OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Friday, September 26

#19849

OMG: What's each Feds' Board and exec's (including the GM's) view on women's safety? A Counselling Services counsellor was found guilty of inappropriate touching. He wasn't punished and is up for a big promotion instead. If we're passive the CS director accused of punishing the female victim will promote the groper, making CS even less safe. Who will stop this cycle? Will the Feds leaders lobby UW hard to not let this happen? Female students' safety, yes or no?

111 comments

  1. What about male safety. Why do we have to focus on one gender and give them special treatment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly special treatment. Hands off asshole.

      Delete
    2. LOL "special treatment"

      Delete
    3. Because clearly being the majority of crime victims, or far more likely to be attacked at random deserves special treatment....

      Oh wait, that is males....

      Delete
    4. 1, it sounds like that was partly Mr. Mackay's point when he spoke as the Counselling Services rep and panelist at a 2011 UW town hall on the hate speech posters against women. I just listened to a recording of it, posted on another OMG, post #5e. He spoke around minute 27.

      Delete
    5. Just listened to it and noticed all the other panelists spoke against the hate speech posters, but the Counselling Services panelist didn't say the posters were wrong.

      Delete
    6. 1d,1e I gave that part an ear. Instead he played down the impact of the "event" (I guess he meant the hate speech posters but couldn't say the words), and seems to equate educated women targeted by the hate speech with those who condone it by saying of the posters
      "you may find people who have views that are in opposition to your own but their feelings are just as strong". (shudder) This one we want in leadership?

      Delete
    7. 1f, I've been on this thread defending this guy's right to go on with his life without further punitive action that was not recommended by the Tribunal. I think most of the attacks against him are baseless witch hunts.

      That said, I wouldn't want to see him promoted. There is no concrete evidence that he's actually up for a promotion though, so I'm not even gonna worry about that.

      Delete
    8. These are Mr Mackay's words that he chose to say with a microphone in his hand, on campus property, in front of a crowd of educated and concerned women, on the occasion of hate speech being leveled against them, and as the representative Counselling Services chose to send to this important town hall.

      And by the way I think it's telling quite frankly that Mr Mackay spoke at this occasion and not the Director Dr Ruttan.

      Delete
  2. Oh boy... this topic has been done to death on OMGUW, over and over again.

    The aforementioned individual was never arrested, charged, or convicted by a judge in a criminal court. Nor was he found liable in a civil court. All we have in the way of 'evidence' is some shaky hearsay and the summary notes from an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. That's perfectly suitable as grounds for speculation, but alone it's NOT grounds for the Feds Exec to risk their (currently healthy) important working relationships with the UW Admin.

    The actual issue itself is a matter for HR to deal with, since it is a sensitive issue regarding a single individual. It's one thing for Feds to lobby the University to update/adjust its policies regarding sexual harassment/behaviour in the workplace, but going on a witch hunt and demanding the head of one particular individual? Unless there was something substantial (like a criminal conviction - something that would show up in a Police Reference Check for a sensitive position, and normally cause someone to fail said check) to go off of, this isn't something Feds has any business involving itself in.

    But that's just my opinion, and I'm not affiliated with Feds. Go talk to the Feds President - maybe she has a different opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waterloo Police investigate sexual assault, not sexual harassment. After the counsellor was investigated by WRPS they invited him to meet with them to give him an official warning. They wouldn't have done this unless their police investigation found that he committed a sexual assault.

      Delete
    2. ... done to death. Yet UW's done absolutely nothing to protect female students and staff from him. So here we are again.

      Delete
    3. 2b he's not a sex offender, which suggests people don't need "protection" from him. He's done nothing that would show up in a criminal background check, or on a criminal record in general.

      He just behaved inappropriately in the workplace a couple times. It happens, it was dealt with, now can everybody move on?

      Delete
    4. A couple of times and still works at UW counselling services? WTF?

      Delete
    5. 2c but if he's still counselling female students in private it wasn't dealt with.

      Delete
    6. Just because he behaved inappropriately with a coworker doesn't mean he's a sexual predator. There are different degrees of severity to these things, and you don't have all the facts. HR, on the other hand, almost certainly does - from BOTH parties.

      Witch hunting like this is never okay.

      Delete
    7. Sexual assault is never okay 2f, even if UW acts like it is. So what if UW has all the facts in the world. Doesn't mean they're doing the right thing with them. Promoting him is just plain wrong.

