

I think the lesson we’re learning here is that a mechanism that is intended to protect the party seems to instead be causing harm to it. If this had been more widely known it would have defanged a number of the criticisms that have emerged here. Most of us understand that SA and other interpersonal transgressions will occur in any body of people. Being visibly proactive, taking a restorative justice approach, and having visible accountability aren’t necessarily incompatible and serve to demonstrate that the party is taking the correct line on important issues.






Not to pile on here but I do think it’s really important to recognize how common a problem this is. Any organization needs to have robust procedures for investigating and addressing this sort of thing. If anything it is a lack of a strong and transparent process that caused this issue in the first place. If you haven’t taking the time to read the statement in full you may want to do so. The second time I read it I did so from the perspective of how could this particular situation, not the groping but the statement and counter statement, be avoided. It seems to me that better accountability and transparency would go a long way.