[duxup]

I want to address this more generally. I'm not taking issue with any of the claims, I don't know what is true or isn't.

The thing I wonder after reading this is how many organizations struggle to deal with these types of situations. Employers, schools, universities, clubs all seem to now have to have a process to address these things. And yet they seem to fumble it regularly, in every direction. The results are all over the map, ignore the issue, too strict, knee jerk in about every way, sometimes every way...

It occurs to me that none of these organization naturally have a good mechanism for dealing with these things, nor do they necessarily have people qualified to do so (even Big US Universities for all their resources have demonstrated their own ability to do poorly in every way).

We all have ideas about how we think these groups should act after the fact, but how do you really get it right?

How does any organization decide "We're going to address these kinds of claims, investigate, and act appropriately?" Where do they even start?

[hedora]

I'd suggest lobbying congress to reform the US courts. A few things come to mind:

- ban binding arbitration and all other extrajudicial legal proceedings

- strengthen whistleblower laws so that NDAs against people with whistleblower protection are non-enforceable

- train a subset of police to properly investigate sexual assault / harassment allegations

- provide a low cost alternative to civil court similar to small claims court for situations where there is a large asymmetry in the financial resources of the two sides of the proceeding.

[thereddaikon]

>ban binding arbitration and all other extrajudicial legal proceedings

Sure.

>strengthen whistleblower laws so that NDAs against people with whistleblower protection are non-enforceable

Ok.

>train a subset of police to properly investigate sexual assault / harassment allegations

Not really something the feds can handle except for the minority of cases that end up in federal jurisdiction. Most policing is local.

>provide a low cost alternative to civil court similar to small claims court for situations where there is a large asymmetry in the financial resources of the two sides of the proceeding.

I was going to point out that your first two point would increase the world load on our already overworked court system. But you noticed that. The only problem with this approach is there really isn't an existing framework, as far as I know, that would allow for this. You would want it to be held to the same standards as normal courts. In which case it will be just as slow and expensive. The law is complicated and therefore requires professionals. And professionals are expensive. I don't have a solution to this. But saying, we need simpler and cheaper courts sounds nice but doesn't really work if you still want things like innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt.

[paulddraper]

I mean, we have such organizations...they are called courts.

[glenda]

And from what I can see those courts have shown to be pretty ineffective against crimes like sexual assault.

[rolandog]

And I shudder to think of the amount of information an actual adult and politician has to willfully resist to learn to say things like: "If it's legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down, [...]".

[djcannabiz]

Why are you being downvoted?

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

I definetly agree with user glenda, but if anyone disagrees at the very least leave a comment explaining why!

[paulddraper]

Comment: Glenda has provided no substance just a wild claim.

[inemesitaffia]

Glenda wants extra judicial methods where a single accusation leads to banishment

[paulddraper]

Explain more about what you see?

[nojonestownpls]

> And yet they seem to fumble it regularly, in every direction. The results are all over the map, ignore the issue, too strict, knee jerk in about every way, sometimes every way...

> It occurs to me that none of these organization naturally have a good mechanism for dealing with these things

Can there even be a good mechanism to deal with these things, when most often there isn't any evidence and it's a "he said she said" situation? That's a fundamental problem with these situations that's intrinsically hard to solve.

One reasonable course of action is to say "we'll see if evidence accumulates, and if there's multiple independent complaints then we'll assume it's true". Which is pretty much what they did here, and now they're facing flak for that, as being on the "ignoring the issue" side of the fence. Another is to say "zero tolerance, any complaint and you're out". And that has obvious problems of being weaponized, and would end up on the "too strict, knee jerk" side of things.

Men and women are both incredibly complex and varied, and organizations having to judges of characters and relationships with limited evidence is going to be inevitably fraught with peril.

[nonethewiser]

Its a lose-lose situation, isnt it? You either give one side the benefit of the doubt, the other, or some combination in between.

[hgsgm]

Conflict is fundamentally intractable. If it were so easy to avoid conflict, we wouldn't need to address it!

[giraffe_lady]

"Conflict is not abuse" yes. But also, abuse is not conflict. Organizations and communities have their own ways of limiting, tempering, and mitigating conflict within them that relates to the domain of the organization. But however effective those methods are, they will be insufficient to handle cases of interpersonal manipulation, abuse, sexual harassment, etc. Because again, those things are not conflict.