Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

What would you do if you were his boss?

I would show him the post and ask him to explain himself.

All we have here is an unsubstantiated allegation; it happens to be an allegation I personally believe, but it's still not reasonably enough to fire someone over. If he was my employee and responded "that's all lies and I wasn't even at the pub" I'd encourage him to sue for libel. If he said "oh shit... yeah, I screwed up", I'd reconsider any important responsibilities I had assigned him (since such behaviour is evidence of not being able to act responsibly) but continue to employ him as long as he could contribute in other ways. If he said "yeah, so what's the big deal?" I'd fire him on the spot and phone the complainant to encourage her to press charges.

But above all I'd wait to hear both sides of the story before passing any judgement.

View on HN

>If he said "oh shit... yeah, I screwed up", I'd reconsider[...]

Really? I think that doesn't cut it here. "yeah, I screwed up" is an appropriate response when you show up hungover for an important presentation,not when you try and force yourself on someone.

I don't believe that anyone is beyond salvation providing that he is willing to confront his sins and avoid repeating them. If I thought an employee was likely to sexually assault someone else, I'd cut him loose immediately; but if he was as shocked by his behaviour as any reasonable person would be, then I wouldn't necessarily think he was any more likely to reoffend than anyone else.

But I come from Canada -- a country which eschews the death penalty and even gives parole to multiple murderers on occasion. We're more forgiving than Americans.

I'm American and I agree with you.

Ideally the accused, if guilty, would man up, admit wrongdoing alcohol or no, apologize, and do whatever is in his power to right his wrong, make whole, undo the damage, seek counseling, stop drinking, donate a large sum to a women's shelter, speak out against sexual assault at tech conferences, that sort of thing.

Incredibly embarrassing for him yes, but the fact that she has only so far publicly shamed him and not actually pressed charges is more than charitable on her part.

She's left the door open for him to respond in kind and for this to be resolved between the two of them. But he has to realize the generosity she's displaying here, and reciprocate ten-fold.

To me that would be evidence that someone was not only shocked by their behavior, but sincere about being shocked, and willing to make it right. I'm not one to throw stones in such cases.

That is a very interesting interpretation, and very charitable; but it could just as easily be explained by malice because justly or not, the revelation has pretty much destroyed his reputation with a very, very small potential of successful redemptory action.

I think that she did it without really thinking it through because she is personally involved. People do not always make the best decisions under those circumstances, which is why we have the legal framework.

I must stress that I cannot really blame her, I do not know how I would have acted in similar circumstances. I just wish she had not done it because when naming names becomes precedent, something bad will happen to someone undeserving of it.

Agree with your second and third paragraphs. I was also a bit shocked as I was reading it when she named him. It would have been even more charitable not to, since he clearly would have known who she was referring to upon reading that blog post even without his name, and would have had the same opportunity to find a way to right his wrong.

But you can't expect a woman to act charitably after being sexually assaulted. That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, and I do think the road to redemption for a guy in this situation is clear, though not easy.

PS - all this presumes guilt; consider it hypothetical.

I do not think we should really presume anything.

> That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, […]

This I disagree with. A public outing can be just as, if not more damaging to the alleged assailant. It is possible that she also thought or thinks along your tracks, but I do not think it is factually true that this is somehow a "soft" option.

Wouldn't pressing charges = public outing + legal ramifications? Seems clearly worse than just a public outing.

And no, definitely shouldn't presume anything in these cases, which is what I meant by that last line.

Let's assume he denies this, which is a likely scenario. This puts me in a tough spot. The logician in me wants to agree with you. From her description, it was a secluded section of the bar so no one else probably saw. It would be her word against his.

On the other hand, I believe her. As far as I know she has no motive to falsely claim this against him. Also important, tens of thousands will read this story and most of them will believe her too. The company may face pressure for me to act. Do I throw my employee under the bus, on the basis of my judgment of her statement?

I still don't know the answer but I don't think it's clear cut either way.

... It would be her word against his.

At that point you'd have to make a judgement call. If someone is being publicly accused of a sexual assault which he denies too place but doesn't show any interest in launching a libel suit, that makes me rather suspicious. On the other hand, if he files a libel suit, or if criminal charges are filed against him, it seems reasonable to step back and let the courts decide what happened.

I'm not saying that I have a good answer for all possible situations, only that I know that I'd start by listening to both sides.

The company may face pressure for me to act. Do I throw my employee under the bus, on the basis of my judgment of her statement?

You're really asking two questions there. Is it reasonable to fire someone based on your judgement of what happened? Quite possibly. Is it reasonable to fire someone based on public pressure alone? I would say absolutely not -- but I come from an academic background, and I feel the greatest moments of academic history have been when universities have defended their faculty against public opinion. Most CEOs would probably throw an employee under a bus at the first hint of public pressure.

If not pressing libel charges makes you suspicious, doesn't not pressing sexual assault charges make you suspicious too?

If I were the guy and not guilty, I wouldn't really be all too interested in pressing charges, mostly because I'm too lazy and I hate lawyers etc.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, actually I would probably end pressing charges, but my initial reaction would be that of "wtf, why do I have to summon lawyers because someone did something stupid", with emphasis on the wtf.

If not pressing libel charges makes you suspicious, doesn't not pressing sexual assault charges make you suspicious too?

Somewhat, but the contexts are a bit different. Victims of sexual assault often decline to press charges because testifying about assaults can be traumatic (and even more so being cross-examined). Many simply want to hide and pretend that nothing ever happened.

In contrast, people who are wrongfully accused of crimes tend to shout their innocence from the rooftops.

above all I'd wait to hear both sides of the story before passing any judgement.

Definitely. Actually, even the story we have already is open for multiple interpretations. If this became a case and I were his lawyer I would certainly point out that a) she admits to having been drinking and b) she states: I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less clear. If she doesn't know, how can a judge? To me, in the absence of other evidence, I do not see how he could lose a libel case, or how she could win a sexual harassment case. And yes, in general (and quite possibly in this case, too) it is unfortunate (I would use a stronger term, but cannot think of one that doesn't have four letters) that such cases often do not lead to an outcome that people would feel to be just. However, the only way to fix that I know involves Big Brother-like changes to society (e.g: require everybody to record their entire lives, let the government keep the tapes for a couple of years)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com