I’ve been looking at the National Crime Victims Survey data. This is the data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice. They survey people about whether they’ve been victims of various crimes: car theft, pickpocketing, house burglary and so forth. And they also ask about various sexual assault crimes. This the survey that said that college women have a lower rape rate than similar aged women not in college.
I have the 2013 data loaded up on my computer-- every single personal crime they recorded, for all of the ~160,000 people they interviewed. Would you care to guess how many incidents of “Sexual contact without force” they recorded? Nine. They found 9 incidents of sexual contact with force, for 2013, for the group of 160,000 people they interviewed. Nine.
I’m having trouble taking this data seriously. They could find more than nine incidents of sexual contact without force if they asked young women leaving a fraternity party some night at any big public. Nine. Come on now.
He does not go near drunk females with a 10-foot pole. If he is in a room at a party and a drunk female(s) enter, he just leaves and wants no part of it. As he says, these drunk females are not my responsibility, and and I am not about to take on someone’s problem of drinking to the point where she is useless to herself.
He has called security for couple females and waited around for security when one was passed out, but he stayed a distance away and did not touch her.
All companies that I know would fire even if the charges were dubious.
The issue is not the dubious charge at that point; it is the fact there is a police record and that it is not worth having an employee who may be questionable to a client. It is not the issue of what we think in the company; it is the image and what clients think that matters.
The one caveat I would add is the position does matter - the higher up the position, the more serious the matter if there are police charges. Few clients want or care to have such people in their presence.
Lower down the employment chain, then it depends a little bit, but only a little bit. Think of it this way - there are enough people available in the workforce that it is just not worth the trouble having someone who may have been accused of sexual assault, charged by the police, and then charges are dropped. There is definitely the same or better skilled person out there without any of that baggage.
mom2and: Well, since we’re anonymous here I guess I can answer a bit. For me, it’s about a false accusation rather than the office “thinking something” (in my industry most of the workforce is in their 20’s and early 30’s. No one would be interested in an old fogey like me !). I happen to have a quite senior role, so many times I’m meeting about stuff that is somewhat sensitive and behind closed doors.The only meetings I’m sensitive about are closed door one on one meetings with employees (client and vendor meetings don’t really concern me, and these are almost never one and one and are usually in dedicated conference room space instead of true interior space). We’re lucky because our offices are modern design with lots of interior windows and natural light, so finding a good place to meet isn’t that big a deal - just takes an extra few minutes. Also, lots of times people are nervous about meeting with me so I have to be sensitive to that - I look on it as being for the woman’s sense of ease too instead of being stuck in a closed room with me when she’s probably nervous about the meeting. I really don’t think I give off that “vibe”, so I’m not that worried but why be foolish. Also, It’s not like I enjoy being stuck in a closed room with a guy either, so often just find a conference room then too. Never stopped a woman’s career advancement. Since this thread’s been about women needing to be on constant guard I guess it’s only fair that the shoe’s on the other foot every now and then.
In my career we’ve had a few sexual harassment accusations. Much less than industry average - I think our corporate culture is why. One was against a corporate VP by a junior employee; it was true and we beheaded him. There have been false ones though (not in my division though). Personally, since we have lots of young single employees I’m a little protective of the junior female employees but you’d be surprised what a powerful signal a good beheading sends. I make it a point to tell the story every few years. On a happy note, I’ve had several people working for me get married after they met on the job. Every time a couple that’s dating gets married I’m doubly happy because that’s also one source of potential legal exposure gone Tried to be honest - hope this helps.
This though is not specifically about the workplace itself.
However, a corporate function or party at a hotel or a restaurant where a lot of this stuff might occur is not dissimilar to the college function or party. And since they are employees and at an official function, the corporate rules follow them.
What are these corporate “rules” you refer to? Upthread I thought you specifically stated that these things you speak of were not corporate “policies.”
If there are no elements of the crime, it doesn’t even make sense to talk about proof. You can’t prove something if you don’t know what you’re proving.
“Elements of the crime” doesn’t mean the details of this particular alleged offense. It means the definition of the offense. So for example the elements of felony vandalism in California are:
In order to prove someone guilty of felony vandalism, you have to prove those three things. If you didn’t know what the elements of felony vandalism were, you couldn’t hope to prove that someone was guilty of it. Similarly, if you don’t know what the elements of Rape of Intoxicated Person are, it doesn’t even make sense to talk about proving that someone is guilty of it.
I thought this statement from Nashvillle’s District Attorney pretty much sums it up:
“Sexual violence against women is wrong,” said Davidson County District Attorney General Glenn Funk, “Don’t blame the culture. Don’t blame alcohol. Don’t blame the victim. Sexual violence is a crime, and it will be prosecuted.”
One thing I have noticed is the angle of some posters is that of employees who are not responsible for writing the checks if something goes wrong. This is further coupled with a different view of when HR is applicable and when it is not. When you are responsible for a loss and duly responsible for writing the checks, the world is seen through a different lens, and there are certain situations that are best handled differently.
And interestingly, colleges have fallen into this trap as well; thinking that sexual assault and crimes can be handled in the same system as everything else. I posit sexual assault cannot and most crimes cannot, and these are best handled differently. And this is where colleges are getting creamed.
Sexual harassment is an issue handled by HR - talking here about inappropriate touching, stalking, asking out too many times, etc.
