Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#41

Post by greglindahl »

jeffdavis wrote: post #37
greglindahl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has not abandoned innocent until proven guilty in court cases. That's where that standard applies.

Courts do have stricter standards for admission of evidence and verdicts. But the basic innocent-by-default is a general principle that should apply pretty much everywhere. And there should be consistency and standards in media reporting of allegations, and for HR decisions.

So, for example, if a business in my neighborhood has a sign that says "No hippies, Jews, or N?????s", I should continue to shop there until they get convicted by a court?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#42

Post by geofft »

jeffdavis wrote: post #37
greglindahl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has not abandoned innocent until proven guilty in court cases. That's where that standard applies.

Courts do have stricter standards for admission of evidence and verdicts. But the basic innocent-by-default is a general principle that should apply pretty much everywhere. And there should be consistency and standards in media reporting of allegations, and for HR decisions.

The thing about innocent-by-default is that false accusations are also a serious crime with serious penalties (for good reason), and if you believe that the accused is affirmatively innocent, you have to believe that the accused is guilty.

The reason that courts, specifically, do not have this paradox is that "innocent" simply means "we do not have the evidence to justify using the extraordinary punishment powers reserved to the government alone against this person". Yes, there's such a thing as getting a court to declare you affirmatively innocent, but usually they say "not guilty," which is an important philosophical distinction. So a court can very well decide that a person has not been proven guilty of their crime, and that their accuser has not been proven guilty of malice, either.

But humans don't work like that. When we think "innocent," we don't think "I have insufficient data," we think "they didn't do it". It is arguably a flaw in human thinking, but it's a flaw we have to live with and work with. And a world in which all who accuse people of sexual harassment are effectively guilty-until-proven-innocent in the court of public opinion isn't a great world, either.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#43

Post by maroonblazer »

s73ver_ wrote: post #12
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

At the same time, having the victim's name plastered all over everywhere can't be good for them. Despite all the progress that's been made, we still live in a time where most victims would be blacklisted from the industry, despite nothing being their fault.

I think the reticence of victims of sexual assault being identified has more to do with the taboos around sex that still exist, at least in this country. The cult-of-virginity and inequitable attitudes toward sex that come largely from the Abrahamic religions. I think we'll eventually outgrow that.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#44

Post by geofft »

dominotw wrote: post #24
greglindahl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blood money" (a family forgiving a murderer in exchange for money) is a mutually beneficial trade, but is illegal in almost all countries.

Telling some one a sex joke is a not a crime, killing someone is a crime. Edit: Sexual harassment, as such, is not a crime under state or federal law in the U.S. Murder is a Crime. Makes no sense to compare it to murder. apples oranges.

Creating a hostile work environment that constitutes discrimination on sex is absolutely, unquestionably, a federal crime, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see Supreme Court cases Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, Ellison v. Brady, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, etc. etc. etc. - and Meritor and Oncale had no dissents, and Ellison only had one dissent from a justice who felt that the case should be heard before the Supreme Court to establish a stronger and clearer precedent).

I note that in your edit you have jumped from "killing someone is a crime" to "Murder is a Crime." Those are different things. Killing someone is, technically, not a crime. There are lots of cases in the US where you can kill someone legally (self-defense, fighting a war, administering the death penalty, being a cop who got scared, etc.). Murder is a specific crime because it's a specific set of circumstances around killing someone. Even manslaughter is a separate crime.

In the same way, no, "telling some one a sex joke" if you're a comedian at a bawdy bar, or in bed with someone you met on Tinder, or any such thing isn't a crime. Telling someone "a sex joke" in a way that creates a hostile working environment is a crime, as is allowing it to happen. And this article and this entire discussion is specifically about sexual harassment in working environments.

If you do not understand this or believe this, for your own sake, please seek actual legal counsel before telling any more sex jokes.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#45

Post by geofft »

anon12345690 wrote: post #21
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I bet youll change your mind if/when you get accused, especially if its false. Guess you should hope that never happens then right?

This makes no sense to me. Especially if it's false? If I'm correctly accused, I hope I get what I deserve! This feels like saying, "I bet you'll change your mind about manslaughter laws when if/when you accidentally run someone over with your car." No, I'm pretty sure I'll be preoccupied by feeling terrible for killing someone.

And I understand that false accusations happen occasionally, and I am willing to take that risk because a world that insists on zero false positives has a ton of false negatives. It would be hypocritical for me to not accept the consequences if it happens to affect me - I am not advocating for others anything I could not accept for myself. But I can absolutely accept that if I am a visible leader of an organization, or a manager of people, or in some other role of trust, and I am accused of something I believe I didn't do, the best thing for me to do for the organization is to step aside. (It is not like I can guarantee that I will even live to see tomorrow, so anything that I care about, I should arrange so that my personal involvement is not critical.)

But more than that, it's entirely possible (though I have zero reason to expect it to happen) that some behavior I thought was reasonable will be seen by the world as unreasonable. And if that happens, I am happy to accept the consequences. My goal is making the world a better place, not making myself powerful/comfortable at the expense of other people. If removing myself from positions of trust to prevent my behavior from hurting the world is the right thing for me to do, why should I shrink away from it?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#46

Post by WhyNotHugo »

I'm honestly amazed that these clauses are legal in the US.

There are certain rights which now cannot renounce in many countries -- the right to sue someone [in court] for sexual harassment is one of them (or any criminal activity really).

These "Forced Arbitration" sound really odd TBH. I understand that businesses might want to settle things behind closed doors, but this sort of things sound like too much.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#47

Post by QAPereo »

maroonblazer wrote: post #43
s73ver_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, having the victim's name plastered all over everywhere can't be good for them. Despite all the progress that's been made, we still live in a time where most victims would be blacklisted from the industry, despite nothing being their fault.

I think the reticence of victims of sexual assault being identified has more to do with the taboos around sex that still exist, at least in this country. The cult-of-virginity and inequitable attitudes toward sex that come largely from the Abrahamic religions. I think we'll eventually outgrow that.

You would be just shocked at the “cult of virginity” in places as far from Abrahamic traditions as Japan.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#48

Post by AnthonyMouse »

geofft wrote: post #42
jeffdavis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts do have stricter standards for admission of evidence and verdicts. But the basic innocent-by-default is a general principle that should apply pretty much everywhere. And there should be consistency and standards in media reporting of allegations, and for HR decisions.

The thing about innocent-by-default is that false accusations are also a serious crime with serious penalties (for good reason), and if you believe that the accused is affirmatively innocent, you have to believe that the accused is guilty. The reason that courts, specifically, do not have this paradox is that "innocent" simply means "we do not have the evidence to justify using the extraordinary punishment powers res…

> But humans don't work like that.

Sure they do. There are three options, just like there are in court. We punish the accused, or we punish the accuser for lying, or we don't punish either of them.

Not punishing anyone is what we do when we don't have convincing evidence one way or the other. That's just consistency -- you don't punish the accused without proof just like you don't punish the accuser without proof.

When there is no way to know the truth, it's completely valid to do nothing.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#49

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

chaostheory wrote: post #33

It's probably just not Satya Nadella, but ever since he took the reigns at MS, things have gotten better and better. Of course I may have missed something.

>Of course I may have missed something.

Yes, you missed telemetry (which is impossible to disable) and unskippable updates.

Nadella's Microsoft is more hostile to their users than ever.

Post reply on HN