Debugging conference anti-harassment policies [LWN.net]

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 22:36 UTC (Mon) by ewan (guest, #5533)
In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies by cjb
Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want

No, it isn't. Your argument assumes that the majority's interests are antithetical to those of the minority, and that members of the majority don't care at all for the feelings of the members of the minority. Neither of those things is likely to be true.

The alternative, and more likely, reason for invoking the majority opinion is that there are common standards of behaviour, but some people find a range of other things to be offensive. While a person behaving in a manner that a majority finds offensive is probably doing something wrong, it's not as certain in the case where hardly anyone find them offensive. It is possible that the problem lies with the person with the problem, and it it them that is out of step with normal standards.

to post comments

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 23:19 UTC (Mon) by lakeland (guest, #1157) [Link] (7 responses)

While I agree with you, I think cjb raised a number of other very good points which you did not address.

I particular I thought replacing the test of whether it would be acceptable on broadcast TV with whether it would be acceptable in the workplace was an excellent suggestion.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 2:37 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (6 responses)

I think cjb raised a number of other very good points which you did not address

I did indeed only address the single point about the "The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want" because it's specially problematic - it implies bad faith on the part of anyone that disagrees by saying that there can be no legitimate reason for doing so, and that sort of thing gets us nowhere.

There's a case to be made that conferences should have a workplace style 'professional' atmosphere, and there's a contrary case to be made that they should have a more relaxed and social feel. Both points of view are respectable; trying to shut down discussion by painting some people as purely selfish would-be oppressors of minorities is not.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 12:10 UTC (Tue) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] (5 responses)

[T]here's a contrary case to be made that they should have a more relaxed and social feel.

Of course, this is tricky, because what one person finds relaxed and social (porn stars in a CouchDB presentation, for example), other people find downright icky. The nice thing about workplace social norms is that they tend to translate well across cultures, and that they're well-adapted to mixed groups of men and women.

I'm particularly concerned about behavior that makes a conference feel "relaxed and social" for particular 20- and 30-something male geeks, but makes it feel slimy to key technical contributors like Valerie Aurora. Now, there's no empirical link between the use of crass, sexualized metaphors in technical presentations and the all-to-frequent groping of female hackers. But I do know that some women perceive the sexualized metaphors as creepy, and part of a larger pattern. And if we are, in fact, trying to optimize for a "relaxed and social" environment, that very perception is a useful data point.

Now, I might feel differently about the BDSM imagery if it conveyed useful technical or political information, or if it were the actual subject of the talk. But when the sexualized metaphors are being used purely for "marketing" or rhetorical reasons, I'm already strongly biased against their use, just as I am biased against the use of "booth babes" to influence software purchasing decisions.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 15:29 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (4 responses)

It is tricky, but that doesn't mean that we should just cop out and go for a 'workplace' atmosphere. In my experience the more relaxed, social, going-to-the-pub parts of conferences are often the most useful, and can make a valuable contribution to establishing friendly relationships that then persist in online interactions. Saying 'keep it professional' is superficially attractive, but I do think there's a cost to doing so.

That's not to say I'm necessarily all for BDSM imagery in keynotes, but any policy needs to be limited enough to deal with real problems, without causing direct collateral damage, or having a generally chilling effect.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link]

I think there are a couple different things to address here.

One is the content of talks, which does not seem to have much to do with the "relaxed, social, going-to-the-pub parts of conferences" and, it seems to me, should be slanted to emphasize a workplace or professional atmosphere rather than a casual or social atmosphere. In a one-to-many presentation, there's not a whole lot of socializing going on or friendly relationships being established. What's more, the lack of one-to-one contact and highly public forum makes quick apologies more difficult if you metaphorically trod on another's toes due to the content of the presentation, so keeping things professional is the right thing to do.

Conference events in the more social milieu can run on less formality than the workplace - these are smaller groups or one-on-one occasions - but I do think that participants really ought to consider it like a "workplace social event" - an office party or offsite, where you can let your hair down some, but don't go get plastered and act like a boor, which is something that keeps other people from being relaxed and social. You don't want to keep people from sharing a little of themselves or their outrageous opinions in a smaller group or social setting, but some basic politeness and mutual respect can go a long way here, and isn't going to have a chilling effect on communication or social lubrication.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:16 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (2 responses)

Most people can have social, going-to-the-pub interactions without the use of BDSM or even gratuitous use of the word "fuck".

