A Message from KPCB Partner, John Doerr(kpcb.com)
kpcb.com
A Message from KPCB Partner, John Doerr
http://www.kpcb.com/news/115/text
10 comments
I'm not familiar with the situation or any of the parties involved, but... maybe she was wronged and wants to stand up for herself and for future employees of the firm, because no one should suffer from discrimination in the workplace?
Not everything in life can be reduced to a financial cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you have to do the right thing.
Not everything in life can be reduced to a financial cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you have to do the right thing.
That's exactly how I feel. I mostly meant to point out how difficult (and costly) doing the right thing must be. Also, I don't mean to suggest most of the costs or benefits are financial. I believe they are mostly personal and career.
I believe that the suit alleges that she was passed over for promotion several times - if that's so, then the opportunity cost of filing suit may be smaller than your scenario would indicate.
[deleted](1)
I don't know what happened either way, but a choice quote:
> In the end, facts – not unfounded claims – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us.
The devil's advocate could just as easily rephrase it this way:
"In the end, facts – not the findings of an "independent" investigator we hired – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us."
I know it's a tough PR crisis to handle, but somehow I think an Apple-styled cone of silence about the issue might have been a better approach.
> In the end, facts – not unfounded claims – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us.
The devil's advocate could just as easily rephrase it this way:
"In the end, facts – not the findings of an "independent" investigator we hired – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us."
I know it's a tough PR crisis to handle, but somehow I think an Apple-styled cone of silence about the issue might have been a better approach.
"facts – not unfounded claims will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us."
Something to keep in mind, that ultimately, it's the evidence and the quality of the legal team that will determine the outcome of the suit. The facts/truth of the matter come in a distant third.
I often view the results of a court case as an indication of how much evidence could be discovered by each side, and how effective their attorneys were, rather than a clearcut indication of guilt/innocence.
I wonder if anyone has ever done any controlled studies, some anti-rashomonesque like scenario, where the guilt/innocence of each party was objectively and quantifiably determined, and then run a statistically valid sample of these cases through the court system, to see how well guilt/innocence correlates with the court findings.
Something to keep in mind, that ultimately, it's the evidence and the quality of the legal team that will determine the outcome of the suit. The facts/truth of the matter come in a distant third.
I often view the results of a court case as an indication of how much evidence could be discovered by each side, and how effective their attorneys were, rather than a clearcut indication of guilt/innocence.
I wonder if anyone has ever done any controlled studies, some anti-rashomonesque like scenario, where the guilt/innocence of each party was objectively and quantifiably determined, and then run a statistically valid sample of these cases through the court system, to see how well guilt/innocence correlates with the court findings.
IANAL, but civil cases aren't so much about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as they are a balance of probabilities. So the result would be based on whether Ms. Pao's story is more likely to be true than false.
[deleted]
Its tough to keep quiet when you think that you've been wronged, especially so publicly. However, you're right. This isn't something that can be won in the court of public opinion.
Simply say: We adamantly disagree with the allegations and will defend ourselves in court.
Then keep silent until the case is won or lost. There isn't much to be gained from making public statements. You don't want to seem like the allegations are correct, so you want to attack the accuser. But that will only make you look worse. So all you can do publicly is make vague statements to show how diverse you are. And that doesn't help much either because all it does is remind people that you're involved in a discrimination suit.
I expect that this is the last we'll hear from them on the subject until after the suit.
Simply say: We adamantly disagree with the allegations and will defend ourselves in court.
Then keep silent until the case is won or lost. There isn't much to be gained from making public statements. You don't want to seem like the allegations are correct, so you want to attack the accuser. But that will only make you look worse. So all you can do publicly is make vague statements to show how diverse you are. And that doesn't help much either because all it does is remind people that you're involved in a discrimination suit.
I expect that this is the last we'll hear from them on the subject until after the suit.
I suspect the suit will end up getting settled for an undisclosed sum and no admissions of guilt.
