Dark Days at Disney World

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
Excuse me, but couldn't Abu Ghraib be considered "one ugly incident"? If the incident did indeed occur, and if indeed this is sort of standard behaviour, then Disney should deal with it. At the very least, the incident described is clearly sexual harrassment, and I know at least in my world, my employer can be held responsible if they do not address an environment where such harrassment can occur. I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why there is less concern over this.

You may doubt the incident took place - that is one thing. To say it doesn't matter if it did is quite another.

The point was that the article appeared to infer that this was an indication of Disney's standards slipping. You may as well say that the horror of September the eleventh was an indicator that America's information networks are useless. They're not. America's information networks have probably prevented many more attacks over the years.

Trying to pass a sentiment that one represents the whole or even the majority is an agressive tactic in the outset and this appears to be what has happened here. The fact that I give little credit to this story is irrelevant - the article still appears on the strength of testimonies on these boards to be written in an inciteful style.

It is worth noting that this article is hear say (which would not stand up in court, here or in America) whilst the accounts given by other employees on this board are not and are therefore more credible



Rich::

 

[Mickmse2002]

Interesting debate. If this is a pervasive culture in the program (and I havn't seen anything to give credence to this supposition) and Disney management has been made aware of the specific harassment as alleged and have not responded then they would be culpable under US law. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Disney management would knowingly allow a hostile work enviornment, such as described in the article, to be fostered. I think at times what occurs is people have a mythical, mystical and unrealistic image of what the Disney of today is. Disney is an entertainment company catering to families in general. But the company is comprised of individuals, some good, some not so good, some we would call "moral and ethical", some we would not agree as being "moral and ethical". From my experience, having worked at a University for 16 years, it is not rational, and very "Pollyanish" for anyone to think Disney can control the behavior of these kids. The majority of college kids drink, many binge drink. This fact is nearly as timeless as Disney itself.

 

[CinderellaIam]

And in my personal experience, in life in general and the college program, the homosexuals are not the ones who try to make their lifestyles known to everyone in a 5 mile radius, the "Christians" are the ones often preaching to everyone who will listen and often to people who don't care to hear it

I agree, every homosexual I have been friends, co-worker and aquiantance with (living in NY and being in the fashiion industry, that is a LOT of homosexuals) I have NEVER known any one of them to push their lifestyle choice onto anyone else. Oh they certainly don't hide their life choice, but they don't get graphic about it in front of everyone, just as a heterosexual couple would not.

However those holier than thow Christians will preach at anyone who stands still. I was in a shoe store the day before Easter buying my 13 yr old niece shoes to go with her Easter dress. Buying shoes for a 13 yr old who wears a women's size 9 is no easy chore. She picked up a very "sparkly" pair of very high heels, before I could even raise my eyebrows a woman approached me and said " I see you are a Christian by the cross you are wearing, how could you possible let this child behave in such a manner? You are a disgrace to the Christian faith!". Well, to say I was shocked is putting it mildly. I turned to the woman and simply stated "Only God can judge us for our sins, and you, ma'm...have no resemblence to the Lord I was raised to obey and respect.

I mean really, where did this woman get off?!

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
Let me see if I understand this: if they took action, and the article does not reference it, then the report is discredited and the incident never took place? That logic sounds sort of like a Monty Python sketch...

no actually your inability to see the crystal clear logic is the only thing that sounds outlandish here...as matt very carefully and clearly explained there are only a few possibilities:

Possibility one is that Disney was never made aware of the problem--something the article never addresses and as Chuck S outlines with his fire/fire department example is a huge missing piece of information in order to judge anything about Disney's reaction to the whole thing...

Possibility two is that Disney was notified and have taken action to correct--which if the authors leave out that info is a HUGE piece of information missing-if intentional missing it is deceitful to say the least...(and typified by the dishonest way the same reporterr for the FRC misleadingly reported about the discontinuation of services at the Poly)--(if you do accept the fact that this was not represented accurately, then why did the reporter misrepresent this????)

Possibility three- is that Disney was notified and did nothing-- a possibility that would strengthen the notion being put forward that Disney is irresponsible on this issue and yet not something this reporter includes--a HUGE piece of evidence never offered--speaks volumes about how likely this possibility is..

In other words--no matter how you slice it this report is highly questionable based on simple logic and facts...

