There's not much of interest in this story. Glaenzer was caught, by police witnesses, sexually assaulting a woman in a London train. He was convicted. He retained his role at the VC firm he cofounded for several years, but discovered that institutional investors --- the people who fund VC funds --- were unwilling to allocate capital to a firm that included Glaenzer. He left the firm.
The job of a VC partner is about trust, judgement, and persuasion. Flagrant violations by partners redound to the reputation of the whole firm. When you understand just what it is a VC firm is, how they're essentially middlemen simultaneously pitching themselves to operators and to capital, it becomes clear how important reputation is. Really, it's all there is. Without it, you can't do the job.
This is a complex topic, but it seems like there are a couple of questions about the character of people who work in executive roles which should fundamentally matter in due diligence discussions.
Do they implicitly respect the agency of others? Do they see people as individuals with their own goals and the fundamental right to decide what those goals are?
These people make a lot of decisions on behalf of others, and I believe that asking those questions isn't that far off from asking: can you trust them to act in the interests of their employees, clients, and customers? Or at the very least, are they likely to have some sense of fiduciary duty towards the people who they agree to perform work for?
So, from my perspective, "a private mistake which we all agree was not business-related" sounds...well I don't know the right word, but who is 'we' in that phrase?
And I don't know which institutional investor balked at the fund based on the perceived character of its decision-makers, but I appreciate that they considered that angle in their process.
I thought "private mistake" was an extremely weird argument, too. It can't possibly be right; any of us can think of "private" crimes that would preclude someone's continued involvement with a VC firm. So, really, the implied argument he's making is that sexual assault is some kind of lesser crime.
I read it as drawing a distinction between sexual assault committed against someone with whom the firm has an actual or potential business relationship (e.g. hitting on a founder when she pitches you) vs. one committed against someone with no such connection. Certainly the law would not distinguish these two — I didn't read him as suggesting that — but one's business associates might.
> I suggest that by remaining in his position he took very few consequences, and that in almost any other walk of life a person with less privilege would automatically lose their job after being convicted of sexual assault.
Is this actually true? If, as a random example, a waiter in a restaurant were convicted of sexual assault on the subway (as in the story here), how would the owner of the restaurant even know about it to fire him?
I think things work exactly the opposite of how the author of this piece does. The person under question here had his career end because he was famous in his field. But 99% of people are not famous. Rather than "privilege" shielding him, being rich and famous was his downfall.
A waiter would miss work a few times for court proceedings and be fired without knowing the reason. He’d fail his background check when he next sought employment.
Shift workers lives can be hard, but you're exaggerating that first part. Yes, the person would need to work around court proceedings, but those are known well in advance. The much bigger risk for getting fired as a shift worker is unexpected stuff like your kid waking up sick that morning or your car breaking down.
The second part is valid, I agree - background check could be a problem in later jobs. But that wasn't the question here: the author claimed that "in almost any other walk of life" a person would lose their current job. That just seems totally false.
Background checks have been around for a long time, and a new service has little to do with their availability to employers. The actual answer as to how an employer would know if their employee had gotten in legal trouble is the time they would miss as they got arrested, jailed, bailed, and then worked through the legal process.
Being jailed or otherwise detained for any amount of time, sure. But otherwise, working through the legal process wouldn't be something a regular employer knows about. You would have more errands to run than usual perhaps, that's about it.
Another example: as a programmer, if I run into legal trouble with the IRS and they sue me, or if my neighbor sues me for damage to their property, how would my employer know?
(I'm not saying it's good that employers might not know this. I'm just baffled by the article taking it as a given that practically all employers would.)
I live in California, and I avoid searching our state's sex offender database. [1] If there's someone in my life that is a registered sex offender, I don't want to know about it. I just don't like fishing for reasons to not like someone.
One thing I find very odd about the disclaimer [2] on California sex offender's site in general is this text in the site's disclaimer...
Penalty for Registered Sex Offenders Who Enter this Website. Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who accesses the websites search functionality is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code § 290.46, subd. (k).) This penalty does not include viewing information on the Main page or within the links on that page.
Why bother making it be illegal for a registered sex offender to search the database?
> Why bother making it be illegal for a registered sex offender to search the database?
The stated rationale was to prevent it being a social networking service for habitual sex offenders to find people inclined to collaborate with them on further sex offenses. (Of course, it can still serve the same purpose for current or aspiring sex offenders who haven't been caught yet to network with those who have.)
> Why bother making it be illegal for a registered sex offender to search the database?
Unfortunately, it seems to be based on an intention to prevent its use as a "social network" of sorts, which could potentially lead to higher re-offense rates.
The legal system hasn’t been effective in many of these cases. Hell, some dude raped a chick with multiple eye witnesses at Stanford and only got 6months jail time.
Additionally, the folks abusing people have used career pressure to keep folks from going to the legal system in the first place. (see Weinstein). If the abusers can use this pressure, I see no reason why victims shouldn’t respond in kind.
It’s hard to argue against this but the reality is that you’re advocating vigilantism. That has its own downsides and the wisdom of crowds leads to witch trials so there is a trade off to consider.
Unequivocally no, he's not arguing for vigilantism. Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." There is a distinction and a difference and it borders on mendacious (when not outrightly malicious) to conflate them.
> Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism."
They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms.
Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante".
"A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking."
The distinction in my mind depends on intent.
If the intent is to protect yourself and your business against fall out related to a specific person then I would say it does not qualify as vigilantism.
To avoid people who have done things you don't like also doesn't really qualify.
However, when you actively encourage others to use social opprobrium to punish people, then you are a vigilante.
