Date: 2017-12-23 01:32 am (UTC)
voidampersand: (Default)
In the past complaints were ignored or hushed up, and no action was taken.

Now when complaints are made, they are taken seriously and action is taken. That's progress.

You're asking if an organization should take action against someone they associate with but who doesn't work for them, where no complaints are on file, and nobody is complaining now. I would say that ethically it is appropriate for them to wait. It is selective, because exercising judgment is always selective. People (usually men) who behaved outrageously will have complaints made against them in the court of public opinion. With the current public mood, organizations are compelled to take action. Then there are people whose behavior was borderline. Whether complaints are made against them will depend on whether there still are people who feel strongly offended. It is a reasonable approximation of justice.

I'm also thinking that "fastidiousness" is not the right term. The reason for disassociating with harassers is not to achieve excessive moral tidyness. It is to achieve a more just and fair society.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

calimac: (Default)
calimac

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4567
89101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 11:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios