One part that I would like to discuss is how people as individuals rarely would act badly in such situations, but companies almost always act that way.<p>Now I don't know the answer, but I believe this question is part of the core of the issue. In some ways companies are systems structured in a way that protect toxic individuals, and this protection is executed by normal people in their daily jobs. If you interview these people they might not feel guilty and might not even be able to tell how they participated in something immoral. And if they knew they wouldn't have participated. But it still happened. In fact you yourself might even participated in this protection scheme unknowingly in a job you did in the past.<p>What I'm not interested in is unconstructive blaming and flame wars between different sexist groups. Anybody interested in some serious discussion? I'll write my opinion on the matter if I have the feeling discussion is possible and enough people are interested.
It sounds a lot like the mob has decided someone needs to get fired. Despite not knowing the specific details and despite a third party investigation concluding that reprimands and sensitivity training was sufficient.<p>I don’t know what “inappropriate contact” was, in this instance, but for all I know it could have been an executive doing a dance and twirling around a secretary. After which she reported that she didn’t like that.<p>Is that inappropriate? Yes. Should you get fired from your position because of it? No. You sit down as adults and talk it out. Of cause the mob could also be right and he might have jumped on a woman doing a lab dance and attempted to rape her. But I’d expect the third party investigation to make judgement on that which it seems they did, but he mob isn’t satisfied because the third party didn’t reach their foregone conclusion.<p>I wonder what the victim has to say? Has anything been shared? Or first party accounts on the incident? Or is all the coverage just vague indirect references to something no-one reporting was actually involved in?
Who is dumb enough to add a noindex directive to an apology post after a hundred of your employees complain about one of the most-discussed problems in our society and think that no one will notice?<p>The bad behavior, or at least the tolerance of it, is coming from the very top of this organization, and to miscalculate on something like this signals incredible incompetence/complicity.
So, does anybody know what happened there?<p>Did the "C level executive" just drunkenly hug an employee or he was dancing naked on a table dangling his carrot in front of the victim's face?
> at an informal employee gathering at a bar ...<p>Why don't companies just get rid of these "informal" but <i>sanctioned</i> employee gatherings, particularly in a bar environment where intoxicating substances are likely being administered as well? That's just a magnet for these sorts of problems as are detailed in OP's blogpost. The workplace should be a temperate environment.
Why are these posts always so impossibly vague?<p>What's happened? What does she think has gone wrong? Why does she think should be done about it?<p>People struggle so much to get the basics across in their writing! I have to follow a long trail of equally vague posts like an archeologist to understand what <i>happened</i>.
"I think it’s likely that DataCamp management thought or hoped that their post was enough to placate instructors, and that they essentially did what we asked in the letter."<p>Perhaps I am misinterpreting this sentence. But, there was a complain, that complain pointed actions that needed to be made, DataCamp did all they were told to do, and yet, the complainers are not happy, DataCamp didn't do what they needed to do (although they did everything they were asked to do).<p>Now put that together with the fact that the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened, and it seems yet another post by someone that enjoys being outraged and let everyone know about it.