For the rest, well, they can actually go to a pub outside the conference sessions :-).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:21 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (1 responses)

> Most people can have social, going-to-the-pub interactions
> without the use of BDSM or even gratuitous use of the word
> "fuck".

Most people with the exception of most US-citizens can use and hear the word "fuck" in any social context (from bars to university lectures) without a) sexual connotations b) getting ashamed c) finding it "offensive".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:44 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

It's true! Yet most people who hear the word "fuck" while even lightly sexualised imagery are displayed are likely to make some association. Context is important.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 5:41 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (82 responses)

While a person behaving in a manner that a majority finds offensive is probably doing something wrong, it's not as certain in the case where hardly anyone find them offensive. It is possible that the problem lies with the person with the problem, and it it them that is out of step with normal standards.

This depends heavily on the makeup of the offended group. If the minority who are offended differ from the unoffended majority primarily in their ease of taking offense, you're right. But if the offended minority are disproportionately members of a minority that's defined some other way, then it's more likely that the behavior was genuinely offensive in a way that the minority are especially likely to feel. For example, jokes about an ethnic minority may be funny everyone else, but that doesn't mean the members of the minority are being sensitive when they're offended.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 6:28 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (81 responses)

What about jokes about Canonical developers?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:24 UTC (Tue) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link] (1 responses)

OK, three Canonical developers are trying to submit a kernel patch. The first Canonical developer...oh. Never mind.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:37 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If it wasn't obvious:
http://lwn.net/Articles/298864/
and the likes.

Or what about talks targeting developers from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google?
Each such group will probably be outnumbered in a conference.

Automatically siding with the minority may not be such a good idea.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 13:37 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (78 responses)

> What about jokes about Canonical developers?

This is a classic "reductio ad absurdum" straw-man. It's a logical fallacy.

It goes like this: Everything is going to offend someone. Therefore, if we're going to ban anything which offends people, then we need to ban everything. Since we can't ban everything, therefore we must ban nothing.

There are a few non sequiturs there. First, between nothing & everything, there are lots of places to draw the line. We can agree that banning all offense is impractical & undesirable. I think we can also agree that conferences have some call on what content is presented there - even if it's only to ensure that presentations are on-topic - so no editorial guidelines at all is obviously bad also. Between those two extremes, we can draw the line in lots of places: "Don't do anything illegal" covers hate speech, public nudity, smoking, etc. "Don't do anything that standard workplace conventions would forbid" might cover things like drinking alcohol, sexualised content, inappropriate dress or behaviour. The line for free software conferences is probably somewhere between those two.

The thing is: sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. As a father, I watch out for what's on pre-watershed telly sometimes, and there are some pretty violent cartoons and TV shows I don't let my kids watch. Blood & gore bothers me a hell of a lot more than a bit of tit or some bad language might, but in the WASP American culture which has now spread worldwide, sex & bad language are considered worthy of a 15 or 18 age tag on a film, and blood & gore creeps in under PG-13. Go figure.

Plus, we have a situation in our communities that they're seen as unwelcoming to women. Mostly, my guess is that it's because they're predominantly male, and we have more than our fair share of assholes in the free software world, and sometimes they're publicly visible figures.

Add those two together, and it seems clear to me that we need to engage in some positive discrimination to redress the balance and recalibrate the community. That means inviting more female speakers, encouraging female role models, doing outreach specifically to recruit new female developers & community members. If that also means going too far in being paranoid about sexual imagery, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned. The benefit outweighs the cost.

And next time you want to do a presentation where you want to get people's attention or shock, there are lots of potential photos you can use on animal welfare, AIDS awareness, children's charities, landmine awareness, etc. Be a bit more original than tits & ass, s&m. "No sexual imagery" doesn't mean you can't shock & offend.

Cheers,
Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 17:16 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (15 responses)

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Note, however that the parent message I was replying to specifically referred to non-gender issues (the example given was ethnic minorities).

But you mention that "sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society". So I guess you have no issue with ethnic jokes.

