[diversity-talk] anti-harassment policy at SotM
Rob Nickerson
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 19:39:48 UTC 2013
>I was surprised to find that almost everyone who engaged in the discussion
opposed this. The opposition included... <snip>
Jon,
I think "opposition" isn't quite right. There was genuine concerns over the
wording and how to enforce this. For full transparency, I have therefore
copied the entire email threads (x2) below (read from top to bottom)
redacting names and replacing with letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L
- yes 11 people in total).
Finally it is worth noting that SOTM is an OSMF event and any policy should
really have had the sign of of OSMF. Local SOTM events (e.g. SOTM US) are
of course welcome to do what they like as they are not governed by the OSM
Foundation.
Rob
====== First Email Thread =======
4 April 2013 22:04
From: A
Hi all, this is something I meant to raise on the con-call but it slipped
my mind.
Although SotM hasn't had an anti-harassment policy before, and has luckily
not needed one so far, I believe we should have one - and preferably in
place before registration opens. Hopefully, once it's done we can just
forget about it.
To explain why, let me give you two scenarios. Imagine you are sitting
manning the desk during SotM, and someone comes up to you, visibly upset.
Perhaps it's a blonde woman complaining that a guy wearing a badge from one
of our sponsors just won't stop hitting on her. Or it's a young man who
says that someone at the bar has figured out that he's gay and has launched
into his entire repertoire of homophobic jokes, which he's convinced
everyone must find hilarious.
Scenario 1: no anti-harassment policy: you don't feel empowered to handle
this on your own. You gather together a couple of other members of the
organising team, and their first question is to wonder whether such a
situation has arisen before, so someone goes off to seek out an OSMF board
member. Meanwhile the complainer is telling anyone and everyone about what
has happened to him/her, and rumours are starting to fly round the
conference that something serious has happened. (I have seen this happen!)
Scenario 2: we have an anti-harassment policy, which everyone who has
registered has agreed to abide by. Armed with a printout of this short
document, you confront the harasser and insist that they must stop. If they
refuse, you have the power to ask them to leave.
Here's a draft of such a policy - any suggestions or comments?
"Anti Harassment Policy
You are expected to be polite and respectful of everyone at SotM. Allow
people their personal space. Harassment of any kind, including verbal abuse
(such as racist, sexist, ageist or homophobic comments or jokes),
deliberate mockery or intimidation, or unwelcome physical contact, will not
be tolerated. If someone tells you "stop" or "go away", you must leave them
alone. If you continue to attempt to have contact with that person, you may
be removed from the premises. The decision of any on-duty member of the
organising team (identified by their badges) in this matter will be final.
By registering for SotM you agree to abide by this policy."
Some conferences also mention stalking and endangering personal safety but
I doubt we need to go that far. We could also mention ethnicity, religion,
gender identity and disabilities but I think it's clear in the text above
that racism, sexism etc are just examples.
Does anyone not agree that this is a good idea?
--------------------------------------------------------------
4 April 2013 23:18
From: B
Can't people be trusted to behave themselves?
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 00:14
From: C
I read somewhere recently that a delegate at a python conference in the US
made such a complaint. So in answer to B's question, it appears people
cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 08:54
From: D
Hi everyone
I can see what A is attempting to do here but I think we're entering an
absolute minefield. Natural justice asserts that the accused has a right to
be heard so we can't just act on the verbal evidence of the accuser(s)
Sometimes cases are blatantly obvious but many will be difficult. And what
of those excluded who decide to be litigious (despite agreeing to the
terms)? I also think that a policy like this sends out a negative message,
as if we're expecting trouble of this kind. Do we have any examples of what
other events use?
Regards
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 09:16
From: E
Hi all,
I can see the potential problem. However, the text should be a more
positive, or less emphasising the negativity.
Something like: we are a great community built equality and mutual respect.