I do give them the benefit of the doubt, everyone deserves that. The reason I'm inclined to believe the allegations is that they're relatively mild, which makes them far more believable to mind mind.
I seriously doubt there was real premeditated or conspiratorial sexism on be half of the top KPCB guys, but I wouldn't be surprised at all that they unconsciously favored men for promotions/compensation. Even women have trouble not favoring men in that way, in my experience.
So even if KPCB loses the court case I wouldn't think much less of them. They're just humans at the mercy of their biases, doing their best to fight them, and sometimes failing.
I seriously doubt there was real premeditated or conspiratorial sexism on be half of the top KPCB guys, but I wouldn't be surprised at all that they unconsciously favored men for promotions/compensation. Even women have trouble not favoring men in that way, in my experience.
So even if KPCB loses the court case I wouldn't think much less of them. They're just humans at the mercy of their biases, doing their best to fight them, and sometimes failing.
My wife is working in a big corporation. What you describe is a fundamental problem at all the levels which is very hard to overcome. The company is doing regular training for the people hiring just to show them how they effectively discriminate event without claiming and having the feeling they are not.
This is because you naturally hire and promote people like you. This comes from the evolution of mankind where we trust more people like us and we are resistant to change. You had a good worker, white and a man, you naturally try to hire "the same" if you need to replace him even if a black woman could do the same or even better.
You cannot escape it easily, you need to constantly try hard not to discriminate.
This is because you naturally hire and promote people like you. This comes from the evolution of mankind where we trust more people like us and we are resistant to change. You had a good worker, white and a man, you naturally try to hire "the same" if you need to replace him even if a black woman could do the same or even better.
You cannot escape it easily, you need to constantly try hard not to discriminate.
He sneaks a bit of sophist elision in here:
In the end, facts – not unfounded claims – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us. We will vigorously defend our reputation and are confident we will prevail.
Non-sequitur: reputations are composed of more than facts. Not only that, but if you gloss right over it, he appears to be placing these sentences next to each other for two slimy (I say) reasons: that the reader will connect "prevail" with "the outcome of the suit," a connection the words don't support, and also that even if they lose the suit, their reputation will be successfully defended. Kind of a weird point to feel you have to make, and a bit of a dogwhistle to their partners and clients.
In the end, facts – not unfounded claims – will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us. We will vigorously defend our reputation and are confident we will prevail.
Non-sequitur: reputations are composed of more than facts. Not only that, but if you gloss right over it, he appears to be placing these sentences next to each other for two slimy (I say) reasons: that the reader will connect "prevail" with "the outcome of the suit," a connection the words don't support, and also that even if they lose the suit, their reputation will be successfully defended. Kind of a weird point to feel you have to make, and a bit of a dogwhistle to their partners and clients.
my read is that "confident we will prevail" is actually directly stating they will win the case.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-hara...
This is in response to a gender discrimination lawsuit.
This is in response to a gender discrimination lawsuit.
A few observations:
1. Oh, you lawyers. A carefully hidden sentence: "Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr Naszre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions". That's the only indication in the entire document that this woman was, in fact, bangin' Mr Naszre. If you ask me, it should be pretty darn difficult to win a "sexual harassment" lawsuit against somebody if you willingly and consensually had sex with 'em both before and after the alleged harassment.
Also, was it two or three? Is she really so unsure of the exact number? It's not like we're talking "fifteen or sixteen" times you cheated on your fiance with a married man, Ms Pao.
2. As for gender discrimination preventing her from moving up: you're a freaking partner. What's the next step up, exactly?
I'm sure things might have been weird after she'd had sex with her coworker, but geez, you should have thought of that before you opened your legs, Ms Pao.
This is not to deny that Mr Naszre had some culpability here too, they both share it. But since it's she rather than he who is doing the suing here it's more relevant to point out her own misconduct.
edit: Removed namecalling.