I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 18:12 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (14 responses)

> Thanks for your detailed reply.

You're welcome!

> Note, however that the parent message I was replying to specifically
> referred to non-gender issues (the example given was ethnic minorities).

The message I was replying to referred to making jokes about Canonical developers. Are Canonical developers considered an ethnic minority now? I know, being Irish I have trouble understanding the nuance.

> But you mention that "sex is different from a lot of other potentially
> offending things in our society". So I guess you have no issue with ethnic
> jokes.

What I'm OK with is not the point. (PS. I'm almost always OK with self-deprecation). Racial discrimination would fall under "illegal" where I come from, and incitement to racial hatred would come under hate speech laws. That said, ethnic jokes aren't necessarily incitements to hatred or discriminatory. Honestly, I guess it would depend on the joke. To some extent, it would depend on how persecuted the minority has been, and how serious the person telling the joke was.

An example: Someone telling a Paddy Irishman joke wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Someone telling a Jewish joke does bother me, and I ask people not to tell them. Similarly, Corsican/Belgian/Swiss jokes don't bother me in France, Arab jokes do.

These things are funny (odd)... context changes everything. When a joke is the expression of someone's prejudice, it bothers me. But if it's a caricature of a culture, it doesn't. And there's a grey area between the two.

> I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.

Personally, I draw the line at "what behaviour would be OK in the workplace?" I don't mind people telling jokes in the workplace, I do mind racism. I don't mind lads chatting about a cute girl working in the local bakery, but I do mind someone hanging a centerfold from a lad mag.

I know these things aren't the same thing... like I said, there are some grey areas, always.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 18:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

note that 'acceptable in the workplace' would also eliminate all alcohol from the premises or any related activity.

I don't drink, but I think this would be a MAJOR change to any conference (opensource or not, tech related or not)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:22 UTC (Tue) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm not a heavy drinker either, but I've worked at several jobs where offsite social events have included alcohol, though usually with a cash bar.

I'd think the analogous setting at a conference, not part of the technical presentation but rather at a time and place designated for socializing either at the conference venue or elsewhere, would be more than acceptable.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 22:40 UTC (Tue) by dtlin (subscriber, #36537) [Link]

On one hand, alcohol seems acceptable in at least some workplaces in the US. Here at Google, there are weekly on-site social events with free alcohol (beer and wine and sometimes more exotic drinks), and individual teams often have their own (whiskey seems popular).

On the other hand, my prior workplace was once similar, but banned all alcoholic beverages after an incident with one violent employee. So even in the US, what's acceptable can vary.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 23:06 UTC (Fri) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] (4 responses)

'acceptable in the workplace' would also eliminate all alcohol from the premises

From your workplace, perhaps. Not from mine. Note that many countries outside the US have a much more relaxed attitude to drinking at work. It's reasonably common here to drink at lunchtime. Less so while actually in the office, but not unheard of even then. All of which just points to the difficulty of drafting an acceptable behaviour policy when standards of "acceptable" differ so much among attendees.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 1:18 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

Even my US workplace has reasonable regular in-office events with alcohol. Google's Mountain View (at least) campus has one every week. One of the things I noticed when I moved to the US was that there was a very different dynamic in drinking at work when compared to the UK, but it's not as inherently as puritanical as some people imply.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:55 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

the point is that if you say 'same rules as the workplace' for a conference, for many (but not all) workplaces, this includes no drinking.

yes, it very much depends on the company, but if you are saying that you must meet 'workplace standards' to avoid offending people, don't you have to err towards the stricter workplace standards?