 

[rwodonnell]

Possibility 4: Disney was made aware of it, is addressing it in an ongoing manner, and the article does not address it because it is still unresolved or because they are unaware of what Disney's actions on the matter are.

In fact there are many more possibilities than exist in your simplistic model.

My problem is that you are calling the report "highly suspect", which calls into question the testimony of this woman, simply because the article does not reference Disney's response to the problem. That is not "crystal clear logic".

Also, regarding possibility one, as you outline them, I also fail to see how this woman's possible failure to report this to Disney results in your complete indifference to whether or not this occurred. Would you be so cavalier to someone who told a reporter they were raped? Are you aware of how many people do not report sexual assaults or harrassment right away? Most just try to remove themselves from the situation, because of fear, shame, or any number of natural (though undeserved) emotions. Reporting it later is not at all unusual.

I guess I just don't understand the indifference to this sort of story. Statements like "youth is wasted on the young" and "we are wasting our time" discussing this just mystify me.

 

[Mickmse2002]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
[I guess I just don't understand the indifference to this sort of story. Statements like "youth is wasted on the young" and "we are wasting our time" discussing this just mystify me. [/B]

I'm not being indifferent to the story. I just don't think it should be accepted as gospel on its face. I believe the OP was using this as an example of how Disney is slipping in it's management responsibility. I just do not see how this biased story containing unverified allegations are proof of "Dark Days at Disney World".

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Seems a few people have even skipped over the other report from Jim Hill that seems to sugguest some of the exact same problems...Like I said before I doubt this is the norm...but it does seem as if there is a problem there.

I lived in the Residence Halls at CU Boulder for all 4 years of my college experience. I worked for the Department of Housing as an RA, so believe me, I've seen a lot of weird stuff. Residence Halls are not nice places to live, but Vista Way was worse. Now, all I can speak of is MY experience, and while I feel I had an extreme situation, I don't think it was all that uncommon down there. I was 21 when I went on my program. I rarely drink, and I thought that if I lived with other girls over 21 that we would all be "over" the wild partying craze most freshmen and sophomores go through before they turn 21. I was wrong. In my apartment, there were 3 girls who are the "I'm only here to party" type people, 2 who were the "fun in the sun is better than regular school" type people, and me, the only "Disney-lover". To be honest, it was the 3 partying girls that made my living experience bad. They were loud girls to begin with, and they got even louder when they drank, which was about 6 nights out of 7. They were all 23 years old, and yet they insisted on bringing over 18-year old guys and supplying the alcohol for loud parties and ending up sleeping around with them. I had to sleep with my headphones playing music to drown out the noise, and then got to work the next morning exhausted. Our apartment was a constant mess (the "after-party" kind with beer cans everywhere and spilled food...etc). I looked forward to "PI night" when they would at least move the party somewhere else. I filed an official complaint to protect myself if we ever got "raided" and caught supplying alcohol to minors, but security never came around our place.

Now I realize that oftentimes, perception is reality. Even though it felt like "everyone" was just there to party, I'm sure it was probably around 40% of the people. But they were a very LOUD minority. The atmosphere at Vista Way was worse than anything I experienced at CU Boulder, which is ranked at the number one party school in the nation. And while some people did get caught and terminated, many more did not. There were many times when I considered quitting the program because my living experience was so miserable. And trying to change apartments was a whole other fiasco. It is definitely not as easy as other CPs have made it seem in their letters. But, I ended up sticking it out, and I think that was the right choice.

http://pub138.ezboard.com/fjimhillmediafrm17.showMessage?topicID=374.topic

Here are a few more stories that both support the good and the bad at the program.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
My problem is that you are calling the report "highly suspect", which calls into question the testimony of this woman, simply because the article does not reference Disney's response to the problem. That is not "crystal clear logic".

I don't think calling an article "highly suspect" in any way calls into question the testimony of this woman. What it calls into question is how the writer of the article -- or the organization whose agenda the article was written to forward -- used that information.

It's entirely possible that what this woman said happened actually did happen. People are strange, and they do all sorts of strange things. But if a writer takes an isolated instance and turns it into a condemnation of the entire Disney organization as a whole, then that is wrong. The piece of info we don't have is whether or not the woman in question reported the incident and, if so, what Disney did or is doing about it. We also don't know if the writer of the article ever asked her that question.

