A terminology quibble from the Readercon fiasco

[womzilla]

A "zero tolerance" policy and a "lifetime ban" are completely separate things.

"Zero tolerance" is a type of enforcement--true "zero tolerance" means that if you break the rule, you will receive the punishment, no exceptions. "Lifetime ban" is a definition of a type punishment that is available for those who punish those who violate the policy.

A zero-tolerance policy can have many levels of punishment, based on elements such as specific offense (a "zero-tolerance" rule against possessing weapons could still have different levels of punishment for carrying a knife vs. carrying a suitcase packed with explosives) or repeat offenses. "Zero tolerance" and "lifetime ban" aren't synonyms.

Comments

[nigelpuggle.livejournal.com]

Spoken like a true coceptual analyst. You go, man. And they say my philosophy degree isn't useful

[nigelpuggle.livejournal.com]

Conceptual. I hate this I-think I'm Smarter-than-humans phone.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally get that.

A point I think I made somewhere, though 'm not sure--might only have been offline to Gary--is that a major component of the fiasco was the combination of zero tolerance and a drastic, one-size-fits option like a lifetime ban. That has not worked out well for nail clippers in elementary schools, either.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Does "zero tolerance" mean that the action is unacceptable, or does "zero tolerance" mean the person committing the action is unacceptable and incapable of redemption for their whole life?

Interestingly (at least to me), of all the heat generated in this discussion, I have yet to encounter anyone who is actually in favor of an unsafe convention environment. Perhaps I have mercifully kept away from such discussions.

But the flip side is: Anyone who doesn't feel safe at a convention because in three year's time a jerk might be at the con and might behave poorly even though they have repented and everyone will be watching probably shouldn't go to the con.

[avram]

How about people who don't feel safe at a convention because the convention board indicated, through it's actions, that it doesn't follow through on its commitments to making the con safe?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

How does what the Readercon committee did make the convention any less safe?

[avram]

Readercon had a particular policy --- that's the commitment. It created, in many people who worry about harassment, an expectation that complaints of harassment would be taken seriously.

They then made an exception to that policy for a well-connected fan --- that's the lack of follow-through. That created, in many people who worry about harassment, an expectation that complaints of harassment by well-connected people would be taken less seriously than they ought to be. Even if the punishment Walling was originally given was enough to scare him straight, the fact that the board made an exception to a clear rule for someone they liked signaled that they could be expected to make further such exceptions in the future, and that could include something like flatly refusing to believe complaints of harassment in a case where there were fewer witnesses, or the behavior less blatant.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"in the future... could include something like flatly refusing to believe complaints of harassment..." Emphasis mine

Nonetheless, that's uncalled for speculation. It's not what happened. No one involved is in disagreement (you later reference a discussion below about what constitutes "random" and behaviors outside the con, but not what happened at the con). I have said elsewhere in this discussion why I think the committee was wrong to change policy after a verdict, but that's not the discussion we're having.

The fact remains that the situation was dealt with. The harasser was stopped and will not be back to the convention for a number of years... if ever. Frankly, I think the chance that he'll be back in the future is significantly less than the chance that harassment charges won't be taken seriously.

So the question remains unanswered: How does what the Readercon committee make the convention any less safe?

[redbird]

The problem with that argument is that it includes "anyone who has been harassed and doesn't see reason to believe a chazming offender's claims that he knows better now shouldn't go to the con." Calling an admitted harasser "a jerk" is minimizing the offense, and it's not just "anyone": the woman who was harassed stated publicly that she would not feel safe at Readercon if the offender was allowed back, and she had to worry that he would be lurking around the corner. That neither you nor I would feel unsafe in his presence is irrelevant.

Yes, you have been mercifully kept away from, or avoided, the people whose reaction to "Guys, don't corner women in elevators to proposition them at 3 in the morning" is to email rape threats. That incident was at a skeptical convention, not an sf con, but I do not believe that those men want a safe environment at sf cons either. Not safe for women, at least. (If someone keeps saying "I want you to feel safe" but objects to anything you say might help you feel or be safer, because it would be unkind to suggest that anyone else was endangering you or that any man's behavior might be objectionable, that person de facto favors an unsafe environment.)

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Now you're putting words in my mouth, and putting email threats into situations where none occurred. The question remains: How is chazming less safe due to actions actually taken? Whether she 'feels' safe is not the question; no one can control feelings. As you say, feelings are irrelevant. Is she (or anyone) actually safe? The answer appears to be yes.

[avram]

I think chazming was a typo for charming, the idea being that Walling is a charming fellow towards whom the board was favorably inclined, rather than being an annoying person like the guy with mental problems the con had permanently banned for harassment back in 2008.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the characterization "objects to anything you say [that] might help you feel or be safer" is fair. The benefit of all people has to be taken into account, and reasonable people can disagree about the levels of offenses, the length of punishment for those offenses, and so on.

[redbird]

If someone shoots down proposal after proposal for fighting harassment, and consistently demands a much higher level of proof for sexual harassment complaints than for any other charge, they are objecting to anything that might help women be or feel safer. They don't have to say "It's more important that no man ever feel insulted than that women not be attacked." Their actions and statements make clear that this is their priority.

