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

Updated on Sunday, June 7

#21008

OMG: From June 1's Waterloo Record Judge blasts WLU for its handling of residence rape At a sentencing hearing last week, Justice Elliott Allen sharply questioned why officials at the Waterloo school permitted Adam Hughes to keep working and studying on campus while he faced a sexual assault allegation.

"Wilfrid Laurier University was apparently more concerned with the welfare of Mr. Hughes than that of his victim," he told Kitchener court.

83 comments

  1. Crowley said the university takes all necessary steps to protect others on campus when somebody is charged with a crime, "while also abiding by the fundamental legal tenet that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty."

    Now that Hughes has been convicted, Crowley said, Laurier is "undertaking its own disciplinary process" while continuing to support his victim.

    Justice Elliott Allen has issues speaking out of line:

    Globe and mail. "The appeal court said that Ontario Court Judge J. Elliott Allen has no right to misuse his judicial position to issue the sort of political "diatribe" that has no place in a courtroom."

    They said that Judge Allen erroneously believed that his inherent power as a trial judge would prevent appellate courts from altering his decision.

    "The sentencing judge turned the principle of deference on its head," the appeal court said. "He treated it not as a recognition of his front line connection to the community and of his proximity to the dynamics of the proceeding, but rather as leave to impose with impunity a sentence based on his personal views of national drug policy.

    Toronto Star. But a year later, the Ontario Court of Appeal censured Allen for fashioning a sentence “based on his personal views of national drug policy.”

    There are other articles about this judge who sounds more like Judge Judy than a trial court judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like he'd be at home in the USA.

      Delete
    2. 1, so you're excusing the university and the guy who did it?

      Delete
    3. @1.b Go back to tumblr.

      Delete
    4. 1b, basically yes that looks like 1's (&1c's?) point. The judge was bad. So his decision was wrong. So the man did not do what he was convicted of. So there was no victim. So the university is right to be more concerned with the man than the female "victim".

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't try to argue with the feminist trolls posters 1.b & d. Feminists and reasoning/logic/legal issues are like oil and water. You'd have more of a chance teaching calculus to a sea cucumber, than debating with a feminist. And that's insulting the sea cucumber.

      Delete
    6. Right 1e, because you're making so much sense.
      1, those articles say the appeals court found the trial judge too lenient in his rationale to give a grow-op defendant a conditional term not a prison sentence as was policy. The judge had said during his sentencing speech that prison terms don't help reduce drug abuse.

      And they didn't overturn his sentencing decision.

      Delete
    7. So some say the judge in the WLU sexual harassment case in the past was too outspoken against harsh drug sentences. Then why are people complaining now about him? Doesn't make sense to use that as evidence that he's unfairly harsh against WLU. He just said they cared too much for the accused and too little for the victim.

      It looks like over his record of these few cases he's spoken in a balanced way, depending on the specific case.

      Is this just WLU reacting to a public censure?

      Delete
  2. An unproven accusation shouldn't get you fired from your job and kicked off campus. This judge is a complete nut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2, uh, the man was convicted.

      Delete
    2. 2a, I suspect that what 2 is getting at is more the fact that the judge blasted WLU for not handing out all these punishments after the guy was charged - but before he was convicted. Obviously post-conviction things are kind of a different story. At that point, the individual in question has been proven guilty, and should be treated as such.

      Personally, I think 3a raises some good points about how situations like this could be dealt with on campuses.

      Delete
  3. People these days (especially the media) don't seem to understand the concept of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3, that's something of an incomplete generalization to make.

      "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean you're free from repercussions until after a conviction. That's the reason many suspects charged with a crime are arrested and denied bail, and thus wait IN prison until the end of their trial (at which point they're either acquitted and released, or they're found guilty and each day of their prison time served thus far counts as 1.5 days of their sentence).

      Being SUSPECTED of a crime - particularly a major crime like rape - and on trial for it, absolutely IS a reason for, say, a university campus to restrict an individual's movements. Though the degree of that restriction is up for more debate.

      Delete
    2. @3.a And if he was deemed a threat to the greater public he would have been held until trial. Red herring anyone?

