to be reminded of something as basic as “Consent”. Well, here is why. I absolutely do not want this event I have fallen in love with to be associated with executives hitting on people and pushing drugs.
The pervasive "fuck you, got mine" among this crowd is toxic, similar to lawbertarians espousing their beliefs. In the context of Burning Man these attitudes don't make sense, but this demographic does not reconcile their attitudes and that of what they participate in, all that matters is others have said they should go.
I'm not surprised.
https://www.magneticmag.com/2018/08/report-burning-man-accus...
It's a festival for rich capitalists who want to use freedom of expression as a pretext for acting out their erotic fantasies.
Rich tech people always have to put idealistic labels on everything they do.
I am reminded of this article, “A brief history of who ruined burning man”
https://journal.burningman.org/2016/10/philosophical-center/...
Secondly, nobody cares what you think about burning man. That goes for everyone. Just go if you want to and enjoy it on your own terms and don’t ruin someone else’s day.
Secondly, nobody cares what you think about other people's complaints. That goes for everyone. Just ignore it you want to and disregard it on your own terms and don't ruin someone else's day.
Burners were saying that 10 years ago too.
As if that's an excuse to throw away professionalism.
I was a couple years ahead of Star in school and know she was a long time fan of burning man, even going while in undergrad. No way this guy was the first person to tell her about it as this article implies. (but doesn’t explicitly state) Maybe meeting a fellow burner is what brought out his extra creepy side but that’s no excuse.
She was probably going to be there anyway. She might make plans with a weeks notice but really doubt a mom living in another state would have.
though also Star is a amazing famous person in her own right! She deserves more attention than Mr. DoucheVaul
I don't think the account related in the article in any way obscures the truth, and it doesn't soften the sharp and inappropriate edge of what her interviewer did in the least.
I, myself, occasionally run across subordinates at Burning Man, and I make a very strong effort to interact with them in the same way I'd do at work, with the exception of offering them water bottles, extra ampoules of sunscreen, and electrolyte packets.
There is less than zero excuse for that guys' behavior.
I commented because I think this article is doing a disservice to the victim and falsely depicting her as a bit naive, clueless, and perhaps a tad too desperate for the job which isn’t accurate at all.
To be fair, I can somewhat see what causes your misinterpretation. The first sentence about Burning Man is
She said he invited her to Burning Man, an annual festival in the Nevada desert, the following week.
What's cause for confusion here is the interjection defining Burning Man. Your interpretation sees it as a retelling of her experience, i.e. him having to explain her what it is.
But any semi-regular reader of the NYT will take this for what it is: an explanation of Burning Man to the reader.
It's rather common to introduce new terms in article in this way, whenever they are first mentioned. Sometimes, as arguably in this case, it is overdone. Worst offender here is the Economist: "The US, a large north-american country,...".
Instead of discussing the article, let’s just look at other commenters and see their interpretation.
reviewing other comments in this thread I see:
- commenters that believe she made plans to go to burning man on a weeks notice and convinced her mom to join. And got tickets.
- commenters that re-interpret “conservative” to mean professional/business casual attire. That interpretation makes Simpson seems particularly oblivious about the event which is clearly untrue
- a commenter that specifically mentions her naivete
As I’ve said already, what these commenters think isn’t true, but they believe these things because that’s what the article unfairly implies.
I’m glad this article is drawing attention to this harasser and this issue in general, but it does a disservice to the victim to falsely paint them in this light.
>>Ms. Simpson went with her mother and said she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting.
I would have read it differently if she had gone "burning-man" mode, as I'd be tempted to do if invited on a whim like this. I'd always intended to try anyway, so having a guaranteed champion there (and maybe a camp? Unclear if crashing at the camp was implied in the invitation), would make it a fun thing to do. But the conservative clothes makes it seem like she was treating this as a step in the interview process.
Why was DeVaul talking about his personal romantic/sexual life in an interview? How stupid of him. What a dumb gamble, even if he was trying to get laid, the risk/reward just doesn't make sense in the context.
What risk are you thinking of? There has been no consequence for him that I can see. He correctly assessed that there was no risk to him.
The irony is that this mandatory sexual harassment training was signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger a couple of years after he had been fornicating with his house maid.
Why did they make this payout and this contract? In other words—what benefit to Alphabet was it in exchange for?
Not damaging the reputation of the company is a common clause in severance agreements. I bet that not being retroactively found to have violated company policy is also common. Would it be in Google's interest to pay out the severance if the employee were found to have stolen corporate secrets?
