Students look up to their professors. Being persued sexually by one is more demoralizing than almost anything else, and humiliating. Very, very humiliating. Especially when being offered preferential treatment in class, that's unwanted, has been rebuffed, and is being spectated and/or resented by fellow classmates.
You really think transparency for the court of public opinion is more important in the interest of the professor's reputation (with a naieve assumption the professor wasn't doing anything he'd be humilliated by, should those allegations go public), than it is to protect the victim—who's ALREADY been through a humilliating, self-esteem erroding ordeal?!
I didn't say there was no reason a man should go into a ladies room. I said that it's easy to imagine a situation in which a man entering a ladies room would very definitely be sexual harassment. Like, you know, chasing after a specific woman.
Frankly: if the dynamic between two individuals is as such, that for one to walk into a room has been plainly stated to violate the imposed boundaries of another, THAT is harassment. Textbook. Harassment. That's what restraining orders are for.
And unless the person in question chooses to contest the allegation, either in a court of law or a court of public opinion, they would seem within their rights to do so. Firing is between an employer and an employee, not an issue of societal justice that requires full transparency. Certainly I know that if I was fired for stealing from my employer I'd very much want them to keep the specifics private.
MIT (and all academic institutions) reviews cases in private. Behind closed doors. The same way the court system works. They make and deliver a judgement, after reviewing evidence. Doing so, protects the victims/claimants in cases. It's NOT "MIT is satisfied a person broke the policy," it's "MIT took time to review a complaint, deemed it was valid, and took action."
Filing a complaint RARELY means punishment will happen. Especially in situations of sexual harassment. In my case, my professor was never even admonished.
Grow. Up.
Court records are public, and for good reason. Jury deliberations are private, but witness testimony, expert evidence, and even the advocates' arguments are all matters of record.
The review systems of private institutions, of course, are not currently held to the same standards. But the reality is that in today's world this kind of public judgement can carry much the same consequences in terms of future employment etc. as a criminal conviction. So maybe it's time they were regulated the same way, with the same rights of representation, due process, appeal and so on.
Therefore I think we're allowed to retain a bit of skepticism of this completely nontransparent case. MIT internal politics can be utterly brutal and nontransparent, see e.g. the termination with extreme prejudice of the Applied Biology department when it was part of the School of Science.
For example of confidentially as part of the resolution process in a public organization, see the EEOC's own internal resolution guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm .
You are right that the court decisions are nearly all public.
Bu to be clear, you want every investigation of a violation of internal policies to be public? Including things that aren't illegal, like plagiarism, or drinking on the job when internal guidelines prohibit it, or not following the dress code? Or is there something about this case which is special, and if so, what?
In the case of EEOC-related topics, your advice seems to be contrary to what's regarded as best practices.
You also seem to want an entire new level of government rules and oversight. For examples: What's the publication system for those decisions? Who can access them, and for how long are they made available to the public? Are they required to be in English? Can anyone start a internal proceeding or is it limited to managers? Or to the CEO? What about customers and students? In the courts, the plaintiff can be anonymous, as it was in Roe v. Wade. Does the same hold for publishing internal cases? In EEOC guidelines, invalid accusations made in good earnest are protected from retaliatory action, including requirements for management to prohibit retaliation from co-workers that find out about the issue. Does the same hold for the now-public internal investigations? Do other employees have a right to refuse to make a statement they know will be public, and who has the responsibility for preventing the use of this resolution system as a fishing expedition? Which government authority has oversight over the process? What are the penalties for an organization which refuses to publish their internal investigations?
Really, a requirement that all these proceedings be public seems open for a world of pain, and I don't see what the benefit is, given that it's ripe for abuse. If a hundred Global Warming Deniers send 5 complaints each about the corrupt practices of a climatologist, then is the employer (like the court) required to publish all of the false claims and make an investigation? Your proposal makes things less susceptible to public judgement because ... why?
Interesting, I shall have to read more. But that document seems to be about negotiated resolution prior to a formal complaint, and explicitly disclaims any findings of right or wrong - if we're making analogy with the legal system it seems to correspond more closely to the settlement/plea bargaining stage (which is confidential).
> Bu to be clear, you want every investigation of a violation of internal policies to be public? Including things that aren't illegal, like plagiarism, or drinking on the job when internal guidelines prohibit it, or not following the dress code?
