If you would like to throw cold water on sexual harassment justice, just get rid of non-disclosure agreements.
Case#1: Woman and man at work have a consensual affair. Both are married. Woman decides to end the affair. Man is hostile at work, threatens to reveal all to her husband, sends her sexually explicit texts. That woman is very much protected by a non-disclosure agreement.
If you want women to be able to get good entry-level jobs in any kind of corporate business structure, you have to end the career death penalty for men when they do something that is simply stupid.
Case#2: Neil deGrasse Tyson possibly flirts with a young production assistant, commenting positively on her looks. In another case he is accused of "reaching under a woman's dress and groping" when this was him lifting the upper sleeve so he could look at a solar system tattoo on her shoulder.
It's got to stop. A female HR director told me last year that she wasn't approving the hiring of any young attractive women for entry level spots in her company because the risk to the company was now too high.
BTW, my parents met at work. When my father let my mother know he wanted to take her on a date, it was not sexual harassment.
12
All of these are great points. In addition, since we're aiming for complete accountability, we should probably do something about the #metoo investigations that go wrong the other way too, more rarely.
I'd refer y'all to the case of Chris Hardwick. He's a comedian who is most known for the Talking Dead, the recap of Walking Dead. A sexual assault accusation was leveled against him, he was removed from the show for a couple of episodes, his name was scrubbed from the website, that he'd created, and he became an unperson. The investigation revealed that the accusation was fraudulent. Mr. Hardwick lucked out, as he was allowed to come back on the show, and he was recognized as being a person once more.
Keith Ellison was also accused of sexual assault, and it's been made clear that that accusation is without merit. It revolves around a video recording that the accuser will not allow anyone to see. He was lucky, in that his career was not derailed.
Al Franken was also accused of sexual assault, and was driven out of Congress. He was not so lucky, but it's clear from the nature of the accusations that they were frivolous.
I know people hate to hear this, but this movement works against innocent men too, and it's looking like Neil deGrasse Tyson is the latest to be accused without any proof. Maybe his career won't be destroyed. Maybe accountability should apply in these cases too.
67
Also, my apologies for not stressing, most accusations are grounded in fact, and there are a lot of completely heinous predatory men out there in positions of power. I have no doubt about the bad actions of Les Moonves, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, and dozens of others. The men I named here are some of the very few that I think are not guilty of anything too terrible.
And yes, my comment was from a guy's point of view. That's because I'm a guy. But I didn't mean it to sound too one-sided, my apologies if it did.
4
@Dan Stackhouse — I don't know which Tyson accusation you're referring to, but in the one I read, Tyson agreed with every element of the woman's account (wine, secret handshake, invitation to relieve pressure, apology the next day). The difference is he said he was being inappropriately familiar and she says he was sexually propositioning her.
That's not at all an accusation without proof.
@Dan Stackhouse
Don't you think it's a little dramatic to say that being scrubbed from a website makes someone an "unperson"?
If someone gets fired for any other reason and is taken off the website, would you call them an "unperson"?
You're really connecting this person's ability to be an actor with his standing as a member of society, his status as a legal entity with legal rights?
I am obviously not condoning false accusations or pretending that false accusations do not negatively impact men who are falsely accused. But it's really hard to take these sort of theatrical descriptions seriously. Especially when compared to the experiences of women who are killed, raped, assaulted, harassed and abused by men.
2
Sexual and other harassment and assault needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue regardless of where it occurs. As with Harvey Weinstein these people need to investigated by police, not corporate HR. Regardless of any high-minded mission statements, corporate HR is there to protect the company. Any HR person who tells you otherwise is at best duplicitous and at worst lying through their teeth. When money and reputation is on the line ethics are utterly disposable. If you think otherwise, you're a dreamy idealist or a fool. Or both.
25
@Larry Bennett Unfortunately history tells us the police and criminal justice system are just as inclined, if not more, to regularly sweeping allegations under the rug/ decline to take action. Allegations far worse than harassment have abysmal prosecution rates. As happened with Harvey Weinstein. Cyrus Vance, our illustrious DA here in liberal NYC, declined to press charges until a media storm like no other forced his hand. Women have little reason to put their faith in that system and ample rational reasons not to.
6
In the past, I was put in the position of reluctantly blowing the whistle on a female co-worker who had violated boundaries with a client. Then came the retaliatory harassment until, finally, my job got eliminated. Fortunately, I had a fine lawyer placed at my disposal. Eventually, at the time of he summons, the manager who spear-headed the retaliatory harassment was summarily dismissed. During the time of the retaliation, my professional life was highly stressful. My case was one where the perpetrator was female, the whistle-blower male and the target-victim male. I cannot help but believe that if the genders had been reversed, no retaliatory harassment would have occurred, along with no job elimination. Social work, the field of my employ, has a ratio of 8 women to every man. I witnessed as much harassment by women in my field as the newspapers report report occurs by men in the corporate world. Victims of harassment should not be obstructed in their allegations, as this article points out. But as the recent column by a law school professor and feminist has pointed out, we cannot dispense with the due process rights of the accused for the sake of protecting victims. The rights of both need protecting -- fully.
