In the context of just a standard tech workplace I find it especially disgusting considering how much your average startup pushes "culture fit."
Did you wear a tie to an interview? Too old school, bad culture fit.
Have a southern accent? Not quite quick-talking enough, bad culture fit.
Not a white or Asian male from a top 20 private engineering school? You might work here, but you're fighting an uphill battle against the Stanford/MIT/UMich kids.
Total mysogynistic jerk? "Well, that's your personal life — we pride ourselves on maintaining a meritocracy! Welcome aboard."
Summed up exactly what I was thinking. It should be "Culture Expansion" instead of "fit"
As a female dev I can definitely confirm and identify with the article, but there is one thing I'd like to say about this quote:
"So, I reported an incident. I detailed someone who harassed me, provided receipts of the sexual harassment, and you want to then tell him I reported him and stick us in the same hotel? While effectively punishing me and not allowing me to participate in part of the conference because I was on the receiving end of harassment?"
The conference has no way of confirming this harassment has even happened, regardless of how many text messages the woman has. And the reason for that is that it's not a courtroom so they can't make a judgement or accept evidence as definitive proof that harassment has taken place.
They don't know if she's a disgruntled ex-girlfriend trying to make the guy's life miserable - unlikely of course, but how would they know for sure?
Their initial suggestion is a fair first-step compromise, and they even ask her if she's comfortable with it. To me it sounds like they're trying to come up with a solution that doesn't involve the law, and that if she's not comfortable with it they'll take it further.
I've been in this situation many times, and although it's frustrating to feel injustice taking a bite of your life, I can fully understand why the world won't just blindly believe everything I say just because I say it's true. It's unfair, but that's life.
The best course of action in this scenario would be for her to report him to the police for sexual harassment, and then get a restraining order against him. This would give the conference a valid and lawful reason to ban him from the event.
It's time these people were named and shamed. It is the only way to make event organisers and possible attendees aware of who to avoid because we're lining their pockets with every event we attend and every job we recommend these "people" for. There is absolutely no place for harassment in our industry and community and it has to stop.
If SHTF and legal action was taken against anyone who was brave enough to speak out, I know I'd support any crowdfunding to get them good legal representation.
I understand your point, but shaming is complicated and inappropriate. It would be more appropriate to educate the individual, change their ways, and improve society. Shaming will cause anger from so many people, it's just not worth it.
Read Jon Ronson’s wonderful book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed and it will change your opinion.
Her answer right in the article:
I will not name names of both the event and the speaker, because I fear for my own safety and potential legal repercussions. I wanted to share my experience because I know we can do better, and we have to shine a bright light on the awful things to find a solution.
I think her should name the person in question. This kind of attitude or behaviour is not acceptable in today's society and he should deal with the consequences and repercussions of it. Sexism is so outdated.
And what if the named person sues her for libel and wins the case? Naming people is not the correct way to solve these things. If he has sexually harassed her, she needs to report it to the police and let the justice system handle it. If he's found guilty, then we can name and shame.
Libel is an incredibly difficult case to make in the U.S. And in the U.S. you're almost always named prior to any finding of guilt (even before any type of arraignment). People always have their reputations dragged through the mud only to have charges dropped a few months down the road. Not saying this is right, but we certainly shouldn't be making exceptions for these people that we don't afford to anyone else.
More importantly, something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be wrong. Maybe this type of behavior should be addressed by the community (in forms such as naming names) so it never reaches a level that we actually have to say "well wait for them to go to prison first, then you can feel comfortable in your workplace!"
Not really about prison, more about letting the justice system handling these matters.
Based on my own experience with men in the tech business, the OP article sounds fully plausible...but we still don't actually know what happened for sure. We've only heard one side of the story. She says she has text messages, and again that sounds perfectly normal based on my own experience. But I haven't seen these messages, and I don't know what actually happened. So I'm not interested in knowing the name of this person she claims has sexually harassed her.
If, however, a court granted her a protective order and/or fined him based on evidence provided, then I'm all for naming the person and excluding him from any conventions in the future.
I think you're overly optimistic about justice systems! I don't think public naming is an elegant solution, but I would place my faith literally almost anywhere before I give it back to the judiciary.
In a world where doxxing is commonplace, can you blame someone for protecting themselves? Naming names often means more problems for the name-r.
You are right, I haven't thought of that perspective, but still it seems unfair that the person remains unnamed, it gives them some security, and I'm a firm believer of truth and if you do something wrong you need to be held responsible for it.