[xab31]

It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong.

What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal.

In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.

[Wowfunhappy]

I don't find any of that particularly contradictory. I'd probably do the same in his position.

To use an extreme comparison: I suspect that most of the people who are falsely accused of murder still believe that murder should be illegal.

[xab31]

My gut reaction if I were Jeremy would be to say that "This is absolutely absurd; there is no way that claiming 'X's opinion is wrong' is in itself a CoC violation, and if it somehow is, then the CoC is ridiculous. The fact that such an accusation was even able to be made under the CoC and not immediately dismissed makes CoCs look ridiculous. Why are you wasting everyone's time?"

He goes a very, very different route. I think that different route gave him a better outcome. I think it is worth thinking about why that is. We are not talking about an accusation of sexual harassment or assault here, we are talking about an almost textbook case of how CoC accusations can be overextended to absurdity. Yet he chooses to defend CoCs.

One possible explanation of this is that he is trying to draw a distinction between things that should be "legitimate" CoC violations, and his case. Another possible explanation is that he is trying to say that "Look, I strongly believe that <murder should be illegal>, really strongly. That makes me one of the good guys. Would a good guy commit murder?" The latter take is more cynical, but I think it would be more effective than my gut reaction.

[g_sch]

I think you are vastly overestimating the significance behind having a "previous CoC violation allegation on [one's] permanent record". Who's keeping, and enforcing on, permanent records of this sort? Every org is going to call this one for themselves, and the facts are out there.

[sigmaprimus]

>>>", because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal."

I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential?

Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.

[xab31]

EDIT: My reading was wrong, see below.

The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters before hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case.

I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.

[btilly]

I believe that "reporters" here means "one who reports a violation" and not "a reporter who can be expected to publish the story".

[xab31]

Yes, I think you're right. He refers to "the two reporters" (and previously mentions that there were two complaints).