Can we be honest and not misrepresent other peoples' arguments? Is that really too much to ask? If you ignore that the response to sexual harassment today is different than the response to sexual harassment in 2008, then you're ignoring context. The response today is more harsh than it was ten years ago - that's just reality. You can argue whether that's right or not, but the reality is that responses today are different.Moliere wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:46 pm The idea that 2008 was in the beforetime when this action and response was adequate reminds me of my critique of the Mormon church: they were always lagging behind the mainstream when it came to larger issues like slavery and civil rights. It was only well after society condemned and outlawed these things did the church follow suit. Politicians like Hillary and Obama were the same way about same sex marriage and marijuana or in this case, sexual harassment. Hillary's solution was to move the woman away while slapping the wrist of the guy. Didn't the Catholic church do the same with pedophile priests?
So, was the response in 2008 not just different from what the response might be today, but inappropriate? From your post:
Without knowing all the details of the harassment, was this really that inappropriate? If it's a first time thing, is a financial penalty and sexual harassment training wrong? Because, in many companies, the standard response would be just the sexual harassment training for a first time harasser. This person was docked pay, too (plus a title change, whatever that means). I'm not sure that's inappropriate punishment, but that would at least in part depend on whether this guy had a past history of harassment and what he was specifically accused of doing. Facts and context matter.the faith adviser was punished by having his pay docked for several weeks, having his title changed and being required to undergo sexual harassment training.