      Delete
    8. 2g...

      1) OP is mistaken. He's not up for promotion. There is an opening in CS for an Associate Director role, but there's no evidence that this guy has applied for said role.

      2) Last I checked, sexual assault was a crime that people are prosecuted and punished for under the Criminal Code. Last I checked, this guy was never found guilty of sexual assault in a court of law - he wasn't even charged. People are innocent until proven guilty - no exceptions. And - quite frankly - harassment and assault are NOT the same thing.

      Delete
    9. 2c, yes he's a sex offender. He committed a sex offence. Therefore, he's a sex offender.

      Delete
    10. 2i, oh, my mistake. I didn't realize our court system, and the burden of providing proof of guilt beyond doubt before slapping a label on someone had been thrown out the window and replaced with your dictations.
      Hearsay and partial evidence aren't grounds for condemnation, and public opinion is not a fitting substitute for due process.

      Delete
    11. ^It was said somewhere else in the thread, but, in line with 2j:

      "It is better that 10 guilty men get off on technicalities, than 1 innocent man gets convicted BECAUSE of a technicality."

      You don't like it, and still want to live in the developed world? Go somewhere like Japan - 99% conviction rate, almost entirely on confessions, thanks to the police being able to hold you without cause for up to 21 days, without videotaping any interrogations.

      Delete
    12. Forget Japan, from reading all of this the local version seems like

      "it's better for a connected guilty man to get off than for innocent women to be safe".

      Delete
    13. 2l it really doesn't seem like any personal connections this man had to anyone on the campus were a factor in the outcome. The University just followed the recommendations of the ruling, which found no reason for them to take any punitive action.

      Delete
    14. 2, 2f, 2h, 2j, and 2k: thank you for bringing objective logic into this conversation. Too many people form opinions around emotions instead of looking at the big picture objectively.

      Delete
    15. 2a: Harassment of any form is a criminal offense and can in fact be investigated & prosecuted. There's not enough detail known for any of us to judge whether a) the behaviour was criminal or b) whether there is enough evidence for a prosecution.

      Delete
    16. 2o, the police would file an incident report with the police's sexual assault investigation results. Can we get it through the Freedom of Information Act, and would WPIRG do this?

      Delete
    17. 2.l: Again, not found guilty.

      Delete
  3. The GM doesn't lobby the University on behalf of Feds. Only the exec do that, in matters related to their respective portfolios. Sometimes they do that in conjunction with councillors or other student volunteers. Or student reps from outside feds (like the student senators).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why doesn't the GM lobby the University on behalf of Feds? What's stopping her?

      Delete
    2. 3a, it's not her job, and since Feds is a student organization it's really something that students should be doing.

      Her job is to oversee HR matters within Feds, and maintain the organization's long-term financial records. When she works with the university, it's largely just to prove Feds' compliance with the Canadian Tax Code, so that they get their fees transferred from UW Finance.

      Delete
    3. To paraphrase 3b, she's an accountant not an activist.

      Delete
    4. She's getting paid enough she can bloody well do double duty.

      Delete
    5. Suzanne Burdett's title isn't "accountant", it's General Manager. Well, manage this.

      Delete
    6. 1) In a Student Union, it is only morally right that the people advocating for students' rights and needs be students themselves. That's why the exec oversee this. In fact, the VP Education has the least staff responsibility of all 4 execs.

      2) Below is a link to the Feds GM job description, since people are clearly uninformed.
      http://www.hr.uwaterloo.ca/.jd/00002388.html

      Delete
    7. 3f, The GM got herself on the exec this April. Careful what you wish for.

      Delete
    8. No 3g, she got herself on the Board Executive Committee - which had already been having her join their meetings for months. There's an important difference between that and the Feds exec; learn it. And read that job description I linked.

      Also read the section in the Feds Bylaws entitled: General Manager. That section defines, at a high level, what the GM is, and what powers she has. That section hasn't been altered from its form on the Feds website.

      Delete
    9. So Suzanne doesn't represent us. She's the highest paid person ($100k+$30to50k benefits) in a corporation whose highest mandate is to represent students but she doesn't represent students. What's wrong with this picture?

