![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mme_hardy ... a decision whose wisdom is becoming more and more and more apparent the longer the current debacle goes on.
The significant discussion is going on in the personal dreamwidth ofantarcticlust , here. Two different concom members have spoken. I want to call your attention. to a comment by jamiam, also a concom member. Excerpted; the full response is at the link under "call your attention".
"Wiscon itself was and is in danger this weekend, both as a concept and in practice. Various individuals from both sides are contemplating quitting the concom in sheer frustration, when the concom is already badly understaffed. A few of us are starting to think "burn it all down" makes sense. What's the point of a "feminist" convention if it can't listen to its own community and protect that community from harm? "
"Antarcticlust was the right person for the job because she understood the need for someone to do it, and she had a plan, and she was willing to spar with reluctant and established concom members to get it in place before W38. Antarcticlust is a career academic, and the plan was based on the well-established academic model for dealing with harassment cases. Of course, this model has known flaws, and (in hindsight) I think the subcommittee system failed in a pretty typical fashion. "
jamiam comment thread; jamiam is once again speaking:
" I'm involved in STEM and academia as well as SFF fandom; I can tell you a hell of lot more people are impacted by the abuse that goes on in academia and STEM fields right now, and there are a hell of a lot more interesting words printed on the topic of how to deal with it in those fields."
The significant discussion is going on in the personal dreamwidth of
antarcticlust , here. Two different concom members have spoken. I want to call your attention. to a comment by jamiam, also a concom member. Excerpted; the full response is at the link under "call your attention". "The concom was initially presented with the Frenkel subcommittee's decision on July 15, with the following preface:
This statement has been sent to Elise Matthesen and Lauren Jankowski, per their request. We are also circulating it to the concom for your information and advance notice; while we welcome your comments, this is the final document and it will not be changed at this point."
No comment.
"Wiscon itself was and is in danger this weekend, both as a concept and in practice. Various individuals from both sides are contemplating quitting the concom in sheer frustration, when the concom is already badly understaffed. A few of us are starting to think "burn it all down" makes sense. What's the point of a "feminist" convention if it can't listen to its own community and protect that community from harm? "
What indeed, asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
"...it has made clear to the rest of the concom how the subcommittee could have arrived at the decision it did: by consciously omitting most of the relevant information about Jim Frenkel's history in the SFF community, and by (apparently?) failing to discuss much of the information that was requested from Wiscon members for the purpose of making this decision."Well, that's certainly a solutiion. To what? I dunno.
"Antarcticlust was the right person for the job because she understood the need for someone to do it, and she had a plan, and she was willing to spar with reluctant and established concom members to get it in place before W38. Antarcticlust is a career academic, and the plan was based on the well-established academic model for dealing with harassment cases. Of course, this model has known flaws, and (in hindsight) I think the subcommittee system failed in a pretty typical fashion. "
The flaws in the academic model are not so much "known" as "notorious", witness the social media and mass media coverage -- including a front-page article in the New York Times! -- this Spring. I bring this up because antarcticlust has repeatedly referred to her academic expertise as proof of her competence. I would expect a person with academic expertise to be intimately familiar with, not just the flaws in the model, but the ongoing scandals directly attributable to this model.
Two down in the jamiam comment thread; jamiam is once again speaking:" I'm involved in STEM and academia as well as SFF fandom; I can tell you a hell of lot more people are impacted by the abuse that goes on in academia and STEM fields right now, and there are a hell of a lot more interesting words printed on the topic of how to deal with it in those fields."
And let their mothers lean from the upper windows and cry, "Let it blaze! Let it blaze! For we have done with this 'education!” -- Virginia Woolf.
Let it blaze. I have done with this 'feminist convention'.
Let it blaze. I have done with this 'feminist convention'.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 06:46 pm (UTC)I'm an academic, at a very conservative bible-belt uni, and our policies are so much more advanced than what Wiscon is using that they're not even in the same country. I'm a mandated reporter, for instance, as is every single uni employee. (That came straight out of Sandusky, was voted into our uni constitution, signed by the chancellor, blah blah.) We all, as students and employees, have to attend sexual harassment training (online). It's not a great system, by any means. I am not endorsing it as super-awesome. But compared to Wiscon here? Jeez.