Sounds right to me. That would make it easy to e.g. explain to a subsequent employer that the reason you don't have a reference is only that you violated the dress code, or conversely if you really had been fired for major misconduct you couldn't bluff that away. Transparency is better for society.
> Or is there something about this case which is special, and if so, what?
I think the very public announcement from MIT changes things; in the "ancestral legal environment" someone who was fired for misconduct would, at worst, leave town and be able to continue their life elsewhere. But I think in the longer term that's where society is headed - once you can instantly look up even obscure bits of background of anyone you meet, maybe different legal standards are appropriate. (Alternately, elsewhere in the thread someone claimed that this announcement opened MIT up to a defamation lawsuit if a jury wouldn't agree that what he did constituted sexual harassment. Maybe that's an adequate check, and nothing needs to change.)
> You also seem to want an entire new level of government rules and oversight.
Yes I do. I think the angry public of the internet has become a powerful weapon that can destroy lives, and new regulation is appropriate.
> Really, a requirement that all these proceedings be public seems open for a world of pain, and I don't see what the benefit is, given that it's ripe for abuse. If a hundred Global Warming Deniers send 5 complaints each about the corrupt practices of a climatologist, then is the employer (like the court) required to publish all of the false claims and make an investigation?
We have those kind of issues already with e.g. FOIA requests. They don't seem to be insoluble.
The goal for alternate dispute resolution methods is to avoid the full machinery of the courts, which is expensive and takes time. Nor do I agree with the "if we're making analogy with the legal system" .. courts like ADRs as well, for the same reason, and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_dispute_resolution "some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties' cases to be tried"
So if we're making the analogy with the legal system, then confidential mediation for workplace problems corresponds to confidential mediation in the court system. There's no need to compare it to settlement/plea bargaining.
There's no way a jury would be involved. The specific complaint is "MIT policy on sexual harassment was found to be violated." MIT's policy could be stricter than the bare minimum required by EEOC or Title IX. Do you really want external juries to decide what internal policies mean?
You have a very romantic and false view of what the old days were like. Blacklists have been used since at least the late 1800s to fight unionization, and the Hollywood blacklist prevented people who were believed to be sympathetic to communistic causes from working. This was all pre-internet, and pretty much at the start of the time when people could 'leave town and be able to continue their life elsewhere'.
As a specific example, my g'grandfather left his wife in the US and got remarried in Canada - without divorcing his first wife. Eventually work got around that he was a bigamist, and he was arrested and jailed.
(And woe be a German speaking member of the Amish in New York in the 1700s, or a black slave in the south, or a serf in feudal society! Really, your 'move to another town' view of our ancestors was until recently only really possible for the privileged few.)
You assert that "Transparency is better for society". You have no evidence for your beliefs. While I have evidence against it. A transparent society can't work when there's a power imbalance. The list of mining company owners is public, but the unionizing workers had no power over them. Publishing the blacklist wouldn't change anything. In NAACP v. Alabama, the employee list of the state of Alabama was public, but the membership list of the NAACP was not. The courts wrote:
> "Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Making that membership list public would certainly have lead to retaliation against the members. Your call for a transparent society is, quite literally, un-Constitutional and would break that "ancestral legal environment" that you praise elsewhere. Plus, you want to abolish medical privacy and other laws we already have, like the Video Privacy Protection Act put into place after Bork's video tape rental history was published for the world to see.
You mention FOIA requests. You do realize that FOIA requests can take years to resolve, right? If someone is violating workplace rules (let's say a ban on drinking caffeine at work), do you really think that a multi-year process, with recourse to the equivalent of a defense attorney, is appropriate before being able to carry out any corrective action?
Also, FOIA requests are not made public, and don't contain accusations. You propose that every single claim be made public, yet somehow believe that won't be used to bring the "powerful weapon" of the internet to bear on innocent people?
Could you at least try to answer my questions? Since I feel like all I'm getting from you is unsubstantiated belief, with no understanding of the difficulties, or the historical realities. It comes across like you are from a privileged position in life, eg, as a member of a majority ethnic, religious, etc. group which has never had to worry about how public knowledge of who you are can lead to social ostracism or physical punishment.
Yes, and I think that represents a great threat to justice, for the same reasons. If courts are too slow and expensive, let's address those problems directly, not throw out the whole court system.
> Do you really want external juries to decide what internal policies mean?
Maybe. A jury of ordinary people provides an important sanity-check on the law. If the policy relies on some abstruse definition of sexual harassment that goes against the common-sense meaning of the term, maybe it's a bad policy.