As for skipping over the Jim Hill story, Jim Hill has been known to be somewhat of a tabloid-style guy -- jumping on "hot" stories only to apologize for errors or admit to printing unsubstantiated info a week later. Go through the stories on his site and you'll see many instances of alarmist articles, only to be followed by, "well ... I guess it wasn't as bad as I'd portrayed ... " type of things. So just because it's on Jim's site doesn't make it any more credible.

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
I don't think calling an article "highly suspect" in any way calls into question the testimony of this woman. What it calls into question is how the writer of the article -- or the organization whose agenda the article was written to forward -- used that information.

Except that the testimony is a major part of that report, and the implication seems to be being made that the entire story is made up. I agree that the writer has a point to make (call it an agenda if you will) but almost all of what we read in print or online from media traditional and nontraditional is like that these days.

It's entirely possible that what this woman said happened actually did happen. People are strange, and they do all sorts of strange things. But if a writer takes an isolated instance and turns it into a condemnation of the entire Disney organization as a whole, then that is wrong.

You and I might agree on this, and I am all for personal responsibility, but my understanding is that the law is clear - that an employer has the responsibility to ensure a harrassment-free workplace. My guess is that if the employer provides housing to employess, as Disney does, this extends to the housing area as well. I suppose colleges would have a similar issue - does anyone know the law in that regard?

This woman, if the story is indeed true, is probably telling her tale to the wrong people. I would be surprised if there is not money to be made in a lawsuit. (And I am NOT saying I personally would do that, but the fact remains.)

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
[
As for skipping over the Jim Hill story, Jim Hill has been known to be somewhat of a tabloid-style guy -- jumping on "hot" stories only to apologize for errors or admit to printing unsubstantiated info a week later. Go through the stories on his site and you'll see many instances of alarmist articles, only to be followed by, "well ... I guess it wasn't as bad as I'd portrayed ... " type of things. So just because it's on Jim's site doesn't make it any more credible.

OK let me see if get it yet...the first story can be dismissed...Jim Hills story can be dismissed...what about the other posters who rang in with some of the same complaints? Dismiss them as well?

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
OK let me see if get it yet...the first story can be dismissed...Jim Hills story can be dismissed...what about the other posters who rang in with some of the same complaints? Dismiss them as well?

I am not sure anyone is COMPLETELY dismissing the idea that incidents such as this may occur from time to time. THey are dismissing the premise of all these websites that DIsney is somehow responsible for the behavior of adult employees who are off the clock, regardless of whether they "live" on site or not.

 

[kathylovesdisneyworl]

Phoebesaturn, you tell us to check the article again because we are missing the fact that she reported the incident to the authorities. The article states she reported the underage drinking so she was protected if they were ever raided. That has nothing to do with her accusation of sexual harrasment.

I would like to know from someone in the program if Disney offered dorm like housing owned by the company. Not even sure then if they are respondsible for the actions of others outside the apartments.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by kathylovesdisneyworl
Phoebesaturn, you tell us to check the article again because we are missing the fact that she reported the incident to the authorities. The article states she reported the underage drinking so she was protected if they were ever raided. That has nothing to do with her accusation of sexual harrasment.

Excelent non-reading of the stories...Go back read again...this time finish all the links and stories before you start typing. The first lady apparently according to people here (becuase its not in the article) did not report what happened to her. The second lady (Jim Hills) site did but got no response from secuirty. Then there is a third link where more people have posted their experince with the college program...some had a good time while others had some of the same bad experinces as the first two.

Of course Disney has some responabilty for actions taken in dorms they own and rent to people in their college program ...just as regular Colleges do. This inculdes incidents where illegal activites are going on and have been reported as in one case we know of. They also appear to foster the envoirment that these people are living under while at the program.

 

[kathylovesdisneyworl]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Excelent non-reading of the stories...Go back read again...this time finish all the links and stories before you start typing. The first lady apparently according to people here (becuase its not in the article) did not report what happened to her. The second lady (Jim Hills) site did but got no response from secuirty. Then there is a third link where more people have posted their experince with the college program...some had a good time while others had some of the same bad experinces as the first two.

Of course Disney has some responabilty for actions taken in dorms they own and rent to people in their college program ...just as regular Colleges do. This inculdes incidents where illegal activites are going on and have been reported as in one case we know of. They also appear to foster the envoirment that these people are living under while at the program.

So sorry I misread your post. I thought your bold type was from the original article that you posted.

