I'm not okay with letting brilliant people be harassed. Even from a purely cost/benefit standpoint, allowing a toxic environment will drive out more talent than we'd lose by eliminating the harassers.
Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast publicly until the investigation finishes. If he did do what he said, then the investigation should confirm it, and then he should get blackballed for harassment because it's not ok.
But first step should be proving it, not blackballing someone because of allegations. I think we can all agree that removing someone who harassed is a good thing, while removing someone who is only alleged to have harassed is a bad thing. And that distinction probably needs to be made by someone qualified, not an activist or the general public.
> Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast publicly until the investigation finishes.
As we've seen over and over, very often there's no investigation unless the matter is broadcast publicly. So much easier to sweep things under the rug.
Still, maybe we should publicize that allegations have occurred without specifying against who? And making it public if an organisation refuses to investigate. That should give the same public result without the need to attack someone who is only alleged.
