Rape/Sexual Assault Culture

You're an attorney, or at least I'm fairly sure I recall you being an attorney, so I know you're aware of this, but for the sake of others reading this the sort of due process you're talking about here is purely procedural in the Goldberg or Roth sense of that rule, so teachers like you're mentioning might have a due process right to an admin hearing of some sort that would prevent them from being permanently suspended/fired based only upon an allegation but often they're temporarily suspended until such hearing. Would you agree?

The last sentence, though, I'm not sure what you're saying exactly because an evidentiary burden is different than procedural due process. I assume you mean just that an accusation should be tested, so to speak, via whatever procedural due process is required and not that there should necessarily be more evidence than just an accusation?

 

Katie Roiphe is a troll who wanted to dox a vulnerable woman - then lied about it.

The actual basis of the Roiphe fiasco was a list of alleged dangerous men shared between women that went viral. Roiphe wanted to dox the list creator (who in practice merely set up the google spreadsheet).

For this Roiphe was ripped on twitter.

It never had anything to do with women accusing innocent men in public

It was on the level of "watch out for this editor because if you get drunk with him - he'll assault you"

which is in fact what women have been doing in the workplace since for ever

At my first job, there was a guy all the female solicitors were warned about.

No elevators. No late work with him on your own.

 

To be clear I was speaking specifically of "presumption of innocence" which is a legal burden of proof requiring that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove guilt.

People like Atwood are completely misguided that "presumption of innocence" has any application to women warning each other about dangerous men at the office for example. (The Roiphe fiasco).

Of course I agree that we should not presume guilt without the correct criminal process - but individuals and organisations correctly make risk assessments based on the information they have to hand - and of course with reference to employment law.

Especially (seeing she specifically raised it) the burden and nature of proof is completely different in criminal trials than in civil proceedings. And different again in quasi-legal administrative type proceedings for employers

So especially when employers have duties to keep other employees safe, you may well be suspended or sacked even when the "presumption of innocence" standard is nowhere near met.

Or you may find yourself arrested and rotting on remand based on a "mere allegation" - if it is sufficiently credible.

This is why I feel the presumption of innocence is in no way helpful to the kind of discussion

 

Ha!

And yet I also had the opposite experience at school. Everyone kid starting was warned off a particular teacher who was known as "fruity" (it was an all boys school).

Years later he was suddenly sacked and never spoken of again to avoid bad publicity. Because these things were always swept under the carpet.

 

Completely agree - protections vary depending on where you work.

But also, some organisations have greater obligations than others to provide a safe environment.

The risk assessment is difficult.

The trouble is, that the evidence will so often be in the form of an accusation and not more.

And surely we can keep our mind open about innocence, while managing risk?

Recently in Hamburg a swim coach was accused by several kids of abuse

In my mind you'd be negligent as a parent to allow your child to spend time under the sole supervision of that coach once the news broke.

 

They are idiots. I am talking about accusations of abuse. And when i went to school these kinds of stories were common place. Indeed various friends who were at 3 of the famous boys single sex schools had guys sacked during our 5 years there. Only one went to prison - the catholic one

Agreed - but it comes down to the veracity of the allegation and any supporting evidence.

But personally, I think at my school of 1100 boys, it was insanity to have a teacher there who was widely regarded as a kiddie fiddler. We all knew to watch out for him. eventually he was sacked under a cloud. Even if he was innocent (unlikely IMO) is the risk to 1100 kids worth it?

Of course it is more complicated than that because based on my own personal knowledge - i am sure credible incidents were covered up over years.

How it worked in those days is you would quietly resign.

 

Roiphe is in no way someone we should be basing our arguments on

Nicole Cliffe owned her dark soul

950828552189919232 is not a valid tweet id

950841764507734017 is not a valid tweet id

 

Gotcha, well you can take it up with the Supreme Court, but as I'm sure you know, I added that qualifier to distinguish it from substantive due process, which rightly or wrongly is a legal principle that courts employ.

 

Sure - this is the classic "whisper network"

Interestingly I got some of the same info from my supervisor at the firm as well. It was not only women spread the info.

 

You know how I stand on this issue of sexual harassment/rape, so I should also tell you that I was accused by a fellow teacher...out of envy/jealousy at my ability to work with students. Students would routinely ask to be moved into my classroom, but students are also not the go-to for answers such as these. The adults in the room are the ones believed, normally, unless it is to accuse teachers of something, specially sexual abuse. Yet, there I was, accused (not of sexual abuse, but of some nebulous inappropriate relationship with female students). It was fortunate that I had built a reputation, and when I was speaking with the VP at the end of the school day, she was stunned. Still, HR had a conversation with me.

You are talking about sacrificing an actual innocent person. Had I been fired to protect some image ("children"), I would likely have never been able to teach again.

 

I think you are talking about public school/unionized teachers, yes?

 

I was going with the example provided by the poster to whom I responded. I'm well aware that at-will employees often are deemed entitled to even less due process.

 

There are an awful lot of people who "forget" that private school and many (most?) charter school teachers are not unionized.