      Delete
    3. 3b, keeping the guy from campus - or at least restricted to certain areas of campus - until the trial renders a verdict can also be a sign of showing some reasonable compassion for the alleged victim, even if the guy isn't considered a "threat to society" to the point where he'll be held until trial.

      There is a balance to this stuff that has to be struck. I'd suggest WLU failed to strike it in this instance.

      Delete
  4. Agreed 3a, but from the article WLU at the time barred Hughes from the girl's residence and enforced what seems analogous to a restraining order, perfectly reasonable acts in light of a rape accusation.

    The incident happened over 2 years ago, from the judge's comments it seems that he is advocating that somebody accused of rape be indefinitely suspended from the university. With all due respect to the judge, that's an absurd position. There will always, rightly or wrongly, be repercussions after an accusation of any crime, but there is a balance between doing nothing until an official verdict and demonizing the accused (think UVA). From what I can tell, WLU found that balance.

    Regardless, the judge's comments are not only highly unprofessional (and as 1 shows, the judge has a history) and completely irrelevant, but I would wonder aloud whether or not they could be a jumping-off point for an appeal if the defence feels that the judge was at all biased.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The judge did the right thing. Similar activities at UW counseling services sexual assault by a senior counseling services staff but opposite judgment.

      Delete
    2. Hey 4a, time for the obligatory fun reminder that nobody was found guilty of sexual assault in the case you're describing (or ANY criminal offence). Don't blow things out of proportion - an employer like uWaterloo can't end somebody's career based on hearsay and conjecture.

      Delete
    3. From reading some backstory, at UW a counselor was investigated by the police for sexual assault. Based on that they asked victim if she wanted the police to press charges or formally issue the counselor a "caution". She chose the caution.

      Delete
    4. 4c, I've heard the same story. You get that *doesn't* mean "he was guilty of it, but they chose not to do anything," right?

      Anyway, the whole situation DID lead to a civil case before an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who examined everything at hand, awarded a small sum of money (less than a third of what was requested) to the complainant for "hurt feelings," and spoke to the University's handling of the situation. The tribunal felt the University had handled the situation adequately, and recommended no further restrictive action be taken against the respondent.

      That was years ago. They continue to work together.

      Maybe - just maybe - there's a difference between someone who gets stupid and handsy after being dumb enough to get drunk at a work function (like this guy), and an actual fucking rapist who literally raped someone (like the case at WLU), and the University's response should be tailored accordingly in those situations?

      Delete
    5. 4d, you prefer handsy over sexual assault and sexual harassment?

      Delete
    6. 4e, don't get me wrong, it WAS harassment, absolutely. But you have to contextualize these things! You can't take a "one size fits all" approach to any of this stuff - you have to examine the people and circumstances involved.

      Getting drunk and making an inappropriate pass at a female coworker IS sexual harassment, but it doesn't make you a predator, or somebody who just committed assault - not necessarily. And the response that an employer, court, or tribunal takes to such a situation should be tailored accordingly.

      I get that the gut instinct in a lot of these situations is to bay for blood, but sometimes a little compassion towards all parties goes a long way. There's a benefit to be gained from restorative discussion and cooperation, in the event that such a thing is possible - especially if nobody's actually been charged with a crime.

      Delete
    7. 4f, if you mean David Mackay of UW's sexual harrassment against his coworker Dr Tracy Morgan that was sexual assault. Police don't investigate sexual harassment. And sexual assault is assault.

      My read of the case is that the police investigation found enough to believe Dr Morgan's sexual assault complaint against Mr Mackay. The police gave her the choice of next steps - charges or a caution.

      If you want start a series of Freedom of Information requests we could go there, and publicize it here. We can all find out what the Police called it. I'm curious myself. Just say the word.

      Delete
    8. ^wow this just got real.

      Delete
    9. 4g, you should make it that 4f needs to give a good reason why you shouldn't go ahead with the requests.

      Delete
    10. 4f here.

      Hey, I'm all for FoI requests. If you want to put money towards making public documents available *in* public, go right ahead - I see no good reason to ever protest that. We live in a country where charges *aren't* brought by individuals - they're pressed by the Crown. So if anything, getting all the documentation out in public would clear away the rumours and hearsay that tend to fly around this place.

