If it is true, that engineering manager had another option - don't say something like that. Simple, and the responsibility would be where it should be.
Issues like this generally deserve more attention though, not less - for every issue that is vocalized, there are usually many that are handled in silence, or harassment dealt with by silence. It is not a good environment to be in, where serious problems are swept under the rug.
In the US military, if you are found guilty of sexual harassment/assault, you get hit with a double felony - one for the action, and one for the bad conduct discharge as a result. It still happens, but everyone knows to keep things professional in interactions with the opposite sex since the threat of a discharge under dishonorable conditions hangs high - it is more than a career finisher for the person charged. The mantra in the military for this sort of behavior is zero tolerance, and punishments reflect that - that behavior wrecks havoc on morale, trust in leadership & peers, and overall ability to get the job done.
Unfortunately, the tech industry does not take this issue seriously enough to impose this sort of punishment. What do you do when the company comes to a conclusion that turns out to be incorrect? Suing is not a good solution since you're fighting against a company with a lot of money that can lawyer up easily (and in this case, has lots of internal lawyers). The person in this case did leave and get a different job a little while ago, and only now is making it public after there was an investigation internally. Even worse, I have been told by Googlers that if there is any doubt, Google will not promote a candidate - by following that logic, the person should not have been promoted due to strong allegations of improper behavior towards a subordinate, and apparently he was.
It is a difficult problem for women to have to deal with, and we as men seem to have a problem empathizing with it because we can't understand what it is like to live in a world like that where we don't have control of our destiny because the institutions are set up against us.
The real problem seems to be that women do not have a way to seek recourse against this bad behavior in our industry, and the brutes/bros take advantage of it. Our industry is failing them.
Hiding and sweeping under the rug is exactly the best way to manage something like this. In any conflict negotiation, you want to minimize value destroyed. Swept under rug == no reputations are ruined == minimum value is destroyed.
The way you sweep this under the rug is roughly:
* Victims file law suits. Unfortunately, not all do (but it is their civic duty).
* A portion of the law suits have settlements. A typical one might be a few million. The settlement includes a non-disclosure.
Perpetrator is punished in proportion to the level of crime, and has reason to stop. If you get hit 10% of the time, your expected cost per harassment might be a few hundred thousand. That's expensive.
A random selection of victims get big payouts, and a random selection get nothing at all. Damages are big enough to account for this ($5 million is far more than the damage in a single case, and is set to account for the cases lost or not filed). That's not perfect, but nothing at all is still better than less than nothing (which is what happens with public shaming).
Comments
If it is true, that engineering manager had another option - don't say something like that. Simple, and the responsibility would be where it should be.
Issues like this generally deserve more attention though, not less - for every issue that is vocalized, there are usually many that are handled in silence, or harassment dealt with by silence. It is not a good environment to be in, where serious problems are swept under the rug.
In the US military, if you are found guilty of sexual harassment/assault, you get hit with a double felony - one for the action, and one for the bad conduct discharge as a result. It still happens, but everyone knows to keep things professional in interactions with the opposite sex since the threat of a discharge under dishonorable conditions hangs high - it is more than a career finisher for the person charged. The mantra in the military for this sort of behavior is zero tolerance, and punishments reflect that - that behavior wrecks havoc on morale, trust in leadership & peers, and overall ability to get the job done.
Unfortunately, the tech industry does not take this issue seriously enough to impose this sort of punishment. What do you do when the company comes to a conclusion that turns out to be incorrect? Suing is not a good solution since you're fighting against a company with a lot of money that can lawyer up easily (and in this case, has lots of internal lawyers). The person in this case did leave and get a different job a little while ago, and only now is making it public after there was an investigation internally. Even worse, I have been told by Googlers that if there is any doubt, Google will not promote a candidate - by following that logic, the person should not have been promoted due to strong allegations of improper behavior towards a subordinate, and apparently he was.
It is a difficult problem for women to have to deal with, and we as men seem to have a problem empathizing with it because we can't understand what it is like to live in a world like that where we don't have control of our destiny because the institutions are set up against us.
The real problem seems to be that women do not have a way to seek recourse against this bad behavior in our industry, and the brutes/bros take advantage of it. Our industry is failing them.
Hiding and sweeping under the rug is exactly the best way to manage something like this. In any conflict negotiation, you want to minimize value destroyed. Swept under rug == no reputations are ruined == minimum value is destroyed.
The way you sweep this under the rug is roughly:
* Victims file law suits. Unfortunately, not all do (but it is their civic duty).
* A portion of the law suits have settlements. A typical one might be a few million. The settlement includes a non-disclosure.
Perpetrator is punished in proportion to the level of crime, and has reason to stop. If you get hit 10% of the time, your expected cost per harassment might be a few hundred thousand. That's expensive.
A random selection of victims get big payouts, and a random selection get nothing at all. Damages are big enough to account for this ($5 million is far more than the damage in a single case, and is set to account for the cases lost or not filed). That's not perfect, but nothing at all is still better than less than nothing (which is what happens with public shaming).
Which military are you talking about? The US military has a longstanding sexual assault problem.