I think that probably almost anyone is aware of the danger that a system like that, its just that everyone is deliberately ignoring it and weighing it against the PR storm. Its pretty much universal, to throw due process out the window is something that a vast majority of people want to do after any heinous crime committed, something politicians also always exploited.
How is talking about things that happened to you a violation of anybody's privacy?
It is prefectly reasonable to talk about true events that happened to you, especially in a interview, and to even use names.
The truth is the Truth, and your interactions with someone that you are interviewing should not be treated as private.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In today's parlance, "fornicate" generally is just a synonym for sexual congress.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate
Seems the original use was accurate no?
Often used incorrectly. That’s not at all what polyamory is.
My understanding is that an open marriage bars long term amorous relationships from the mix, but that things are ok
Tickets for burning man go on sale 6 months before, cost $1000 and become sold out in 30 minutes. It's a festival in the middle of the desert that you have to go pretty prepared if you want to last more than half a day (coolers, water, van, etc).
How did someone find tickets for 2 people a week before, drove to the desert with their mother because they honestly thought it was an interview test.
EDIT: Maybe she was going to be at burning man with her mom eitherway. She just decided to get some more business oriented clothes for when she would hang with her new work mates. That makes sense. But now it makes zero sense for the article to mention the burning man story.
How did that happen? "You're going to the same event as me, your interviewer? We should totally hang out there!" maybe?
> But now it makes zero sense for the article to mention the burning man story.
Which interviewer suggests (during the interview!) to meet up a week later in private at some event? One that is trying to be professional?
It shows he wasn't just using his position to make suggestions, but taking it one step further and planning things. During the interview.
In a story about culture by management towards sexual harassment, it makes a ton of sense to include this story.
Given she attended with her mom, it seems more likely that Star was already planning on going to Burning Man in 2013, not that she decided to go on a week's notice after her interview with DeVaul - which is something that many in this thread are assuming, but is not stated in the article.
[0] http://starsimpson.com/ "Have we met?"
It's also fairly easy to get tickets up until days before the event through active secondhand swap communities. Many people do, in practice, show up with only a few days of preparation.
I think it speaks to how difficult it is for women to sort whether this is really a networking opportunity or not. A lot of networking that's obviously networking when done between two hetero men could be construed as a proposition for a woman. Where does she draw the line?
I was banned today from a (nominally) professional forum. I was active there years ago and returned a few months back. Many years ago, I hooked up with one of the mods while I was going through a divorce. So far, so good.
But I didn't want to see him again after that. So he was an ass to me about it in a way that abused his position of power on the forum. I didn't make a stink. I left, mostly for other reasons, but that was kind of a final straw. My comment last night detailing his crappy behavior was deleted and my account was quietly banned. The ban was not announced publicly.
Women in business are frequently in a no win situation. If a man in power is attracted to them, win, lose, or draw, her career gets hurt and people will say she somehow screwed it up.
I have no control over men being attracted to me. I've been celibate for nearly 13.5 years. That has proven to be essentially zero protection from having to worry about drama because some man sees me as hot for some damn reason.
If a man is attracted in spite of my best efforts to be repulsive to him (yes, I'm being flippant here cuz I'm aggravated today), it is typically all downside for me. There isn't a good solution.
But I don't see where that is pertinent. If a tech guy had his homemade tech gadget mistaken for a bomb, would this be somehow deemed pertinent to his female boss sexually harassing him years later or something like that?
It's just a lighthearted comment unrelated to the more serious components of the discussion.
Goes to airport in bomb-esque clothes.... Goes to Burning Man in conservative clothes...
It is perfectly civil to make a lighthearted comment about the least sensitive part of the entire discussion. Frankly, who cares whether someone wears conservative clothes to Burning Man. I don't appreciate people who attempt to police others on how and when to discuss things; I think it lacks social grace.
You chose to respond to me with an unnecessary and totally irrelevant candid view into your professional life and sexual habits. To be completely honest, your comment struck me as bizarre and made me feel uncomfortable. I think that your comment on celibacy, etc, was a far more inappropriate thing to say (on your part) than simply pointing out the humor in Star's wardrobe having made the news more than once.