> Really, your 'move to another town' view of our ancestors was until recently only really possible for the privileged few
Do you argue that electoral fraud doesn't matter because until recently the vote was only granted to a privileged few? The right response to privileges is to extend them to everyone, not to weaken them.
> Making that membership list public would certainly have lead to retaliation against the members. Your call for a transparent society is, quite literally, un-Constitutional and would break that "ancestral legal environment" that you praise elsewhere. Plus, you want to abolish medical privacy and other laws we already have, like the Video Privacy Protection Act put into place after Bork's video tape rental history was published for the world to see.
You're putting words in my mouth. Yes, there are counterpressures, specific cases where opacity is necessary to society. But secret laws and secret courts are among the deepest horrors of totalitarianism.
> You mention FOIA requests. You do realize that FOIA requests can take years to resolve, right? If someone is violating workplace rules (let's say a ban on drinking caffeine at work), do you really think that a multi-year process, with recourse to the equivalent of a defense attorney, is appropriate before being able to carry out any corrective action?
There were times when we said things like "better a thousand guilty go free than a single innocent be wrongly convicted". When you're talking about "corrective action" with the kind of impact on someone's life that this public firing will have, yes, I do think that the basic rights to due process, legal representation, and one's day in public court are appropriate. If you can't provide that without a multi-year process, the problems are with your process, not the responsibility of the accused.
> You propose that every single claim be made public, yet somehow believe that won't be used to bring the "powerful weapon" of the internet to bear on innocent people?
Not at all. I just want to know the actual judgement of facts. I think that's vital to the public interest.
> Could you at least try to answer my questions? Since I feel like all I'm getting from you is unsubstantiated belief, with no understanding of the difficulties, or the historical realities. It comes across like you are from a privileged position in life, eg, as a member of a majority ethnic, religious, etc. group which has never had to worry about how public knowledge of who you are can lead to social ostracism or physical punishment.
Oh, come off it; I'm engaging, you're just dismissing the opinion of anyone you disagree with. Did you copy-paste that?
> MIT’s action comes in response to a complaint it received in October from a woman, who is an online MITx learner, claiming online sexual harassment by Lewin. She provided information about Lewin’s interactions with her, which began when she was a learner in one of his MITx courses, as well as information about interactions between Lewin and other women online learners.
1. A student claimed online sexual harassment by Professor Lewin
2. This student provided information of these interactions.
3. MIT conducted an investigation
4. The investigation found that Lewin's behavior violated the current sexual harassment policies.
Seems pretty straightforward, except for #2, though I guess we can reasonably surmise that the information involved screenshots or saved chat logs. Otherwise, what other kind of information are you looking for that would help clarify whether or not MIT's sexual harassment policies were violated or not?
Exactly what he did? "sexual harassment" is an extremely broad category. Was it a few sexist remarks, or something much worse?
http://web.mit.edu/policies/9/9.5.html
Here's the overview of sexual harassment:
> Sexual harassment may take many forms. Sexual assault and requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions constitute sexual harassment. However, sexual harassment may also consist of unwanted physical contact, requests for sexual favors, visual displays of degrading sexual images, sexually suggestive conduct, or offensive remarks of a sexual nature.
As to why MIT doesn't get into more detail...that's kind of the modus operandi for these kinds of internal, non-criminal investigations. I don't know what you're reading into this, but perhaps you think the professor has been harshly punished for a few ambiguously sexist remarks, and you think seeing them would vindicate him? Perhaps. But it's also possible that the professor did something egregious, and it may not be helpful to air that out (especially if it means reproducing offensive photos that were allegedly sent).
So when is conduct benign enough that the University could just publish, and when is it not? That's a difficult decision. But for the most part, if the purpose of a press release is to explain why online materials are no longer online, it's not necessary to get into the nitty gritty of the findings of the investigation. If the professor wants to publicly fight the investigation, then it'd be more appropriate for the university to reveal the damning information it has.
The only issue here is lack of (public) evidence.
Extremely vague.
Edited in response to comment below, exact same point stands.
Quoting that 2005 news release: "Federal and MIT rules require that investigations be conducted in strict confidence to protect the integrity of the review process and to avoid unjustified damage to the reputations of individuals, including innocent colleagues and collaborators."
Why do you think they would do something different here?
Or are you proposing that the MIT and federal rules are by definition suspicious?