      Delete
    10. 3i you're being pedantic. Read the job description! Pretty much all governments have staffers, but ultimately it's still the elected representatives who act as their face. Suzanne is to Feds as a City Manager is to a municipality - she runs a lot of the day-to-day stuff, but she ain't the mayor.

      I'm starting to suspect that your problem is with the fact that Feds has full-time staffers at all. And that's a discussion for a different thread.

      Delete
    11. Not feeling the love for my Feds student fees.

      Delete
    12. I think someone make a motion for the upcoming Feds AGM that demands the following:

      1) The VPOF must prepare a hypothetical budget in time for the March General Meeting that represents what Feds' finances would look like with its fees reduced 10%. (maybe more than this?)
      2) This sample budget must be prepared through consultation with the Budget Committee and Students' Council, and approved for use in the MGM by the Board of Directors.
      3) The March General Meeting will, accordingly, vote on a motion to reduce the Feds fee by 10% (or whatever the number identified in 1 gets set as).

      This is more likely to pass than a straight-up motion to cut the FedS fee, and it forces the Board to actually consider Budget priorities, and makes the VPOF examine ways to find efficiencies.
      It also automatically supercedes that annoying fee increase motion that shows up at EVERY MGM, EVERY YEAR. EVEN THOUGH INFLATION IS AN OVERSTATEMENT. GRARRRGH.

      Someone, FEDS-ify this as an actual motion, and submit it to the Chair of the Board!

      Delete
    13. Speaking of the Feds AGM, it's on October 22nd. But Feds violated its own bylaws and didn't specify the agenda item submission deadline. But send agenda things to the Chair of the Board (e-mail listed on the Feds website). Feds still has time to rectify their announcement and specify a deadline.

      Delete
    14. 3l, you make good points but I think 3k meant Feds haven't stepped forward to help yet. The answer for this issue isn't reducing fees, it's acting. Be effective, Feds.

      Delete
    15. This isn't the sort of thing Feds *should* act on, for reasons that have been pretty thoroughly discussed above.

      Sure, they *could* act on it, but it's a matter of picking your battles. The exec have priorities, and it's probably best that they not damage their carefully-constructed working relationships with the University admin over this, in order to accomplish other things later on.

      Delete
    16. 3o, i agree. Bringing women's safety up could damage several relationship with UW admin, and certify you as an activist. The women's safety battle can be someone else's problem - I suggest individual students who don't plan on UW careers.

      For everyone else, be pragmatic. Save your carefully-nurtured relationships with University admin for something more important and rewarding. Think of your own career. That's where you should place your priority and what your tuition's gone towards. Your career will be much better off and it'll be much easier for you.

      Word to the wise. Dr Morgan made a career-limiting mistake when she complained about the harassment. Don't make that same mistake.

      Delete
    17. 3p, you misread me. I'm not saying Feds shouldn't advocate for women's safety. I'm saying that its not their place to go on a witch hunt for a specific employee, especially when a government human rights tribunal specifically said no further action was necessary on the University's part. For all intents and purposes, justice has already been served!

      I expect Feds to forgo advocacy on issues it can never hope to win, if the result is the ability to gain ground on issues where it DOES have a hope of obtaining results.

      Delete
    18. 3q, exactly. Feds, you can drop this and still feel good about yourselves. It's wrong to pursue this because justice has already been done. You can't win against UW admin on this. If you choose issues based on your principles and what you think is right, you may put yourself in an impossible situation. This type of advocacy is wrong-headed and is a dead-end. Principle-based failure doesn't help anyone and will break you. This was Dr Morgan's mistake.

      See what is achievable no matter how minor. The issues may seem unimportant at first. But you can tailor a story through them and build a resume of solid achievements and build a career-long network. The last thing you want want to do is burn useful relationships on an impossible ideal.

      Who knows where it will lead you, and it will be a better place for yourself.

      Delete
    19. 3r, in what universe is anybody in Feds qualified to tell the university that the legal minds on the tribunal made the wrong decision?

      Dr. Morgan made no mistake - but the Tribunal's ruling was pretty clear that she DID overreact. They were quite clear - no further action needed to be taken by the university on this matter.

      To continue to punish someone AFTER the appropriate justice has already been doled out spits in the face of our legal system. Go ahead and disagree with the tribunal, but don't expect anybody to care unless you're qualified to overrule them.