48
@MidwesternReader
"I cannot help but believe that if the genders had been reversed, no retaliatory harassment would have occurred, along with no job elimination." Really??? Perhaps because you work in a female dominated profession you are ignorant of the conditions under which most women work, but I hope not, for your clients' sakes.
6
This seems to support the claim that sexual harassment is not about gender, but power in the hand of creepy people.
15
@Coastsider I am hardly ignorant of most women's workplace condition. Regarding, "for your clients' sakes," my whistle blowing was just for that reason. My statement was based on decades of experience of which you are uninformed. As the other reply pointed out, the issue is as much power, with managers and directors -- male or female -- holding a power with victims like myself having no recourse beyond that power except legal. I would have appreciated a more thoughtful response which showed an awareness of the situation I described.
4
False accusations happen, and due process is rarely a consideration. Investigations are rarely conducted, and organizations fight for their "right" not to conduct them; I have witnessed this. And worse, the results can be dismissed if it's not "popular" that the accused is found innocent.
Usually the decision is based on appearances, and protecting an organization's public relations position.
I have told my story here. This takes place in a small town, among people who should know better.
http://ericfrancis.com/wicked-game.html
2
Les Moonves and Harvey Weinstein physically assaulted women in the workplace using their power as executives and their physical strength. They then sought further damage as they destroyed their victim's careers. Their companies rewarded them with more money. These are not your everyday misogynists. These are criminals who deserve to be put away and because of the way they used their power for revenge they created corporate cultures that were afraid to protect their victims but instead protected them. Everyone knew the board at CBS was filled with men like Moonves, hand picked by Les Moonves to do his bidding. Kopeleson was one. I can name more but they are alive. They were serial harassers too in their own places of work. Moonves had a board of his friends who were well paid by CBS and received a piece of the profits. Of course, they turned a blind eye.
Susan Antilla's reference to "victim, victims" rather than alleged victims & to "predator.. the evidence against him" clearly frames her as an advocate who only presents one side of the story. Another side is the almost complete lack of due process and transparency that accompanies #MeToo inquiries (many or most men would say witch hunts). I have repeatedly asked our "public" radio, WNYC, to provide the evidence behind the abrupt dismissal of Leonard Lopate and continue to be ignored. #MeTOO is the antithesis of the underpinnings of American justice.
Another side is the almost complete absence of powerful women harassers, while stories abound of men being approached for sex and fired for refusing to compromise their values and their marriages.
Another side is the absence of women in power harassing other women, which is common, but rarely if ever reported.
Another side is the behavior of women in the workplace, who create a hostile environment for their male colleagues by dressing like prostitutes used to dress. I recall a NYTimes account of a woman who complained of harassment because her colleague was staring at her exposed bosom at work, but he was unable to get to first base by saying that he had trouble doing his job. Unlike schools where principles set dress codes, work is a a free for all, with no responsibility whatsoever for women's dress or behavior and management cowed into going along.
It's time to tell the whole story and attribute responsibility fairly.
What is completely missing from this article is any discussion of the legal options that are available to an employee who may have been sexually harassed on the job. Sexual harassment is illegal, and filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will get the matter investigated by a neutral party who is trained in how to investigate. The EEOC has a backlog of cases, but when they get involved, any employer will stand up and take notice. It is a much more potent approach than relying on a private party who is hired by the HR department.
1
Sexual harassment is illegal. Therefore, these investigations should be being conducted by the legal authorities, who have the power to compel testimony and are subject to public review.
The corporations have a different goal, to protect the corporate image. Sometimes that is best done by public actions and sometimes that is best done by sweeping everything under the rug.
The answer is simple: if you don't want trouble, then don't hire women.
I spent 25 years in corporate America. The real issue is that HR 's role is to support management and the company, not to protect employees. A complaining employee is almost always viewed as a "problem," and no matter the outcome, a "troublesome" employee will bear the brunt of having complained. So, do you complain and put your job at risk? or stay silent. I found out the hard way that looking for support from management through HR doesn't usually end well for the employee.
2
Power corrupts. I have no doubt that if the tables were turned overnight and women ruled the world, the level of harassment would be the same (remember the woke founder of Thinx?). To pretend otherwise is to deny that women are truly equal--that we are equally capable of being greedy, grasping, opportunistic human beings. Give us a chance to shatter that glass ceiling once and for all, and you'll see that women are just as good--and bad--as men.
Btw, here's that article about the former CEO of Thinx: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/thinx-what-a-startups-scandal-says-about-your-workplace.html
4
I worked for a large not-for-profit, but in one of their smaller state offices. A young executive director was hired who bullied me and another middle-aged female co-worker. I fought back at great personal cost. I pushed back almost on a daily basis when insulted or interrupted by him, which caused great stress. She didn't, also at great personal cost. She complained of headaches and insomnia. She cried in the office. I informed the board of her situation. No response. I informed human resources, and they tried to talk it out with him and her. No change. Eventually I left the organization. Following my departure, I filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for wage discrimination because my executive director had hired a younger, less experienced white male at a higher salary than me a year before I quit. I won and got back pay and compensation. There are avenues even if you can't hire a lawyer. My recommendation: keep all records, all emails, keep a journal, always act professional and demand respect. When someone treats you consistently in a bullying, demeaning manner or sexually harasses you, it doesn't matter how powerful, let it be known by everyone that you won't be pushed around.