And as far as who is respondsible for the actions of people on the grounds, I still don't think it is Disney, just like any college. The college wouldn't be on trial for sexual harrasment, the guys would.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Ok, I'm going to ask it...is everyone dismissing this story because it's from a Christian writing on a Christian organization's website? What if it came from the Orlando Sentinel or some other "credible" source (I put credible in quotes not to discredit the Sentinel, but to show the fact that everyone can find SOME bias from all their sources). Would you automatically discount it then? I can believe her story, because it hasn't been that long since I was in college and witnessing the same types of things. Not the exposing, but the rest of it. If I were running the website that this story came from, and I found this story, you can bet I'd use it, because it furthers my agenda. But, that doesn't mean the story's not true.

BTW, CinderellaIam, your story about the woman coming up to you in the shoe store is horrible! I am a Christian, and I'd probably have to tell her to MYOB!

Back OT-the woman writing says she was in the apartment Disney put her in, with 5 other people (or 5 total, can't remember which). Former CP cast members: do you have to live where they tell you, or can you move? If she could move, then shame on her for not doing so. If not, maybe Disney needs at least to up their security and follow up on loud partying, just for disturbing the peace reasons, not to legislate how much people drink.

(Added later: OOPS! I forgot I wasn't on the Debate board!!! Sorry if I sound too argumentative!! Hopefully, this thread won't get moved just because I got lost!)

 

[Chuck S]

Actually, it would be a big stretch for me to refer to the FRC site as a "Christian" site.

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by kathylovesdisneyworl
And as far as who is respondsible for the actions of people on the grounds, I still don't think it is Disney, just like any college. The college wouldn't be on trial for sexual harrasment, the guys would.

I'm not a lawyer, but I often pretend to be one in real life.

I finally decided to look around for some documentation on the liability of someone offering housing. After a few google searches (hit paydirt with "sexual harassment housing") I found out a few things:
1. Almost all states have sexual harassment guidelines in their Fair Housing laws, including Florida.
2. These guidelines indicate that the landlord is not only liable for their own personal conduct (of course) but also have an obligation to maintain an environment free of sexual harassment.
3. There are a number of cases where racial harassment suits were won by plaintiffs against both the harasser and their landlord. Presumably, the same could happen in sexual harassment cases, though I could find no examples in my searching.

Here's a nice quote from the Minnesota Fair Housing web site (couldn't find anything succinct from Florida):

A landlord's obligations with respect to sexual harassment are in many ways similar to an employer's: in addition to not harassing his tenants, a landlord has an obligation to maintain an environment free of sexual harassment.

If a caretaker or another of the landlord's agents is harassing a tenant, the landlord is potentially liable. If one tenant is sexually harassing another, the landlord also has some obligation to do what he can. "If he doesn't do anything, it would be similar to an employer who has failed to pay attention to an employee's complaint of sexual harassment," says Department of Human Rights supervisor Gary Gorman. "The landlord could be violating the Human Rights Act, by creating a hostile environment for that tenant."

Also, at the FairHousing.com archives, I found this old "clipping" from a Supreme Court ruling regarding schools and universities:

(Washington, May 26, 1999) The Supreme Court ruling that exposed schools to lawsuits for student-against-student sexual harassment is so narrowly defined that some legal experts say it may have limited impact in the courts, and even less effect on America's playgrounds.
School boards can be held liable, but only if officials deliberately ignored sexual harassment so severe and pervasive that it deprived a student of his or her right to an education, according to Monday's 5-4 high court ruling.
``This is a very high standard,'' said Catherine Fisk, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles who has written extensively on sexual harassment. ``I don't think it is a big change in what most people thought the law was.''

So to wrap up a long post (sorry), the bottom line is Disney could, I would imagine, be held liable if it could be proved that they know about this behaviour (i.e. been told about it in the past, had other allegations in the past, etc.) and did not take measures to prevent it from continuing. However, that standard might be pretty hard to reach.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Chuck, I haven't been to that website, but I gathered from this discussion that James Dobson founded it. Did I get that wrong? Why wouldn't it be a Christian website? (Really not trying to be argumentative, just asking for clarification. )

 

[Chuck S]

Because it is a political website pushing James Dobson's agenda. Last I heard, James Dobson does not speak for ALL Christians. At least he certainly doesn't speak for this Christian, nor are his views endorsed and accepted by every "Christian" sect. Unless you have some "inside" information that he is the product of divine conception.

 

[Mikelly1221]

No inside info here, just curious. Thanks for the clarification.