Yeah, no - I don’t think so. As much as I support the #metoo movement, and the idea that reports of sexual assault and abuse must be taken seriously, it simply can not be the case that every such claim is valid, and that anyone accused of such behavior must automatically forfeit position and reputation. I think this is pretty obvious.
If possible, and if the victim desires, such reports should be evaluated in court (criminal or civil). When not possible (perhaps the statute of limitations has expired, perhaps the victim does not want to go through the process, perhaps the behavior is not technically a crime or violation, perhaps it will eventually, but doing so will take too long) employers should mount their own investigation. For that investigation to be meaningful, I think we have to be prepared to accept its conclusions, either way. It does not do to assume that any investigation that concludes the allegations are not supported must be a put-up job. What is needed is some degree of transparency - an employer that expects the public to take the findings of its investigation seriously should disclose enough information about the process and perhaps the findings to support confidence in its fairness and comprehensiveness. If the company hired an investigative group that almost always finds in favor of the accused, or has some demonstrable conflict of interest or bias, or failed to interview key witnesses or consider key evidence, then the public may ignore its conclusions. But if the investigation appears to be fair and competent (and I don’t know anything about that either way in the current case) then I think it is not only unfair to the accused, but a disservice to the large #metoo movement, to dismiss its conclusions out of hand. People like Weinstein and Lauer were punished not out of some blind faith that all accusations are valid, but because the relevant organizations conducted credible investigations and found persuasive evidence that the accusations were true. On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:38 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > Reinstated him as Talking Dead host after an investigation. > > > https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/chris-hardwick-talking-dead-amc-investigation-1202884339/amp/ > > I assume the investigation went something like this: > > Lawyer: Do you have a penis? > > Hardwick: Yes. > > Lawyer: We believe you. > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
