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

[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?

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

What the COMMITTEE has done--enforce the policy that was in place when the assault took place--has made Readercon safer. What the BOARD did--make an exception because a well-liked BFN said he was really, reallt sorry about the assault--made the convention less safe.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

How? The harassment was stopped and he was removed from the con for several years. How is the next con less safe?

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Let's say a convention has a horrible incident with one attendee coming up to another in the middle of the main corridor and, unprovoked, punching them square in the face. The convention board's response is to expel the assailant permanently from the convention. They then, with great fanfare and significant praise, write into the convention guidelines that anyone who assaults another member of the convention will be banned forever from the convention.

Four years pass. It happens again--right in the middle of the main hall, bam, right in the face. Only, this time, instead of being an obviously crazy person, the assailant is a well-liked member of the community. The victim complains, and the convention board* decides that the rules don't actually apply, and that the assailant will be allowed to return in 2 years because he's really, really sorry for the unprovoked assault.

*You keep conflating the board and the committee. The committee are the people who actual run the convention. The Readercon board is an august body with little actual responsibility to the convention. The committee was appalled by the board's actions in this actual case.

Do you think you would feel MORE safe or LESS safe for what the board did? Not just 2 years from now, when the assailant returns; do you think you would feel MORE safe because the board said, "We will enforce the rule against punching people in the face sometimes, but not in full, if we feel like it"?

But you've already declared that you have no interest in hearing what other people dare to say about this. So, whatevs.

[avram]

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).

If you're referring to this comment of mine, I was referring to this comment by smofbabe, the first paragraph of which is all about claiming that Walling's behavior towards Valentine at Readercon this year doesn't count as harassment:

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 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.

And I have said, in the very comment to which you were replying, why I think that the fact that the board (not the committee) made an exception to their policy was the very thing that made the convention less safe.

I expect that what's happening in this conversation is that you're not seeing a link between actual safety and expectations of safety. But safety-from-harassment arises out of a culture that takes harassment seriously as s problem. Lots of harassment comes from pros and big-name fans --- the very people who are most likely to be granted an exception to the rules, or have complaints against them ignored as ambiguous or lies or dismissed as "Oh, that's just Harlan being Harlan". Granting exceptions for the well-connected, as I said above, signals that you're the kind of person who grants exceptions for the well-connected.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"you're not seeing a link between actual safety and expectations of safety"

Expectations... when? The offense was dealt with at the time. The offender won't be back for several years. Sounds like a culture of safety to me.

That the offender was well-connected means that his reputation is soiled amongst his close friends, and most of his social circle will be watching him like a hawk. While I think it was stupid of the con to change policy on the fly in the way they did, it's not like he was given a time out and a cookie. I would say that expelling a well-connected fan would make a con safer than expelling someone not as tied to the community. Sounds like a culture of safety to me.

[avram]

What part of "Granting exceptions for the well-connected [...] signals that you're the kind of person who grants exceptions for the well-connected" are you having trouble with?

Also, what about the first half of my comment? Do you concede that smofbabe disagrees that what Walling did to Valentine constitutes sexual harassment?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

What part of "zero tolerance for an action is different than zero tolerance for a person" are you having trouble with.?

And, no, you should read what she said again. She doesn't actually say.... oh god, never mind. Frankly, I think this whole discussion has descended even farther from "this is what actually happened" into the utterly useless "people who weren't there and didn't have anything to do with it are being quoted as key witnesses".

People I respect are behaving like idiots and I'm leaving before I descend to that level.

My work here is done.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I most assuredly did *not* say that "Walling's behavior towards Valentine at Readercon this year doesn't count as harassment." I said that *to me* it didn't rise to the level of an attack. And I specifically said that the woman in question did consider it harassment and that her position was absolutely legitimate. I notice that you didn't quote that part.

Genevieve felt threatened, harassed, and unsafe. In the same situation, I do not believe that I would have felt threatened, harassed, or unsafe. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't or didn't, or that I should. And it indicates a real difficulty in adjudicating matters of this kind.

[avram]

That may be what you meant to say, but it is sure as hell not what you actually said.

Putting that aside, why is it relevant that you, had you been in Valentine's position, would not have felt harassed? Presumably, in her position, you wouldn't have filed a complaint. Had someone filed one on your behalf, and the convention staff followed up with you about it, you might have told them there was no problem. Under those circumstances, I don't imagine that any disciplinary action would have been brought against hypothetical-Walling, so adjudication wouldn't have been an issue.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I guess one of the questions for me is "Who decides?" We had some discussions about this incident at Bubonicon this past weekend. Of four women in one of the discussions, three of them did not feel that the behavior in question would have made them feel unsafe or harassed. One did. The behavior was the same but the reaction to it was different. So how do you as a convention committee draft a harassment policy that describes levels of behavior and the commensurate punishments that is fair to all parties?

Before I continue, I want to make clear that I think there have been and unfortunately continue to be problems with some men at conventions and that it's important for women not to have to put up with harassing behavior or for men to get away with it. However, it's sometimes not as simple a problem as we'd like it to be. For a theoretical example, suppose a woman has had an unfortunate troubled past regarding violent behavior towards her from men. Suppose she is at a convention and she perceives behavior from a man as threatening that most women with a different background might not and she reports him. Does the fact that she feels unsafe automatically mean that the man is banned? Or suppose that a couple has had a bad breakup and at a subsequent convention they have a non-violent but nasty altercation - if she reports him, is he automatically banned?

I think the people are making this a black-and-white issue when it's sometimes not so simple for committees who want to do the right thing for all attendees.

[avram]

First, for drafting a more transparent anti-harassment policy, I'd start with this.

Second, keep in mind that Walling was reported for continuing behavior, not just that single thing where he put his arm around Valentine (although that was the most blatant incident). And Walling admitted the behavior. If Valentine had, as you say would have in her position, not considered his behavior harassment, she wouldn't have reported him, and he'd never have been accused of harassment.

If all he'd done was just touch her shoulder one time, seen that she didn't like it, and walked off and not bothered her again, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have reported him, and he'd never have been accused of harassment.

If Walling had disputed her description of the events, and Valentine hadn't had witnesses to back up her side, well, we don't know what would have happened then, do we? You seem to be assuming that the board would have automatically believed Valentine, but I doubt that, myself.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Still not making myself clear, I guess: when I say I wouldn't have felt unsafe or harassed, I'm talking about the entire incident, not just the arm around the shoulder. As we've seen, other women do or would.

Also, admitting that you did actions does not necessarily mean that you agree with the interpretations of those actions.

You don't seem to have responded to my hypothetical examples.