4
There is also the case of Christina Boucher, who sued Colorado State University after being denied tenure due to poor performance. She chose to retaliate against the university by filing a false sexual harassment claim against the university. She was backed by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund.
The jury unanimously concluded her claims were without merit.
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2018/08/28/ex-colorado-state-university-professor-christina-boucher-loses-retaliation-suit/1127563002/
The national media reported on the case when it was initiated. Silence when it was found to be without merit.
Gender issues in the workplace are real and important. The Moonves case is disgusting. But the presumption of guilt is also a very big problem. It enables the use of sexual harassment claims as a weapon to destroy innocent people or to try to collect large sums of money, as occurred in the Boucher case. A balanced perspective and balanced news coverage is needed.
5
I'm still mad about Al Franken being driven from office over, at most, what he should have been embarrassed about. A good talking to from his wife and his Senate Minnesota colleague would have done the job nicely. Instead, we have lost a natural Progressive leader who, doggone it, people liked.
91
@james haynes Kirsten Gillebrand had no business leading the charge to burn Franken at the stake. Very unfair. Total republican hit job too.
13
@james haynes Just more evidence re hannes comment above. Any article about #metoo and men (and many women shamefully) literally come out of the woodwork to redirect the conversation to either 1) some imaginary tidal wave of false accusations and 2) one pervy guy comedian from Minnesota they have suddenly decided was indispensable to the liberal cause (natural leader? His progressive female replacement seem to be able to act like a grown-up worthy of such high office and she'll do just fine thanks). No, the very IDEA of men losing their jobs and being publicly humiliated is ALWAYS worthy of comment and attention. Then always comes the misogynistic comment like Harry's -- let us now vilify of a real, consistent, progressive leader like Gillibrand -- who was doing yeomans work on sexual assault in the military for years before the rest of the world was forced to pay attention to this issue. If you really fancy yourself progressive -- you and all your likers need to check in on your focus.
3
@james Barnes ITA re Al Franken, except for the part wherein you ASSUME he needed to be reprimanded. We have no idea if that’s even true, bc denying him the DP he asked for from the very beginning, denied him the opportunity to speak out, give evidence, or explain how he remembered these alleged instances.
If the allegations had merit, THEN what you said would be appropriate. And only then. While I generally tend to believe women when they speak out (as it was so difficult in the past and remains so in the present) there are definitely situations wherein the woman can appear shady, not believable, have an agenda, etc. And even if the person is someone who has never struck you as “that sort of person” — we have seen it go both ways. With the defendant (generally male) actually being innocent of those charges or, in a 180 degree turn, a situation that results in jail time, a la Bill Cosby.
It took a ridiculously long time for me to believe he was guilty of this behavior — and then I was horrified. Of course, even should Al Franken be guilty of what the women said, I wouldn’t be horrified. I’d barely think there was much to talk about, considering the ongoing, serious cases that came up during the #metoo mvmt. And I’ve worked with DV & rape victims. I’m sorry for having an opinion with which many women do not agree, but I think there was much merit in what Matt Damon said. There are degrees of sexual incidents: assault, harassment, rape.
Al Franken was treated horribly.
6
Yes, this is exactly what happens Ms. Antilla, "Most workplace investigations proceed with far less drama and without the knowledge of the media and the public. They typically begin after an employee reports to a company hotline, human resources or a company official that she or he has been harassed, assaulted or suffered some other inequity at work. The accuser’s company finances these inquiries, either assigning H.R. or hiring lawyers or other professionals to report on whatever they find."
Many employees who know full well that the accuser is telling the truth are too afraid to speak up - they don't want to lose their jobs or be targeted themselves.
I am proud to say my daughter, who is a highly regarded communications manager for a public utility, is suing them for sexual discrimination. It takes tremendous courage. She still has a job but has been demoted and had what were big responsibilities taken away leaving her in basically a meaningless position. Her work has been given to a man whose only purpose at the organization seems to be to cause trouble and try to take power.
An attorney who specializes in discrimination cases heard about the situation, contacted my daughter and filed a claim. The organization played the "let's pretend we don't know until the very last moment" game so the attorney went to the media to force their hand and it's front page news.
THAT is what has changed. Female attorneys who will fight for accuser's rights. Great News!
5
We need to start treating people as human beings and treat them all equally. This means men and women get the same benefits and have to play by the same clearly defined rules in the work place. This will also start holding people accountable for their behavior as males and females harass and otherwise misbehave. The workplace rules will require evidence and will be turned over to trained, impartial investigators. If the accusations are criminal in nature, they will automatically be turned over to law enforcement.
And the #MeToo policy of convict, sentence, then maybe investigate needs to stop along with their ultra sexist policies that women/females can only be victims. Males are victims too and females are harassing and sexually assaulting co-workers.
12
Women lose $500 billion a year in wages just because they weren't born male in America.
Sexual harassment is only one of the two major travesties corporate America and our legislators have to figure out.
