Matt Lauer Firing

[kibbles]

When a harassment allegation is made, I can see taking the proper steps to do an investigation and then taking action based on said results. But with people automatically losing everything as soon as a "victim" comes forward, is it safe to assume that the entire basis of the legal system..innocent until proven guilty...is being tossed out??

[s_stabeler]

it can be somewhat complicated- and it does depend on a couple of factors that aren't necessarily obvious.
1. for obvious reasons, when harassment alleegations are made, the people involved need to be kept apart (since if the allegations are true, retaliation is a possibility, if they are false, then seperating the two is still likely a good idea since the allegation means there's at least bad blood between the two now.) and that's not always possible (and firing the accuser is, in fact, illegal since it comes under Retaliation)
2. it depends on how credible the allegation is.
3. it can be that the organisation is unwilling to make whatever changes are nessecary to seperate them.

I don't disagree that it tends to look like throwing innocent until proven guilty ut the window though.

[kibbles]

I totally agree with your post. It seems as if there is no happy medium people are willing to reach. It's either an environment where true victims are afraid to come forward or an environment where everyone accused is automatically vilified. Each choice is just as damaging and disgusting IMO.

[Gravekeeper]

When a harassment allegation is made, I can see taking the proper steps to do an investigation and then taking action based on said results. But with people automatically losing everything as soon as a "victim" comes forward, is it safe to assume that the entire basis of the legal system..innocent until proven guilty...is being tossed out??

Lauer has been sleazy for years. Even Curic said a few years back that he was always trying to pinch her ass and it drove her nuts. I mean, we are talking about the guy who once commented on Vince Gill's daughters breasts. To Vince Gill. Not realizing it was his daughter.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

When a harassment allegation is made, I can see taking the proper steps to do an investigation and then taking action based on said results. But with people automatically losing everything as soon as a "victim" comes forward, is it safe to assume that the entire basis of the legal system..innocent until proven guilty...is being tossed out??

Your employer is not the legal system and they do, in most cases, have full rights to fire you over some bullshit allegation if they so choose, regardless of whether or not you are later acquitted in a court of law.

Also, NBC said the main reason they acted on Lauer when they did was because they had some extremely credible and well corroborated information regarding his actions. It was more than just one victim and one random allegation.

[TheHuckster]

Your employer is not the legal system and they do, in most cases, have full rights to fire you over some bullshit allegation if they so choose, regardless of whether or not you are later acquitted in a court of law.

Also, NBC said the main reason they acted on Lauer when they did was because they had some extremely credible and well corroborated information regarding his actions. It was more than just one victim and one random allegation.

Yeah, I understand the general viewpoint that we should be wary of a policy where all it takes to ruin one's career is to point at them and accuse them of harassment or assault. But that doesn't apply to Lauer at all. He's been caught on camera doing this stuff.

[mjr]

Yeah, I understand the general viewpoint that we should be wary of a policy where all it takes to ruin one's career is to point at them and accuse them of harassment or assault.

Two words: Ezekiel Elliott.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Lauer for the most part I didn't worry about too much. For better or worse, the man had built up a laundry list of accusers and the skeezy shit he was allegedly up to had been building for years. That's the sort of impunity that frankly, my privileged but not super privileged ass gets pissed off about.

However I did want to leave this link here because I read this about a week ago and I've been pondering Katty's points - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42200092

Whether or not this moment in time is cathartic, the only thing that will ultimately make it sustainable is full buy in from everyone. I think in some of the cases we're seeing now, the main reason we don't see a whole lot of rush to defend them is because the allegations keep popping up. So there's an element of either a pattern or a conspiracy with the first being more likely and less hard to control than the last.

Ultimately though, the rubber's going to meet the road when these cases get less clear. When you just have a single accuser and a single accused. I believe you is well and good, but due process has to exist. Or you reach the other extreme such as guys going all Mike Pence and not being willing to be in the same room with a woman without their wife or some ally present.

