On DataCamp and sexual misconduct | Hacker News Reader

On DataCamp and sexual misconduct

juliasilge.com

89 pointschasedehan69 comments

One part that I would like to discuss is how people as individuals rarely would act badly in such situations, but companies almost always act that way.

Now I don't know the answer, but I believe this question is part of the core of the issue. In some ways companies are systems structured in a way that protect toxic individuals, and this protection is executed by normal people in their daily jobs. If you interview these people they might not feel guilty and might not even be able to tell how they participated in something immoral. And if they knew they wouldn't have participated. But it still happened. In fact you yourself might even participated in this protection scheme unknowingly in a job you did in the past.

What I'm not interested in is unconstructive blaming and flame wars between different sexist groups. Anybody interested in some serious discussion? I'll write my opinion on the matter if I have the feeling discussion is possible and enough people are interested.

It sounds a lot like the mob has decided someone needs to get fired. Despite not knowing the specific details and despite a third party investigation concluding that reprimands and sensitivity training was sufficient.

I don’t know what “inappropriate contact” was, in this instance, but for all I know it could have been an executive doing a dance and twirling around a secretary. After which she reported that she didn’t like that.

Is that inappropriate? Yes. Should you get fired from your position because of it? No. You sit down as adults and talk it out. Of cause the mob could also be right and he might have jumped on a woman doing a lab dance and attempted to rape her. But I’d expect the third party investigation to make judgement on that which it seems they did, but he mob isn’t satisfied because the third party didn’t reach their foregone conclusion.

I wonder what the victim has to say? Has anything been shared? Or first party accounts on the incident? Or is all the coverage just vague indirect references to something no-one reporting was actually involved in?

I constantly feel like American workplace culture is evolving very fast in order to avoid people ever having to sit down like adults and have potentially difficult and stressful talks.

(Of course, "sitting down and talking" might be impossible, depending on the severity of the incident - but how are we to know in this case?)

Other DataCamp employees did "sit down like adults" and talk about it.

https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building...

http://third-bit.com/2019/04/15/an-exchange-with-datacamp.ht...

They got fired because of it.

And now I feel like I have something to go on instead of just arbitrary vagueness and claims that I should be able to discuss the issue without knowing what the issue is. Thank you!

Thank you! That adds a lot of the needed context to the original post which feels quite important.

Yes, the victim has spoken out.

https://twitter.com/kara_woo/status/1114229065509003264

I eventually figured that out, after going through 3 different blogs, the last of which states (without linking, so thanks for actually providing a link to her posts) that the victim came forwards... but still there isn’t anything from the victim about what occurred or even reflections on the current public proceedings, just a recognition of her being he victim and a thanks for support.

I feel like if she’s supporting the mob calling for a firering, couldn’t she at the very least say so? And why are all these separate people that are writing long blog posts about “the incident” all being so vague about the facts? If the victim Has come forwards why not just say so and link it? Why not ask the victim what she thinks should happen now, or what happened then?

I feel like every post i read raises more questions than they answer. And the general sentiment seems to be “the offenses we are vaugely referencing are so severe that you should support our case without knowing the facts” which just makes me suspucius of what the facts actually are.

I don’t understand your kvetching here. You’re mad because the victim hasn’t done enough in your mind to write the details for the public? Why not presume that she was clear in her complaint, given that Datacamp has already decided to apologize?

And why should she have to give a statement about wanting the executive to get fired? The submitted post says explicitly that is not what they want.

> It did not threaten to go public or call for the executive’s firing, but it did bring up how the growing rumors and uncertainty around misconduct at DataCamp have been a problem for the personal reputations of instructors.

Let’s be clear. I’m not saying that she has to give a statement, but if your a third party writing a blogpost about a case where the victim has come forwards, you could state that. You could even ask the victim what she thinks, and just state so if the victim doesn’t want to comment.

What I’m saying is that it’s confusing that everyone involved is being vague even about public facts. Even you are confused as you’re linking the statement from someone who isn’t the victim presenting it as though it was from the victim.

What I’m saying is really just that everything seems very confusing. It feels like the whole affair would benefit from someone involved just coming forward and honestly reporting what they feel or what they know or didn’t know happened or what they want to happen.