      I like a society that is fair on all sides, that's all. And I don't think it's particularly fair to witch hunt a guy who was never charged criminally, for an action that appears to be idiotic low-level harassment at best, and happened *years* ago now. Predators/sex criminals follow patterns of behaviour. Call me crazy, but I just don't think "got drunk once and grabbed a coworker's ass" is grounds for tarring/feathering somebody and throwing them out like trash in... well, ANY situation. Is it inappropriate workplace behaviour? Yeah. Is it a form of sexual harassment? Definitely, and IMO it was fairly addressed by the Tribunal, and (I would hope) in talks with the university's Conflict Management and Human Rights Office as well.

      But I'm not seeing the "has been investigated by police three or four times but all of the different women in those cases were too scared to admit to anything needed to press charges" pattern out of this guy that would be making me say "wtf why are we employing him?" If a FoI Request proves otherwise, then I promise I'm a big enough person that I'll reverse my stance, but until then... I'm going with "everybody has stupid things they've done in their past - it doesn't make them terrible people."

      Delete
    11. 4g, FOI won't work. The RCMP website says this about the Access to Information Act

      "Requests for personal information that is not the requester's must include signed, recent (less than one year old), written consent from the individual to whom the personal information belongs. To facilitate processing requests for personal information, we also recommend that the consent of all individuals who may have personal information included in the records sought be obtained and provided with the request."

      So unless Mr Mackay agrees, your request will fail. Based on the following from the public HRTO hearing decision, I doubt Mr Mackay would agree to his police report going public:

      "[10] The WRPS investigation took approximately five weeks. At the conclusion of the investigation Constable Ranta informed Dr. Morgan that she had two options; she could pursue criminal charges or choose to have Mr. McKay cautioned by the police. Dr. Morgan chose for Mr. Mackay to be cautioned. Mr. McKay, on the advice of his criminal counsel, chose not to meet with Constable Ranta and as a result was not cautioned."

      Delete
    12. 4g, just a thought to problem solve. The hearing was public. If people at it heard any police testimony that's already public information. I want to know what the police said about their investigation and results. No FOI needed.

      Delete
    13. 4l, I'll see what I can find out. There must be records in some form of the police testimony from the hearing. Audio recordings, written accounts or transcripts.

      Delete
  5. All too often local universities via senior administrators to staff at large stand idly by as a female campus member voices safety concern issues at the hands of a male peer.

    Instead they pay lipservice to policies while they tacitly nurture each backlash or shunning to pervade. With no effective restraint these reprisals strengthen to be systemic, chronic, and cultural.

    This just under the surface promotion of a poisoned atmosphere that tolerates continued exposure to sexual assault and harassment at Waterloo campuses must stop. Voices that call this tactic out in its varied guises ought to be applauded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^brilliant!

      Delete
    2. This. So much.

      Delete
    3. Citations or proof please. Something to back up your allegations.

      Delete
    4. 5, +1 and thank you for saying it better than I could.

      Delete
    5. 5c, 5's post was clearly a personal opinion. A little silly to ask for citations - it seems fairly obvious 5 is referring to the handful of things which have been discussed multiple times at length right here on OMGUW.

      You don't have to agree with 5's opinion, but "prove it" isn't really the best counterargument.

      Personally, I don't wholly agree or disagree - I think there are definite systemic issues that have resulted in the mishandling of several situations, but I think they're part of a larger problem with the University management's intensely risk-averse and brand-absorbed approach to... well... everything. And I definitely don't agree with the *degree* to which 5 seems to be suggesting there has been outright neglect.

      That's my opinion... what's yours?

      Delete
    6. 5, I'll show your post to my friends so they don't miss out on it.

      Delete
    7. Well said 5e and 5. Real food for thought ... rare around here.

      Delete
    8. Man, so many mistakes in 5's post I actually had trouble figuring out which way they were arguing. Seems like the language they wanted to use was slightly beyond their ability. Its ok to use simpler terms to make your point clearer and maintain coherent sentence structure.