There's all kinds of weird ways that academic systems fail, and boy howdy, we ain't perfect. But if I was an academic in this situation, I'd have hoped I'd have done a basic lit review, ffs. You know, at least Google 'harassment + convention' and find all the Jim Hines posts and stuff. I just. Wow.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 07:14 pm (UTC)The standard university response has been proven to be of use primarily in helping universities hide and obfuscate examples of sexual assault and sexual harassment. I leave the parallels to the reader.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 07:39 pm (UTC)I'm baffled that they didn't see some of these failures coming. I just, the whole thing is imploding so vigorously that my jaw keeps dropping.
The committee's refusal to even clarify how many years their original statement meant is staggering. I'm starting to wonder if the committee doesn't even know what they meant!
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:15 pm (UTC)My theory is that there are a thousand years (to put it conservatively) of English legal experience in setting up the formal court system, and what's going on in academia is an attempt to replicate that system *without anybody involved having any training in those processes*. Hence
It's not enough to say that the board members are people of good will. You actually have to know a lot about how people behave in an investigtion and (more importantly) how people are allowed to behave, and the differences between an inquisitorial and an adversarial system, and what is and isn't evidence.
That's a heavy-weight system. The university approach seems, consistently, to be saying "Well, we'll just do a lightweight system that looks exactly like the heavyweight system, and that'll work." And then you have people on the judiciary committee who are the college bookseller and always wanted to participate. (This was in the Times; I think it was one of the bible-college cases.)
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:47 pm (UTC)You can't toss random people in a room and expect them to know that one of the main victim responses to assault is 'flat affect' rather than 'visible traditional cultural signs of distress such as crying'. Or to hide and not report for a few hours, because trauma.
(Obviously you can, because that's what they've done. But it just means that the Uni will never find anyone guilty and will merrily destroy a bunch of psyches in the process, up to and including those of committees/friends/victims/associates/etc.)
There's all kinds of processes whereby police confirm alibis, evaluate suspects, and so on. That's another segment unis don't take into account. Plus, well, there's just entire systems for this that involve tons of (expensive, trained, experienced) personnel. It's not a hobby, for goodness sake, it's more of an entire complex system and you can't mimic it with a three-person board, a filing cabinet, and a box of donuts.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 09:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 09:06 pm (UTC)And Brutus is an honorable man.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 07:04 pm (UTC)How could the outrage over the Frenkel decision POSSIBLY have been a surprise to anyone? I only know about Wiscon because I have friends who attend, and I was fucking outraged.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 07:15 pm (UTC)edit: Agreed on the sparkles, and adding jimmies and gold oak leaf clusters.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 06:04 am (UTC)I really got the sense that people on the committee were trying to do the right thing, but it is utterly inexcusable to be ignorant of the events at Readercon 2012 and the drive for cons to have clear and practical harassment policies that followed from it.
It's would almost be schadenfreude to watch them going up against the people who have been part of that dialogue, except that I am deriving no joy from it, just a cringing sense of embarrassment on their behalf.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 07:43 pm (UTC)Is there a passport stamp you need to make complaints "official"?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 08:21 pm (UTC)But "witness statement" has a meaning in my lexicon. As does "affidavit". And "exhibit".
But you can't start talking about "formal" and "informal" evidence unless the terms of reference are transparent.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 08:25 pm (UTC)http://antarcticlust.dreamwidth.org/257808.html?thread=4199184#cmt4199184
> even spending time on the ConCom quibbling over what counts as admissible (formal or not formal). There are people who think that if it's not formal, it doesn't count, from a legal standpoint.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 09:02 pm (UTC)more relevant precedents
Date: 2014-07-23 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 12:17 am (UTC)Courtesy of an update to Radish Reports:
https://twitter.com/antarcticlust/statuses/492061645108412417
https://twitter.com/antarcticlust/statuses/492062176472211456
No, Tor did not have a confidentiality agreement that forbade Frenkel's apologizing.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 06:28 am (UTC)If these muppets had understood anything whatsoever about evidence or the judicial process (since that's what they claimed they were applying, Cthulu alone knows why) they'd have realised that Frenkel telling them that his agreement with Tor (which they had not seen) forbade him apologising was classic hearsay evidence and being self-serving hearsay evidence (that is, hearsay evidence benefitting the person putting it forward) it was of very little probative value. However, the obvious action at the time (no, not a month or two later after all sorts of kerfuffle in the meantime) would have been to drop an email to Macmillan (NOT MacMillan - he used to be both our PM and the Chancellor of my university, so I should know) saying, "Excuse me, having a bit of an investigation into harassment over here; the accused says you've got a legal agreement with you under which you forbid him apologising to women he admits he's harassed*, what do you say about it?"
