We’re asked to believe that HR, legal, the CEO, the COO, and multiple managers all independently failed a basic moral test. More likely, in full context, it read like a messy workplace complaint with too much personal detail.
And we haven’t seen it. Everything we know comes from fragments read aloud from memory by a colleague, relayed months later in a post written as advocacy. We don’t have the information this thread thinks it has.
I would be much more sympathetic to this if it wasn’t for the case that two independent investigations subsequently flagged this as harassment/sexual harassment, including CEA’s own legal team, and the apparently massive shift in behaviour after Frances opted for public accountability.
If Riley was complaining about behavioral issues connected to Frances’s trauma, and she herself acknowledges worsening PTSD and difficulty functioning, then providing that context in a complaint isn’t sexualization. It’s explanation. Clumsy, probably too detailed, but meaningfully different from the post’s framing.
It’s entirely reasonable for someone to submit an HR complaint, and it’s entirely reasonable for you guess that Riley was well intentioned and clumsy rather than malevolent. But it’s not clear to me what your interpretation of the post’s framing is. From my perspective, Frances hasn’t made any claims about Riley’s intent, but just the impact that the circulation of this document.
Nine months went by and I heard absolutely nothing. No safeguarding steps were taken. The document remained in circulation.
For a while, I tried to block the harassment out entirely. I was completely overwhelmed and simply did not have the capacity to process it. I was already managing a PTSD diagnosis as a result of the rape and an ongoing criminal investigation with the UK police. I no longer trusted CEA’s HR. Not to mention, I didn’t have access to the document myself.
As the months went on, I became increasingly anxious and embarrassed around leadership and those who had read the document. Increasingly dissociated. I began having nightmares about new documents being circulated. My therapist noted my PTSD symptoms were continuing to worsen. When I ran into Riley at the office, I would often freeze. I started eating lunch in my team’s room to avoid the cafeteria, or skipping lunch altogether.
To be clear, I don’t think that the focus on Riley’s intention meaningfully changes the mistakes at CEA here! I’d type more on this, but here’s a good passage on that point.
I would be much more sympathetic to this if it wasn’t for the case that two independent investigations subsequently flagged this as harassment/sexual harassment, including CEA’s own legal team, and the apparently massive shift in behaviour after Frances opted for public accountability.
It’s entirely reasonable for someone to submit an HR complaint, and it’s entirely reasonable for you guess that Riley was well intentioned and clumsy rather than malevolent. But it’s not clear to me what your interpretation of the post’s framing is. From my perspective, Frances hasn’t made any claims about Riley’s intent, but just the impact that the circulation of this document.
To be clear, I don’t think that the focus on Riley’s intention meaningfully changes the mistakes at CEA here! I’d type more on this, but here’s a good passage on that point.