In the midst of this, when the story was first posted to File770, someone responded by talking about it being unreasonable for someone to be punished based on "unsubstantiated allegations." He said this in response to an article that explicitly noted that the harasser accepted the charges. That's a reflexive "don't listen to the women" and/or "I know this guy, he can't be guilty." (In this case, at least, when it was pointed out that this was in the article, he accepted the coorection. Not everyone does.)

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Admitting that you did the actions does not equal admitting that you are a sexual harasser. And I'm not talking about proof but about levels of behavior and offenses. As I said, reasonable people might disagree. Personally, the scenario in question to me does not rise to the level of an "attack": the person stopped the physical behavior when requested, did not approach the woman alone, and I personally don't class putting your arm around someone (despite being incredibly rude and a clear violation of personal space) as constituting sexual behavior.

I'm not at all meaning to say that the woman in question didn't experience this behavior as harassment, just that objective policies need to define levels of behavior and the relevant punishments based on some stated standards and not subjective reactions, which could occur for a whole host of personal reasons. For example, my reaction and the woman's reaction are both legitimate but vary significantly.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"and consistently demands a much higher level of proof for sexual harassment complaints"

Whoa there. Just who is demanding such higher proof? "Someone" who wrote a letter? Certainly not the Readercon Committee, who came down hard on the offender. The argument here is about the punishment. No one in any of the comments I've seen here is denying the offense.

See below comment. You are awfully close to crossing a line.

[sarah-ovenall.livejournal.com]

"Zero tolerance" means the people enforcing the penalty have no discretion. They must enforce the rules equally in all cases regardless of extenuating circumstances, how much they like the people involved, etc. Think of "tolerance" in terms of engineering rather than social attitudes. A "zero tolerance" policy has zero tolerance: no acceptable variation.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I quite agree that the Readercon committee blew it. They had a stated policy and they didn't follow it. If you're going to alter the policy, you do so before you announce the penalties imposed under it.

But that's a separate issue, as womzilla notes above. A bad policy doesn't make a convention safer.

[sarah-ovenall.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're responding to; I haven't said anything about Readercon.

I thought your question about zero tolerance policies meaning the person subject to the policy was unacceptable and unredeemable forever suggested that you didn't understand what "zero tolerance policy" meant, and was trying to offer a more detailed explanation (to follow up on Kevin's perfectly clear explanation). Sorry about that.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

No one is going to come out and say "I am in favor of an unsafe environment for women at SF conventions."

However, what I saw was a lot of disagreement about what constituted a safe environment and how to achieve it.

The disagreements I have with you are these:

1. Sexual harassers are not simply "jerks". If you cut in front of me in line at the movies, you're a jerk. If you grab me, you'e a predator.

2. I think we've proven that the public, and fandom, have the memory of a goldfish--I am not convinced everyone will be watching. Maybe a few people will remember, but the number of apologists and excuse-makers convince me that no, not everyone will e waiting to pounce on the offender three years from now if he misbehaves. And besides, why should the female fans be the ones to watch their backs?

3. The offender in question was a *pattern* offender. The ReaderCon incident was not the first offense. There was at least one other, and I don't want another ReaderCon--or any other woman, but it's ReaderCon we're dealing with--attendee to be his third strike. I do not buy his apology given what I know about serial predators. The offender committed the offense, let him bear the burden of finding somewhere else to be, and let female attendees attend without worrying about watching their backs. He may be capable of redemption, but he can do it elsewhere.

What this says to me is you think it's more okay to let one guy, a serial harasser, come back to ONE convention, no matter how many women are made incredibly nervous by this. One man's convenience > lots of women's emotional and/or physical safety.

When you say to people, mainly women and their allies, that they should stay away from the con if they don't like the idea that this guy might come back, you are definitely telling me that you are, in effect, in favor of an unsafe convention environment.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

#3: The "offender" in question is *not* a "pattern offender." The second person who came forward had shared rooms with the person at at least two conventions to my knowledge and gone traveling with him. Whatever occurred between them, it was definitely not a case of a convention attendee randomly being harassed by a stranger, nor does it therefore serve as any proof that the person is question is likely to be a threat to a random female convention goer.

[(Anonymous)]

I have seen your comments elsewhere and there is disagreement on this. We needn't rehash it on in Kevin's space.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"you are, in effect, in favor of an unsafe convention environment."

Now you've stepped over the line. You've destroyed your entire argument. You owe me an apology before we can continue a reasonable discussion.

Emotions are running high, so I'll give you the second chance you're denying the Readercon offender. Seriously, you need to back off.

[(Anonymous)]

Then we will add another point on which we disagree. Or three, if I count all of them.

You have only said the same things I saw in a lot of other discussions. I don't feel apologetic for taking it apart. You are saying you would rather tell the women to stay away rather than the offender, whether they are safe or not. Dubiously safe isn't safe.

--esmeraldus


K, the anon was me. On an iPad and didn't know it would do that.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this sensible explanation. Among the many issues with this whole fiasco is that Readercon stupidly announced a single punishment in relation to its zero tolerance policy, and lumped all possible gradations of "harassment" together.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

This, I agree with heartily. I don't even object to the idea of a zero-tolerance policy, but the combination of a zero-tolerance policy and an inflexible, harsh punishment was basically a guarantee of this type of process failure.