As it is I’m none the wiser, but since I both use, love and often recommend DataCamp, I am extremely keen on hearing if the leadership engaged in something that I cannot support in which case I will definately look for alternatives. I’m currently hearing a lot og posts saying “trust me something happened either in the incident or the response to it that should make you not want to support them.... can’t tell you what but trust me”. And I really just want to know some of the facts of the matter instead of just vague hints that “stuff definately happened”.

Who is dumb enough to add a noindex directive to an apology post after a hundred of your employees complain about one of the most-discussed problems in our society and think that no one will notice?

The bad behavior, or at least the tolerance of it, is coming from the very top of this organization, and to miscalculate on something like this signals incredible incompetence/complicity.

I can't say I'm surprised. They're a bunch of data science people. Thinking about how to not let embarrassing things get indexed by scrapers is probably second nature to them in the same way that chaos engineering is second nature to plenty of programmers. I bet the question "should this be indexed" is the data scientist equivalent of "how could a malicious user exploit this".

Apparently the noindex tag was removed on the 17th. That's...even worse?

So, does anybody know what happened there?

Did the "C level executive" just drunkenly hug an employee or he was dancing naked on a table dangling his carrot in front of the victim's face?

> at an informal employee gathering at a bar ...

Why don't companies just get rid of these "informal" but sanctioned employee gatherings, particularly in a bar environment where intoxicating substances are likely being administered as well? That's just a magnet for these sorts of problems as are detailed in OP's blogpost. The workplace should be a temperate environment.

It occurs to me that could be precisely the goal of these groups. It certainly adds a new element of risk to hosting any kind of event whatsoever when you can face such an organized PR campaign for something that may have happened between two people at your event.

I understand that alcohol culture can vary drastically in different nations, but I find it a very valid question to ask why drinking excessively should be part of any professional work environment.

The theory people have given me as validation for such event is that such social activity outside of work make people cooperate better and form some kind of kinship. Personally I would like to see some research if money invested in event at bars is worth it.

> to ask why drinking excessively

How did we go from just 'an informal employee gathering at a bar' to now 'drinking excessively'?

Let me give an example of a professional gathering last December, where CEO's, marketing, and people responsible for the technical operations meet yearly from several companies.

First there is the presentations with coffee breaks. normal stuff. A mix of technical, legal and marketing changes for the industry.

Then we go down to the bar and have a beer or two and a glass of sparkling wine before we get seated. Two large glasses of wine while eating, white and red, more beer, and offer for refilling several times through. Once everyone has finished their meal it is time for hard liquor and desert as is traditional near Christmas. Four, five, six additional rounds, with singing.

This is why I address the alcohol culture as being important factor. Professional gathering like those sets the norm when people meet in informal gatherings.

Because in this case the executive has been told to limit his alcohol consumption at these events.

Very few companies may have excessive alcohol consumption as part of their informal culture.

However, unless any two employees of the same company are explicitly banned from meeting in a place where alcohol is served, there will be incidents. People will find ways to get drunk and sooner or later someone will do something stupid.

> Very few companies may have excessive alcohol consumption as part of their informal culture.

Except, of course, say, the whole of Japan.

See also: Our Culture of Exclusion (from 2012): https://web.archive.org/web/20130413021020/http://ryanfunduk...

> It occurs to me that could be precisely the goal of these groups.

Far be it from me to discourage suspicions of ulterior motives, but I really don’t think so. Paraphrasing George Orwell, the object of outrage is outrage. The object of power is power.

Because people are (mostly) of the socializing type. Even if you don't provide them by corp or ban using corp resources, people will socialize and that in many Western cultures involves copious amounts of alcohol.

Why are these posts always so impossibly vague?

What's happened? What does she think has gone wrong? Why does she think should be done about it?

People struggle so much to get the basics across in their writing! I have to follow a long trail of equally vague posts like an archeologist to understand what happened.

The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the details of the original offense, and their focus on those outcomes is permissible and appropriate when one desires to avoid creating a pitchfork mob.

Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without proper information?

How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not without knowing what happened?

The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made.

Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied.

If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or banned by the mods.

"HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made."

How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with absolutely no reference to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing what crime they committed!

Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.

There are two sets of facts in play:

1) Something happened between some people.

2) Something happened when an organization associated with them responded.

It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1. They are an organization, not an individual, and their quality of response should remain high regardless of the specifics of #1. The post judges the quality of their response to be unacceptable. That judgement is valid to consider and discuss without regard to the circumstances that causes their response to exist.