      Delete
    9. Either 5 likes to multipost or they invited remedial feminism 101 to join in the thread.

      Delete
    10. 5h, commas would help but maybe leaving them out was a style choice. I didn't spot grammar mistakes but I'm not an English major. Shorter sentences would aid readability.

      How would you fix it?

      Delete
    11. 5e, I'm not really getting it. What do you think UW's management views as a risk that they're intensely averse to? Is it any of these in particular or something else?
      The risk that:
      - they'll be found liable in a lawsuit?
      - their brand name would devalue?
      - they'd lose their jobs, bonuses or position?
      Something else?

      Delete
    12. 5k, mostly it's just the fear of being caught up in a major controversy. Every university administrator has nightmares about the idea of their school being caught up in a major scandal (see: The Dalhousie Dentistry Scandal, or the University of Saskatchewan Scandal from a couple years ago that cost the President her job), because it often has the potential to be career-destroying.

      So the default stance tends to be "take the safest ground." That is to say, take a stance (verbally) that ruffles the least amount of feathers by saying things in terms vague enough that nobody can easily disagree with them, and take actions that are unlikely to provoke a major media response or a lawsuit.

      Ultimately, a lot of them see their role as being one meant to preserve institutional stability. THAT'S what I mean by "risk averse behaviour."

      Delete
    13. 5e/l thanks, that's enlightening and explains some things. What do you view as the definite systemic issues?

      Delete
    14. 5m, by 'systemic issues,' I'm talking the sort of cultural which would lead to a "sweep it under the rug" approach to sexual harassment - or even rape - being the "path of least controversy" approach for the university to take. Or even the sort of behaviour that leads people to act as though the only choices are "let it slide, we don't want to draw attention to this," or "make an example of the guy and burn him at the stake." Those aren't the only choices!

      For example - Dalhousie. I'm *generally* a fan of the restorative justice approach they took to dealing with their dentistry scandal. Obviously what matters is the specific implementation, but I'm generally a fan of that sort of approach - it's forward-thinking and very humanist! But that approach generated a lot of controversy around Dalhousie itself, which for a lot of other universities, is enough of a reason not to attempt something like that themselves.

      As a society, our reaction to issues surrounding sexual assault, abuse, harassment, and the treatment of women in general tends to either be to deny/ignore/downplay it all (thus perpetuating a vicious cycle), or to bay for blood (thus infuriating those in the first group and starting fights which ultimately ignore the ACTUAL victims and don't solve anything).

      For the university, its risk-averse nature results in it being terrified of the second group accusing it of being in the first, or (on the other hand) drawing the ire of the second group and becoming the subject of a controversy/scandal. As a result, its approach to these situations when they have occasionally cropped up is... skiddish, at best.

      Delete
    15. 5n, just excuses for UW and WLU to solve nothing, but make a worsening situation for everyone, themselves included.

      Delete
    16. 5n, thanks for that. Do you see a difference in standards universities use to investigate and punish employees compared to students? To me it seems they're tough on students but too easy on employees. Just wondering if you agree and if so, if you can guess why that is.

      Delete
    17. 5p, 5n here.

      To be honest it's hard to say. To give you a completely informed answer I'd have to go do some serious comparative research on the standards and practices followed in different universities.

      That said, "tough on students but easy on employees" isn't a surprising pattern, and it's one I would expect to see regardless of institution. The reasons for that are fairly simple.

      Expelling a student isn't all that difficult. You don't need proof of guilt either - just a sufficient balance of evidence to demonstrate that they don't represent what your school is about. This is true at Waterloo for sure - the Provost is allowed to expel students who get arrested for off-campus disturbances, and it's largely based on his own judgement (though I believe there are committees you can appeal to), but other universities have similar policies. Queens University would be one of the most notable examples - they have an extralegal code of conduct that they expect all of their students to follow, and they will expel people over violations of that code.