And we're looking forward to a great conference where everybody feels
happy. In the unlikely case that people misbehave, the organisation has the
right the remove these people from the premises.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 09:31
From: D
Hmm I don't think we have the right to remove them from the premises - I
think that is Aston University's remit. We only have the right to exclude
them from our event. I also wouldn't want to get into phrases of physical
removal with all its connotations - I think "ask them to leave" or "exclude
from the conference" is better. And I think "Conference Organisers" is more
specific than "organisation" But overall I remain uncomfortable - policies
from other events would make me feel better. How were the incidents that A
and B spoke of resolved? Rgds
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 09:56
From: A
D: I looked at the policies of half a dozen other conferences on google and
used language from several of them for this wording. I agree that we should
also listen to the accused, I took that as read but perhaps it would be
worth making clear.
The conference I referred to was remembered for several years after as the
one where there was a problem. The PyCon incident last month which B
referred to was what reminded me of it. It blew up into an incident which
has been talked about all over the world. After the incident, PyCon hastily
updated its anti-harassment policy.
For example see:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/
and
http://plasticbag.org/archives/2013/03/on-being-grown-ups-about-childish-behaviour
E: I take your point about being more positive. However, to be useful we do
need to give at least some concrete examples of what mishbehaving actually
looks like (otherwise people will claim they had no idea sexist jokes can
be considered harassment), and make it clear that no means no (since, let's
face it, men have been known to take "go away" as meaning "I'm playing hard
to get").
How about this for a second draft:
We are a great community built equality and mutual respect, and we're
looking forward to a great conference where everybody feels happy. To
ensure that everyone has a good time, please be polite and respectful of
everyone at SotM. Harassment of any kind, including verbal abuse (such as
racist, sexist, ageist or homophobic comments or jokes), deliberate mockery
or intimidation, or unwelcome physical contact, will not be tolerated. If
someone tells you "stop" or "go away", you must leave them alone. In the
unlikely event that someone refuses to abide by this policy, after hearing
both sides, the conference organisers reserve the right to exclude that
person from the conference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 10:00
From: F
Hi
The Python conference had exactly the kind of policy proposed and the
consequences were a mess.
Policy https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/
Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/
UK legal commentator Technolama
http://www.technollama.co.uk/of-tweets-sexism-vigilantes-and-dongles
"I have never attended a conference that feels the need to have a code of
conduct. I may be naive and unfamiliar with how things are done in the US,
but I feel that this absence is a desirable state of affairs."
Generally OSM relies on the community to enforce norms. Community
disapproval would be more effective than trying to legislate for a problem
which is unquantified. If there is legal redress under UK law there is no
need to restate the law.
The terms are vague. Harassment exists in UK law but describes something
else. Giving offence is a risk of free speech and not something conference
organisers can adjudicate on.
However, we can certainly have policies to encourage better representation
of women and minorities at the conference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 11:18
From: A
Hi F,
Technollama admits that he may be naive and I think that he is. Harassment
does happen and the bigger SotM gets, and the more years it goes on, the
more likely it is that it'll happen one day. I think the OSM community is
brilliant and I've never seen anything resembling harassment at a SotM. But
all five SotMs I've been to were overwhemingly attended by white,
heterosexual, able-bodied males who tend, in general, to be the least aware
about privilege and harassment.
> Generally OSM relies on the community to enforce norms. Community
disapproval would be more effective than trying to legislate for a problem
which is unquantified.
Community disapproval takes time to emerge and so would be much less
effective in clearing up a situation when one individual feels unsafe at a
conference they are at calmly and QUICKLY - which to me is the key reason
for having a policy.
Then there are all the representatives of sponsors and public and private
sector companies that we are hoping will attend - they are not part of our
community, unaware of community norms and not in the slightest bothered
about community disapproval.
> If there is legal redress under UK law there is no need to restate the
law.
I'm not sure what you mean by legal redress - surely you aren't suggesting
that if an incident happens we should call the police, or that we should
advise the victim of harassment to sue.
> The terms are vague. Harassment exists in UK law but describes
something else. Giving offence is a risk of free speech and not something
conference organisers can adjudicate on.
> However, we can certainly have policies to encourage better
representation of women and minorities at the conference.