I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully disagree that "It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1".

I believe that, to assess the quality of the response, it is required to understand what was the level of severity of the event. How the event should be handled, and hence the response, is a function of the severity of the event.

Of course, if we view the response as being to a broader "climate of suspicion" surrounding DC, it can be assessed differently - but it still would require contextual information for assessment, specifically regarding what circumstances have created this climate of suspicion in the first place.

While some actions on DataCamp's part - specifically, the noindex tag - are definitely shady, it is difficult to understand whether their response (which seems to be mostly to attempt to reassure the data science community that they are listening and focused on being a positive actor in the community) is appropriate or not without understanding what they are responding to.

I am sorry that you have difficulty evaluating their response without knowing the original story. Unfortunately I will not budge.

EDIT: Someone suggested I’ve overstepped here somehow. I don’t understand how but regardless I apologize; it is not my intent to demean nor otherwise speak less of you. We disagree and I wanted to honor that but also close the thread and I may have done so badly.

No problem at all. I am not attempting to change your opinion (which I understand is well-reasoned), but to explain my own.

Ok, so, if I understand correctly, the main issues are that:

1. The company didn't take the incident seriously enough, and

2. The company tried to cheat (put: noindex) in their response.

In order to agree (or disagree) with the first item it would be good to know was the incident serious enough to be taken seriously.

The second item probably deserves some slapping on the wrist. Boycotting the company though? Not sure.

I entirely agree, presumption of knowledge is all too evident here and it burdens newcomers getting on board with the details. I gave up in exasperation when it droned on, and even when I skipped to the latter third. I may have entirely lost the specifics in between that I was looking for but no time left on my patience budget. A simple “for those unfamiliar with the situation ...<summary paragraph>”

There's been a lot written already on the background, which is linked to in this post.

https://noamross.github.io/datacamp-sexual-assault/

So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Why be so intentionally vague?

> About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident of sexual misconduct at the company.

Could have been

> About two weeks ago, DataCamp published a blog post outlining an incident where one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee

Forward-load the basic facts so we don't have to go down a rabbit hole.

You're doing the same thing by using the euphemisms "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact". Point being: it's not productive to litigate this stuff.

Hmm I think "an incident of sexual misconduct" is the euphemism and "danced inappropriately" and "made uninvited physical contact" are the plain-spoken explanations so interesting to hear your opposite opinion.

If someone told me "an incident of sexual misconduct" I'd then ask "ok... so what was it?" but if someone told me "made uninvited physical contact" I'd say "ah ok I understand."

I have had uninvited (and unwelcome) physical contact that took the form of handshakes, so obviously that language isn't shedding any real light. Those words could describe harassment, or they could describe aggravated sexual assault.

Only because you've made an assumption about what uninvited physical contact means.

"made uninvited physical contact" - I don't know if a whole lot can be understood by that.

Someone giving the 2-cheek Euro kiss in North America could be 'uninvited' to many, surely.

So could someone swinging someone around on the dance-floor.

Maybe someone danced like Elvis (i.e. hips) and then put their arm around someone else and said something to them drunkenly.

Or maybe someone was 'grabbed' or 'groped' in a way that would obviously be totally out of bounds in any context.

There's definitely a range of possibilities here. I'm going to guess that if this is a serious incident, there was probably 'unacceptable groping' but maybe they should have phrased it as such - because 'unwanted touching' is, in and of itself possibly problematic, but there's a range of behaviours there, some of which don't rise to the level of really bad stuff like groping.

A reach into another humans space is always uninvited until it's explicitly not. Cultural norms and traditions can somewhat abstract that, but yes, even that is still a guess.

This occurred on a dance floor which seems to be useful context, but is a detail which TFA and other bloggers have called “victim blaming”.

There’s no amount of detail that can cast a fully revealing light onto something like this that happens out in a public space.

I used to think a video of the incident might explain what happened, and then you have cases like Convington where people can see remarkably different things happening in the same sequence of frames.

What amazes me is the tarnishing of the entire company and brand which stems from this kind of PR campaign being run against the company.

Is this Just Another angry Internet mob going after someone, and why is a private matter between two adults at an after hours workplace sponsored event turned into an existential crisis for the entire company?

If there was an assault, shouldn’t someone call the police? Everything else it seems is trial by the court of public opinion.

