When faced with a serious allegation that threatens participants, any sled dog race would do well to model the level of attention, efficiency & transparency here.

This can only happen with stability, preparedness & trust.

#NASCAR knows the importance of a well-oiled machine.

posting the timeline was a nice touch.

This is a great way to think about institutional response.

Leaders might ask, "What would it look like if our response were presented as a timeline?"

I also want to note that importance of #NASCAR telling its audience clearly & directly that this is not about a particular driver: this is an investigation meant to protect the community as a whole. Attributing the investigation to the driver (who did not call for it) is racist.

I have seen organizations deal w sexual assault, physical assault, threats, hate speech, etc.---& often, the focus is on keeping the victim or targeted individual happy/quiet. (hi, @NFL)

Tolerating (or covering up) misogyny, racism & other forms of hate is toxic to your institution.

If you're a leader, and someone brings an instance of this kind of harm to your attention, you should THANK THEM for risking themselves to strengthen your org.

This isn't about them. This is about your organization.

I also dig that #NASCAR defends their response.

"Look," they said (*i'm paraphrasing), "maybe we were hasty in judgment. We wish we'd said "alleged" in our statements. But we'd rather err this way than err by failing to respond quickly to protect our community."

Yes. THAT.

I know orgs that are so worried about their image that they want to keep every concern someone brings from seeing the light of day.

Here's a thought:

If you're worried about your reputation, address concerns and do not tolerate problem behavior or repeat offenders.

If I were @uiowa, for example, & I heard from multiple sources that leadership within the nonfiction writing program created a toxic, racist culture, notorious among students & alums & visitors, I might investigate & try to keep faculty from harming others.

#BlackintheIvory

I think these orgs should conduct surveys where people involved can anonymously rate the institutional culture and climate. Just to take the temperature. That should be normal, not special. Every program should do that, tbh.

Friend was assaulted by a former colleague (from years ago) & she made a personal post on her facebook sharing how hard it was to see the dude (not named) who attacked her be promoted when she felt she had to quit for her safety. Her former boss called, told her to take down post

(That one wasn't at Iowa -- just another friend with her small group of facebook friends/family, etc.)

Wow. That reminds me of Bler's experience after Ice Cube. Like, she waited ten years-ish to discuss sexual assault, she didn't ID the guy at all... and yet SHE's the bad guy?

The friend who was assaulted by her former coworker?

The former boss (who she was in no way employed by & she had moved on to work in a totally unrelated field) convinced her that somehow she was damaging his (unnamed in post) institution & she should feel guilty & remove post.

What this institutional response might look like in a #NASCAR style timeline:

1/20/17 informed of assault

4/14/17 assaulted employee quits

1/16/20 assailant promoted bigly

1/18/20 former employee complains privately to FB friends

1/19/20 CEO calls her, urges cease/desist