      Delete
    20. 3s, of course she made mistakes, I wouldn't do what she did. She should have kept her mouth shut. I agree with 3r, and I agree with you.

      The Feds haven't and shouldn't step up. Let's face it, we didn't come to Waterloo because of lofty ideals, we came here to get great skills, get job placements, and make a lot of money. That's us and that's what the Feds should represent. No further action should be taken by anybody.

      Delete
    21. 3t, I don't know if you're attempting sarcasm, but if not we appear to be in agreement - at least on your second paragraph.

      As for your first paragraph - Dr. Morgan was compensated for her actions. It wasn't the $25000 she initially requested, it was just over $7000 - but it was still compensation. Her application wasn't dismissed out of hand. That alone suggests she acted wisely, however the severity of the event was not *quite* what she described it to be.
      The Tribunal found that the University had not acted in any way that could be described as "punitive action" towards Dr Morgan for speaking out, nor had they done anything to prevent her from speaking out again in the future. I trust the Tribunal's judgement.

      Delete
    22. You guys are nuts.

      Delete
    23. 3v, +1000000000000

      Delete
    24. 3u, compensated for "her" actions? Who sexually assaulted who? From my read she just wanted safety to do her job and they gave her money instead.

      And I can't believe what I'm reading. Most people in this whole thread 1 to 16 ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

      Delete
    25. 3x, my mistake, I meant to write "compensated for her hurt feelings and damaged dignity," which is how the Tribunal spelt it out. It's just been a very long day and I didn't proofread before I posted.

      From where I sit, this thread seems to go back and forth between balanced analyses of the situation, the facts at hand, and the Tribunal's findings/decisions, and calls for the respondent's head regardless of any of those things.

      Delete
  4. He still works here. And he still sees people individually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why shouldn't he? He's a qualified counsellor, he doesn't have a criminal record, and there's no evidence to suggest he's some kind of predator.

      This is a society where people are innocent until proven guilty. We can't condemn a man based on hearsay. This is the public sector, and there's a process for these things, which UW HR is entrusted to oversee properly.
      We can't apply activism to people's personal interactions in the workplace.

      Delete
    2. The only thing he's qualified for after what he did and may be continuing to do is a one-way ticket off our campus.

      Delete
    3. 4b what crime was he convicted of? Because those public sector contracts with the UW Staff Association are pretty ironclad- you basically have to be convicted something under the Criminal Code in order for them to fire you.

      Delete
  5. Condemning someone to the point where they have no future, based on nothing more than hearsay and partial documents from a Human Rights Tribunal (read: NOT a court), is unacceptable when that person has been convicted of no crime and has no prior record of criminal offences.

    What you people are doing is nothing more than shameful witch hunting - an act which spits in the face of a society that affirms innocence unless guilt is proven beyond ANY shadow of a reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you talking about? This is UW so he'll be free to continue groping whoever he wishes for decades to come. Nothing has and nothing will be done about it. More power - and a big promotion - to him.

      Delete
    2. 5 here.
      5a provide me a link to something that says he's up for promotion. There's an Associate Director opening in Counselling Services, but even if he's applied for it there's no way to know that. You're jumping on the hearsay bandwagon, and doing exactly what I was just attempting to say is unacceptable.

      This man was not convicted of anything in a court of law. He wasn't even charged.

      What DID happen (as far as we can tell) was a workplace complaint of sexual HARASSMENT that went before a Human Rights Tribunal (again, read: NOT a court) because that's what often happens in the public sector when an employee is bothered enough. We don't have access to the full tribunal records or decisions (as though that counts for something), but he was reprimanded, and the matter was referred to UW HR, whose JOB it is to investigate these sorts of things.

      They communicated with both parties, and did the job that their public sector role REQUIRES them to do (which is actually significantly more detailed than you'll usually see in the private sector), and at the end of it both these individuals are still working together. Neither of them has quit, or requested a transfer.

      Can we infer more from this? Not without delving in to the realm of speculation and hearsay - NOT a basis for action. It's god damned McCarthyism - don't stoop to that level.

