Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I didn't say they were, but since it's a pretty common practice, it suggests that Adder is not "clueless."

Fair enough.

There was an ethics violation. But did that really matter? In your world, are there a lot of people looking specifically for revenge porn involving ethics violations?

In the actual world, if there's no ethics violation, Hill can argue, "This is my private life," and she'd get some sympathy. Smoking weed is not a crime in CA, and having a three person relationship is not a crime anywhere. But because there's a technical violation, a grotesque use of revenge porn (illegal in some states, btw) is now an ethics issue. A non-story, a wretched hit job by a psycho ex, is now elevated to a credible allegation of official impropriety.

Isn't the allegation that she abused her authority by sleeping with a subordinate? Or when you say "but for the ethics violation," do you mean "If we assume there's no problem when a manager gets involved with someone working for him or her"?

There is no allegation that she abused her authority. She clearly did not. The people in these relationships have not asserted that at all, even now, when they've been outed and have nothing to lose.

The standard that you and Adder advocate - that a relationship between a boss and co-worker should be assumed coercive until proven otherwise - treats adults like infants. These people are all adults. We have laws on the books that allow subordinates to sue sue bosses when pressured for sex. We do not need a zero tolerance policy that turns a 24 year old staffer into a child, unable to think for herself. And that's exactly what this ethics rule does. It assumes an adult fucking her boss (and her boss's husband) is presumed to be doing so under pressure. How fucking patronizing is that?

When you're 24, you're long into adulthood. You're assumed to have made choices for yourself unless that's proven otherwise, not the other way around.