Whether it's logical or not, you have to assume that people with enough to lose will take precautions if they see a pervasive pattern of "if a few innocent men have to go down to get change, that's fine." And ultimately what you'll see is powerful men mostly protecting themselves and sort of the less powerful men going down.

Generally the powerful figure out the new rules faster than the rest of us. It's how they stay powerful.

[kibbles]

Your employer is not the legal system and they do, in most cases, have full rights to fire you over some bullshit allegation if they so choose, regardless of whether or not you are later acquitted in a court of law.

Also, NBC said the main reason they acted on Lauer when they did was because they had some extremely credible and well corroborated information regarding his actions. It was more than just one victim and one random allegation.

Very true about employers for sure..it is too bad that there isn't some balance where the investigation is allowed to take place without someone's life being automatically ruined.

[kibbles]

However I did want to leave this link here because I read this about a week ago and I've been pondering Katty's points - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42200092

Excellent article..thanks for the share! I agree with every word of that article. It is possible that a backlash is possible. Yes, the sexual predators/perverts of the world should be called out, but all harassment is not equal..not in the slightest! And the way the media reacts to everything, the way employers do have the right to fire at will in most places..I can't blame anyone for being overly cautious. It's sad if it resulted in backlash and real, true victims were abandoned

[Canarr]

I agree. While there is no excuse for sexual assault, which should always be reported to the police, there have been quite a lot of people coming up in the #metoo movement with nothing more than off-color jokes or stupid comments reported without context. If people keep throwing bad feelings when being asked out by a coworker into the same discussion as actual sexual assault or rape, the topic will just keep getting watered down.

Others happened so long ago that it's impossible to ever clear up what did or didn't happen. One German TV personality, approaching 60 now, recently claimed that her first boss strongly implied he'd be expecting sexual favors to give her interesting assignments when she started out in TV in her twenties - sometime in the early to mid eighties. The man she named as the guilty party has been dead for a decade, the superior she claims dismissed her complaints for even longer, and several others she claims were involved profess no knowledge of the events.

What's the point in publicly accusing someone who's been dead for years? If she'd just given a general account of the issues she faced, something for the current generation of women in TV to learn from, I could get behind that. But smearing someone who cannot defend himself anymore? That's just distasteful.

[protege]

Your employer is not the legal system and they do, in most cases, have full rights to fire you over some bullshit allegation if they so choose, regardless of whether or not you are later acquitted in a court of law.

That's exactly it. Just about every employer has some legalese document about employee conduct. Said conduct usually has a clause about how sexual harassment is a problem...and won't be tolerated. They are well within their rights to fire you, even if you do get acquitted. Severe consequences, but they have their reputations to think about.

It was more than just one victim and one random allegation.

I'm sure there's a lot that was going on behind the scenes for years. If it was just one victim, it would have been all "OK, maybe they don't get along and she's trying to ruin him." But to have multiple victims, and have their stories match up? That's something else entirely.

[Canarr]

Slatestarcodex has an interesting article on the gendering of sexual harassment.

But there’s also a deeper issue. Suppose I write about how we need to do more to support the victims of terrorism. Sounds good. But what if I write about how we need to do more to support the Christian victims of Muslim terrorism? Sounds…like maybe I have an agenda. If I write story after story about how Christians need to be on the watch out for Muslim terrorists, but Muslims need to be on the watch out for other Muslims being terrorists, and if I tell Muslim victims of Christian terrorism to stay silent because that’s not “structural oppression” – then that “maybe” turns to “obviously”. This is true even if the numbers show terrorists are disproportionately Muslim.

[Canarr]

So... a Republican politician accused of molesting his son's girlfriend denied the allegations, and committed suicide later.

Johnson's accuser actually contacted the authorities, but the case was closed. Why?

According to the same court documents, the case was eventually closed, due to the alleged victim's refusal to cooperate as she was "very busy" during her senior year of high school and "just didn't have time."

[s_stabeler]

that...could go either way. It's certainly entirely possible she was that busy- I remember when I was in my country's equivalent, I was busy enough it was hard to think about anything else- but it certainly sounds off.