      Delete
    3. ... "proven beyond ANY shadow of a reasonable doubt" which is why today people like this and UW's resident groper get off, literally.
      Verdict in doctors’ sex-assault case is disturbing news for many women: DiManno

      Delete
    4. 5c, it's a very simple school of legal thought. Freedom is paramount above all else. To convict someone who is not actually guilty of a crime, thus wrongly taking away their freedom, is considered the least desirable result. Without a way to make the criminal justice system perfect, it is better to slant it to prevent wrongful incarceration at all costs. If the cost of making sure one innocent person isn't found wrongfully guilty means that 10 guilty people go free under the system, that's still preferable to any system where that one innocent person was convicted.

      BUT NONE OF THIS MATTERS IN THIS CONVERSATION.

      Why? Because not only was the individual we're talking about not *found guilty,* HE WASN'T CHARGED. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't charged, he wasn't prosecuted. He was never accused of an actual crime.

      A society where we go on witch hunts and seek out people who *might* be criminals, is a society which will soon see its citizens fundamental human rights deprived. If all I have to do to ruin your life is claim that you sexually harassed me, how long before that starts being used as a weapon? See again: McCarthyism.

      Delete
    5. According to links to the actual case documented on CanLII, the police after their 5 week investigation gave the psychologist Dr. Morgan at UW Counselling Services the choice to have him charged or for the police to issue a "caution" to the perpetrator. So it's only because the Dr Morgan chose not to have the police charge him that he wasn't. The police were ready to.

      Delete
    6. Being charged still isn't being found guilty. And in Canada the charges are brought by the Crown, not the victim. If they gave her a choice, that suggests there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prosecute a criminal case. And, ultimately - it WAS her choice not to prosecute.

      5e, if this was the private sector, then maybe, MAYBE this guy would be fired over this. But this is the public sector, and the standard of scrutiny surrounding who gets hired and fired is MUCH higher, to prevent corruption/nepotism involving taxpayer dollars.

      The system isn't perfect - but on balance it generally works in the right ways more often than it doesn't, at least at a high level. That means sometimes having to be willing to live with some warts.

      You don't like it? Seek private counselling, or request that you not be placed with this particular counsellor (they aren't about to ignore you and say "him or nobody").

      Delete
    7. 5f, clients of public counselors shouldn't have a lower standard of safety than at private companies because the public employers have more tolerance for this shit. And people may not know enough to ask to switch.

      Delete
    8. 5g, it's not a lower standard of safety, it's just harder to fire someone. When you've been at the university for a long time, what amounts to a note in your file and a complaint from a coworker simply isn't enough - even in the case that said complaint was investigated by a government body.
      The fact is, he's done nothing that would show up (or even be allowed to show up) in a criminal background check at his next job - or this job, if he were applying for it for the first time. And when he next renews his background check for the university, it'll come back clean too.

      The University is not qualified to be his judge, jury, or executioner. You don't get to pick and choose who gets what rights.

      Delete
    9. 5h, in other words, old boys' club, old boys' rules.

      Delete
    10. 5i, 'innocent unless proven otherwise' is an "old boys rule" to you? I just thought it was an essential tenet of proper justice.

      If gender roles were reversed in this case (but all the facts/decisions by the respective parties were the same), and the harassing had been done by a woman, I have complete confidence that it would have been dealt with by the university the exact same way. HR in a massive bureaucracy is typically pretty good at being gender/race/religion/orientation-blind.

      Delete
    11. 5j, proven otherwise *in a court of law.* That's the most important part.

      Delete
    12. 5j, there's a difference between being blind and looking the other way...

      Delete
  6. What's the promotion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't one. There's an Associate Director position currently open in Counselling Services. Applications are being accepted.

      OP seems to have preordained that this fellow is being considered for that spot, but there's no evidence to support that claim.

      Delete
    2. That preordained part may be from this. Part way down people argued heavily that it's the CS Director's sole choice who gets to be his Associate Director, and from other OMG's that seemed to be the counselor we're all talking about here.

      Delete
  7. The Canadian Legal Information Institute
    Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
    public website for the case between
    Tracy Morgan
    Applicant
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay
    Respondents

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not pretend that this is a court, or that these people are judges, or that the ruling is at remotely the same level as a criminal (or even a civil) conviction.

      There's a reason Human Rights Tribunal rulings get overturned in courts all the time. Why these things even exist is beyond me.

      Delete
    2. 7a, looks legit to me.

      Delete
    3. It may not be a court of law, but it is a legitimate process. So, acknowledging that legitimacy... take a look at sections 190+.

