There's been a lot written already on the background, which is linked to in this post.
> 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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
+ 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.
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.
> "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."
https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building...
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.