Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.
Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.
But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.
But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place blame on them for how they interpreted a situation, "I'm sorry if you felt X" is the opposite of an apology, it is redirecting blame.
McClure's public apology, above all, should have been honest and sincere; more detail isn't strictly necessary, to be honest and sincere. It sounds like it wasn't honest or quite sincere. And, it sounds like his private apology, in this case, was decidedly dishonest and redirected blame.
But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.
>With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out.
https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0
The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...) did not go into these specifics.
Below is all it discusses about her:
>In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you.”
>Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.
> I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate [...] I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.
Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group.
All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times.
Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl.
I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep...
edit: fixed Christine's name
While "less bad" is obviously still damaging and there is a lot to talk about there, what's given in the post sounds like a clear-cut crime.
Perhaps cynically, the only conclusion I can derive from this is them thanking him for not lifting the veil too high and revealing how the system has worked with these forces in play. In the absence of this I have to wonder if the SV VC industry is one big missing stair[1].