      Staff, on the other hand, are much harder to discipline. For starters, they're *usually* unionized, meaning removing them from their position is a headache and a half which I won't get into here.
      But let's assume they're in a non-union role. This is the public sector, and the employment contracts are pretty iron-clad. It is nearly impossible to fire administrative staff here unless they're found guilty of an actual crime. That's not "on balance I think you're more trouble than it's worth," it's "a court of law has found you guilty of this crime beyond doubt, NOW I can safely say you aren't wanted here." Not to say firing is IMPOSSIBLE for any other reason - but it's much more likely the university's opening itself up to a lawsuit in those cases, and we're back to the "risk-aversion" I've discussed in earlier posts.

      With staff, it tends to be easier to address these issues via the Conflict Management and Human Rights Office, or to simply try and make the issues go away by transferring one or more of the individuals involved to a different department.

      At this point, it shouldn't be a surprise that I don't love either approach. I don't like the idea of being overly punitive to students "because we can," and I don't like the idea of simply making the problem "go away," either. I think it's important for these issues to be acknowledged, discussed, and resolved. If there's been a crime committed, I want to see the guilty party punished for that crime. But if not, I think a restorative approach is ideal - at least the first time - to whatever extent restoration is possible.

      Delete
    18. From a read of 5, it looks like her/his main concern is with growing staff group reprisals against a woman who complains at WLU or UW. The focus seems on saving the original victim from fellow staffs' group reprisals rather than punishing the original ... wrongdoer.

      5q, does ensuring the victim's safety equate with baying for blood? I don't think so. But if that's leadership's view, then a victim on staff who complains will never be made safe if leadership has its way.

      Delete
    19. Someone should send this thread to the individual spoken of with UW. Perhaps he can go after the individuals posting libelous messages on this forum including criminal harassment.

      Delete
    20. 5s, yeah that'd come to a whole lot of nothing. That's the thing about anonymity in this sort of setting... nobody has to be accountable for their words.

      Delete
    21. Agreed 5.t. It's too bad really. This would be one of the only times I would suggest for mods to delete a thread. This man is having personal attacks posted about him online with unfounded proof. It's one thing to be upset at a collection or a vague entity, but calling a specific person outright is pretty low. It's funny how these SJW's will all try to bring their own brand of justice, Ie. revenge, online proclaiming someone was unjustly hurt, yet they will break laws to get their own way. It's a different story when the shoe is on the other foot it seems.

      Delete
    22. 5u, I disagree. The thread seems about the universities and their motivations in these situations. Not about an original wrongdoer. Specifically if there's a middle ground in thinking that local universities are missing. So I think there's more potential good being talked about here. I'm reading new and valuable opinions that are helping me understand.

      This thread is a keeper.

      Delete
    23. 5u what post do you call a personal attack? 5s what post has criminal harassment or libel of an individual?

      Delete
  6. 5i, who knows? There's a chance 5's post resonates with a lot of people. Or it fits experiences of more than one friend they know.

    Kathleen Wynne just focused on fighting sexual harassment at all Ontario universities and colleges. UW and WLU were not excluded.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So. The universities' chosen method is to use overly vague language to cover-up tolerance of reprisals against complainants. We can use this strategy to stop it. We can all start to notice who in the organizations use this type of language when talking about this topic, decisions or their effect on complainants, even casually. Complicit staff would be given the same playbook so let's secretly test that and gather data for a later story. Since that's the fear.

    So who on staff does not say unequivocally to their staff or coworkers that reprisals, shunning, or unfair treatments of complaintants is wrong.

    Anyone who chooses unfairness against a complainant is perpetuating reprisals.

    The point is to stop the hurtful behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5n is right. We as a university community let this slide. I know this systemic tolerance for reprisals against a staff complaintant has gotten worse. It seems to not even need a decision anymore. It's routine. I see it from a department away.

      I feel the impact of reprisals on the victim is worse than the original incident that began it all.

      Delete
    2. 5n here. I never said anything about reprisals against staff complaints. In fact, all the documentation out there (talking about the notes from the Tribunal, mostly) suggests there was no evidence of reprisal by the university against the complainant.

      I do not believe this university actively tries to suppress complaints/allegations of this nature, or that it tolerates individual administrators within its system who do. What I was trying to get at is that it largely just takes a path of straight up *inaction,* out of fear of ruffling ANY feathers in a way that could result in bad press/lawsuits.