You want to believe this entire campaign isn’t the result of two people bumping into each other on the dance floor back in 2017, but in any case I’m still left wondering why the company itself has become the target.

If the statement said 'groped' instead of 'unwanted touching' - then we might infer maybe someone grabbed a woman's rear end or breasts - which is something entirely different from a 'rude dance move and sloppy kiss on the cheek', and also 100% out of bounds, no ambiguity.

If someone at a bar grabbed a woman's breast - well - I doubt the police would be involved, because it's just not something that rises to that level in most contexts, but it should not diminish the fact it's totally not right. There's no grey area there (if that's what happened).

If this was between two employees, especially if someone has power over the other (i.e. CEO / employee) then it's much tricker because of the nature of that power.

I think it's also different if 'some guy got drunk and seriously embarrassed himself' vs. 'a predatory CEO who gets girls drunk and gropes them'. It really could be either: people do stupid things sometimes. And some people are utter creep-shows.

The company can 'become a target' if there's consistent 'out of bounds behaviour' that's reported, and nobody is doing anything about it and/or covering it.

To be clear: I have no idea what happened, I'm not going to speculate, other than to articulate a range of possible issues.

I generally believe the victim/accuser, though details and context are always important.

So, there was no point in calling the police because of what happened, but it is okay to make this into an existential crisis for the company?

Yes, it's definitely possible for there to be outrage when either police weren't called, even if there was not something illegal. I'm not saying there should be - because we don't know exactly the situation - I'm saying it's surely possible.

There's a whole range of behaviours that are totally unwarranted and unprofessional, and yet at the same time legal.

A manager who likes to get drunk get 'get a little grabby' or who likes to sleep with all of this staff, or who hands out his number to a lot of female staffers, or who trades sexual favours for promotions, who arbitrarily hires women based on their perceived attraction/datability, or who makes crude statements - this is toxic - this person needs to go.

FYI I'm not talking about 'someone who did something embarrassing once'. Obviously, there are also a range of inappropriate things which don't reach the threshold of outrage.

In this specific context it's hard to say, because there's a lot of grey. We'd have to have a lot of information which we are not privy to (maybe thankfully). It could be a small thing or a consistently toxic thing. Maybe the mob is legit angry, or maybe there's just an inflation/misinterpretation of the situation. We don't know.

What is everything you wrote if not rank speculation?

I don’t think it’s appropriate to articulate a range of possible issues at all — it reads like dark fiction, and IMO just perpetuates the story.

If there’s a larger story that is motivating these letter signers, I think it’s incumbent on them to articulate it... Yet even in failing spectacularly to do so, they can manage to drag the company through the mud.

>>> "There is no victim statement that I’m aware of"

+ Yes there are victim statements. There are two references to statements in the article.

>>> "and what is everything you wrote if not rank speculation?"

+ I'm barely 'speculating' - and then totally within the boundaries of the victim statement i.e. an incident employer/employee at a semi-work engagement with alcohol wherein someone's personal space was invaded on the dance floor. While that is not specific enough to understand exactly what happens, it's a fairly narrow range of possibilities.

>>> "I don’t think it’s appropriate to articulate a range of possible issues at all — it reads like dark fiction, and IMO just perpetuates the story."

+ I object to this. We know at last 'something happened' within a narrow range. This is not 'dark fiction' it's actually very specific reality.

>>> "If there’s a larger story that is motivating these letter signers, I think it’s incumbent on them to articulate it... Yet even in failing spectacularly to do so, they can manage to drag the company through the mud.""

+ Now this I think is 'speculative dark fiction'. There's no reason to assume that people are creating some false narrative when it seems clear that materially, 'something happened' and that there seems to be at least some kind of minor 'cover up'.

FYI - it's very easy to understand why some people would want to 'drag a company into the mud' - there's no crazy speculation required: they believe (rightly or wrongly) that some bad stuff is happening. Now - I don't know if there is bad stuff happening, or if there are cover ups, or what happened at 'the incident' in question, or other things. But it's very easy to see how groups of people just take one side or the other and get upset about it.

He is directly quoting the original blogpost's description by using that terminology, and he is responding to a post with the relevant link. That is the actual original description of the incident. It's not his own personal summary.

> "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor."