1. Oh, you lawyers. A carefully hidden sentence: "Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr Naszre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions". That's the only indication in the entire document that this woman was, in fact, bangin' Mr Naszre. If you ask me, it should be pretty darn difficult to win a "sexual harassment" lawsuit against somebody if you willingly and consensually had sex with 'em both before and after the alleged harassment.
Also, was it two or three? Is she really so unsure of the exact number? It's not like we're talking "fifteen or sixteen" times you cheated on your fiance with a married man, Ms Pao.
2. As for gender discrimination preventing her from moving up: you're a freaking partner. What's the next step up, exactly?
I'm sure things might have been weird after she'd had sex with her coworker, but geez, you should have thought of that before you opened your legs, Ms Pao.
This is not to deny that Mr Naszre had some culpability here too, they both share it. But since it's she rather than he who is doing the suing here it's more relevant to point out her own misconduct.
edit: Removed namecalling.
I don't particularly have an opinion on the case (that's exactly what the courts are for), but you really could use a little tact. It took me years to figure out that just because I can say something, doesn't mean I should.
If you ask me, it should be pretty darn difficult to win a "sexual harassment" lawsuit against somebody if you willingly and consensually had sex with 'em both before and after the alleged harassment.
If you were in a relationship before (that included sex), then broke off the relationship, then were harassed into more sex afterward, that's still a criminal act of sexual harassment.
If you were in a relationship before (that included sex), then broke off the relationship, then were harassed into more sex afterward, that's still a criminal act of sexual harassment.
There wasn't any allegation of criminal acts. People might behave boorishly and be jerks, but that isn't a crime.
Right, sorry I forgot this was a civil case. This is definitely enough for a civil case.
It is when it's sexual in nature and at work, which is what we're talking about here.
>> A few observations
I think you threw a few judgments in there too.
I think you threw a few judgments in there too.
This may be the ugliest comment I've seen on HN. I'm ashamed.
This is far and away the most shameful comment I've ever read on Hacker News.
Being a partner at a big firm may not mean what you think it does.
http://www.quora.com/Venture-Capital/What-is-the-worst-part-...
http://www.quora.com/Venture-Capital/What-is-the-worst-part-...
I'll reserve judgement until the case is concluded, but something I see repeated with this is that they are a very diverse firm. That's great and progressive.
It still doesn't mean something like this couldn't happen.
It still doesn't mean something like this couldn't happen.
What does one do or not do to get a legitimate bad performance review at a VC firm?
I am pulling these out of my 4$$ but all of the normal things you could get a bad review over would apply. A portfolio company's respected founders (basically, your client/customer) saying that a partner was difficult to work with, making poor suggestions, wasting time with questions they could get answers for elsewhere, or embarrassing them in meetings with important contacts, etc. Another partner saying that you are difficult to get along with, argumentative, do not do proper research, miss glaring information that demonstrates high risk in an investment, and so on.
Basically, doing a shitty job, being difficult to work with, ruining the firm's reputation, and/or making very bad investment decisions would be good ways to get a bad review.
Basically, doing a shitty job, being difficult to work with, ruining the firm's reputation, and/or making very bad investment decisions would be good ways to get a bad review.
> Most importantly, we’re backing them not because they are women, but because they are the best at what they do.
This is why I'm 100% behind KPCB here. Doerr gets it. At the end of the day, what matters to them is who will do the best job, not whether they're men or women.
This is why I'm 100% behind KPCB here. Doerr gets it. At the end of the day, what matters to them is who will do the best job, not whether they're men or women.
The world would be great if all that mattered was who did the best job. The world is nothing like that, however.
No opinion on guilt or innocence, but one could use the same "they are the best so not guilty" defense about the "best" in Wall Street too.
I am missing some context. what is surrounding all this?
I have to imagine that things were really bad for Ms Pao. Or at the very least, she must certainly felt them to be.
Perhaps she's interested in retribution via soaking them for a ton of cash, but I can't help but doubt that. It's hard to imagine she lands in a better place, career-wise.
A truly difficult situation for her and KPCB.