      You'll note the Tribunal specifically DOESN'T recommend his access to counselling services be in any way restricted, or that his role as a counsellor be in any way diluted or subject to additional supervision - despite Dr Morgan's request for this to happen.

      You'll also note the Tribunal does not find that the University has failed in its ability to respond to Dr Morgan's complaint.

      This is a body that could, in fact, compel the University to fire the accused if they so wished. They have that power. They found no good reason to exercise it.

      Now can we finally put this matter to rest?

      Delete
    4. 7c, I don't think they have that power actually... that'd be up to UW to do. It looks like they just hand out fines and make people take "how not to sexually harass someone" courses.

      Delete
    5. "[191] Pursuant to s. 45.2(1)3 of the Code, this Tribunal has the power to order the respondents to do anything that, in the Tribunal’s opinion, the respondents ought to do to promote compliance with the Code."

      The University was one of the respondents. It would not be outside of the scope of the ruling in this case for the Tribunal to demand that they dismiss the counsellor... or implement any of Dr. Morgan's requests (like restrictions on when the two of them can be in the same office).

      Delete
  8. Does anyone else find it funny that a groper's working at counselling services?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Groper working in CS ............................ USG7
      Groper counselling at CS ...................... USG9
      Groper running counselling services ..... Priceless.

      Delete
    2. Nice. Speaking of Priceless I'd pay money (more than for this suit) just to see how deep a hole they'll dig themselves.

      Delete
  9. Where's E# when we need her? She'd tear the witch hunters a new one, just like last time they got all worked up like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh, am kinda sure from just reading her posts that e# wouldn't care for your "tearing a new one" reference to her, for more than one reason. But maybe that's just me, and you understand her sensibilities way better.

      Delete
  10. The ruling itself is actually pretty balanced.

    Reading between the lines, the tribunal effectively says that Dr. Morgan overreacted to a minor event, but awards her some monetary damages (roughly 1/3 the amount she requested, to be paid by the respondent) to compensate her for "hurt feelings and damaged dignity."

    They then proceed to absolve the University of any wrongdoing, and specifically identify that the male counsellor in question need not receive any further reprimand or restriction in doing his job. They had the power to have him fired - they didn't see a need.

    Coupled with that, he never received criminal charges, meaning that as far as the crime of "assault" goes, he must be presumed innocent. Harassment in the workplace (something an individual can be sued for) is *not* the same as assault (something an individual can be sent to prison for). The burden of proof is much higher. If he was barely slapped on the wrist by a tribunal in a civil case, what are the chances he'd be found guilty of a crime, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, in a criminal case before a jury of his peers?

    This whole matter is long settled, and it appears to have been settled appropriately. Quit with the witch hunting, and don't expect Feds to get involved, for crying out loud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The case from 7's link looks more severe than your account of it... haven't read much of it yet but for instance you seem to have glossed over the part with him and the police.

      Reading what it looks like he got away with I wouldn't be comfortable alone in a room with him, especially as my counsellor. But I'm more concerned for female students who don't know his background and walk in without their defences up, or women who'd be under him at work.

      Delete
    2. Shame you aren't qualified to sit on a tribunal and make your own rulings then, 10a.

      Delete
  11. I don't know what everyone else is talking about but I think student safety in general is pretty cool. Women's, men's... it's always nice when everyone is safe.
    Not gonna wade in to this counselling thing, but... maybe we could have more emergency notification stations on campus? That'd be an improvement. Or maybe a crosswalk on Ring Road, where everyone always crosses to get to E5? That would be pretty awesome too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good ideas and in this case people know just where he is (or is he at other buildings than Needles Hall too?). So yeah a way to notify or give a handout disclosure in Counselling Services could inform his potential clients, or people who plan on working there.

      Delete
    2. 1a, Dr Morgan asked the Tribunal to implement this, and the Tribunal said no, claiming it would be unnecessarily punitive.

      Delete
  12. It's worth adding that sexual harassment and sexual assault are very different things. Repeatedly asking someone out on a date can be harassment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Overall it's just too risky to students and staff to put him in that role. What would UW do if there were another incident involving him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tribunal's ruling didn't think there was any reasonable risk of such a thing taking happening. That's why they saw no reason to ask the university to further restrict/reprimand him.