To address my views on the discussion directly:
I find it difficult to immediately and unquestioningly believe an allegation that doesn't appear to have evidence aside from testimony from a single individual, Star, who plainly admits that she was motivated to speak out due to the rising public profile of the accused. I believe that as a 24-year-old, Star Simpson was old enough to make her own adult decisions and even if what she says was true, it doesn't amount to sexual harassment but rather a rejected offer for a back rub and a consensual neck massage at a music festival. i don't know anything about DeVaul's other exploits, but even if Star's account is totally accurate, at the very worst his invitation was in poor taste considering that she was an interviewee.
If you're just randomly asking my opinion, then I would say that any person who goes to an interview and is treated unprofessionally can be expected to feel bad.
At the same time, I have been invited to socialize outside of work by people who have unusual/unhealthy hobbies. It doesn't always mean they want me to join in those hobbies, and if I were pressured to do so, I would decline.
It's tough to draw conclusions about something when the only information we have is two paragraphs about one side of the story, and one sentence about the other side.
I was in no way trying to police anything. I was merely trying to convey that context impacts interpretation of a remark. Lighthearted humor amidst such a serious discussion comes across as disrespectful and dismissive, even mocking.
Given your above comment on the matter, it seems it is not inaccurate to see the comment that way. In fact, that likely is a wholly accurate interpretation of your intent. Someone was sexually harassed and your reaction is to point and laugh, basically.
The truth of the matter is that for anyone who was at MIT at that time, it was a big news story. It was the junction of hacker culture and normal culture, and hacker culture almost got shot and killed for no reason. Seeing a conversation about her that doesn't mention this major story, to me, was like seeing the Michelin Man run for president and nobody mentions that he used to sell tires. It's just naturally funny to me because the most salient thing I know about Star is that she went to Logan with a lighted breadboard affixed to her chest and play-doh in her hand, and the next time she shows up in my news feed she's dressed for a business meeting at Burning Man.
Maybe you can step off your soap box to see the humor in that. Maybe not.
Just because you want to assume that anyone who doesn't want to burn the accused at the stake is a bigot, doesn't mean it's true. I just saw the humor in something that, apparently, is off limits in your mind. Well, for me, until it's proven in court, it's just another allegation in a sea of allegations, and I have neither the evidence to accept one view or the other. I didn't attack anyone, say anything untrue, make accusations that I can't substantiate, or ridicule anyone's pain. I'm just here in the comments section chatting, and as far as I can tell my comments don't violate any of the guidelines of HN....
...Unless, of course, someone with the ability to read my mind can identify that what REALLY drove me to comment, deep down, was a desire to ridicule Star for allegedly being a victim.
Give me a break.
Are you able to see why decrying me as "pointing and laughing" at Star for making allegations of sexual harassment is a jump to a far-flung conclusion?
I didn't even mention the situation or share an opinion at first, and later I said that absent evidence I don't have an opinion. Do you have a problem with hearing voices that don't unequivocally agree with your ideas of what everyone ought (in your mind) to think?
The knee-jerk reaction in the tech culture is to assume that everything is malicious and anti-women. You're doing that right now by "interpreting" my "intent." You don't know my name, you don't know my background, and you're purporting to understand what drives me. I guess it's satisfying to set up a straw man just to knock it down.
If you were talking to me on the street and you were to randomly bring up your decade-plus of celibacy (not judging), I would be absolutely taken aback. But here on HN it appears to be totally normal and that strikes me as bizarre. That one singular comment is honestly making me rethink the value of this community, because there are some ideas that get traction in the echo chamber ("all people who do not immediately stone the accused share in his guilt"), yet basic civility and manners are often totally absent. I don't know if that's a result of liberal/feminist political biases, or a lack of social skills associated with tech types.
On another note:
With all due respect, I've responded to everything you've said, represented my view candidly, and attempted to share my thoughts in a coherent way, but I get the impression that to continue this discussion would serve little purpose for me but to expend my time talking to someone who has demonstrated a desire to misinterpret what I'm saying by injecting malice into it on my behalf. If this were a real-life conversation, the second you mentioned your sexual habits, I would have smiled politely and walked away shortly thereafter.
Holy shit
>A college student who walked into Logan International Airport wearing a fake bomb strapped to chest was arrested at gunpoint Friday, officials said. CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sophomore told police she was there to meet a passenger arriving on a Continental flight from Oakland. She explained her get-up saying, "I wanted to stand out in the crowd."
>Star Simpson, 19, allegedly had a computer circuit board, wiring and a putty that later turned out to be Play-Doh in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport.
This happened on September 21, 2007. It surprises me that she didn't get shot on sight as it happened after 9/11. Crazy ... I mean, I don't want to say she was/is crazy, but no sane person does such a thing, especially not in this day and age.