8
"Pilar Morin, a lawyer in Los Angeles, described an incident that happened when she was looking into accusations that a college president had sexually harassed a student. During her interview with the president and his lawyer, in the president’s office, she excused herself to use the rest room. She returned to a locked door and realized she had left her handwritten notes and computer in the room. “I started pounding on the door,” she said, but it was another 15 minutes before they let her back in."
She left her notes her computer "open"?! Forget about the president and his cronies. The malfeasance here on her part is mind boggling. Ms. Morin should have gone straight to the police.
2
Sure, the legal and informal mediation systems are difficult. And we all have to work hard to make it work better. Let's insist on this.
And it is also worth noting that human relations are complicated -- feelings change,signals are missed and mistaken, flirtation can be fun or manipulation,there will be momentary slips, silliness morphing into harassment, going too far, not going far enough, power relations, relations under alcohol and drugs . . .
In the end, it wouldn't be bad to prevent the harassment and attacks before they happen.
And here we get into really sensitive areas: how should we dress, behave, think about each other, deal with desires, hook up without imposing on, understand and then respond to another's apparent interest or advances, avoid getting into potentially bad situations, etc. There are all sorts of bad images and messages in popular culture -- can we control or even eliminate them? Who will teach the teachers, given the bad history of human relations?
We have a lot of work to do, and we have to find a vocabulary and tone that will work and not increase the acrimony. Too many comments here are defensive or offensive. Some of them are justified and informed. Many are not. Who is to decide which is which -- this requires open discussion, as in the op-ed, not yelling at each other and "taking sides." Think of doing this with Obama facilitating the discussion or with Trump facilitating it -- there are better and worse ways to do this.
3
I thought this might spare a thought for due process for the accused. But it doesn't. I guess we'll have to depend on Betty devoss for that.
7
What independent rights do employees have? Unions, while imperfect, offer some degree of protection against abuse. There are usually methods for independent review and consequences for abusers. Privatization of industry, destruction of unions, and the destruction of even the most basic worker rights at the state and national level and clueless courts encourage all sorts of abuse, from missing a lunch or bathroom break to frank sexual abuse. What is needed are laws to protect workers. Most states (even "liberal" New York) could start by changing "right to work" laws. These laws encourage abuse by protecting bosses. That is how to change the culture of work. Our labor laws are really the problem. Call a legislator today. Demand change.
5
I salute the people who started and continue the metoo movement. Their task is near impossible; organizations have about zero interest - despite what they publicly and often loudly proclaim - in investigating anything that would lead to embarrassment. Deviant behaviors in organizations, of which misogyny and harassment are but two - are widely observed in organizations. Investigations are short, shoddy, designed to keep everything under wraps (I am generalizing, I am sure some reader will be quick to point out how their organization is totally different and fully devoted to justice).
There might be many root causes, but the most unforgivable ones relate to hiring of deviant people despite evidence, lack of accountability, fear of feedback, and willful ignorance.
2
HR people always talk about conflict of interest, but when it comes to sexual harassment, they are the one who have conflict of interest to investigate the executives of the company. After all, they got paid by the company, not the public, to protect the interest and reputation of the company. All they want to do is to minimize the damage to the company and demean the accusers. Their internal investigations are not monitored by public and they don’t need to follow any legal procedures. If you are harassed by anyone in the company, go straight to the police, not HR.
Same rule apply to college students. Don’t expect college committee will give you fair treatment if you are harassed in school.
4
The "Me Too" movement seems to be, so far, about ONLY young and beautiful models and actresses.
It has led to outrages like this article:
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/02/stop-james-franco
where the writer starts out saying:
"I can't even look at his face without feeling a burning repulsion in the inner depths of my belly. I mean, there are a lot of random celebrities I irrationally hate.... but James Franco has committed too many offenses for this hate to be brushed off simply as "irrational." And she goes on from there.
This is based on the unproven allegations of five women that they were made uncomfortable (!!!!) by some statements he made in acting classes; in one case a woman was apparently not paid what she felt she should have been paid for acting in a film he directed; and so on.
No one claims they were raped, or forced or coerced into having sex with him, by the way.
THIS is what the "Me Too" movement has become? A man can be destroyed as a public person and have his career destroyed, based on such allegations?
11
As always, Antilla is insightful, concrete and riveting.
As Dr. Peterson says, and I paraphrase horribly, "cross culturally, there were millenia where men and women almost never worked side by side together doing the same things. And no one was oppressed because of that fact. It was the natural thing to do, obviously because EVERY culture was doing it around the world without knowing anything about any other culture." Now just in the last 40 or 50 years that women and their "allies" have insisted on us working together, completely ignoring the fact of endless male desire for the female form, and we are supposed to assume that this experiment is going to work out well for either sex/gender? It's a little absurd. The fact that progressives think this de-gendering of everything is good completely missed nature in favor of a social constructionist view of the world that was thoroughly debunked when Scandanavia implemented the most gender equality of any nation in history and discovered that the differences between the sexes and the choices they make were greater not less. So i'm tired of the so called virtuous fight of progressives. I am going to fight for mens rights against the annoying feminists until the day i die.