      So it - practically, at any rate - ignores complaints. This is a form of suppression, in that it fosters an atmosphere that leaves staff saying "well, why even bother?" But it's much more passive than staff being told "hey now, you don't want to start something, do you?" in response to a complaint - and the method for combatting it is different (so making that distinction is important).

      Delete
  8. 7b, you say that UW ignores complaints of sexual harassment. Reprisal for complaining of sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Ignoring complaints of sexual harassment includes ignoring complaints of reprisal.

    Dr Tracy Morgan of Counselling Services complained:
    - that UW ignored her complaints of reprisal by the counsellor.
    - that UW's ignoring her complaints of reprisal was sexual harassment.
    - that UW's ignoring her complaints of reprisal was further reprisal.

    Dr Tracy Morgan complained of reprisals against her by both UW and the Counselling Services employee.

    Given that you say UW ignores complaints of sexual harassment, do you think that UW ignores complaints of reprisal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7b here. I'll try to make my meaning a little clearer.

      First, regarding Dr Morgan's complaints, I want to be clear here that I *do* generally trust the judgement of the Tribunal, which found there to be no compelling evidence of reprisal by the University in that particular matter.

      That said, I want to address your last line: "given that you say UW ignores complaints of sexual harassment, do you think that UW ignores complaints of reprisal?"

      Perhaps I was misleading before - I don't think administrators at UW *actually* ignore complaints of sexual harassment. I think the way they deal with it (framed almost purely in terms of an end goal that emphasizes low-risk institutional stability and minimal reputational damage, above all else), in practical terms, isn't a whole lot better than ignorance for the victim themselves - but it is a very different beast than pretending the complaint never happened at all.

      It's a subtle difference - effectively the difference between being actively backwards and passively ignorant. The University, by-and-large, seems to fall into the latter category, more often than the former, and that necessarily requires a different approach than in the former situation.

      Delete
    2. 8a, do you believe UW would treat reprisal complaints any differently than its passive ignorance approach to sexual harassment?

      Delete
    3. 8b, no, it probably wouldn't, which is why a cultural shift - or at the very least, an addressing of the standard way to approach these issues - is definitely needed.

      Delete
    4. 8a, reprisal isn't a criminal charge so why would a civil tribunal (or you) use "compelling" as an evidence standard rather than a "balance of probabilities"?

      Delete
    5. 8a here. Sorry if my language wasn't precise enough for you, 8d. Obviously the tribunal considers balance of probabilities - I briefly overlooked the fact that the word "compelling" in a legal setting has a particular connotation, which doesn't apply in this situation.

      The exact wording, of course, is in the tribunal's ruling. I recommend reading it, as it's really quite well-constructed, and (to me at least) it feels decidedly fair.

      Delete
    6. 8f, I'm not convinced the HRTO did use balance of probabilities as he was supposed to. I looked at the canlii site's HRTO decision, request for reconsideration, and reconsideration. The adjudicator also seemed to make a stretch in his own psychological diagnosis and analysis of the complainant in order to defend the university from the reprisal allegations. I doubt he was qualified to do that.

      He also glossed over why the complainant's manager did not need to initiate a sexual harassment investigation for the reprisal allegations.

      And the HRTO reconsideration decision was by the same person who made the original decision. That's like having the same judge do an appeal and makes no sense. What's the chance of a judge saying his decision was wrong the first time? 0%?

      So this does not look like a balance of probabilities was used by the HRTO, in either the decision and reconsideration.

      Therefore I disagree with you. That did not seem like a well-constructed way to reach a fair decision.

      Delete
  9. 8c, do you know if anyone on staff shares your recognition or acceptance of this need for a cultural shift?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not how SJW's work 9. It doesn't matter if people want said actions, they'll be forced to accept them for the sake of the minority.

      Delete
    2. 9a... wowwww... did you not even read *any* of this thread, and then just jump in with a troll post based on what you thought we were talking about?