We can and should. Having a policy which recognises that women and
minorities are much more likely to get harassed, and committing ourselves
to protect them if necessary, is an excellent first step, I feel.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 12:08
From: F
A
To summarise, having the kind of policy you advocate on harassment
- sends a negative message
- places obligations on the organisers rather than the community
- is not enforceable
- and does nothing to promote greater participation by women and minorities.
I'm sure we all recognise the gender/ethic/class imbalances as problems.
The question is which policies, if any, are going to be effective in
improving participation?
Practically, we can do more by getting funding for bursaries for people to
travel from the underdeveloped world and inviting more women to speak. For
example NESTA has an initiative to end all-male panels
http://www.nesta.org.uk/blogs/policy_innovation_blog/nesta_pledges_no_more_all_male_panels
Quite a challenge if 90% of attendees are male.
If an outcome of this discussion is that we decide to try and do something
to change those imbalances it will have served as a useful starting point.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 12:28
From: A
> - sends a negative message
I agree that it sends a negative message to potential harassers, to
everyone else it's a positive message, that we are actively thinking about
such issues and willing to take action.
> - places obligations on the organisers rather than the community
Absolutely, since we're the ones in a position to do something about it
quickly if it happens.
> - is not enforceable
That's not a summary, just an assertion, with which I disagree. Having a
policy which people are told about in advance is exactly what gives us the
power to enforce it. If we make policy on the hoof we risk a harasser
turning round and saying "no, I won't change my behaviour - you just made
that rule up."
> - and does nothing to promote greater participation by women and
minorities.
Disagree - it sends a message that they can feel safe at SotM.
It's only a first step, I agree, but it costs us nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 12:52
From: D
Hi everyone
I think any policy we have should be minimal and generic - I think we are
really seeking to protect ourselves against all kinds of antisocial
behaviour not just harrassment. I favour something similar to the policy
you see at pubs and nightclubs, something like "The conference organizers
reserve the right to exclude anyone for unacceptable behaviour. Any
decision taken by the organizers is final". That gives us much more leeway
and people are used to seeing such policies. Additionally, we could
preface it with something less legalistic and more friendly like "Be nice
to each other!", but I think just the minimum is best. We can brief
volunteers at the conference start on what to do and how to respond.
Regards
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 13:06
From: G
How do you know most visitors were heterosexual?
Harassment is such a fine line to cross, maybe even the above remark is
harassing to some, I don't know.
Just a few of my opinions on this:
- I think it's a good thing A brought it up and we have to be very serious
about this.
- I think it should be a notification/remark on registration (no checkbox,
just a 'By registering, I agree...')
- I think we have to send an extra clear message to presenters and
sponsors: Something like: 'Do not make any harassments/insults/jokes about
this subject.'. I was at a PHP conference a few months ago that had a
'Flirt with Cloudia' poster for their main sponsor in cloud computing which
i found rather pathetic.
- I think we as organisers have to be very soon to respond if lines are
crossed. It's not something I feel very comfortable about doing and I'm not
sure when to handle exactly...
- I think we cannot enforce these rules outside of the venue / at bars /
gatherings surrounding SOTM13
Just my remarks...
G
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 14:17
From: D
Hi G
In line with my minimalist approach I don't think we should issue any
specific guidelines to presenters/sponsors. We have to leave it to the
community or individuals to respond as you did and deal with any formal
complaints at the event.
After all, we have to trust that most people presenting know what's
acceptable and what's not.
Agree that we can't be responsible for anything on the periphery outside of
what we're specifically organising.
Dealing with complaints at the event I think should be the responsibility
of 3 nominated people only so we get consistency and no decision should be
taken without at least two of the nominated people discussing and agreeing
action - that way we always have a cool head and don't respond emotionally
and regret afterwards (unless of course the behaviour is so outrageous that
it's obvious what to do).
Regards
D
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 14:57
From: A
Hi D,
> I think any policy we have should be minimal and generic - I think we
are really seeking to protect ourselves against all kinds of antisocial
behaviour not just harassment.
