Hacker News Reader

Comment by romwell | Hacker News Reader

Before everyone jumps in with opinions protecting DeVaul or wondering why this happened, read [1] and [2]:

1. The executive has admitted fault.

2. The fault included:

  a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview;

  b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response

Neither it in and of itself an offense. The critical part is that he has done so from a position of power, specifically - as the interviewer, during the employment process.

That's as black-and-white discrimination as I can see.

Sources:

[1]https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassm...

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...

View on HN

" b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response. Neither it in and of itself an offense" -> Are you serious? How is this not wrong in HN world?

> Are you serious? How is this not wrong in HN world?

Clarification: I meant it would not be wrong without the context of her being a job applicant. That's what I meant by "in and of itself".

That's to address some responses in other threads where people were asking why behavior at Burning Man warrants consequences at the job. The detail that their professional relationship persisted throughout Burning Man until she got a response from her potential employer seems to have eluded some people's eyes.

is mentioning that you are married in an interview in a position of power an offense?

Mentioning that you are single, and subsequently asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate is yet to hear from your employer on the hiring decision most definitely is.

In the context of b), you know full well that a) was a form of making sexual advances. By itself, it's ambiguous, but the ambiguity is not there in light of what he did later.

In case you missed it, DeVaul has asked the person he interviewed to remove her shirt to let him do a back massage, repeatedly, while she was waiting on the hiring decision.

Right. I think that mentioning you are single or poly in an interview can with certain context be inappropriate but not wholesale.

Regardless of his mentioning that it seems clear that the unambiguous offense is the second one.

Telling someone that you are poly and then inviting them to Burning Man is essentially a proposition. Individually, maybe each of those things is not quite a proposition, though they are both fairly inappropriate for an interview setting IMO.

I have nothing against polyamory (as long as it is not abusive in any way and all participants are on a level playing field) but the fact remains that out of all the "relationship statuses" you could articulate to someone, it's one of the few (?) that can be legitimately interpreted as a proposition, obviously depending on context. In that regard it is fundamentally different from simply telling someone "I am married", which generally implies an exclusive relationship—like it or not, that's the cultural context.

Seeing those things as a proposition I think would be entirely context dependent. I think their appropriateness would also depend heavily on context though they are not things I would mention in an interview.

I'm so glad to hear that you don't have anything against polyamory. I have nothing against monogamy as long as it is not abusive in any wH and all participants are on a level playing field!

Your first paragraph is a vague re-expression of points that I addressed in specific detail.

> I'm so glad to hear that you don't have anything against polyamory. I have nothing against monogamy as long as it is not abusive in any wH and all participants are on a level playing field!

Snarking at anybody who (explicitly or implicitly) points out that polyamory is not the norm, nor accepted by all people, is a good way to get them to ignore any actual points you may be trying to make, worthwhile or not. It is also a good way to alienate potential allies. These are the practical facts of the matter, regardless of what you think should be true. Proceed at your discretion, of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com