      And no 9, I'm afraid I don't know.
      TBH though, staff culture really does start at the top. So a lot of it boils down to the tone set by administration in dealing with these issues. Personally, I think it's important to be:

      ->Above all else, compassionate and fair;
      ->Focused on the well-being of staff and students first and foremost - acknowledging that even in situations where the specific incident can damage the university's reputation, this approach in the long run will look GOOD for the university;
      ->Receptive of all complaints AND feedback;
      ->Focused on restorative justice, but also able to recognize when justice crosses the line into a witch hunt.

      I know that's a vague list, but I threw it together on the fly.

      Delete
    3. lol you make these grand assumptions on the culture but you don't know anything about THE ACTUAL PEOPLE INVOLVED. lol. just... lol.

      Delete
    4. 9b thanks. That's a good list.
      9c, rather than telling people about their own knowledge base, why not tell us about what you know about the situation. From your vantage point.

      The actual people involved are the UW community including students and staff.

      Delete
    5. 9c, don't mistake me - I'm not a stranger to the culture in the UW workplace. Everything I've written so far (this is 9b, btw) is based on my own observations gathered over 5 years as a student in constant proximity to many different staff, plus 2 years working on-campus, which included fairly regular interaction with some members of upper administration. So I *do* know some the people involved - I just haven't discussed this topic with any of them overtly. Because I had an actual job to do that *wasn't* this, and it kept me pretty busy.

      But as for what I think the ideal approach to these situations should be, they're based on my personal ethics and morals - I freely admit that. What else *should* it be?
      I'm open to a counterpoint, if you think a different approach to these situations is preferable.

      Delete
    6. 9c, how could you know they don't know people involved? Big assumption by you. You mean Counselling Services? What did posters get wrong?

      Delete
    7. 9c, you guys in (and above) Counselling Services are famous, didn't you know?

      Delete
    8. ITT: SJW's scaring people out of using counselling services that may end up badly for said people who truly need it. But hey, as long as you appease your egos from your own experiences right? Grow the hell up.

      Delete
    9. 9h, if that's a common view at Counselling Services, that's useful for us to know. Keep going. Anything else to add, or can you elaborate on your second sentence?

      Can you confirm that's a view of at least one or some people in that department?

      Delete
    10. 9e, 5 years interacting with staff and 2 years working on-campus and you're giving lack time as the reason why you didn't talk about it with with staff?

      Delete
    11. 9j, I don't buy it either.
      9e, was it an unspoken the sexual harassment shouldn't be talked about?

      Delete
    12. 9e here.

      Not really, 9k. I'll admit to my own privilege here... I had no reason to think about any of this stuff, while I was working on campus. So I didn't. It's only recently that I've started to actually give it some serious thought, and this is the impression I've come up with.

      If I'd wanted to, I'm sure I could've found the time to bring it up with somebody on-campus. But - like I said - I had what I saw as better things to do with my time, and it's not like this was a pressing issue to me. This probably applies to the majority of staff (and students, for that matter) currently on campus.

      Delete
    13. 9k 9l, I heard the Counselling Services Director told his staff they were not allowed to mention anything about its sexual harassment case during work hours. Among themselves or with anyone else.

      So no 9k, not an unspoken understanding.
      9l, you wouldn't have gotten anywhere even if you did ask.

      Delete
    14. 9m, is that still in effect, and are there any other unmentionables? And why?

      Delete
    15. 9m,9n, gotta give these things their context. Since the case was an ongoing issue that was being addressed by the HR Department in confidential, protected meetings, talking about it in the workplace basically amounts to gossiping about your coworkers. From a management perspective, that's something you want to avoid.

      It's one thing to go to the director, or even other CS staff members, and say "let's talk about potential systemic issues in your department." It's another thing altogether to say "what do you think about this business your colleague is tangled up in?" With the legal issues resolved, it's better to leave the latter part to groups like HR, and (if necessary) the Conflict and Human Rights Office.

      Delete
    16. nobody cares.

      Delete
    17. Yup, nobody. That's why there are no comments on this thread at all.

      ...Ass.

      Delete
    18. 9o, your Counselling Services sexual harassment context is wrong. Its Director gave a silencing order to his staff after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision was published and publicly reported. This was far after any UW internal investigations were finished.

      He never removed his staff gag order. It's still in place. Why?

      Delete