In contrast, sexual assault, such as the accusation of rape, and the subsequent calling of police is not something that is handled by HR, at least not in my company. Sexual assault and any felony crime by an employee for that matter are addressed by a centralized team that includes lawyers (one might come from HR), PR people, a client liaison, and a police or investigating agency liaison. In fact, one member of this centralized team coordinates and directs HR’s actions at that point because there is little room for error. And as I stated in an earlier post, that centralized team makes sure that any police or agency investigation is fully compiled with and that no actions are taken to disrupt or interfere with a police or agency investigation. Luckily, no sexual assaults to deal with, but a few crimes and the system has served us well.
And this is where I do believe the analogy with the colleges matters a whole lot - colleges are using an almost basic resolution approach for something that is much more serious, and they have no understanding of the importance of how to handle it properly. The tribunals are not functioning like a specialized, centralized team that understands how to coordinate between different offices and outside people, that understands the importance of who gets what information when, and are really acting more like sexual assault is something similar to plagiarism or something basic. And guess what, they are paying the price.
Seriously, where did you people learn to read? I am always amazed how people generalize off of the specific. For there record, I never said there were no corporate policies.
I was asked if there was a policy for a very specific situation, and I said there was not. And I also said that there was no way to have a policy for every single situation because no one can predict every situation - at that point there is a designate who makes the policy or decision on the spot.
The corporate rules are just that - any rule, which explains how one is expected to represent the company at a function, meeting etc.; for example, at certain functions jacket and tie are mandatory, collared shirt, no t-shirts and the like. But, it is really broader than that because of the moral clause. No one lasts long who gets drunk and makes a fool of themselves with any clients around.
“Instead of addressing rape and sexual assault at UVa, this mandate perpetuates the idea that women are inferior, sexual objects. It is degrading to Greek women, as it appears that the [National Panhellenic Conference] views us as defenseless and UVa’s new fraternal policies as invalid. Allowing the NPC to prevent us from celebrating (what used to be) a tight-knit community, sends the message that we are weak.”
And another widely-circulated letter, directed to the National Panhellenic Conference, reads, in part:
“Our concerns lie in the way sorority women are being used as leverage to change the actions and behaviors of fraternity men. This resolution has misconstrued us as a passive aggregate rather than active agents for change. It has also had the unintended consequence of subjugating women. … Women have historically been the targets of sexual violence, and forbidding us to exercise our agency plays dangerously into gender stereotypes surrounding the issue.” The mandate is diametrically opposed to the central values of the sororities in fostering and supporting women’s strength, the letter continues, and, “This solution is not long-term, realistic, or sustainable.”
Thanks Al2. I work for a very small company, so no real corporate structure and layers of management. I understand what you are saying, but still think it is unfortunate that there is that much distrust in the workplace. But I can see that if you are in a position in which you are responsible for promoting or firing people based on performance, making sure there is no chance for misunderstanding is certainly critical.
Thanks for posting that, bearpanther. I’m glad the students of UVa are challenging this edict from the National Panhellenic Council. How can they even single out UVa,? Has anybody heard of something like this directed at other colleges-Vanderbilt, Duke, etc.
@awcntdb " For there record, I never said there were no corporate policies."
O.K. so what are your corporate “policies” or “rules” referenced in post 4825 that follow employees to official functions? What specifically does the “moral clause” say in your corporate policy?
4820, Cardinal Fang:
[quote]
I'm having trouble taking this data seriously. They could find more than nine incidents of sexual contact without force if they asked young women leaving a fraternity party some night at any big public. Nine. Come on now.
[/quote]
I am having trouble taking the data seriously as well. Reports I read say drugging is rare. If I think about women I know and extrapolate from that, the data is very different than what I read in reports. I find it inevitable we bring personal experiences and biases to this thread. My personal experience is that women being drugged are not l% of rapes. It seemed to me not an unusual occurrence. However, these were sorority women drugged at fraternity houses. They may have been in a higher risk group for drugging. I had sorority sisters who preferred to do their partying at honky-tonk bars. As far as I know, they were never drugged. So, my personal bias, in my late teens and 20s, was that honky-tonk bars were safer places for women than fraternity houses, that men in honky-tonk bars were more likely to be gentlemen than those at fraternity houses. Defining gentlemen as men who don’t try to drug you is a pretty low bar, I’ll admit. I have already written that it seems to me, even today, we assume women need to be on guard against drugging at fraternity parties: don’t drink the punch, don’t take your eyes off your drink, only drink from something you open or see opened. We assume any women who doesn’t follow these rules is indulging in risky behavior. I never hear anyone say, “hey, why do we assume there is this possibility of drugging?” I think we assume it because it is reality. We “know” it isn’t a 1% possibility.
One of many reasons I linked to the essay upthread was because it was about unreported drugging. Even though it isn’t about college rape, the recent Cosby allegations are also sometimes about unreported drugging,
The experiences of my friends tells me this woman’s experience wasn’t out of the norm. It wasn’t a rare occurrence. I applaud this essay.
The reason I am harping on this is I don’t understand how we can fix problems we can’t acknowledge as real problems. My personal bias is that drugging is a huge problem.
as an aside: When we begin to suspect a posting persona isn’t authentic, that is interpreting text - imho. ymmv. and I promise to give it a rest from here on out.
Tried to be honest - hope this helps.