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

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#51

Post by solidsnack9000 »

greglindahl wrote: post #19
sverige wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

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

Innocent until proven guilty (“the one who asserts must prove”) applies in courts because it is a fair standard — it’s not a standard limited to courts.

When we are in the position of having to determine if someone did something wrong, and what to do about it, we are faced with the problem of determining what is just and administering justice. The same basic rules apply to us, because we have the same basic problem: not allowing the tribunal or committee or even the court of public opinion to become another source of injustice.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#52

Post by skookumchuck »

sverige wrote: post #15
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 would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fine example of wrecking the lives of the accused, despite eventually being found completely innocent.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#53

Post by solidsnack9000 »

greglindahl wrote: post #41
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.

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?

If you have concrete evidence, that’s enough.

What if the situation was, that someone told you they saw this sign one time? Would that be enough not to shop there?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#54

Post by solidsnack9000 »

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…

...if you believe that the accused is affirmatively innocent, you have to believe that the accused is guilty.

This is not strictly or even practically true, but you acknowledge that later. When the defendant prevails in a court case, we don’t turn around and lock up the plaintiff.

You go on to say:

...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.

If you replace “sexual harassment” with any other accusation, do you still feel the same way? With regards to the flaw in human thinking you mention — do we have to work with it for all kinds of accusations, or is it specifically a problem for sexual harassment?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#55

Post by rayiner »

skookumchuck wrote: post #52
sverige wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fine example of wrecking the lives of the accused, despite eventually being found completely innocent.

And how many countervailing stories are there of womens’ careers being destroyed because the wouldn’t go along with sexual advances from superiors?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#56

Post by rayiner »

sverige wrote: post #15
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 would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

Talk of “innocent until proven guilty” is misplaced. In a workplace context, you’re not judging guilt and innocence. You’re resolving a civil dispute, where nobody’s freedom is at stake, only property. Even in courts the standard used for civil disputes isn’t “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” but a mere “more likely than not” conclusion. I’m a civil litigator. We never talk about “innocent until proven guilty.”

Imagine you’re in a dispute with someone over where your property line is drawn. If someone presents an affidavit attesting to facts that show the property line is actually five feet into what you thought was your yard, and you have no facts to the contrary, guess what: you’re losing summary judgment. Civil standards give the defendant a very thin benefit of the doubt. Your accuser’s story just has to be a hair more believable than the other person’s alibi.

Workplace harassment cases are emphatically not like criminal cases. A false negative (acquiting a guilty person) usually has no direct negative effect in most criminal cases. A murder victim doesn’t much care if the state incorrectly acquits her murderer. Workplace harassment is more like the land boundary case. Somebody gets the land; a false negative means one party has been wrongly deprived of her land while the other party had received an undeserved windfall. In a workplace, likewise, an accuser who is telling the truth but is not believed is wrongfully forced to either continue working with her harasser, or to give up valuable career opportunities. A false negative (failing to believe a truthful accuser), is pretty much as bad as a false positive.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#57

Post by skookumchuck »

rayiner wrote: post #55
skookumchuck wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fine example of wrecking the lives of the accused, despite eventually being found completely innocent.

And how many countervailing stories are there of womens’ careers being destroyed because the wouldn’t go along with sexual advances from superiors?

I'm interested. Produce one that was on the scale of what happened to the Lacrosse players.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#58

Post by InclinedPlane »

chaostheory wrote: post #40
InclinedPlane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's alright. Mostly it's just the contrast from the previous CEO who was not great for the company.

imo It's not just the previous one. Bill is an awesome philanthropist, but I see Steve's reign as a continuation of 'What would Bill do?'.

Bill has some characteristics that hurt being a CEO but he had many that helped, Ballmer lacked most of those. Bill was confident in his authority so he was comfortable with people challenging him, and was willing to give his ego a rest in order to see the bigger picture or make the right decision for the company. Things that Ballmer couldn't do. Ballmer purged the top tier of MS of talented leadership because he saw it as a threat. Ballmer chased after companies in completely different industries (google, apple) because he couldn't stand Microsoft not being top dog in every tech niche, and nearly tanked the company doing so.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#59

Post by jeffdavis »

greglindahl wrote: post #41
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.

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?

Of course not. You can make your own judgement based on the evidence you have.

I am standing up for the presumption of innocence when the evidence is lacking or in conflict.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#60

Post by jeffdavis »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #53
greglindahl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you have concrete evidence, that’s enough. What if the situation was, that someone told you they saw this sign one time? Would that be enough not to shop there?

It's probably worth asking the owner whether it's true, and if so, let them know that's why you don't want to shop there any more.

Just trusting an allegation alone and walking away silently seems both less fair and less effective.

Also, sometimes you find out more to the story. Maybe the owner is very old, and it happened a long time ago, and he's since changed his attitude dramatically. Maybe you forgive him or maybe not, but then you at least put it in perspective.

In any case, certainly don't repeat the unsubstantiated allegation to others.

Post reply on HN