> Among the imperatives of #MeToo is that employers, and, indeed, all institutions, must take care to implement orderly processes in which reports of harassment are fairly and impartially investigated, and yield results that inspire confidence—to the benefit of victims as well as the accused.
That's the author's imperative.
#metoo has three imperatives:
1. A smoke signal to communicate across long distances and allege abuse against powerful serial abusers more quickly than those alleged serial abusers can use their power to divide and conquer the allegations.
2. It is a shared statement by victims of sexual abuse (including male victims) that investigations of people who hold power inside institutions have been anything but fair and impartial.
3. It is a day of reckoning for the people who have enabled the serial abusers, in a desperate attempt to create a minimally workable environment where people can try to have careers without having their genitals grabbed, their spirit broken, and their faith in institutions shaken.
The imperative the author erroneously attributes to #metoo is certainly important, and related. But it's different, and it seems like #metoo is merely shoe-horned to make the article more relevant. (Does anyone think the definition of sexual harassment wasn't already being broadened before #metoo?)
It's unfortunate, too, because I'd love to know how both Title IX and Title VII are impacted by students' growing ability and proclivity to accumulate allegations over social media against serial abusers. What does a college's "honor court" or whatever do when it's not victim vs. accused but instead multiple victims across different classes and campus locations vs. one accused?