2
As a non-practicing progressive liberal of the center, I view many of #MeToo investigations as a judgement of "All guilty, condemn them all, God will recognize the innocent".
6
How do people ever recover reputations destroyed by false allegations, some of them scores of years old?
Answer. They don't mostly.
The false accuser skips merrily away.
10
@Lawrence How do several generations of women ever recover from the repeated humiliations, career stagnation, lost wages, and emotional trauma of harassment and assault? Answer. They don't mostly. And the perpetrators get promoted, read Jordan Peterson and try to gaslight the women into thinking its really not all that bad.
1
This portion of the piece was rather disturbing as it shows an unsurprising duplicitousness of company management:
"told me that one client’s general counsel demanded that she delete information from her report that reflected badly on the company. (She declined to follow those orders). Another investigator told me that a client told her not to write a report at all if the findings turned out to be bad for the company."
Seems like it would be pretty straight forward for States/Feds to pass laws to make interfering with an independent investigation a crime. Create official channels for independent investigators to forward the charges to state or federal authorities.
It'd probably also be beneficial for these types of investigations to be more broadly viewable by the public. I understand the sensitive issues around not distributing personal details of people abused, but fear (from company management) of bad publicity is a powerful motivator.
2
Having been an office worker for many years I have observed that companies keep most personnel "events" undisclosed, not just those of sexual harassment. On rare occasions an employee, sometimes an executive, was let go without explanation; rumors abounded, but nobody that I spoke to appeared to know why. I would venture to say corporate culture strongly tends toward secrecy when it comes to relations with individual employees. Companies are not democracies, employees serve at the discretion of management, and have no protections other than against racial or sexual prejudicial practices on a grand scale. Companies are not equipped and have no desire to hold "investigations" into bad behavior. When such instances occur, a manager "handles" it quietly, and the company goes back to its business.
Racial and gender prejudice are legislated against using overall hiring and firing statistics as evidence, protection for individual employees is limited to our judicial system. In the cases of sexual harassment there are no hard statistics (such as hiring and firing); would one want cameras blanketing the work space ? Protecting employees by requiring investigations as we see in certain government agencies is expensive and hinders management's ability to run the institution. In many countries sexual harassment is tolerated, indeed expected. What is needed are not investigations but cultural change, and maybe #MeToo is helping to bring that about by publicizing incidents.
2
The purpose of a voluntary investigation into any kind of alleged wrongdoing in a company is to discover the facts and take appropriate actions to insure a safe and productive workplace for all involved. And to prevent litigation that may be costly and reputationally destructive for the company.
Investigators should have a checklist of best practices which they share with the employer before they accept an engagement. And should resign in writing when they are asked to violate in a material way those best practices.
People within the company who thwart the investigator are harming the company.
The Moonves case is illustrative. He was a bad actor who people in the company through the years protected. And, in the end, the truth has come out. But at a high cost to all involved.
2
This describes a situation that is badly in need of reform.
The relationship between genders is not always easy. Power dynamics, miscommunication, lewd comments, suggestive clothing, lack of physical evidence, lead to great subjectivity differences.
Work places are increasingly monitored. Although privacy matters, having a record of all interactions may preserve decency. Just as police body cams produce more confidence in their work, having offices, including the offices of CEOs, visually recorded, may be the best way forward.
I know I'll recommend it.
1
A couple of rules:
1) Sexual behavior and overtures do not belong in the work place. Period. You're not being paid to further behaviors that interfere with getting the work done.
2) Codes of behavior that safeguard the workplace and employees should be widely promoted and publicized.
3) Investigations should follow "best practices". Some Silicon Valley harassment suits have helped uncover these.
Finally, I'd be grateful if Les Mooves loses his $120 million severance package. That would send the right note to harassers and abusers that they won't receive a dime. Too bad that Fox News/21st Century Media chose to pay out rather than stand up to their anchors, etc.
4
All agreed. With an added note: $120m severance for an executive is perverse, even for one with an unimpeachable reputation.
3
This article is ostensibly about company investigations of complaints of sexual harassment at work. But the author displays no desire for real investigations into the facts.
No where in the article does the author even acknowledge that any complaint by a female against a male could be anything less than 100% truthful and accurate. She assumes that every complaint is valid, truthful and accurate.
Every time the author refers to a company "doing the right thing" that right thing is to harshly punish the accused, guilt being assumed by the author.
This is a fundamental problem with the MeToo movement and the feminist movement generally. They totally reject the concept of presumed innocence and burden of proof being on the accuser. That concept is the bedrock of due process since it is usually impossible for an innocent person ever to prove their innocence of any accusation. MeTooers and feminists deem mere accusation by a female as evidence, sufficient in an of itself as proof.
And that is the reason why the MeToo movement deserves no respect.
42
@Errol well throw out the baby with the bath water. Of course there will be false claims but they far outweigh instances of sexual harassment. A transparent investigation would go a long way. As an EEO counselor with the US Army I can say that hurdles are real before we even get to the presumed innocence of a harasser which led me to believe, institutions kick into defense mode which makes you wonder, why?
12
@Errol — You're willfully misreading the piece.
The article is about how companies investigate complaints and how they act on the findings of those investigations.
