[LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

From: Raymond Smith <raymond>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:23:55 +1000

On 31 January 2011 20:59, David Tangye <davidtangye at gmail.com> wrote:
> re; "We had developed internal procedures for enforcing?the policy which
> naturally flowed from it. ?Those procedures said Mark's?talk should have
> stopped when it became evident it violated the policy.?Given we had adopted
> the policy, I fully endorsed those procedures and?their implementation. ?I
> don't know why they weren't followed for Mark's?talk."
>
> This room co-ordinator was not aware of this requirement, and on reflection
> now, would probably not be interested in enforcing it. [...]

If that is the case then there was a failure in the training. I gave
three pre-conference training sessions. Each one was largely
unscripted, certainly we had no slides. So it may well be that I did
not cover the topic of talks explicitly in the session you attended.

However, the message I wanted to give was that the behaviour covered
by the policy (which included sexual imagery) was not acceptable at
any time including during talks. You would recall from the training my
advice to use your common sense and a large dose of discretion was
expected from volunteers. If the "problems" were isolated, or very
minor then there would be no cause to interrupt a talk. But, if the
speaker was abusing their platform then volunteers were expected to
step in.

> I need to see the video to get a better feel for the issue in the context it
> was delivered. All I can say at this time is that to throw the F word out at
> a technical conference, and in an environment that wishes to attract more
> women, is at least a bit bizarre IMO. Perhaps my mid-20th century values are
> out of date, but that is how I am guided in running talks and formal
> occasions in the past and future. I and we are all judged (by our values as
> expressed and our actions) differently by all the different people around
> us, and the wider community, whether we like it or not.

Reading the above, and knowing you as I do, I am sure that we are
actually in agreement. It is also very, very telling that no other
talk had any problems. It would seem that it is easy to adhere to
professional standards.

-----

Now that I have been drawn to participate in this thread let me add
one comment. It is important to remember why we felt the need to have
a policy in the first place, namely the problem of sexual assault
against women in our community and at our conferences in particular.

A talk which relentlessly employed the language and imagery of sexual
assault as a metaphor for the loss of personal freedoms was
inappropriate. Mark's theme was timely and valuable. How much better
it would be if it had been delivered with respect for those members of
our community who have actually been assaulted. It is easy to do --
everyone else at the conference managed it.

Cheers,

Raymond
Received on Mon Jan 31 2011 - 22:23:55 GMT