The CEO confirms Riley was raising behavioral complaints about you.
Where in Zach’s comment did he confirm this? He said: ”In the fall of 2024, Riley went to HR with the document Frances references to share complaints about a colleague’s behavior. Those concerns were the focus of Riley’s writing, and they drove how our team engaged with and shared (or didn’t share) it.” This doesn’t confirm that the complaints were about Frances?
then the inclusion is at least explicable as context
Can you clarify exactly what you’re claiming is explicable to be included as context? Zach’s comment said, “Sharing HR concerns does not require disclosing a colleague’s sexual assault”. Frances said, “But further, it was more than that. He didn’t neutrally “disclose” it in a single, non-specific sentence. He wrote a description of me being raped. He describes it. He muses and speculates about my subsequent mental health crisis.”
Your post implies that CEA leadership is cowardly, indifferent, and complicit. But an organization that waived confidentiality, paid for your lawyer, never attempted to silence you, and whose CEO gave you what you yourself describe as a genuine apology is not staffed by monsters. They got things wrong. That is meaningfully different from the picture this post paints, and I think the people involved deserve to have that said.
Cowardice was largely a description of other people deferring to leadership, but minor quibble aside, these two claims are not mutually exclusive! The folks involved can be reasonably and fairly perceived to be cowardly, indifferent, and complicit to harms, while also getting things wrong, and also not staffed by ‘monsters’.
Where in Zach’s comment did he confirm this? He said:
”In the fall of 2024, Riley went to HR with the document Frances references to share complaints about a colleague’s behavior. Those concerns were the focus of Riley’s writing, and they drove how our team engaged with and shared (or didn’t share) it.” This doesn’t confirm that the complaints were about Frances?
Can you clarify exactly what you’re claiming is explicable to be included as context? Zach’s comment said, “Sharing HR concerns does not require disclosing a colleague’s sexual assault”. Frances said, “But further, it was more than that. He didn’t neutrally “disclose” it in a single, non-specific sentence. He wrote a description of me being raped. He describes it. He muses and speculates about my subsequent mental health crisis.”
Cowardice was largely a description of other people deferring to leadership, but minor quibble aside, these two claims are not mutually exclusive! The folks involved can be reasonably and fairly perceived to be cowardly, indifferent, and complicit to harms, while also getting things wrong, and also not staffed by ‘monsters’.