The current "scandal" in New York over sexual harassment in New York is much like the other recent instances and it confuses me. It seems like the offenses are the result of one person's interpretation of events where we are accepting that interpretation without providing the same benefit to the other party.
We have seen this guilt be allegation at work in our past. Just feeling like person is likely to cause you harm should never have been enough to get them arrested or worse (in Salem they burned some and in the South they lynched some.
Its unverifiable but it tends to cascade after one is brought up as people rethink past encounters. In some cases trolls dig through the internet to find other missed instances which are easily misinterpreted.
I don't know what really was gong on and most of the people jumping to conclusions also don't. Accusations should be addressed but the burden is on the accuser, not the accused, at least in this country.
There is an element to criminal matters called intent. Certain questions can be asked innocently but perceived differently. It is very difficult in many situation to avoid potential pitfalls. It used to be fairly routine to ask someone if they were married. Its called making conversation. It can be interpreted as flirting.
Certainly instances of sexual abuse or harassment need to be identified and addressed. The standard of degerming guilt needs to be fair and objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment