![[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: 2014-07-23 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