Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation 182

An anonymous reader writes "Late Yesterday, GitHub concluded its investigation regarding sexual harassment within its work force, and although it found no evidence of 'legal wrongdoing,' Tom Preston-Werner, one of its founding members implicated in the investigation resigned. In its statement, GitHub vows to implement 'a number of new HR and employee-led initiatives as well as training opportunities to make sure employee concerns and conflicts are taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.' Julie Ann Horvath, the former GitHub employee whose public resignation last month inspired the sexual harassment investigation, found the company's findings to be gratuitous and just plain wrong."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

Comments Filter:
  • I will say (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @08:36AM (#46813897)

    I start reading these things thinking, right, likely another scenario where people who are inclined to push a "men create a hostile work environment for women, especially around computers" have found themselves a cause. And even after reading what's out there from the people involved, in this case, I think there's just not enough here to assume that was the root of the problem in this case.

    But then you get to the comments section, and just hang on to your fucking hats folks.

  • by GoCrazy ( 1608235 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @09:39AM (#46814369)
    and airing out personal and professional problems to the world, is the allowance of mob justice. Even though they found no wrongdoing or harassment after a legitimate investigation, it didn't matter; Preston and his wife had already undergone trial by media.

    From the previous article where Horvath aired out her grievances with the company, I was disappointed to realize accusations of company-wide sexual harassment were misleading and that 95% of her problems were with Preston's wife. I don't know why that was a problem that needed to be dealt with publicly. It was dramatic.
  • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:07AM (#46814605)

    "ex boyfriend" is relevant in this context. She's claiming she was bullied by a coworker at GitHub. If fact she's having relationship issues with an ex-boyfriend who also also worked at GitHub, and has caused additional problems for herself by dating the friend of a GitHub manager and getting into a pissing contest with the manager's wife over that relationship.

    That said, GitHub management should have sat everyone down and told them to act like adults or find somewhere else to work, her included.

  • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:30AM (#46814831)

    The term "Sexual Harassment", - with the word "Sex" followed by another word "Harass", - sounds awfully serious.

    But, like all other liberal creation (social welfare, for example) "Sexual Harassment" itself has been abused.

    Fortunately no conservative constructs have ever been abused... couldn't resist - back to the topic

    Nowadays you can be slapped with a "Sexual Harassment" lawsuit if you comment on the way someone dress herself or "itself".

    In some cases, it was much worse before. In the 1980's, at the place where I worked, we had our first gender harassment seminars.

    It quickly turned surreal. Your example of how the woman dresses was spot-on. The gender harassment rep told us that it was very dangerous to compliment a woman regarding any physical matter. That telling her "Those earrings are nice" was okay, but saying you look great in those earrings was skirting the edges of harassment.

    Then when a man asked what the definition of sexual harassment was, she said "Sexual harassment is whatever a woman says it is". You could have heard the proverbial pin drop.

    This draconian interpretation started a years long mess, where the men actively avoided all the women. Male supervisors would not engage 1 on 1 with female staff - there would always be at least one other person. Men quit talking to or socializing with women.

    And the women absolutely hated it. Some of the ladies I worked with were dirty minded and flirtacious enough to make me blush some times, and the men were avoiding them like the plague.

    One of the machinists had a nice photo of a young lady in a cheerleader outfit on his toolbox. A woman took offense to it, and he was told to take it down. It was his daughter. The pathetic part was this estrangement only alienated normal guys. The men who were actually harassing women still did all the same things, blocking doorways so the woman had to brush up against them, "accidentally" touching them in the places you might expect, they just kept on keepin' on.

    Fortunately, calmer, more rational heads saw what had been created, and modified the rules. Instead of treating all men as rapists who just hadn't been caught yet, they focused on the guys - and women who were the real problem.

    In the end, it did help, although a lot of the older guys were pretty set in their ways, and never did socilize much with the female staff.

    In fact, I can be charged for "Sexual Harassment" right now, because of the term "itself" that I've used to describe people whom I do not know how to describe (they are not male, nor female).

    I brought up the question one time, if a man avoids all contact with women in the workplace - except for the minimum to get work done - in order to not be accused of harassment, and the women know he avoids them because of that, is his avoidance sexual harassment?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:40AM (#46814949)

    That is because there are a huge number of misogynistic women. I wouldn't say more than there are men, but there are plenty of republican christian 'merikan cunts out there that claim women should just "marry a rich man and become a baby factory". And then on the other side, there are women that are so feminist that they seem to wrap the scale and become misogynistic themselves. "Ohh, you can't even say that word around me, thats my trigger word!"

    What happened to treating people like people; whether they are male, female, or otherwise?

  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @01:55PM (#46816737)

    Some of her patches were reverted by a co-worker? How traumatic for her.

    Tell you what, if I reverted changes that my co-workers did, I would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

  • by Raenex ( 947668 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @02:15PM (#46816903)

    It's insinuated that Julie is being deceitful by hiding the fact that the engineer is an ex-boyfriend. If it is, in fact, true that it was an ex-boyfriend, it's equally reasonable that Julie excluded that part of the story from her public side of the tale in order to protect his identity and not publicly call him out. Keep in mind Julie didn't even mention the founder or his wife by name.

    You're bending over backwards here. If it is true it was an ex-boyfriend, that completely changes the dynamic of the story and it was deceptive of her to leave it out. She didn't name the founder, but offered plenty of details. It's beyond belief that she was merely trying to protect the engineer's identity by omitting such a salient detail (again, if it is true).

    Given the "meritocracy" rug crap, her mention of the hula hoop incident, and her feminist "Passion Projects" activism at the company, I'm not inclined to give her any benefit of the doubt and think she's more interested in feminist issues than being a productive worker.

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"