I know he is. But the summary he's quoting is from the company, DataCamp, not the person who wrote this blog, and yet his criticism is direct at the blogger/instructor.

> So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'?

Because she's not talking about the misconduct, but about the response to the misconduct.

One of the reasons she's not talking about the misconduct is because misogynists will seek to relitigate the orginal event with the predictable victim-blaming concern-trolling.

This is extremely important. There are three elements here.

1) The actual incident.

2) The need for instructors to persuade DataCamp to make a response.

3) The response itself. (3a: the noindex tag)

#1 is very bad on its own, but #2 and #3 are its own problems and the ones being highlighted in recent discussions. (and provide more context for #1)

While all this is very probably true, there’s also the possibility that it actually really is about the nail (so to speak). I can easily imagine that people have been burned before by being assured that the “nail” is not the problem, and initially believing it. This, I think, is why many people want to hear some amount of detail. Not too much, just enough to make it seem plausible to them. Which shouldn’t be too much to ask, and if someone refuses, that’s a bad sign.

All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management.

This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. Well, they did try, and they got fired.

> All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management.

True, but it was not adequately summarized in the article which is the topic of discussion, and this was the issue discussed in this subthread.

> This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private.

That’s not what I meant, or what anyone else in this subthread meant. I have no idea what you’re responding to.

One of the “fired” has come forward with a clarification to state he was a shite employee for 7-8m before being let go. It wasn’t until the NDA that he piped up about the incident. Maybe he’s dragged other former employers online before. Regardless, wouldn’t be surprised if the company got smart and frontloaded NDAs at the beginning of employment instead of the end.

Because this is HR approved language and they are apparently firing anyone that doesn’t toe the line.

https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building...

Can DataCamp fire instructors, though? My understanding was that DataCamp instructors signed a contract allowing DataCamp to use their material for a given span of time (and that this did not make them DataCamp employees)

Since these people are asking others not to watch DataCamp courses, it would seem to me that their shot at actually making more courses for DataCamp has been forfeit anyway, so what can DataCamp really do against them?

The perpetrator is a DataCamp executive not an instructor.

I was talking more about 'people being fired for not using HR-approved language' as a justification for why people were being so coy around what exactly happened.

I feel your frustration, but you answered your own question(s) above. Sometimes people just struggle to write succinctly and clearly. If you feel particularly strongly about this, politely written feedback on the author's comment section might be useful?

Perhaps, it sounds vague because it's new for you and many other readers outside data science community or at least R community. There's been so much written and tweeted about this in past few weeks. So probably that's why the Author could have thought to avoid redundancy and kept it brief.

I think it's to avoid people being dismissive about it. If you are vague, people can't comment saying you are making a big fuss out of a childish behavior and say that we all have important work to do.

From the ref: "Specifically, in October 2017, at an informal employee gathering at a bar after a week-long company offsite, one of DataCamp’s executives danced inappropriately and made uninvited physical contact with another employee while on the dance floor."

Which again is ambiguous because we're going from - someone swung someone around on the dance floor, to 'danced with someone' which involved 'two people touching' (gasp), to someone grabbing/groping someone in an utterly unacceptable way.

And boundaries are different depending on culture, and context (i.e. work, not really work, social, setting, 'consistent bad behaviour' vs. 'one time') etc. etc. etc..

Even with the 'details' it might still be a debate unless it's just blatantly bad.

Edit: I'm not going to defend anyone who's done anything obviously bad, I'm saying the information that we have easy access to is a little grey.

"I think it’s likely that DataCamp management thought or hoped that their post was enough to placate instructors, and that they essentially did what we asked in the letter."

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this sentence. But, there was a complain, that complain pointed actions that needed to be made, DataCamp did all they were told to do, and yet, the complainers are not happy, DataCamp didn't do what they needed to do (although they did everything they were asked to do).

Now put that together with the fact that the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened, and it seems yet another post by someone that enjoys being outraged and let everyone know about it.

>DataCamp did all they were told to do

There are three qualifiers on that in the original post.

>and yet, the complainers are not happy

It's very possible to be unhappy with how someone does something that you ask them to do, if they do it poorly. The post then goes on to detail what exactly the author finds to be lacking in what DataCamp did.

>the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened

What do you mean? It seems to explain what the company's response very clearly. If you mean it doesn't describe the contents of the initial allegation, that's not the topic of the post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com