Benjamin Franklin is said to have written "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I wonder if many (or any) posters in this thread would agree with this.
I am a hiring manager, and an owner, (which means I am also in charge of raises, promotions, discipline and termination)but I am confused by this.
What do you mean candidate A is easy to terminate, but B is difficult?
Are you keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions? If so, then it does not matter what demographic you are terminating, it should all be exactly as easy or as difficult as your policies make it.
If you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, then you may find yourself in a situation where it is believed that you have terminated someone due to their demographics, rather than their performance or discipline, and you may find it difficult to prove that you didn’t. However, if you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, you may actually be acting on prejudice, and not even realize it.
Essentially, your complaint is only something that would be feared by poorly run or ignorant management or owners. Unfortunately, such people are not all that rare. Even your cavalier admission that you expect that people are terminated based on ease of termination due to their demographic status, rather than based on their performance and disciplinary history, shows that that attitude is very dangerously rampant.
I can agree with the OP. I can see many businesses refusing to hire women because they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment. However, those businesses are poorly run, and they are run by sexists. What percentage of companies hold to these outdated values of undervaluing women is a question that we may see an answer to sooner than later, as they unravel themselves by demonstrating their bigotry.
Full disclosure: Out of my 13 employees, 12 are women.
Serious question.
You hear that a man has been accused of harassing a female subordinate. Is ‘false accusation’ your first thought?
I mean, yes, false accusations occur. But they are, by every definition, rare. But it seems that you think that possibility of a false accusation is far worse than the everyday actual sexual harassment that nearly all women have had to put up with.
#MeToo is about preventing the suffering caused by sexual assault and harassment and related issues, so is entirely in keeping with the philosophy that protecting the innocent is more important than punishing the guilty. Without #MeToo (or a comparable movement), the widespread suffering caused by abuse and assault and harassment would continue without abatement; with #MeToo, we’re actually starting to try and prevent this suffering.
Are you trying to say that a woman in the workplace who endures sexual harassment doesn’t suffer, but men who are no longer allowed to sexual harras a woman in the workplace do?
If not, then you post here means nothing.
No.
So we can put you down as preferring that 100 guilty sexual harassers go free rather than one innocent one be wrongly punished?
Not even remotely. The Benjamin Franklin quote is all about the rate of “false positives” we ought to consider acceptable in our enforcement efforts.
Not interested in playing your ridiculous games. If you want to have a real conversation about sexual assault and harassment, then put some real thought into it. Silly pablum is just silly pablum. I’m interested in preventing the immense suffering caused by our society’s widespread tolerance of sexual assault and harassment, and I’m happy to talk about anything that can further that cause in threads on the topic. No one has suggested punishing the innocent.
I don’t think it’s a “ridiculous game” at all. How do you think the #MeToo movement should handle false accusations like those of Crystal Mangum? Should they be brushed aside? ‘BFD! It’s only 8%! That’s almost as rare as cannibalism!’?
Should people like her be excoriated by the movement? Ostracized from polite society? Coddled? Prosecuted? What?
If you can’t see how this issue relates very directly to your quest to get women’s accusations treated more seriously, I think you’re purposely blinding yourself.
So, you mean that your post was not relevant to the thread. Odd that you made it.
This topic was about workplaces hiring less women because of a fear of false accusations. Are you agreeing that is the correct course of action?
How is #MeToo in any way affecting or undermining the legal presumption of innocence or the legal rights of the accused?
As a long-time ACLU member, I’m very adamant about the importance of civil liberties, the rights of the accused, etc. But I don’t see any conflict between those concerns and exposing/condemning sexual harassment in the workplace.
No idea what the fuck you’re trying to say (Crystal Mangum? Who’s in jail right now, and was excoriated by pretty much everyone?). If you want to talk about the nonexistent problem of false accusers being defended or praised, feel free, but I’m not going to join with you in wasting time talking about pointless bullshit. Not surprising, though, that someone who has continually excused and defended and celebrated a powerful admitted sexual abuser continues to try to steer any discussion away from how to protect women from sexual assault, to how to protect those who are accused of sexual assault.
It’s not. It’s utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.
False accusers are universally condemned and excoriated. We can long move past the worries about false accusations – they’re very rare, and when discovered, universally excoriated. Let’s talk about the actual, real problem of sexual abuse and assault and harassment in society being tolerated and excused.
Except that every time a woman addresses sexism, she’s labeled as a feminazi SJW harpy.
Franklin was talking about using the power of the state to send people to prison or execute them. This thread is about people being fired or disciplined at work. How do you stand on this statement
Better a 100 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.
Or the more accurate: Better 1000 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.
Neither of these takes into account that even with #MeToo, it is still a long a grueling process to attempt to report sexual misconduct.
Despite all the concerns about how unproven accusations destroy the accused, that is not usually what happens. The last high profile accusation, despite credible evidence, which was probably not sufficient for a prosecution but still enough to cast doubt on a job applicant, ended with accused being elevated to one of the most powerful positions in the country, and the accuser having to flee her home for the safety of her family.
The problem, I think, is that #METOO encompasses more than just false accusations.
-
A guy can get in trouble for something he did years, even decades ago. There is no time limit.
-
All bad behavior is treated as equally vile and worthy of the full measure of punishment available. (E.G. There is a big difference between Al Franken and Matt Lauer but they both lost their jobs).
-
The accusation is all it takes. No prosecution. No finding of facts. This has been of particular issue on college campuses (where often the accused is not even allowed representation and law enforcement is kept out of it).
That’s a little scary.
And can we stop with the “very few people are affected by false accusations” bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
I don’t think the three assertions above are accurate at all.