Oh? Do you have an example in mind here?
> I favour something similar to the policy you see at pubs and
nightclubs, something like "The conference organizers reserve the right to
exclude anyone for unacceptable behaviour. Any decision taken by the
organizers is final". That gives us much more leeway and people are used
to seeing such policies. Additionally, we could preface it with something
less legalistic and more friendly like "Be nice to each other!", but I
think just the minimum is best. We can brief volunteers at the conference
start on what to do and how to respond.
I think that's better than nothing, but:
- it fails to give delegates any clues as to what kinds of thing we might
consider unacceptable - it's fairer to tell people what's unacceptable
*before* they go off and do it (for one thing it might make them think
twice before harassing someone, which I don't think the minimal text will).
- it fails to send a message to minorities that we're thinking about
harassment and discrimination.
- it fails to provide any concrete guidance to team members on the ground
about what might constitute harassment.
Or are you suggesting that your minimal text should be what's made public
to delegates, but that volunteers should get a more comprehensive policy on
harassment that's secret? That would satisfy my last point but not the
first two, which seems like a missed opportunity to me.
I've probably said more than enough on this issue but we all have things we
care about! I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who hasn't commented
yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 15:30
From: D
Hi A
Well drunkenness,incapacity via excessive recreational drug use, violence,
threats of violence, playing loud music, spitting and vandalism are a few
antisocial activities that spring to mind that aren't specifically
harassment against minorities.
We should certainly evolve a comprehensive guideline for volunteers at the
conference, which is much more detailed than any public minimal statement.
My worries about statements re-assuring minorities is that the list is
never complete and you run the risk of inadvertently offending someone
because you've left them off the list ( I read a news story yesterday that
the categories of victims for hate crimes are to be extended to goths,
emos and punks, and I don't even know who emos are)
I just think we have to trust people to know what's acceptable and protect
ourselves and the conference community with a general policy statement
I'll follow your example and say that's enough from me
Regards
D
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 15:38
From: H
The key is that we don’t have to tell people how to behave. We aren’t here
to carry the stick. We only have to provide a policy that says that the
promoter has the right to exclude a delegate (with a refund if necessary).
Beyond that it depends upon what the issue is as to whether as promoters we
assist in dealing with an issue (e.g. making the call to the police or
whatever).
There is though the other side and that is we should make a strong
statement that as the conference promoter that we will deal with all
delegate applications and the delegate interfacing fairly and line with
current legislation. The conference venue and our insurance should
hopefully cover us beyond that (something to check re the latter).
Just my 2p worth.
Cheers
H
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 April 2013 17:10
From: J
I'm on the side of minimal text if any. What about:
Our community enjoys equality and mutual respect and we're looking forward
to a great conference. The conference organizers reserve the right to
exclude anyone for unacceptable behaviour. Any decision taken by the
organizers is final.
I see no need to offer advise to Sponsors - if they produce posters that
could be seen as inappropriate then they risk damaging their own
reputation. Complaints should be raised with the sponsor directly.
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 April 2013 15:08
From: K
I agree with the minimal text, if any.
I imagine that along with the venue, we have a right to evict anyone who is
carrying out illegal activities such as harassment.
I think it would be more important to define people who deal with
complaints in advance, so gossip of a situation doesn't spread through the
volunteer organisers before being dealt with. I expect the people to pass
complaints/issues to would be defined by a roles at the conference anyway.
================= Thread 2 Commences Here ===================
8 April 2013 11:31
From: D
Hi everyone
Summarising the discussion from last week where we seemed to have
conflicting opinions: I think we're all agreed we need something and I got
the impression that having a minimalist approach found favour with several
people. I've assembled a wording from contributions from E, J and myself
which I hope is acceptable
Our community enjoys equality and mutual respect and we're looking forward
to a great conference. So when you arrive treat other attendees and their
opinions with respect. In the unlikely event that anyone misbehaves, the
conference organizers reserve the right to exclude anyone for unacceptable
behaviour. Any decision taken by the organizers is final.
