|
|
|
|
|
|
by hashbanged
4431 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair. I'm not sure GitHub's verifiable claims are worth anything though. I think there are some good reasons to assume Julie's credibility. Like other whistleblowers, the consequences for speaking up are extreme. Not a lot of people I know would open themselves up to the kind of harassment and character assassination that Julie has for no reason. While it's good that she hasn't turned out to be "unemployable," as many people insisted, the reality is that she has made her life a lot more difficult by speaking out than she would have if she kept quiet. What would she have gained by lying? I'm open to suggestions, but I feel like most of the things people are saying comes down to "disgruntled employee wants revenge" which I find really unconvincing considering the attacks on her character. If someone doesn't believe that there is pervasive sexism in ANY male dominated industry, I don't know what I can say to convince them. But the truth is that if any HR person (and that's really what this independent investigator is, an HR contractor) asked people if they experienced sexism at work at any of my jobs, people would've been reluctant to be the one to call it out even though it is pervasive. You're right though, I don't pretend to know objectively what happened. I just think there are a lot of good reasons not to weigh the words of a whistleblower equally with the company trying to protect itself and its investors. |
|
|
Some people really like attention. I've known people who'll lie about things like that just for the sake of being in the public eye.
Alternately, she might have not expected the harassment, and thought of it as extra fodder for getting GitHub to compensate her for the stuff that their investigation says definitely happened.
To be clear: I'm not saying either of these is the case for Horvath. Just that the hypothetical "she was knowingly lying" case could be explained by these motivations.