"What about teh mens?" derail from sexual assault thread

[Trausti]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

 

[Derec]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

 

[starwater]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

 

[Trausti]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

He would have never been contracted. A law firm's reputation is important for business. A connection with an attorney having been accused of sexual assault is poison.

 

[Derec]

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired,

Why should he disclose an accusation when the investigation cleared him?

and show proof that he was falsely accused?

So, guilty until proven innocent?

He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

A person should not have to disclose things he or she was merely accused of. Generally only convictions must be disclosed to an employer.

 

[laughing dog]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

I
It is clear that "we all" do not condemn sexual assault, and "we all" do not condemn sexual harassment when "we all" persist in derailing a thread about the sexual assault of women with yet another predictable wailing of the irrelevant "oh my god, men face false accusations". And, within two post of the OP to boot.

 

[Toni]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

Actually, I doubt the whole story. Law schools require students to disclose all encounters with law enforcement and any other potential ethics violations. Nondisclosure is grounds for dismissal.

 

[starwater]

Why should he disclose an accusation when the investigation cleared him?

So, guilty until proven innocent?

He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

A person should not have to disclose things he or she was merely accused of. Generally only convictions must be disclosed to an employer.

This is very relevant to being hired as a lawyer.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Why should he disclose an accusation when the investigation cleared him?

So, guilty until proven innocent?

He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

A person should not have to disclose things he or she was merely accused of. Generally only convictions must be disclosed to an employer.

This is very relevant to being hired as a lawyer.

It's relevant in many professions. Most healthcare professions will also require full disclosure, even if there was no conviction. Most teaching gigs...the same.

This is just more of whiny manbabies "but what about the mens?" BS. I'll give them one thing. They're consistent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's relevant in many professions. Most healthcare professions will also require full disclosure, even if there was no conviction. Most teaching gigs...the same.

This is true. A mere allegation can often ruin somebody. It doesn't matter if there is a conviction or if there is any truth whatsoever behind the allegation.

 

[RVonse]

This is very relevant to being hired as a lawyer.

It's relevant in many professions. Most healthcare professions will also require full disclosure, even if there was no conviction. Most teaching gigs...the same.

This is just more of whiny manbabies "but what about the mens?" BS. I'll give them one thing. They're consistent.

Its the womenbabies too. If you are a women wrongful accused of spanking her daughter, the women's teaching career is ruined as well. I have seen this happen.

We live in a world now where innocent before proven guilty is a distant memory of the past.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you are a women wrongful accused of spanking her daughter, the women's teaching career is ruined as well. I have seen this happen.

Women who do statutory rape on their male students also get into some trouble, in the actual courts... though not so much in the court of public opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is very relevant to being hired as a lawyer.

It's relevant in many professions. Most healthcare professions will also require full disclosure, even if there was no conviction. Most teaching gigs...the same.

This is just more of whiny manbabies "but what about the mens?" BS. I'll give them one thing. They're consistent.

Its the womenbabies too. If you are a women wrongful accused of spanking her daughter, the women's teaching career is ruined as well. I have seen this happen.

We live in a world now where innocent before proven guilty is a distant memory of the past.

Innocent until proven guilty is for courts, jails, and fines.

When dealing with questions of fit, say, of a person as a nanny, ambiguous evidence of pedophilia is more than enough of a reason to not hire them.

When dealing with privileged appointment, the ethically justified standard is Suspect until proven Innocent. Innocent until Proven Guilty was only ever intended as a standard for government-mandated censure of basic rights.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There do exist libel laws one could use to sue those who make such career ruining false accusations. Of course that then shifts the onus to the accused and there may be no way to really meet the standard, which isn't a great environment to be in.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am fine with agreeing with the general drift of the OP with the caveat that it's not as widespread an issue as some others, so I think it's reasonable to spend (comparatively) more time on other issues, such as for instance non-false allegations of sexual assault and/or rape.

That said, it's a valid issue, imo, and should be taken seriously, as should many other valid 'men's issues', in reasonable proportion to both the extent and prevalence of the harm and/or disadvantage involved.

And when it does happen, I believe it can be devastating, yes (as can false accusations of anything made on anyone) even if it doesn't result in a conviction. Luckily it has never happened to me.

 

[ruby sparks]

We all condemn sexual assault, don't we? Yet these threads keep popping up. They remind me that the costs of a false accusation of sexual assault also carries unimaginable costs. Anecdotally, at a former law firm I worked at the policy was to hire new attorneys first as probationary contract lawyers before offering full-time employment. One guy was contracted in this way. HR, perhaps not too wise to the internet, hadn't done an internet search before bringing him on board. However, a few of the staff later did and uncovered that he had been accused of sexual assault while in college. The police and college investigations turned up nothing and no charges were filed. Nonetheless, the law firm didn't want the association so ended his contract. He was promptly erased from the website. The accusation will follow him for the rest of his life. It's better to be properly charged with terrorism than falsely accused of sexual assault.

Quoted for truth.

So if this person was not guilty - why didn't he disclose this before or after he was hired, and show proof that he was falsely accused? He could have easily cleared it up. I hire people all the time and if they are honest up front I would be even more inclined to hire an individual. Those that hide information from me whatever it is, would be terminated because I would feel this was dishonset on their part. So this example has no relevance.