At which point they'd have got the email back which they now have got - which, by the way, is also hearsay, since all documentary evidence is hearsay, and documentary evidence which describes the contents of a document not itself in evidence (or a non-document, given that Frenkel was either asserting the evidence of a document that doesn't exist at all, or doesn't exist in the form described) but would have had higher probative value because Macmillan had less reason to lie.
[The only direct evidence which used to be admissible of the contents of documents was having the person who produced them give direct oral evidence under oath and subject to cross-examination of their contents and the authenticity of the copy before the court, which is why British crime and court dramas have so many scenes of a man in a wig glaring at a man in a helmet and saying, "Officer, this is your notebook? Can you read out to us the relevant section?" Naturally this got far too much faff in the internet age, so now there are various rules about lists-of-document-verified-by-statement-of-truth and presumptions-as-to-authencity and orders-for-specific-disclosure and, of course, what used to be called the subpoena duces tecum]
But they could then have gone back to Frenkel and said, "Er, were you sure about this agreement?" and he would have gone, "Oh, sure, we negotiated it for ages and I remember the clause in particular because my lawyer wanted it out because I was desperate to apologise but their lawyer said no way, it'd open up a huge can of worms and expose the company to law-suits so very reluctantly I agreed, and it's very unfortunate but what can you do, you know what these lawyers are" at which point they could have whipped out the email and gone "Aha! Take him down to the cells, sergeant!"** [I'm suggesting that if they want to play Perry Mason, it might do them good to have actually watched the show.]
At which point they could have perma-banned him for contempt of the disciplinary process, plus harassment*** and told him if he squawked about it all bets would be off regarding what they said about it in public spaces.
Muppets. Muppets.
*If the question of an apology was on the table at all, one presumes that the committee had at least accepted that harassment had occurred and Frenkel had at least admitted that acts which might have been construed as harassment if looked at sideways from the bottom of a glass might also have occurred. Though nothing, of course, can be taken for granted.
** The above is, of course, RPF of a hypothetical situation, but if you want a real life example of something like that happening (and costing the party with the disastrous witness three figure numbers of millions as a result, try here , para 174 onwards.
***Generally speaking, a witness proven to have lied about one aspect can be taken to have had his credibility shot on other aspects of his defence, too, and anyway in the scenario where they'd actually understood evidence they'd have got more stuff from complainants and other witnesses too.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-25 04:06 am (UTC)Ohhhhhh. Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 04:04 pm (UTC)-- kore on DW
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 10:55 pm (UTC)The issue is, is it not, that there are harassers who have gotten a free ride because they have high social status within the community, so when they're caught harassing the issue becomes How can we balance the needs of [harasser] with the needs of the community? And that since this institutional bias protects high-social-status harassers, their targets have been made to feel as if what happened to them is less important than the comfort of their harasser? And that there was wailing and gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over the lack of an existing structure to deal with incidents of this kind?
So given all that, did nobody think it might be not the best idea for the group formed to deal with this issue to be called the Frenkel subcommittee? With all due respect to all concerned, I think maybe these folks need to establish a policy and a structure for enforcement which applies to total strangers nobody likes and apply it to Mr. Frenkel.
I know one of the players in passing, so I guess I can be presumed to be biased. Still.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 12:22 am (UTC)I would have said, myself, that having a "Frenkel subcommittee" was a remarkably bad idea, just because the name of it implies that there's only one problem with only one person.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 03:03 am (UTC)Also, I have just this day listened to the final trio of Der Rosenkavalier *and* discovered Diana Damrau.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 04:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-23 02:55 am (UTC)