“Companies looking to do the right thing” refers to the choice of whether to make public a finding of misconduct.
The author doesn't presume guilt in any case here.
2
@Mahalo
I suspect truthful and accurate accusations are the exception, not the rule. It may be the case the majority of accusations have some truth. But accuracy of those accusations is probably rare for several reasons. First, since there is so much emotion involved, memory may unknowingly deviate from accurate. Second, eyewitness testimony has been demonstrated to often be inaccurate about key events, and there the witness is not even a party with a self-interest involved and with much emotion involved. And then there are the devious liars who knowingly and intentionally accuse falsely out of some personal motivation.
3
Look at the Epstein child sex ring that victimized hundreds of minors. That investigation was nipped in the bud by Acosta and a justice system that did not provide justice.
Look at Trump's boasts of sexually assaulting women, and Kavanaugh getting off with a lifetime Supreme Court justice position with no real investigation and his (very credible) accusers systematically attacked and smeared by Republican senators.
Only with more women in positions of power, the Me Too movement, and a weakening of wealthy white male privilege will anything change. It won't happen anytime soon.
22
@smb
I assert no conclusion whether any of the accusations against Kavanaugh are true or false. But your assertion that the accusers were "very credible" is totally without foundation. You may believe them while others may not. But you believing them does not make them credible. Neither does the disbelief by others make them not credible.
The only actual evidence bearing on credibility of the accusers was some evidence that called the credibility of some of them into question.
I think those who formed a firm conclusion about the credibility of the accusers (either credible or not credible) formed their conclusion based on whether they wanted Kavanaugh confirmed. It wasn't the other way around.....they didn't decide whether they wanted Kavanaugh confirmed based on their opinion of the accusers' credibility.
20
@Errol some of us did not consider confirmability of Kavanaugh. Rather - when faced with accusations, his reactions made up my mind. Losing control is never a good sign - doesn't mean he's "guilty" of abuse but it does say something about judgment. That is enough for some of us.
16
@Mahalo
I opposed Kavanaugh from the biginning because of some key elements of his legal philosophy. However, the women who accused him did not persuade me of his guilt.
Regarding Kavanaugh's emotional response to the accusations, I am ambivalent. On the one hand, I agree with you that a judge should maintain control over his emotions. On the other hand, I doubt more than a rare few are able to do that sufficiently.....but they can and do put on a fraudulent show of pretending to do so. I resent that deception by them and respect the honesty of one who does reveal when he is emotionally affected. My concern about Kavanaugh's emotional expression is whether it was really sincere or just an act that he thought would play well with much of the public.
6
It used to be that men could get away with pretty much anything and just say "The woman wanted it." Thankfully those days are gone.
Now we've shifted to a state where we assume that a woman is always correct and that the man is always the villain and that under no circumstances should we ever question the motivation or circumstances of a woman's allegations.
I hate saying this but every human being on the planet has a dark side. Almost every person alive has different feelings about sex and sexual relations. A lot of people are repressed and assume that their own personal repression is the default nature of the rest of civilization. A lot of people are more libertine and feel that most people should be similarly open. Some enjoy domination or submission and assume that everyone knows this and feel the same way.
Sex is a lot more complicated than the court of public opinion and gender studies courses would have us believe
26
@Dundeemundee
"Now we've shifted to a state where we assume that a woman is always correct and that the man is always the villain and that under no circumstances should we ever question the motivation or circumstances of a woman's allegations."
Then why do so few rape cases lead to convictions?
I'm eager to hear your well-reasoned and well cited response.
1
@dundeemundee: When it happens at work, it's not about sex. It's about economic power. When a stranger approaches you at a bar with the same behavior, you can say or do anything in response without much fear of reprisal. When someone at work (often a superior) approaches you, you must tread carefully lest your job becomes threatened. When you turn to the people who are supposed to help, they turn away - or worse, blame you. At that point, you have 2 choices: work every day in a sickeningly uncomfortable environment or find a new job. The problem is that, in the new job, you will likely find yourself in the same position. It's about women having less economic power than men and, therefore, having to swallow abuse or lose their financial independence. There's nothing sexy about that for any woman.
"Men and women in the harasser’s department, in the meantime, are left with the impression that either the report was a whitewash or the company chose to do nothing."
And the "not knowing" also puts coworkers in an uneasy position with respect to new employees, students, etc. Let's say new hire Judy would be a good fit for Jerry's unit, but Jerry was accused of inappropriate behavior toward a young subordinate in the past. As a coworker, you know the allegation happened but you don't know the outcome of the investigation. Is it dangerous to recommend that Judy -- who knows nothing of this and we can't tell her -- work for Jerry? On the other hand, if you never recommend women work with Jerry when it's a good fit professionally, that unfairly disadvantages women.
The policies for dealing with these situations within organizations seem far from resolved.
13
I think we need to consider removing the investigation from the employers. The employer hires the investigator, the employer wants the whole thing to just go away, this is a conflict of interest.