If you don't, then I'm sure you can find workplaces where the types of images that were being complained about here are accepted.

for that matter, what do you think the 'workplace standards' of a porn company are?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:57 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

continuing on 'workplace standards', think about the mandatory dress codes for women in Muslim dominated areas, if you tried to enforce those 'standards' on a conference you would get people even more up in arms

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:19 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

You're looking at this in the wrong direction. It's not "Are there companies where this kind of behaviour is unacceptable" - it's "Is an arbitrary company likely to consider this kind of behaviour acceptable". In the majority of the western world you're unlikely to win a lawsuit for constructive dismissal on the basis of being exposed to coworkers being allowed to drink alcohol in specific social situations. Unless you've explicitly chosen to join a company where exposure to sexual imagery is acceptable, an analogous situation would probably result in significant damages.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 7:16 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (5 responses)

Paddy Irishman jokes annoy me. If such jokes were told with Ahmad, or Krishnan or Ishmael as the object, they'd never be acceptable. And the cultural group who most enjoy telling Paddy Irishmen jokes *do* have a history of pretty overt discrimination against Irish. Recent enough that my mother remembers "No Blacks, Asians or Irish" text in ads *in the papers* for rooms to let in London and that I've experienced lesser degrees of it myself in more recent times.

So no, Paddy Irishman jokes should not be acceptable, no more than jokes about the stupidity of any other group of people.

Also rather disgusting is the modern resurgence in rather cruel and nasty jokes about having ginger hair.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 2:44 UTC (Thu) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link] (4 responses)

I read Dave Neary's comment as saying that it all depends on the context _and_ that it's irrelevant what we're all individually happy with or not: If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

I'm not arguing against your own assessment of the annoyance. I have, personally, been both annoyed and also amused by Paddy jokes. It all depends on context: my friends can make them, others can't. I can imagine that it's much worse for someone with a more immediate source of unease.

I personally enjoyed Pesce's talk and wasn't in the least offended by it and was a bit surprised at the furore after I'd read the notes and viewed the slides, so probably it's useful for me that an explicit policy exists to let me be aware that some other people feel very differently.

That said, I do wonder where is the logical endpoint of avoiding offense once it's spelt out as a quasi-legal policy instead of being a set of cultural norms? The subjective nature of determining whether offense has been given (or was intended to be given) makes this very grey territory and the language[1] of the generic anti-harrasment policy enters boldly into this at several points, e.g. "Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment." Who exactly determines what is "sexualized clothing"? Is this according to Western norms? Do we accomodate the viewpoints of members of various Judaeo-Christian religions of a more conservative type?

A glib answer that it's the conference organizers who make the determination does nothing to answer the core question. On the whole this seems like a poor candidate to choose in order to exercise a policy which was initially debated[2] in the context of stopping the problem of women being "stalked, leered at, and physically assaulted at conferences".

1. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_...

2. http://lwn.net/Articles/417952/

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 0:52 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (3 responses)

If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

I think this is a key point. Different people have different standards of offensiveness, and we need to keep that in mind when deciding what we want to say and do. And, perhaps more important, it is the role of the listener, not the speaker, to decide if speech is offensive. If a substantial group of people* thinks that something is offensive, then it is offensive even if the speaker meant it innocently, though I would hope that innocent intent- and a good apology- would be enough to mollify an offended minority.

That said, it's possible to get carried away with trying to avoid offense. It's important to be a welcoming community, but it's also important to have room for open debate and honest differences of opinion. You don't want to become so sensitive that you let people use pretend outrage as an excuse to shut down opinions they don't like. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance- it doesn't sound as though anyone objects to Mr. Pesce's opinions, just his way of getting them across- but it is something to guard against.

*Exactly what "substantial" means is obviously open to debate. I think it depends on the nature of the offensive content, and on the group that's being offended. If the offensive behavior has a target (e.g. sexually suggestive pictures of women or ethnic jokes), a large minority of the target group is substantial even if- maybe even especially if- they're a tiny fraction of the whole population.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 10:08 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link] (2 responses)

> If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then
> it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

Well, I find talk like this offensive. This is no joke. Political correctness offends me more than even many direct personal attacks. I would be contradicting myself asking for banning of correctness on the basis that it offends me - but well, perhaps I will start doing so anyway because hypocrites might not be able to comprehend the absurdity.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 14:06 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 12, 2011 8:04 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?"

Are you really trying to hit all the logical fallacies in the book ?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 18:49 UTC (Thu) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (3 responses)

dneary said:
'"Don't do anything that standard workplace conventions would forbid" might cover things like drinking alcohol,
...
The thing is: sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society.'

Which confirm brilliantly that this whole discussion is about anglo-saxons (and particularly the US-WASP kind) generalizing their cultural and religious taboo to the rest of the world.... and rather than seek professional help to resolve their issues demand that the whole world become as neurotic as they are.