Unless someone has to or is obliged to disclose it, in which case they should, unfortunately, I can see why in the real world they wouldn't, and perhaps shouldn't have to.

A generous interpretation of your post is that you were trying to be helpful and suggest that in such situations, men would be better off disclosing, or at least if you personally are hiring, which is to your credit, and may well be true for other employers.

But some might read such a response, imputing a different emphasis, as at least in some way related to victim blaming ("it's his, the victim's fault, for not disclosing, he should have").

Personally, I'm totally fine with seeing it (your point) as the former, because I definitely do not get the impression from your posts on these topics that you have an unfair bone in your body or that you are not level-headed, unbiased and reasonable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When dealing with privileged appointment, the ethically justified standard is Suspect until proven Innocent. Innocent until Proven Guilty was only ever intended as a standard for government-mandated censure of basic rights.

But the question is should it be? The reasons that it exists as a standard for government mandated censure are very good ones and those reasons don't change when the censure is coming from someone else.

A person's life or career getting derailed because of an accusation is a very serious thing and standards should be high for that sort of thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

When dealing with privileged appointment, the ethically justified standard is Suspect until proven Innocent. Innocent until Proven Guilty was only ever intended as a standard for government-mandated censure of basic rights.

But the question is should it be? The reasons that it exists as a standard for government mandated censure are very good ones and those reasons don't change when the censure is coming from someone else.

A person's life or career getting derailed because of an accusation is a very serious thing and standards should be high for that sort of thing.

Yes, it should. As I've pointed out a few times, it is all about what is being given or taken away. When something is being given, there is always the question of "is this person qualified (to be given the thing)?"

Note that the standard is a positive claim: that they MEET standards. This same expectation exists when doing things that exclude people forcefully from normal society: do they MEET the standard for being improsoned, etc.

When asking if someone meets a standard, it must be beyond doubt to the extent that the standard protects some level of trust.

Let's apply a little Fourier transformation to the problem: You don't execute a program on your computer in admin mode unless you are sure it isn't infected. Note that the standard isn't 'as long as there's jus a little doubt as to whether it is a virus'. You aren't looking for programs that MAY not be viruses when you want to do a thing, you are looking for programs that ARE NOT viruses. And when dealing with people and organizations, it is much the same: you don't look for people who MIGHT not be child molesters to look after your children, you look for people who most assuredly are not. Of course, it also is not appropriate or acceptable to do a background check for possession of marijuana when hiring for a job pushing fries across a counter, or for looking at Violation of Curfew charges when considering positions at a software engineering firm for a person in their 20's. Or once someone has completed their rehabilitation, that brings in a whole new dynamic.

The point is, when you seek privileges, the burden is on you to prove you will not abuse them, just as when the government seeks to revoke rights, they must prove you DID abuse them.

 

[Derec]

If you are a women wrongful accused of spanking her daughter, the women's teaching career is ruined as well. I have seen this happen.

Women who do statutory rape on their male students also get into some trouble, in the actual courts... though not so much in the court of public opinion.

Women who fuck their male students rarely get jail time. Men who fuck their female students usually do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When dealing with privileged appointment, the ethically justified standard is Suspect until proven Innocent. Innocent until Proven Guilty was only ever intended as a standard for government-mandated censure of basic rights.

But the question is should it be? The reasons that it exists as a standard for government mandated censure are very good ones and those reasons don't change when the censure is coming from someone else.

A person's life or career getting derailed because of an accusation is a very serious thing and standards should be high for that sort of thing.

Yes, it should. As I've pointed out a few times, it is all about what is being given or taken away. When something is being given, there is always the question of "is this person qualified (to be given the thing)?"

Note that the standard is a positive claim: that they MEET standards. This same expectation exists when doing things that exclude people forcefully from normal society: do they MEET the standard for being improsoned, etc.

When asking if someone meets a standard, it must be beyond doubt to the extent that the standard protects some level of trust.

Let's apply a little Fourier transformation to the problem: You don't execute a program on your computer in admin mode unless you are sure it isn't infected. Note that the standard isn't 'as long as there's jus a little doubt as to whether it is a virus'. You aren't looking for programs that MAY not be viruses when you want to do a thing, you are looking for programs that ARE NOT viruses. And when dealing with people and organizations, it is much the same: you don't look for people who MIGHT not be child molesters to look after your children, you look for people who most assuredly are not. Of course, it also is not appropriate or acceptable to do a background check for possession of marijuana when hiring for a job pushing fries across a counter, or for looking at Violation of Curfew charges when considering positions at a software engineering firm for a person in their 20's. Or once someone has completed their rehabilitation, that brings in a whole new dynamic.

The point is, when you seek privileges, the burden is on you to prove you will not abuse them, just as when the government seeks to revoke rights, they must prove you DID abuse them.

But this is a false distinction.

If an accusation of child molestation cannot be validated, you can't say that the accused person is more or less likely to be a child molester than a competing applicant who's never been accused of it. It actually gives you no information about the likelihood that you're going to be putting a child molester in charge of your children.

Also, how does one prove that they didn't abuse a child in the first place? Requiring someone to prove a negative NEVER a valid process.