We need a branch of law enforcement that investigates non-criminal matters. Victims can go there (not to HR) to document their complaint. The agency contacts the employer, runs an investigation, and makes a recommendation. Such an agency would also keep track of settlements, and we can write laws for the actions they can take when a specific person gets implicated in too many complaints. To protect privacy, the reports can be written without actual names, but a cross-reference report will identify who the real people involved are. The report with the details can be made public (or at least shared with the parties involved), but the report with the names is confidential unless the reports become evidence in a criminal investigation.
This would eliminate the conflict of having employers own the investigation, but could also fix or at least reduce the bias people complain about where the accuser is automatically believed or disbelieved. The investigator must operate as if both the accuser and the accused are telling the truth, until the evidence leans one direction or the other.
This suggestion is primarily for non-violent offenses, but might prove to be a safe way for rape victims to initiate a complaint, and collect evidence, without being pressured to press criminal charges.
9
@JH,
Who pays for this new branch of law enforcement?
Skilled investigators (and their pensions) are expensive.
1
Interesting, but we in no way need a "branch of law enforcement that investigates non-criminal matters". You're describing a sex police, or a thought police, or something of the sort. It doesn't go along with a democratic, free society, though it would work well in China and Saudi Arabia, and in fact they do have such investigative forces in such nations.
At some point employers are going to have to live up to their sexual harassment policies. I actually work for a firm that handles this, and the way our legal system works, when someone doesn't have sexual harassment dealt with in the workplace, they can go to the EEOC or sue directly, and civil courts can remedy the employer's errors.
2
As important as those who investigate harassment allegations is the standard of proof required to find a violation. This has been controversial in Title IX cases and should be no less important in workplace cases. A preponderance standard and a reasonable doubt standard are like night and day. Victims who have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt seldom prevail. Investigations can be perfectly competent but if the standard of proof is inappropriate, there will be little justice. So those reporting harassment need to know the standard of proof and need to challenge instances where the burden is inappropriately heavy.
5
@michjas
In what instances is "beyond a reasonable state" the standard in non-criminal matters? I regularly read these kinds of reports. I can't recall where the standard is even addressed. (In most cases, the employer initiates the investigation to do its diligence and manage risk, not out of the kindness of its heart.) Even in cases of "he said, she said," at most I see a credibility determination and then a finding. I don't think employers are worrying about culpability so much as limiting their losses.
8
@michjas The Title IX issues are serious on college campuses, and too often deal with gray areas that are outrageously interpreted against male students.
But in workplace investigations, there are issues of reasonableness that come into play, and yes, they differ wildly from company to company. Different companies have different policies. Different insurance companies have different requirement to insure against harassment claims. Different jobs have different expectations. If you work at a sex toy store, you can't claim harassment for folks making sex toy jokes. Work at a real estate management company? I wouldn't advise men make sex toy jokes to women in the workplace.
Human Resource departments for major companies and governments always perform forecasted investigations that clears the company or government of liability. Evidence that proves misconduct is mostly ignored. Alternatively the employer accepts the wrong doer’s explanation of his motives - i.e. it was done with the best of intentions or was accidental.
Likewise, the companies will scrutinize the victim’s work history and find some trivial basis to impose discipline or fire the employee to give cover for a “neutral” “objective” reason for termination to avoid retaliation claims.
Most employees lack the economic resources to fight retaliation; worse yet, as the article points out, employees lack a proper forum to litigate.
Many employees work for an at will employer and have no labor contract or civil service protection. Worse yet, many employers require employees to give up their right to sue in court; instead, the condition of employment is to submit to binding arbitration.
18
I was date raped in 1998. It was horrible and the police really weren't interested. I did file a criminal report but the DA refused to prosecute. However, immediately after the assault, I went to the ER undergoing a thorough examination. Had I not, no one would have believed me. I went on to sue the guilty party. I recovered almost $90,000. It didn't make me whole but it was vindication. Yet, I still feel the scars of that assault.
29
@Susan
Smart woman.
2
Men need only "be" to play the "man card" in life for access and for respect. For whatever combination of conditioning/culture and biology, women are always coming from behind when they need/demand/want/wish to operate on a level playing field....no matter the field. This imbalance certainly has no basis in objective truth.
Women's achievement in areas deemed "women's work" is always diminished by the perception that it isn't "real" work. It does not have society's respect as do the areas deemed "men's work". Male-think dominates our values. (I've done both and there certainly is no reason to diminish women's designated cultural sphere...in the larger scheme of things, it often has much more importance in the real world....but I digress.)
Men do not realize the privilege bubble they live in. They might feel less put upon if they did. But...maybe not.
14
@Sallie McKenna
White American women are among the most privileged humans on Earth. They are over represented as university students at every level from bachelor's to doctorate, they are more likely to be hired for certain jobs simply because they're women, they receive lighter sentences for the same crimes as men, they don't have to register for the draft or fight on the front lines during wartime, they don't have to work dangerous or physically taxing jobs like women in other parts of the world do, they get sympathy and care for things which men get none, they live longer and suffer far fewer work-related injuries and health problems, they prevail in divorce and custody cases far more often than men, and I could go on and on.
There are areas of life in which women are at a disadvantage, but the same is true of men. Women can't open their eyes to that. Or they refuse to. Their own privilege bubble won't allow it.