It's the story of the agoraphobic that demand that no game be played in open-air stadium because that makes him uncomfortable, and of course the his claustrophobic neighbour disagree strongly.

"it seems clear to me that we need to engage in some positive discrimination"
that is another example of an US-centric oxymoron.
discrimination is never 'positive', discrimination - in the context- is the selection of people based on irrelevant criteria, that cannot be 'positive', it can only be 'positive' from the point of view of the one benefiting of the discrimination, and there is always someone that is, on the other hand if it is 'positive' to someone, by definition if is 'negative' to someone else.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 19:06 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

No, the reason that sex is different is that the power balance is still heavily weighted towards men. It's got nothing to do with cultural prejudices or sex positivity.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 19:07 UTC (Thu) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

> Which confirm brilliantly that this whole discussion is about anglo-saxons
> (and particularly the US-WASP kind) generalizing their cultural and
> religious taboo to the rest of the world.... and rather than seek
> professional help to resolve their issues demand that the whole world
> become as neurotic as they are.

Not really. In a European, North or South American, or Australian context, monotheist christianity has influenced local culture enormously. In North Africa or south-west Asia, Islam would be a dominant cultural influence. In China, Korea, Japan and other parts of South East Asia, taoist/buddhist influences affect people's views of things like violence, sex, alcohol, etc.

So, as a conference organiser, you try to find a sane common denominator. Not the lowest common denominator of "offend no-one" (which some people seem to imply) but a more reasonable "don't do anything which could reasonably be expected to offend". And in different places this will be different things. At a salon for erotica, there will be different rules for decorum (both for participants and attendees) than at an AA meeting.

> that is another example of an US-centric oxymoron.
<snip>
> there is always someone that is, on the other hand if it is 'positive'
> to someone, by definition if is 'negative' to someone else.

Ahem. First, I'm an Irishman living in France. Second, I'm a WIC (white Irish Catholic) not a WASP. Third, and most importantly, positive discrimination can be all positive. I get your point, if you're talking about a limited resource like jobs, or places in a college course, where one person getting in implies someone else being kept out. But by bringing more women into free software communities, we're not excluding any men - we're just growing the community. Maybe some behaviour which was OK at 99% male becomes unacceptable at 80% male - honestly, I'm OK with that.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 5:32 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Ahem. First, I'm an Irishman living in France."
Ahem, Well, I'm a Frenchman living in the US, but considering that you are living in france, this quote: "sex & bad language are considered worthy of a 15 or 18 age tag on a film, and blood & gore creeps in under PG-13. Go figure." sound very weird to me. Unless there has been a radical cultural revolution in France, in the past 3 weeks...

"But by bringing more women into free software communities, we're not excluding any men "
Except that this so called 'positive discrimination' has been advanced in support of thing like, among others, http://projects.gnome.org/outreach/women/2006/

"Not really. In a European, North or South American, or Australian context, monotheist christianity has influenced local culture enormously. In North Africa or south-west Asia, Islam would be a dominant cultural influence."
sure, you just named a core reason for the poor treatment and recognition of women in these societies and this has nothing to do with FLOSS.

"Maybe some behaviour which was OK at 99% male becomes unacceptable at 80% male - honestly, I'm OK with that."
In the top 100 of the world chess player there is only 1 woman (Judit Polgar), I wonder what should be done to set straight this clearly misogynistic cabal, after all their numbers are worse than those of the Linux Kernel.
I suppose it is all that sex, booze and bad language at chess tournament that are to blame.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 21:35 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (57 responses)

there are lots of potential photos you can use on animal welfare, AIDS awareness, children's charities, landmine awareness, etc.

You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that sex is offensive while violence is not. It is coercive sex which is offensive, which is of course a form of violence.

Many of us would be more put off by imagery of violence to animals than, for example, Aaron's Railsconf presentation on Arel in which he composited pictures of himself kissing popular Rails developers (who I doubt all share Aaron's apparent orientation).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 3:10 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (29 responses)

"It is coercive sex which is offensive, which is of course a form of violence."

