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

The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#11

Post by prepend »

scarmig wrote: post #9
jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.”

This is a really interesting idea. But how would you confirm sexual assault. Are you saying that “innocent until proven guilty” should be revised?

What other crimes do you think this should apply?

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#12

Post by bmay »

existencebox wrote: post #6
rectang wrote: post #2

I hope that as time goes on we are increasingly able to see ourselves as all in this together, rather than in a zero-sum game between genders.

While I share your aspiration, let me make an inflammatory question for the purpose of prompting thought. (I would hope readers take this as a neutral statement; since obviously the women entering the workforce see it as a net positive, but it may be a line of questioning to attempt to explain why it's so easy to see it as a gender battle) What if it is zero sum, or at least, approaching that? There are two phenomena…

more qualified women in the workforce => greater efficiency, increase in net jobs created, lower prices => increased benefits for everyone

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#14

Post by scarmig »

prepend wrote: post #11
scarmig wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.” This is a rea…

I was being descriptive of why courts don't effectively adjudicate sexual assault now. I wasn't proposing any particular solution, because it is a hard problem.

As a thought experiment, you can imagine a world where courts are required to give instructions to the jury, telling them that they must always treat an alleged victim's testimony as a 100% accurate representation of the incident. That would make most sexual assault cases slam dunk. And it'd result in more guilty rapists being convicted, and very likely more of them than the number of innocent people falsely accused of rape.

Is that an appropriate use of institutions of justice? I don't think so. And it wouldn't be sustainable, as it'd weaponize accusations in a way that they're not now: you'd rapidly see people abusing it, and see a huge backlash.

But there's not an alternative justice-wise to that, which is why attentions are turned to other institutions that can only offer a slap on the wrist, but a slap on the wrist that can be based on very little evidence. No one is really happy with that reality, but no one has any better ideas.

That's why an epidemiological approach--running tests on everything from lights, to educational programs, to banning hard alcohol at school or work sponsored events--seems like the best way out of this hole to me.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#15

Post by prepend »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #8
jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

> ... why can't it be handled in court between them? If you're falsely accused, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to defend yourself? If you're harassed, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to accuse the perpetrator? That's why it should be handled in court only as the last resort.

I think the idea is criminal courts, not civil. So prosecution would be free, but expensive to defend yourself.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#16

Post by pharrington »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #8
jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

> ... why can't it be handled in court between them? If you're falsely accused, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to defend yourself? If you're harassed, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to accuse the perpetrator? That's why it should be handled in court only as the last resort.

Certainly, which is indicative of a larger, fundamental problem the US currently has in trying to be a nation beholden to the rule of law.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#17

Post by scoggs »

jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

They are already the two most likely candidates involved who would want to sweep things under the rug. Bringing attention to those type of situations going on in the workplace, hell even less severe stuff like basic crime, is not what schools and businesses want to do.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#18

Post by mudil »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #8
jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

> ... why can't it be handled in court between them? If you're falsely accused, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to defend yourself? If you're harassed, do you want to have to spend $10,000 to accuse the perpetrator? That's why it should be handled in court only as the last resort.

That's a circular argument. On the other hand, all other disputes and infractions are handled in court. Say someone's daughter is sexually harassed on a neighbor's lawn. Is the lawn the place to investigate and punish the accused?

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#19

Post by ScottBurson »

Here's a thought: maybe it should become standard practice for companies to issue a hidden body camera to any employee who requests one.

I'm sure there would be lots of issues around this that I haven't thought through yet, but it would certainly solve the evidence problem. Indeed, I would expect the mere existence of the policy to put a major damper on misbehavior.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#20

Post by groby_b »

existencebox wrote: post #6
rectang wrote: post #2

I hope that as time goes on we are increasingly able to see ourselves as all in this together, rather than in a zero-sum game between genders.

While I share your aspiration, let me make an inflammatory question for the purpose of prompting thought. (I would hope readers take this as a neutral statement; since obviously the women entering the workforce see it as a net positive, but it may be a line of questioning to attempt to explain why it's so easy to see it as a gender battle) What if it is zero sum, or at least, approaching that? There are two phenomena…

I'm not sure where you're seeing a "somewhat sticky # of jobs": https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-ti... , https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-persons

As for "a brief search": I literally went to Google, typed "number of jobs" with the first suggestion being "number of jobs in us by year". The very first link has the answer.

May I suggest that when you ask inflammatory question, you invest a tiny bit more in research? Otherwise, one could come to the conclusion that maybe you're more interested in the inflammatory than in the thought part.

I'm sure that's not what you intend. But if you care about "togetherness" in political discourse, it's imperative to temper inflammatory requests with more than an absolutely cursory search for facts.

Post reply on HN