Then I was at the University of Cambridge, I did their harassment training. It was excellent though, sadly, not mandatory for anyone except as a result of disciplinary actions. I was one of only two men who had chosen to be there.

One of the most important things it covered (and the reason it absolutely needed to be mandatory) was the legal aspect. If you are informed of a crime and discourage the victim from talking to the police then you are part of a cover up and can be charged as an ‘accessory after the fact’. In particular, being an accessory after the fact does not require that the original crime is successfully prosecuted, you having sufficient evidence to reasonably be assumed that it happened is enough. If someone tells you that they murdered someone and you offer to provide an alibi, it doesn’t matter if the body is ever found, if the alibi is shown to be false then you can be charged. The same principle applies. If you direct people to an internal process without making it clear that they have the option of going to the police, you are an accessory. If you even imply that going to the police may result in retaliation from the organisation or that the organisation will not protect you from retaliation by individuals, you are an accessory.

When I went to Microsoft, we were given the same harassment training as the US org. If followed, the advice in it would have landed managers in legal trouble. I flagged this with HR and I believe it was subsequently fixed.

But this appears to be a key difference between US and UK law in this regard: if someone in an organisation reports a crime to someone in authority in that organisation, UK law requires that the alleged victim must be informed of their legal rights and supported if they choose to prosecute the perpetrator. The US appears to have zero consequences for institutional cover ups. That really seems like something the USA should fix.

This is a post about Cornell.