At MIT there was a bit of controversy because many professors argued that the university president should have gone to bat for her publicly, instead of releasing a statement saying that she showed poor judgment.
Wearing weird electronics and hacker-esque things is totally normal for MIT undergrads, especially the ones living on the east side of Mass Ave. I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid walk into the campus convenience store wearing a hoodie with LEDs on a breadboard and playdoh in her hands, but I guess Logan Airport isn't exactly a hackathon.
That guy shows up in academic settings and touches and communicates inappropriately and unwantedly with women, especially at MIT. I've personally witnessed this at something as routine as a party with alcohol. His entire mindset is twisted. He saw Star Simpson as a vulnerable target. She wasn't the only person!
His reckoning is long overdue, and I have no fucking clue why people at GoogleX keep him around.
This is the tip of the god damned iceberg. Google is a powder keg of abuse. If they weren't so rich, paying people off as handsomely as they do, it would have come to head years ago.
We've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and commit to never doing anything like this again.
Oh, commas and sentence structure, so important.
One says Burning Man was the next week, entirely possible because she thought it was talking about the job (leaving aside -that- naivete), and makes him a liar, in that he couldn't have "believed that she had been informed that she didn't get the job" if he invited her during the interview.
The other says the invitation came the next week.
BUT... professional clothes at burning man? The charitable view is that she's making that up and feigning indignation. The uncharitable view is that she's clueless and did absolutely no research about burning man whatsoever.
Also if you were into burning man since 2006, the event then was less about “bacchanalia” and “free love”. This was before it was mainstream for techies, when cheap tickets could be bought anonymously with cash at the entrance, and when you could even more believably show up in “conservative” clothes and be into it for the art and maker culture. If the victim was a man I doubt their style of attire would be mentioned, but for Star the author needs to clarify for their audience that she wasn’t there for the scanty costumed photoshoots that so many associate with burning man now. She’s a hardware engineer and well known maker. Is it that hard to believe she actually likes it for the art and everything that gets created that week? Networking for a Google X job was probably just a bonus.
FWIW, my burning man years started in 1994. Check your assumptions, kiddo.
https://thetech.com/2007/11/13/simpson-v127-n40
http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2007/10/i_was_a_teenage_terrori...
Edit: not sure why the downvotes, I was actually attempting to defend her, in the sense that her innocence has gotten her into bad situations in the past.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic
Even if they did overreact (and they pretty much have to aggressively err on the side of caution), it was a bit tone deaf and callous for her to act that way.
Or other similar airport stories I've read of people in an airport terminal remoting into work being accused of hacking because scary linux terminals are the tools of hackers who are trying to hack planes and crash them. If that happened to me, I'd probably ignore the person while thinking to myself "what the fuck is this guy's problem, have they never seen a computer before"
But she was mainly the victim.
The over reaction by the initial reporter and the authories above them seem a bit wrong but not egregious. The real unforgivable failure is how after the incident the authorities had to double down, never admit any fault, and unfairly paint her as some nefarious perpetrator. Someone is quoted with saying she’s “lucky she ended up in a jail cell and not the morgue”.
They propagated the narrative that it was an intentional hoax and bomb scare and mis-used her claim that it was art. (she was saying her shirt was just art, not that the bomb scare was art) The “hoax device” charges brought on her were thrown out. She never was never found to have broken any law.
That's not the same as not being callously disrespectful of others' concerns.
I'm imagining her wearing something like https://www.flashingblinkylights.com/jade-led-christmas-tree... with a little less production value, if that can be mistaken for a bomb then those people better stay away from office christmas parties
Looks harmless to me but after the moonite scare it's also pretty obvious that airport security would freak out
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdLdQxhZGk/RvQAv2mTWfI/AAAAAAAAB...
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdLdQxhZGk/RvQDoGmTWhI/AAAAAAAAB...
Also, is that a burning man sweater?
The sad reality is that for a significant number of people, office politics includes a good chance of sexual harassment, which they have to learn to navigate as well.
Ms. Simpson went with her mother and said she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting."
woah nelly! totally fucked that he was hitting on her in the interview and appears to be a pretty cut and dried abuse of power...
but... business casual, with mom, at burning man? that's absolutely bananas. however i can see how it would come to be, you're staring down your dream job, and there's this tight knit group of people you want to join so you go along with all of it... and then you realize later that you were just being played because someone wanted to sleep with you. yikes.