I'm not wholly opposed to vigilantism, especially given the failure of our legal system in this area, but we should be cautious because there are well documented risks to letting vigilantism run free. Ideally this sort of vigilantism should be a very temporary stop gap until we get the legal system fixed.
The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. It's monopoly-of-force stuff. The definition you offered turns the word into a nearly null term.
"Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion.
There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that.
> Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition?
Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)?
> A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered.
Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal.
I don't think either of us were claiming that this type of vigilante behavior should be illegal. As the legal dictionary you reference points out some types of vigilantism are illegal, others are legal.
What we are pointing out is that vigilantism as a solution to this problem has significant downsides that should not be ignored.
Ideally we are able to reform the justice system so that vigilante action is not required to achieve a just result again criminal offenders.
EDIT: Off topic, I want to also say they I like your vocabulary, you use some good words and looking them up was educational =]
Why are you playing semantics and calling people names instead of addressing the core argument?
If I'm not mistaken, the core argument being made by GP is: In the current environment, we have a lot of (truly) wronged individuals riling up public support to (reputationally) punish wrong-doers. Over all, this may have a positive effect, because many of these wrong-doers would otherwise face no punishment. However, in some cases, people who are not actual wrong-doers get caught in the cross fire.
It is not a semantic quibble to say it's not vigilantism. The core argument is that excluding people who you think do bad things is vigilantism (and, by implication, that vigilantism is bad). It is begging the question. This is the argument. It is a bad argument.
It is, however, a cheap rhetorical trick to say "it's vigilantism" to conflate the right of individuals to socially exclude people who do things that they do not like with actual crimes. It is worth noting that you elide that to tut-tut at me.
The argument you're making, which is not the argument that the poster to whom I replied made, is a better but not meaningful one to me. To be brief: it has not been demonstrated that the specter of false positives is anything but noise and concern trolling. Should that change, I'll reevaluate my position. I don't expect to need to.
One of those things involves a crime and the other involves people exercising their free right of association to not associate with that dude (and, transitively, to not associate with people who think it's a good idea to continue associating with that dude).
The comparison you're making isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and lawnmowers. And it is why I left an out for malice: because that disingenuous comparison is used by real bad folks for real bad things.
Please cite your sources with regards to the assertion that it is "illegal" to not associate with somebody who you think does bad shit. I have a First Amendment in my back pocket--one that, if I'm being frank, I understand--that disagrees with you.
The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance.
There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading.
The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making.
Libel and Defamation are another very tricky area.
And on and on. We are talking about many huge landmines, though again prosecutions are very rare.
I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove, has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person."
This is not complicated. A person doesn't have to associate with people they don't want to associate with. (A business may be required to do business with people they don't want to do business with if the reason for their desire to not do business with them is because they are of a protected class--but that is, trivially and obviously, a different thing.)
Prosecutions are "very rare" because it isn't illegal.
"Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal.
"I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it.
A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm"
Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.
This post is close to getting me to throw my hands up in the air and give up. But it's not for the reason you'd hope, it's not because of some chin-stroking wisdom or feat of evidence. It's because I can't argue with not-even-wrong claims. Literally nothing in your post is both accurate and relevant. Tortious interference has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. FEHA has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. The fallacy of composition has never been so unfurled and I am left almost wordless by it.
I asked for examples. To your credit, you did provide examples of something. I am unsure what, but it is something. But if you are interested in relevant content, I would suggest instead beginning with SCOTUS First Amendment rulings around association and speech, an accessible entry point into which would be NAACP v. Alabama, and follow into cases that cite it.
If instead of worrying about their "sexual past," how about worrying about their "past abuse of women"? Because that is absolutely relevant to job performance as a VC.
The problem with that being that many states have been expanding their definition of “sex offender” in a harsh-on-crime theme that, over the years, has morphed it into something unintuitive. When you tell me someone is a sex offender, I think they’ve committed a crime against another human being and should be treated accordingly. I don’t think “this person got caught taking a piss in the woods off the side of the highway” (which, in fairness, is why NYS only requires level 1 - low risk, nonviolent, non predatory - offenders to register for 20 years rather than for life - wouldn’t want to be cruel and hound a public urinator for More than two decades).
> Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past?
In general, I don't care either...however, if I was to see multiple under-15 charges I certainly would 1. like to be aware of the info and 2. keep my 14yo daughter away from this disturbed predator.
Is their nothing in anyone's past that would give you pause?
> In 2012, police spotted London venture capitalist Stefan Glaenzer acting erratically on a subway platform. He was lurching around, high out of his mind, when he boarded a crowded train and rubbed his groin against a woman standing inside. After his arrest, Glaenzer, the multimillionaire former executive chairman of the online music service Last.fm Ltd., apologized and pleaded guilty to sexual assault, which put him on the U.K.’s sex offender registry.
Of course, there's a worthwhile debate about how we should allow ex-convicts to be a part of society again. But the VC written about here wasn't someone who is accused of just having affairs.
There are enough talented people with no known history of sexual assault that we need not bend over backwards to keep the ones that do have such a history
I generally agree that we as a society need to be more forgiving of people's pasts. The #MeToo fad is more about bringing justice to offenders that escaped justice in the past, but this guy didn't get off scot-free for years like Weinstein, Spacey, etc. This case seemed like a one off thing where he made some poor choices and was punished by the legal system for it.
The job of a VC partner is about trust, judgement, and persuasion. Flagrant violations by partners redound to the reputation of the whole firm. When you understand just what it is a VC firm is, how they're essentially middlemen simultaneously pitching themselves to operators and to capital, it becomes clear how important reputation is. Really, it's all there is. Without it, you can't do the job.