Well, apparently that depend on the mood of the day. Not so long ago the up-in-arms was about the so-called 'soft-porn' in the CouchDB presentation.
Or maybe in some circle sexy model in lingerie are considered 'coercive sex' ?

"You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that sex is offensive while violence is not"
Bruce, you are a US citizen, presumably you do watch on occasion US TV... how can you with a straight face that say it is a 'popular social convention' when it is the 'Law' of the land.
Do you know of many places where the Congress go in extraordinary session to address a a sub-second nipple-showing-episode on TV (aka the 'wardrobe malfunction' of Superbowl 38 )
My favorite illustration of this insanity is the movie The Shining. When aired on TV in the US, there is a scene where Jack Nicholson enter a bathroom where a woman is taking a shower. She is nude - as people rarely take shower with their clothe on- and the picture is blurred by censors... but then she step out of the tub, hug Jack and turn to a zombie-like monster... at that very moment the picture become crystal clear: a nude female body need to be hidden from view for fear of traumatizing our children, but a skeleton with flesh dripping from it, that's ok for the kids.
On TV, in the US, the only time you'll see a nude female body is a dead one, with her entrails open on an autopsy table (see CSI) point in case that it is indeed sex and not violence that is censored.

I may be unfortunate, but it is a very real state of affair and not a 'popular' myth.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:11 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (28 responses)

As has already been pointed out to you, this is unrelated to cultural perceptions of sex. Does the US have an entirely maladjusted view of the relative damage caused by sexual images compared to violent ones? In my opinion, yes. Is this what we're talking about? Not in the slightest.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:50 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (27 responses)

Is this what we're talking about? Not in the slightest.

Not so sure. Unfortunately ours is a warlike society and thus values coercive behavior.

You could take much of the ambiguity out of the process of determining what is appropriate at a conference by considering whether it is in some way coercive (and thus violent). Obviously touching is directly coercive behavior. It's the "take" in "take their emacs virginity" that makes it language about a coercive act.

Speakers can use imagery and language that makes you uncomfortable or offends you to make a point. It is when the language or imagery depict or encourage coercive behavior that they are unfair to the parties to which such coercion is directed. If a future conference policy were to focus on coercion rather than what makes one uncomfortable or offends, it would be much less ambiguous and much more fair.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 17:42 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (26 responses)

"Speakers can use imagery and language that makes you uncomfortable or offends you to make a point. It is when the language or imagery depict or encourage coercive behavior that they are unfair to the parties to which such coercion is directed."

I don't think this is an accurate characterisation of the situation. It's entirely possible to use imagery of women in bikinis in a non-coercive manner, but that doesn't mean that doing so is acceptable in a technical presentation. The reasons for this have been explained at length.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:00 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (25 responses)

It's entirely possible to use imagery of women in bikinis in a non-coercive manner, but that doesn't mean that doing so is acceptable in a technical presentation.

Or men in thongs. But the point there is that objectifies people (treats them as sexual objects). Which is easy to describe and identify as a category of material to be avoided, as is material that depicts or encourages coercion.

This still seems 1000 times more specific, unambiguous, and easy to identify than guidelines based on being offensive or making uncomfortable.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:16 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (23 responses)

No. The problem with the images is not that they objectify people. The problem with the images is the effect they have on the audience, which has nothing to do with objectification.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:28 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (22 responses)

The problem with the images is the effect they have on the audience, which has nothing to do with objectification.

Really? I was thinking that the images were offensive because they objectified a person. If you are merely objecting to them because they titillate, then state that clearly. "Effect they have on the audience" doesn't even state what effect, which I am sure you can produce. And of course it's an auteur's job to effect the audience, so it gets you into territory that can never be disambiguated.

Just classifying based on discomfort or offense is really "I know what it is, but I can't describe it". And you really don't know what it is in that case, because it's subjective.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:41 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (21 responses)

What? I'm not objecting to them because they titillate. I'm objecting to them because of the atmosphere they create, which disproportionately affects a specific group in the community.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:32 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (20 responses)

I'm objecting to them because of the atmosphere they create, which disproportionately affects a specific group in the community.

