Jonathan Ichikawa

good: exhibiting due epistemic humility fine: snark bad: acting like you know what's gonna happen when it's obvious that nobody doeshttps://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1118357581016133633 …

My tweet was funny because that headline was so perfectly on-brand (and I am pretty sure it was written with a bit of a wink for just that reason in the first place), not because there's anything wrong with the idea of modelling such dramatic uncertainty

Some people are using my tweet to try to dunk on Nate and fivethirtyeight, just for the record, I think their models and other data analysis tools are excellent and do a really great job. I'm the kind of nerd who wants to see the 87 possibilities and I'm glad they give us them

...and none of them accurately described tonight!

OK legitimately, wowhttps://twitter.com/ClareMalone/status/1224485118271803392 …

I get the motivation. We hate the idea of a serial perpetrator not facing investigation because no victim is willing to report. I feel the ambivalence. But that way lies mandatory reporting and all its associated trauma. We were right the first time, to take the other path.

It sort of seems like the SVPRO would have to start keeping records of this kind, under the proposed amendment. A record of disclosures, not reports, that name the perpetrators. The inevitable result is that disclosures are going to become potentially more costly.

In fact, at the session I attended yesterday, the SVPRO officer I spoke to told me that if someone makes a disclosure and decides not to make a report, the SVPRO won't even keep a record of the disclosure afterward.

As it was explained to me, it's a deep part of the culture of the SVPRO that it is separate from the IIO. If survivors want to make reports, it will help them by pointing them to that office, but disclosures can never do that without survivors' say-so.

I missed the significance of this change at first. I've since learned more about how the SVPRO works, and how core it is to their mission that survivors can access services without triggering investigations. I'm grateful to Burnham and the @Ubyssey for highlighting it.

This is a significant blurring of the lines between disclosures and reports, and between the SVPRO and the IIO.

So the suggestion seems to be, the director of the SVPRO — that's the office that handles only disclosures, not reports — can make an "institutional report" to the IIO, even if none of the people disclosing ever chose to report.

That's how things word under the status quo. (I'm just going based on personal understanding but that's what I get from reading the policy, and from what I was told at a recent SVPRO training session on disclosures, I'm pretty sure I have it right.)

If someone makes a disclosure to a colleague or a professor or to the SVPRO, it remains entirely at their discretion whether or not also to make a report to the IIO. This is important.https://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1214801969627271168 …