Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

From the article:

"Dan has written at some length about the importance of “due process”, both internally to the research group and externally to the world. But it’s telling to notice that in every such discussion, Dan carefully avoided any mention of concrete processes: he did not define the “different procedures” suddenly required for him to take action, nor what “proper procedures” should be followed."

This is patently false. Dan sent a series of emails that clearly outlined both the procedure to take to file a formal complaint, as well as Dan's reasoning for insisting on these procedures.

I recommend reading https://www.hdevalence.ca/etc/34de2f3c2a48f7da/EmAiLs.txt in its entirety. It isn't something that can be summarized. I've done my best, but I have cherry-picked quotes here which both support and defend Dan. Why? I feel it's important for someone to point out that insisting that someone file a formal complaint is not the same thing as failing to take action.

Again, the length of https://www.hdevalence.ca/etc/34de2f3c2a48f7da/EmAiLs.txt and the emotions that are invested in this situation will prevent most readers from actually reading the full emails in their entirety before making a judgement. But I strongly recommend taking the time to do this.

Note that in no way am I condoning or defending anything about Jacob's behavior. There is enough anecdotal evidence to be extraordinarily suspicious of him. But I am uncomfortable with the idea that Dan is getting thrown under the bus solely because he insisted that Henry file a formal complaint, and because Dan refused to take action based on off-the-record conversations.

I did see a reference to Title IX made - it is important to note that Title IX requires certain obligations to all employees of an American university

======

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-ti... (Pages 12 & 13 most notably)

D. Responsible Employees and Reporting22 D-1. Which school employees are obligated to report incidents of possible sexual violence to school officials? Answer: Under Title IX, whether an individual is obligated to report incidents of alleged sexual violence generally depends on whether the individual is a responsible employee of the school. A responsible employee must report incidents of sexual violence to the Title IX coordinator or other appropriate school designee, subject to the exemption for school counseling employees discussed in question E-3. This is because, as discussed in question A-4, a school is obligated to address sexual violence about which a responsible employee knew or should have known. As explained in question C-3, the Title IX coordinator must be informed of all reports and complaints raising Title IX issues, even if the report or

22 This document addresses only Title IX’s reporting requirements. It does not address requirements under the Clery Act or other federal, state, or local laws, or an individual school’s code of conduct. Page 15 – Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence complaint was initially filed with another individual or office, subject to the exemption for school counseling employees discussed in question E-3. D-2. Who is a “responsible employee”? Answer: According to OCR’s 2001 Guidance, a responsible employee includes any employee: who has the authority to take action to redress sexual violence; who has been given the duty of reporting incidents of sexual violence or any other misconduct by students to the Title IX coordinator or other appropriate school designee; or whom a student could reasonably believe has this authority or duty. 23 A school must make clear to all of its employees and students which staff members are responsible employees so that students can make informed decisions about whether to disclose information to those employees. A school must also inform all employees of their own reporting responsibilities and the importance of informing complainants of: the reporting obligations of responsible employees; complainants’ option to request confidentiality and available confidential advocacy, counseling, or other support services; and complainants’ right to file a Title IX complaint with the school and to report a crime to campus or local law enforcement.

======

I don't know the people involved in this story, and have no stake/stance on the claim itself (I'm not involved in infosec). However, given similar stories when Title IX issues arise in athletics where coaches/athletic directors/etc. try to avoid taking responsibility for reporting sexual harassment/assault allegations that have been vocalized and/or do not inform complainants of their full options, it sounds very likely that the professors did not take proper action if Title IX applies because the onus is on an employee to take action when the employee gets wind of an allegation. Probably the biggest case in the sports world that exemplifies this is the Sandusky rapes and Penn State, where allegations were not reported up the chain.

I'm not sure what the jurisdiction is here, and whether it was something under US jurisdiction (I saw some talk about UIC, short for Univ. of Illinois-Chicago, but also a Dutch university as well). I just thought to add some context around this type of issue that many here may not be aware of - Title IX is considered extremely serious with regards to the US education system.

> It is completely standard for a complaint to go first to the alleged culprit, then (if that doesn't resolve the problem) to the supervisor, and so on up the chain. This certainly isn't something I invented, and I'm puzzled as to why Mr. de Valence seems to be skipping steps.

> Of course there are some circumstances where HR can be, should be, or must be involved. Mr. de Valence is wrong in suggesting that I said anything to the contrary. There wasn't any reason for me to mention HR when I was recommending that he file a written complaint with me.

This doesn't pass the sniff test to me. If a complaint is verbal, sure culprit first and then supervisor... which is what happened. If a complaint is written, I've never heard of it being standard procedure to give a written complaint to the accused first. As for involving HR, someone seriously complaining of sexual harassment (both parties indicate a significant confidential initial talk) is a giant red flag to get HR on-board. 'We've talked, write to me first and then we'll talk about it more' doesn't smell right.

My reading of the situation? Both sides appear to be arses. The complainant keeps talking to new parties without submitting the written complaint that was requested multiple times. The supervisor engages in questionable advice. It doesn't seem any party comes out particularly clean on this one, to me (sitting on the sidelines, getting an imperfect view...).

i mean those e-mails by Dan you quoted are pretty incriminating themselves

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Incriminating in what way? They sounded pretty reasonable to me.

From the article, Dan and Tanja are superiors in a workplace, not unrelated folks in a volunteer project. It's their responsibility to ensure a safe place to work - telling people to take it to the courts is an unreasonable way to start dealing with an internal HR problem.

Exactly this. They clearly failed to follow university policies and they were acting as supreiors.

They do not reflect a reasonable grasp of how functional workplaces happen, how the legal system works, or what the university policies they he is bound to follow require.

Even something as simple as his insistence that either the crime of rape or the crime of slander has been committed is naive and wrong, and it closely reflects one of the more damning sections from the linked blog post. (The issues are, briefly, that 1) it's not a binary and both or neither could easily be true 2) even if it was a binary result set, the legal system doesn't render innocent verdicts; all it can do is decide if something has been shown beyond reasonable doubt 3) all of that is irrelevant to his role as a supervisor and his responsibility to provide a safe workplace; he has obligations to take actions both before the legal system renders a verdict and regardless of what that verdict actually is.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com