
On DataCamp and sexual misconduct - chasedehan
https://juliasilge.com/blog/datacamp-misconduct/
======
narnianal
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.

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.

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.

------
hjk05
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.

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.

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.

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?

~~~
pcstl
I constantly feel like American workplace culture is evolving very fast in
order to avoid people ever having to sit down like adults and have potentially
difficult and stressful talks.

(Of course, "sitting down and talking" might be impossible, depending on the
severity of the incident - but how are we to know in this case?)

~~~
minimaxir
Other DataCamp employees did "sit down like adults" and talk about it.

[https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-
building...](https://dhavide.github.io/a-note-to-our-commuity-on-building-
trust.html)

[http://third-bit.com/2019/04/15/an-exchange-with-
datacamp.ht...](http://third-bit.com/2019/04/15/an-exchange-with-
datacamp.html)

They got fired because of it.

~~~
pcstl
And _now_ I feel like I have something to go on instead of just arbitrary
vagueness and claims that I should be able to discuss the issue without
knowing what the issue is. Thank you!

------
save_ferris
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?

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.

~~~
Lowkeyloki
I can't say I'm surprised. They're a bunch of data science people. Thinking
about how to not let embarrassing things get indexed by scrapers is probably
second nature to them in the same way that chaos engineering is second nature
to plenty of programmers. I bet the question "should this be indexed" is the
data scientist equivalent of "how could a malicious user exploit this".

------
AlexTWithBeard
So, does anybody know what happened there?

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?

------
0815test
> at an informal employee gathering at a bar ...

Why don't companies just get rid of these "informal" but _sanctioned_ 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.

~~~
zaroth
It occurs to me that could be precisely the goal of these groups. It certainly
adds a new element of risk to hosting any kind of event whatsoever when you
can face such an organized PR campaign for something that may have happened
between two people at your event.

~~~
belorn
I understand that alcohol culture can vary drastically in different nations,
but I find it a very valid question to ask why drinking excessively should be
part of any professional work environment.

The theory people have given me as validation for such event is that such
social activity outside of work make people cooperate better and form some
kind of kinship. Personally I would like to see some research if money
invested in event at bars is worth it.

~~~
chrisseaton
> to ask why drinking excessively

How did we go from just 'an informal employee gathering at a bar' to now
'drinking excessively'?

~~~
belorn
Let me give an example of a professional gathering last December, where CEO's,
marketing, and people responsible for the technical operations meet yearly
from several companies.

First there is the presentations with coffee breaks. normal stuff. A mix of
technical, legal and marketing changes for the industry.

Then we go down to the bar and have a beer or two and a glass of sparkling
wine before we get seated. Two large glasses of wine while eating, white and
red, more beer, and offer for refilling several times through. Once everyone
has finished their meal it is time for hard liquor and desert as is
traditional near Christmas. Four, five, six additional rounds, with singing.

This is why I address the alcohol culture as being important factor.
Professional gathering like those sets the norm when people meet in informal
gatherings.

------
chrisseaton
Why are these posts always so impossibly vague?

What's happened? What does she think has gone wrong? Why does she think should
be done about it?

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 _happened_.

~~~
floatingatoll
The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original
offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the
details of the original offense, and their focus on those outcomes is
permissible and appropriate when one desires to avoid creating a pitchfork
mob.

EDIT: See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970)

~~~
pcstl
Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people
crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details
of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without
proper information?

How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not
without knowing what happened?

~~~
floatingatoll
The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it
the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on
whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not
valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry
responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made.

Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable
process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied.

If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement
on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or
banned by the mods.

~~~
pcstl
"HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry
responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made."

How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with _absolutely no
reference_ to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to
determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing
what crime they committed!

Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.

~~~
floatingatoll
There are two sets of facts in play:

1) Something happened between some people.

2) Something happened when an organization associated with them responded.

It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1. They are an
organization, not an individual, and their quality of response should remain
high regardless of the specifics of #1. The post judges the quality of their
response to be unacceptable. That judgement is valid to consider and discuss
without regard to the circumstances that causes their response to exist.

~~~
pcstl
I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to
assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully
disagree that "It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1".

I believe that, to assess the quality of the response, it is required to
understand what was the level of severity of the event. How the event should
be handled, and hence the response, is a function of the severity of the
event.

Of course, if we view the response as being to a broader "climate of
suspicion" surrounding DC, it can be assessed differently - but it still would
require contextual information for assessment, specifically regarding what
circumstances have created this climate of suspicion in the first place.

While some actions on DataCamp's part - specifically, the noindex tag - are
definitely shady, it is difficult to understand whether their response (which
seems to be mostly to attempt to reassure the data science community that they
are listening and focused on being a positive actor in the community) is
appropriate or not without understanding what they are responding to.

~~~
floatingatoll
I am sorry that you have difficulty evaluating their response without knowing
the original story. Unfortunately I will not budge.

EDIT: Someone suggested I’ve overstepped here somehow. I don’t understand how
but regardless I apologize; it is not my intent to demean nor otherwise speak
less of you. We disagree and I wanted to honor that but also close the thread
and I may have done so badly.

~~~
pcstl
No problem at all. I am not attempting to change your opinion (which I
understand is well-reasoned), but to explain my own.

------
wtdata
"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."

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).

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.

~~~
ivanbakel
>DataCamp did all they were told to do

There are three qualifiers on that in the original post.

>and yet, the complainers are not happy

It's very possible to be unhappy with how someone does something that you ask
them to do, if they do it poorly. The post then goes on to detail what exactly
the author finds to be lacking in what DataCamp did.

>the text basically doesn't give any real detail about what happened

What do you mean? It seems to explain what the company's response very
clearly. If you mean it doesn't describe the contents of the initial
allegation, that's not the topic of the post.