      Delete
    2. If there was another incident involving him, then you have established a pattern of behaviour, which is something very different from one isolated incident. So I'm sure that he is well aware that another toe over the line would lead things to not end well for him.

      The truth is that there have not been any other allegations against him, and so here we are. Innocent until proven guilty people. If you were in his shoes, you would ask for no less.

      Delete
    3. It looks like there was at least one other known victim who didn't come forward.

      Delete
    4. Reprisal incidents by CS's Director and the perpetrator against the victim were reported. They got thrown out like in 5c's link to Rosie DiManno's column on the doctor who alleged sexual assaults.

      Delete
    5. 13d then that's justice. Rights apply to everyone equally.

      Delete
    6. Lucky for doctors Chauhan and Kayilasanathan there were no rape kits.

      Delete
    7. So what? And lucky for Mackay she didn't press charges. Her mistake, she can't go back now. It's what happened and it's history.

      Delete
    8. 13g there's no guarantee that pressing charges would have led to a conviction. In fact, considering the Tribunal's very slight response, and the significantly higher burden of proof required for a criminal trial, it's highly unlikely that a conviction would have taken place. So the default presumption of innocence holds in this case.

      We can't assume he would have been found guilty "she'd pressed charges." Our system doesn't - and cannot - work that way.

      Delete
  14. Looks like Carleton's inappropriate touching Man charged with three sexual assaults at Carleton University but a different outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your link's broken. You mean this?

      Delete
  15. As a man a lot of the comments in here make me fear for my safety. If I inadvertently say the wrong thing to a female colleague it appears my career could be ruined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got it backwards mate. Showing your disdain for these perk wenches just shows your're ready for higher ranks in the old boys' club.

      Delete
  16. So a guy made a mistake, a legal body heard the evidence and punished him appropriately for that mistake, and people are okay with that. But that same legal body chooses not to demand the end of his career, or place restrictions on the parameters of his job because of his mistake, and suddenly everybody is up in arms?

    Respect the tribunal's ruling if you wish - but then respect ALL of it, and accept that people who are more qualified and knowledgeable than you have doled out the necessary justice and deemed the residual risk-level to be minimal. Or don't respect the tribunal's ruling - but then have the knowledge and qualifications to defend that stance. Be ready to prove that they misread the presented evidence, or that they misinterpreted the Human Rights Code and under/over-reacted as a consequence.

    If neither of these makes you happy, then you probably have a problem with our existing legal structure, in which case you should take your fight to a body who can actually change that system.

    ReplyDelete
  17. man there are a lot of people with frightening views at this school. ew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it seems like we fluctuate back and forth between people who can think in a rational, balanced way, weighing all the presented facts to make a conclusion... and a crowd of McCarthyists who apparently think that if a man ever behaves remotely inappropriately towards a woman, he should be hunted down and castrated.

      Don't get me wrong; a man who sexually harasses a woman has done something wrong - it's not okay. But there are different degrees of severity to these things. If there weren't, we wouldn't have Tribunals or Courts to hand out sentences.

      Delete
  18. Could some people please download the hate speech against women town hall mp3 pointed to in 1'd post. In case it gets erased by mistake from the radio Feds server, there could be valid concern on the legitimacy of any single anonymous person's saved copy of it. Having multiple copies by different people could help. Thanks.

    I read what 1d,1e,1f, and 1h said, and I suggest you do the same. Thank you to whoever discovered this recording.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saved a copy. 1h's and 1f's statements were particularly powerful.

      I'm surprised how dismissive Mr Mackay is of the hate speech against women. He seems to say that women are overreacting emotionally to prior trauma in their lives that was triggered by the "event" rather than being angry and concerned about the hate speech itself and for their reduced safety on campus due to the person who made the posters and put them up around campus.

      Delete
    2. Backed up the Feds hate speech
      Town Hall audio file. Fascinating. The Counseling Services panelist (acting director?) seemed to be talking in code. The others had concerns that it would help for our campus community to remember and make progress on.

      Delete
  19. 1g, with all due respect you're not in the group that need worry about his promotion. See 1d,1f,1h for those groups and why.

    Due to privacy there'll be "no concrete evidence". It would just happen. Or if the director can't get his man he'll just shelve it. Again. See omg19746 post 4b's pattern.

    "Further punitive action"? He's had none we've heard of. Do you know any different? And why do you not want him promoted?

    ReplyDelete