As we need something for registration go-live which is imminent can
everyone comment on statement until we have an agreed version.
Regards
D
--------------------------------------------------------------
8 April 2013 17:57
From: A
I'm still waiting to hear from Aston that they're ready; in the meantime, I
think the problem with this wording is that it talks about "misbehaviour"
and "unacceptable" without giving attendees any clues as to what would
constitute misbehaviour and what we might find unacceptable. How can it be
fair to warn people that unacceptable behaviour exists but not tell them
what that behaviour is?
The truth is, some people sadly don't understand that things like mockery
and flirting can constitute harassment, which is why the anti-harassment
policies of the conferences I looked at give examples of them. The wording
I suggested was:
We are a great community built equality and mutual respect, and we're
looking forward to a great conference where everybody feels happy. To
ensure that everyone has a good time, please be polite and respectful of
everyone at SotM. Harassment of any kind, including verbal abuse (such as
racist, sexist, ageist or homophobic comments or jokes), deliberate mockery
or intimidation, or unwelcome physical contact, will not be tolerated. If
someone tells you "stop" or "go away", you must leave them alone. In the
unlikely event that someone refuses to abide by this policy, after hearing
both sides, the conference organisers reserve the right to exclude that
person from the conference.
I got the examples in the middle part of that directly from
conference/convention anti harassment policies which I found by googling.
I'm mystified why we would not want to follow best practice emerging from
those conferences. I thought this would be a no-brainer.
I think we have an opportunity here to *prevent harassment from happening
in the first place* by letting people know what they shouldn't do.
Protecting ourselves by reserving the right to exclude someone is
important, but it would be much better not to have the problem in the first
place.
And I think we also have the opportunity to send a message that we care
about harassment. Having an anti-harassment policy that fails to mention
the word harassment would make us look like a bunch of predominantly white
able-bodied heterosexual males who don't care much about other groups
getting harassed.
A
--------------------------------------------------------------
8 April 2013 20:10
From: J
"How can it be fair to warn people that unacceptable behaviour exists but
not tell them what that behaviour is?"
Isn't that how most legislation works? The courts decide the details, not
the policy maker. In any case D does have a good point - communication
within OSM does not only happen at SotM. Really we should just be
reaffirming commitment to a policy that exists all year through all OSM
communication channels.
J
p.s. I don't much like your insinuation that white able-bodied heterosexual
males don't care much about other groups. That's a load of cods-wallop.
We've come a long way and there has probably never been a more open society
in the UK than right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
8 April 2013 22:02
From: A
> Isn't that how most legislation works? The courts decide the details,
not the policy maker. In any case D does have a good point - communication
within OSM does not only happen at SotM. Really we should just be
reaffirming commitment to a policy that exists all year through all OSM
communication channels.
No, I don't think that's how legislation works. Laws are incredibly precise
and courts have no freedom to decide the details, they are only there to
interpret how the rules apply in the circumstances presented.
> p.s. I don't much like your insinuation that white able-bodied
heterosexual males don't care much about other groups. That's a load of
cods-wallop. We've come a long way and there has probably never been a more
open society in the UK than right now.
I agree that things are better than they used to be but that doesn’t mean
everything is fine. I've been to dozens of conferences, seen harassment and
heard about more. My immediate circle of friends includes men who've been
gay-bashed and women who've been raped. White able-bodied heterosexual
males are by far the most likely to be harassers and by far the least
likely to be the victims, which is why they also tend to be the most likely
to dismiss it or downplay it as not a serious problem.
A
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 April 2013 12:17
From: D
Hi A:
Leaving things open is precisely the point. That way we're treating people
with the respect we expect from them and showing them our trust that they
know what constitutes acceptable behaviour. I don't believe it's up to us
to teach them how to behave. Other conferences might not trust their
delegates, that doesn't mean we should follow their lead. An open policy
also gives us more scope to exercise judgment.
I still maintain that we're trying to cover ourselves against a wider set
of behaviour than just harassment.