41
@J.C. — You don't understand privilege in this context.
There were few or no women university students at any level for centuries because men had the power to keep them out.
There are slightly more female than male undergraduates now because, on average, female high school students work harder and get better grades.
4
@SE
Where men once went to college in proportions far higher than women—58 percent to 42 percent as recently as the 1970s—the ratio has now almost exactly reversed. “There’s a lot of attention on empowering girls. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but males are the ones in crisis in education.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/
(The Atlantic Magazine and web publication produce quality journalism that utilizes moderately loaded wording that typically favors the left: This Is the Moment of Truth for Republicans. All news stories on The Atlantic are properly sourced to factual information and usually present a reasonable balance on issues. Editorially, The Atlantic takes a Left-Center position on most issues and has a long history of endorsing Democratic candidates.
A factual search reveals The Atlantic has never failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker.)
1
Boy, the comments haven't been open for two minutes and already the preponderance of comments of men ignoring the 90 percent of harassment cases that are true to focus exclusively on the 10 percent of cases that are false accusations. No concern at all for the masses of women who are abused and their careers derailed. As long as not one innocent man gets railroaded, let ALL the guilty men walk free!! This is why men cannot be left in charge. Of ANYTHING. Horribly self-centered and entitled. For shame.
92
Yes, hanne, and some men with microphones or other forms of "power" are busy trying to co-opt the women's movement just as they did during the Reagan years.
Women must not sit by and wait for men to "give them equality". Why would they? They know the current game and, as with most humans, will not change without a fight.
Women of all ages, colors and religious persuasion must stick together, step up and take one-half the power in all segments of society and bring balance to the world. Do not let anything derail this important social progress.
Not now. Not ever again.
3
@hanne
I agree that men need to be more open-minded when it comes to cases of sexual harassment/abuse. Not all men are guilty, but it should not be automatically assumed that women are lying. Most men are not predators, but most women are not scheming seductresses. Corporations that protect the company image at the expense of justice add to the appearance that the accuser (of either gender) was lying. As long as men hold the majority of positions of power, the more likely the accused will be male, because sexual abuse is about power.
12
We're not even in a place where most women can safely report harassment in the workplace. They risk retaliation, being ignored, movement to a different team, and having their career further detailed. As a result, many legitimate claims are never taken to HR and women deal with the harassment as best they can.
Should a woman pursue a strategy of making false harassment statements for personal gains, she is taking a high risk and low reward strategy. Meanwhile there are significant potential gains for men to dismiss most claims as false, to further their own case should a legitimate harassment claim be made against them.
I'm tired of this game. Let's use facts and figures to realize that there are serious and issues and set backs which deter victims from reporting and solve that problem. Once that's fixed, then we can worry about the rate of false claims.
25
There's good reason not share the written report with the person who alleged sexual harassment: waiver of attorney-client privilege and the work product protection. Also, under the current law in California, the employer cannot disclose and disciplinary action that is taken against an employee that committed misconduct because it's a confidential personnel matter.
5
@Abby Why does the report have to be written by an attorney. Or if it is written by an attorney, then it can be one who is "independent"--not representing the company or anyone in the company.
1
It is sensible to not give for-profit corporations too much power over their employees. It is also necessary to ensure confidentiality before the investigation is concluded, so that concerns with false accusations (damaging although rare) could be addressed. The issue is how to have a _procedure_ that puts all the facts on the table with sexual harassment claims of the type that is up to employers to investigate. Is it possible to have accuser and the accused both present with their lawyers to cross-examine the factual findings concerning the harassment as laid out in the investigator's report?
And there's another problem -- as those so eager to find individuals guilty of sexual harassment/abuse deal with the falsely accused as abusively or even more abusively the victims of harassment/abuse.
Unfortunately, such cases, because they are relatively infrequent, don't receive the attention they deserve.
False allegations are ignored, and additional victims are produced by overzealous authorities intent on "doing the right thing." Fairness is vital in all investigations, for all parties involved.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
16
@Doug Giebel What is a problem is that there is never any article about #MeToo or harassment/assault, which is a huge issue, where someone doesn't immediately jump in to declare that false allegations are an equal problem. This is 100% deflection. The reality is that false allegations are exceedingly rare.
51
@Paul You can literally google "what data" and stop expecting other people to do your research for you.
The best evidence, which isn't very good, puts "false rape reports" at about 5%, a little below false burglary reports. I have never once seen someone complain that false burglary reports ruin anyone's life or make police less likely to believe real burglary reports.
And, as you'll learn when you start doing your own research: what constitutes a "false rape report" isn't clear cut.
Also "false allegations" are not weeded out. Allegations that can't be proven sometimes are weeded out, which is not the same thing.
Real rape is a much, much, much bigger problem than "false allegations."
2
@dogma vat I don't think the problem is false accusations. I think a bigger problem is victims misidentifying their incident. One of the biggest problems I encountered with the MeToo movement is every act of sexual misconduct being considered a sexual assault. Or calling an incident a "rape" when its far from that. Groping is not rape. Uncomfortable physical contact is not sexual assault. A man complimenting a woman is not harassment. We need to start understanding what these terms are and be able to distinguish between all of them.