The Sexism That Led to the Elizabeth Holmes Trial | Hacker News Reader

The Sexism That Led to the Elizabeth Holmes Trial

nytimes.com

3 pointsslygent11 comments

Oh wow, I hadn't heard anything from Ellen Pao since her husband's Ponzi schemes exploded[1][3] and they started trying to divorce[2].

I guess they are close to finalizing the divorce and she's looking for a new place to sue for sexual discrimination.

[1]https://nypost.com/2015/03/26/ponzi-schemer-stole-60m-from-i...

[2]https://nypost.com/2019/08/16/buddy-fletcher-and-ellen-paos-...

[3]https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletc...

Newspaper of record

This is an opinion piece, not news or journalism. It hasn't been fact-checked.

> This is an opinion piece, not news or journalism.

It matters that the Times finds it acceptable to provide this stupid woman with a platform to defend a woman whose actions put patient health at risk.

I think you're missing the point of the article. The author specifically says:

>it’s clear that two things can be true. She should be held accountable for her actions as chief executive of Theranos. And it can be sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing or bad judgment.

The take isn't "Elizabeth Holmes is good," it's "Elizabeth Holmes committed fraud, but so did a lot of other tech billionaires. Why aren't they also being prosecuted?" Now, clearly her misdeeds were much more dangerous than Uber using misleading ads. They're both fraud though.

I do think that a lot of the author's comparisons are a stretch. Toxic workplace culture is bad, but somewhat unrelated to the central point of the article from a legal perspective (note: IANAL).

> They're both fraud though.

I don't care if she hoodwinked the clowns that sat on the Theranos board, or investors who put in money without doing due diligence. I care very much that Theranos lied to and threatened doctors and patients. That action requires harsh punishment. Even if the accused is a woman.

I'm pointing out that the author never says that Holmes shouldn't be punished. If you can point to something in the article that says this, I'd be shocked.

The point being made is that punishment is being handed to only Holmes and not other clear examples of fraud. The author wants all of these examples of fraud to be punished. The author is actually arguing for MORE people to be put on trial for fraud, not less.

Read the quoted passage from my previous comment where the author specifically states that Holmes should be punished.

> not other clear examples of fraud

My point is that I wouldn't blame Holmes if all she did was dupe rich investors. I read an article recently where the author believes that the jury might feel the same way. It is hard to sympathize with millionaires and billionaires complaining about losing a few million dollars.

The problem, again, and what is different in this case is that people could have died if they had acted upon fake tests results. I don't know if or why the prosecution did not consider that to be a separate crime. I guess it's like Capone. if you cannot get him for the murders, you get him for tax fraud. Read Bad Blood by John Carreyrou if you haven't.[1] It is a horror story.

Also, Pao conveniently ignores that Holmes's ex-boyfriend, Sunny Balwani, is also on trial for the same crime. And he is a man.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Blood:_Secrets_and_Lies_in...

That's a really good point, but is tangentially related to the central point of the author's article. I honestly agree- there's a lot more danger in what Holmes lied about versus what these other individuals lied about. Dangerous medical devices absolutely deserve to be treated differently than other types of fraud. The author's point is certainly weakened by trying to compare dangerous medical fraud to toxic workplace culture, as they're entirely different levels of bad.

However, the author's point (which I don't necessarily agree with) is that Holmes is nominally on trial for fraud, and at least part of her crime is the same kinds of fraud that Uber and other large companies are guilty of. If we're punishing her for (at least in part) standard-issue fraud, why are we not also punishing the other CEO's of Silicon Valley companies for that kind of fraud?

The additional context you've added by distinguishing between the "lying to investors" fraud and the "dangerous medical device" fraud makes sense now, which helps me to understand your larger issue with the article. The author definitely doesn't tell the whole story with respect to what she's been accused of.

>I don't know if or why the prosecution did not consider that to be a separate crime.

Now that you've explained that they're lumped together under fraud, I get where you're coming from. Her crimes are "fraud" in name only, and could have conceivably been called something entirely different.

> why are we not also punishing the other CEO's of Silicon Valley companies for that kind of fraud?

My response to her would be: be my guest. It is my understanding that the DOJ has a 90% success rate in obtaining convictions when the cases do go to trial.[1] What that means is, they would not pursue indictment unless they are convinced of success.

> they're lumped together under fraud

There is this weird thing called wire fraud that can be used to charge almost anyone with anything as it pertains to communication over the wire. That part of the law is what Holmes and Balwani have been accused of violating.[2]

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/theranos-founder-and-fo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com