Hacker News Reader

Academic departments are just as political as corporate org-charts. There are massive power imbalances and total opacity in important decision-making.

"Solving things in private" actually means that the power-brokers will have private "off-record" discussions to determine the fates of people who have no say in the discussion and don't even know the discussion happened.

It's a quaint principle though. Something for graduate students to aspire to while they're grinding away in the lab at 3am.

Yep, “RPP” one of those positive illusions that the naive cling to, while the sociopathic leverage its rhetoric to advance up the ladder. Or to impress the status quo onto new entrants of the social hierarchy.

It’s a very scary thing to live in the real world.

A reasonable person will hopefully understand the difference between a disagreement and abuse and (reasonably) act accordingly.

well if everyone was reasonable we wouldn't even have the need to talk about the principle of reasonableness right. Kinda like saying "why doesn't everyone just use common sense?"

Problem is obviously that in any institution like a university faculty the line between reasonable issue and unreasonable complaint is really blurry.

for a few thousand years we've been debating how to design institutions, if it was just 1. be reasonable, 2. don't be unreasonable, 3. don't be offended we'd have fewer problems than we do

No, we'd have different problems than we do, not necessarily fewer. The problems that arrive from a litigious culture like the one you describe are potentially worse than the little unfairnesses that creep in through informal dispute resolution.

Ironically, the post is not a command, and edict, or an enforced policy. It's an informal request. If you have an issue that you don't think fits, you are free to disregard it. That is the power of the RPP.

> That is the power of the RPP.

The RPP sounds more like a clause in a corporate mission statement. Trite, insincere and, I'm sure, broken regularly and with glee by everyone who matters in the organization.

I’ve studied and worked in many institutions and organisations over many years. Yes I’ve come across a few prepped who sometimes abused their positions, but this was rare and in all but one case were manageable using the practices established in those organisations.

I’m sure abusive organisations exist and all I can say is if at all possible, and it’s almost always possible, please leave for your own sake. There are better places to live and work. I do not recognise the world you describe.

Not the case in my experience with that organization

Informal complaints to bring to your disagreement partner and then maybe your TA or professor instead of directly to your department chair, dean, or ombudsman:

I can't see the writing. We're learning OpenCV, but I never learned Python. I think my paper was graded incorrectly. My dad passed away, so my coursework is suffering. I should've been in the acknowledgements in my lab's paper. One of my group members is useless. My lab partner smells... like, a LOT. So-and-so keeps taking our oscilloscope. Our workspace is too cold. The professor always calls on women (or Indians or the front row). Why do all groups need to bring a vegetarian option to their presentation but the group with the vegetarian doesn't need to bring meat? The Greek groups all share old exams with each other but not with anyone else. Why does the department need to find a minority instead of just hiring the most qualified applicant? Why can't people just let personal insults roll of their back if their research work can stand on its own?

People from a ton of cultures and backgrounds are jammed into one institution. Of course there will be friction, and it shouldn't be the job of the university president to tell a chronically offending student to only take one slice of pizza at the Friday research talks and go back in line for getting seconds. Also, everyone has a different opinion of what "a big deal" is. Thus, for the sake of everybody and everybody's academic and social development... just be cool. Be reasonable.

The law has been debating the "reasonably prudent person" standard in torts for negligence for hundreds of years. Possibly trillions of dollars in lawyer time has been spent over the last two centuries debating the meaning of this very term.

> Solving things privately when one party exercises authority over the other

Is'nt this the case for pretty much any relationship?

A father-son relation or even a spouse relationship in many cases?

The formal process should always be available, but more like a last stop. It can document what informal steps were taken, (they likely failed - thats why they are doing it). Now both parties are sort of shamed if there were steps missed?

Is there harm in trying out a private meeting, knowing one can always have formal channels available at their disposal?

> Is there harm in trying out a private meeting, knowing one can always have formal channels available at their disposal?

Possible negative outcomes:

1) The senior person is sufficiently abusive and skilled as to shut down discussion and convince you that formal channels would be fruitless (or even actively harmful to you)

2) The senior person now thinks less of the junior and will subtly sabotage them (especially harsh/pedantic grading, a lack of mentorship and support, etc.)

3) The junior person no longer trusts the senior person, and this will sabotage the junior (refusing mentorship and support, ignoring genuinely useful feedback)

4) A lot of issues are "twenty people all have this minor complaint" - the senior can gaslight all twenty people that no one ELSE has ever made this complaint so clearly they're too sensitive, and no one else ever realizes there's more than one victim so they write it off

5) Twenty people ALL have issue with the same one comment the senior made, and he's now getting mobbed - and once people realize it's twenty-on-one, mob justice mentality kicks in and they feel emboldened to say that the senior DEFINITELY needs to be cancelled

6) Twenty people all have DIFFERENT issues with the same one comment, and the situation is now a 50-page-long flame war before an administrator finds out and locks the thread.

7) People assume that the policy should be interpreted as "we don't care, please don't bother us" and just fail to bring up issues at all

8) People with anxiety feel like they need to do the big scary personal confrontation first, and thus fail to bring up the issue at all

(These are not just hypotheticals - I've either been in the situation or seen friends in that situation.)

these are all great points; what can be draw from this - and still consider a path of private settling before taking it publicly?

More awareness and resources provided to the victim? There can be a 3rd party org, a private arbitration that is sworn to privacy that can guide the victim so that he does not suffer from the above weaknesses?

Knowing that the issue is being watched even though privately should cause the more powerful person from abusing the situation?

> It's one of the reasons universities tend to be so scandal ridden, and why you have these stories of say, sexually abusive teachers who somehow are able to brush it under the carpet for decades.

a Reasonable Person would understand the principle is a guideline for behavior within a community, and your judgement as a person is still required.

Abusive behavior is different from a disagreement between paths forward on a research project, for example, where working it out with peers is better than escalating it up the chain. During disagreements assume the other party is also a Reasonable Person vs. assuming ill will until proven otherwise.

There may be power dynamics, and this doesn't change those. A person in power can be a bad actor with or without these guidelines. Taking the extreme that this helps those in power be bad actors requires more evidence, as it assumes people will blindly follow this even when the other party is obviously not a Reasonable Person.

If you DO decide to handle things privately...for the love of bob, cover your ass. This means record the interaction, that way if things go poorly...at least there is an impartial record of it to prevent he-said-she-said situations.

> This means record the interaction

Friendly reminder: in several states it’s illegal to record the interaction if both parties haven’t consented so you should record yourself asking the other person for consent and their agreement if either one of you are in one of those states.

https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

They may mean at the very least write down the conversation afterwards. I've noticed this can be helpful as well, because people tend to respect written records even if they are not 100% impartial.

I would document all private interactions between coworkers. Not for any paranoid reason, but just as a CYA and having the notes to refer back to what was discussed later on. Especially if you’re a manager.

Good point, but it kind of confines "Reasonable Person Principle" to the realm of equal relationships only. At that point you can get stuck in a hyper litigious culture.

Yea, the page seems directed towards university students. I don't think meant it for staff/faculty.