If what we are really seeking to do is to protect people from
discrimination and encourage participation from under-represented groups
then I suggest a simple "We seek to treat everyone equally, so we expect
delegates not to accept or participate in any form of discrimination, and
report it, if it happens."
I think we have to decide what we say within the next 2 days to have
something to go on the registration form at go-live; we can't really add
something later. If we can't decide then we should remain silent which
would be a wasted opportunity.
Regards
D
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 April 2013 12:39
From: L
I'm much happier with a broad ranging unspecific one for the reasons that D
suggests. If you happen to miss out something, then it'll cause an issue.
Also you don't know what'll come up until the day so having a broader and
simpler one covering everything, that has a positive slant on it is much
better in my opinion.
L
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 April 2013 17:57
From: A
> Hi A:
> Leaving things open is precisely the point. That way we're treating
people with the respect we expect from them and showing them our trust that
they know what constitutes acceptable behaviour. I don't believe it's up to
us to teach them how to behave. Other conferences might not trust their
delegates, that doesn't mean we should follow their lead. An open policy
also gives us more scope to exercise judgment.
I don't think mentioning harassment specifically reduces our scope at all
to exercise judgement. Other conferences have their policies because of
bitter experience, which we should seek to avoid. However nobody seems to
be supporting me (except C who agreed that experience shows it's a bad idea
to trust people how to behave) so I'll let it drop.
> I still maintain that we're trying to cover ourselves against a wider
set of behaviour than just harassment.
>
> If what we are really seeking to do is to protect people from
discrimination and encourage participation from under-represented groups
then I suggest a simple "We seek to treat everyone equally, so we expect
delegates not to accept or participate in any form of discrimination, and
report it, if it happens."
I think that's much better than not saying anything about what we mean by
unacceptable. But can we make it "discrimination or harassment"?
> I think we have to decide what we say within the next 2 days to have
something to go on the registration form at go-live; we can't really add
something later. If we can't decide then we should remain silent which
would be a wasted opportunity.
Agreed (though STILL waiting on Aston to complete their part; I have
prompted them again today). I think we've actually all agreed on all points
except whether or not it would be a good idea to give people examples of
what harassment looks like. I haven't seen anyone disagree that:
- we should frame the policy in positive terms
- it should be short and visible at some point during sign-up
- we should reserve the right to exclude people (only from the conference
itself) in an extreme case
- if an incident is reported we should act quickly
- we should hear both sides
- a minimum of two nominated team members should then reach a decision on
whether action should be taken
- we should foster a wider discussion as part of the Change stream.
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 April 2013 22:11
From: E
All,
I think we all assume nothing like this will happen at our conference. But
at the same time we also don't want to shut the stable door after the horse
has already bolted.
Thinking about it, this policy will probably end up in our conference
brochure (assuming we're going to have one), next to all the other general
announcements of emergency phone numbers and such.
Meaning we have still time and no decision needs to be made soon.
Would it help to raise this issue with the OSMF Management Team and Board
and hear what their opinion is.
Personally, yes I can agree with the summary of A on the "we all agree".
E
--------------------------------------------------------------
10 April 2013 10:16
From: D
Hi everyone
I've included harassment as A suggested so the final wording should be
Our community enjoys equality and mutual respect and we're looking forward
to a great conference. So when you arrive, treat other attendees and their
opinions with respect. We seek to treat everyone equally, so we expect you
not to accept or participate in any form of discrimination or harrassment,
and report it, if it happens. In the unlikely event that anyone
misbehaves, the conference organizers reserve the right to exclude anyone
for unacceptable behaviour. Any decision taken by the organizers is final.
E - certainly worth raising at MT and OSMF Board to let them know our
approach but I hope we've reached the best compromise we can given our
registration deadline, and one that's acceptable to OSMF. I certainly think
the whole subject of encouraging under-represented groups and their
treatment warrants wider discussion and the setting of policies and
strategies- If our debate is anything to go by, it should make a great
workshop for the Change stream
Regards
D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/diversity-talk/attachments/20130628/f532b3ea/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the diversity-talk
mailing list