It's a shame that Richard DeVaul got caught up in a political moment and a pearl clutching media that was eager to misrepresent burning man in the most salacious way possible.
Richard co-founded loon and is one of the most brilliant people I've ever met.
Awful what happened to him. Google's collective IQ dropped precipitously when he left.
2. Seriously, do we need more? He's not stupid, he took the same management harassment training as everyone else in the company, he should have known better, he did know better, and he fessed up to it.
When you're a director, your reporting chain is not your personal Tinder. Please inform yourself on the subject of illegal sexual harassment in the United States, you'll save yourself and your reports and HR a lot of trouble.
Because I was told a very different story. There's a lot more to it than what you may have read.
Perhaps you should consider reserving judgement until you have all the facts.
Consider for a moment that there may be important details and nuance that's missed by newspapers that are most interested in clicks.
Please inform yourself that accusations are not evidence, and maybe consider what you would feel if you were being judged by accusations alone.
I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, but I highly recommend you slow your rush to judgement. There's a lot about the whole situation that you are not aware of.
The issue is whether Simpson was denied before or after burning man. If it was before, which is apparently what Devaul was insisting, it really was inappropriate to take any action in my opinion. If you match on tinder with someone you once interviewed, after the hire/no hurry decision is made, then your company shouldn't be treating this relationship any different from a total stranger. Or are we supposed to keep spreadsheets of every person we ever interviewed? Because that's not in my sexual harassment training, I dunno about yours.
Think about how you would defend yourself if someone accused you of making a sexual advance in an interview after you rejected them for a job? If testimony alone is enough to get you fired, then that's a significant source of pressure to give female candidates positive outcomes even if their performance isn't up to par.
It was terrible timing given the other stuff that was going on with Google at the time, and he sort of got swept up in all that.
I do agree with Richard's statement that he had a lapse in judgement.
I think it's critically important to keep personal and professional life strictly separate, especially as an executive.
It's a fucking interview, not a date. Unless you are hiring an escort, it is not the place to discuss your sex life.
There's another side to the story that's very different than your belligerent assertions.
Are you interested in learning, or just cursing and throwing unsupported accusations?
And no, he didn't "fess up to it" as you've said elsewhere. He admitted to an error in judgement, without going into details.
I don't know specifically what he meant by that, but it's possible that he meant his error in judgement was trying to help the wrong person, in the wrong context.
Yes! Evidence.
I did briefly discuss the whole situation with him after it happened, and came to understand that there was a lot more to the story than what was reported.
I do think he made an error in judgement.
I also believe he's utterly brilliant.
Both of those things can be true.