You really can arrive at a concrete statement, I'm sure you can see how vague this still is. How does it effect them, what specific group, why is it disproportinate?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:35 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (19 responses)

Have you read the rest of the discussion? I'd perhaps naively assumed that you wouldn't be offering solutions without having done so, but I'm now beginning to suspect that you haven't.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:42 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

Yes. I see a problem in that discussion that you still seem to be missing, which is that the problems come from a lack of specificity and a subjective nature.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:47 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (12 responses)

And you're proposing solutions that don't actually demonstrate any understanding of why the existing policy exists. It's not about coercion. It's not about titillation. It's not about objectification. It's about how the audience feels, and it's not practical to come up with an exhaustive list of things to avoid in order to prevent them feeling that way. It's inherently subjective, because so are people.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 22:47 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (11 responses)

It's about how the audience feels

You can go to jail for rape, or assault, or maybe even some form of harassment, and in some countries for hate speech, but not for simply hurting someone's feelings or making them uncomfortable with your words. Ever think about why? It's simply the difference between objective and subjective. We have no good way of fairly ruling on the subjective. That's why policies that rely on subjective parameters must, simply by their nature, be oppressive and unjust.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 22:57 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (10 responses)

We're talking about a policy that's analogous to a corporate sexual harassment policy, not a law. The original paper selection process was subjective too.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:14 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (9 responses)

We're talking about a policy that's analogous to a corporate sexual harassment policy

OK, let's look at some corporate sexual harassment policies, then. First, it's important to recognize that they are regarding the environment in which a person has to spend much of their life working, not just a conference. But they have a lower standard that we seem to have for conferences, and real rules. This is from http://www.elinfonet.com/human-resources/Sexual-Harassment/

In June, 1998, the United States Supreme Court issued two opinions addressing an employer’s liability for sexual harassment in the workplace—Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Fla., 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998). Although the Court’s opinion in these two cases left a number of issues to be resolved by the lower courts, the Court’s decisions in both Faragher and Burlington Industries unequivocally demonstrate the importance to an employer of developing an effective and fair sexual harassment policy, communicating that policy to company employees, and taking prompt corrective action when sexual harassment is found to have occurred.

Definition of Sexual Harassment

Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect or unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”

There are two specific forms of unlawful sexual harassment, including (1) quid pro quo harassment, and (2) hostile working environment harassment, both of which are described below. Although the line between these forms of harassment has been blurred by recent Supreme Court decisions, they continue to be important elements of any sexual harassment analysis.

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when an individual’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances or conduct of a sexual nature is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual or the individual’s submission to such conduct is made a term or condition of employment. Such behavior must be engaged in by an individual with the power to effect the employment action or decision affecting the employee. Actionable sexual harassment can arise out of consensual sexual relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate employee, generally in situations in which the consensual relationship ends and adverse employment consequences befall the subordinate.

Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

“Hostile work environment” sexual harassment exists when unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a)(3).

In order to establish a hostile environment sexual harassment claim, an employee must show the following:

the harassment was unwelcome
the harassment was based on gender
the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive working environment
the employer had constructive or actual knowledge of the harassment
the employer took no prompt and remedial action

To determine whether an environment is hostile or abusive, a court will look at all the circumstances, which may include the following:

the frequency of the discriminatory conduct
the severity of the discriminatory conduct
whether the discriminatory conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance
whether the discriminatory conduct unreasonably interferes with an employees work performance

An employee is not required to show that he or she suffered psychological injury as a result of the hostile or abusive work environment. The Supreme Court uses the “reasonable person” standard—reasonable person must find the environment hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:17 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (8 responses)

...which appears to be a list of a variety of subjective rules. What point are you actually trying to make?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:27 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

The one that stands out most is:

whether the discriminatory conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance

The point here is that an environment where obscentity is used is not for that reason alone a sexually harassing environment. The presence of a physical threat or humiliation is evaluated. Certainly we must entirely prohibit physical threats and humiliation at our conferences, and we can do so with much more precise language than we are using. But "mere offensive utterance" is so subjective that whether or not you are guilty is not based upon a "reasonable person" standard but upon the specific people who make the decision.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:36 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

With the difference between "humiliating" and "mere offensive utterance" being precisely and objectively defined?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:48 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

With the difference between "humiliating" and "mere offensive utterance" being precisely and objectively defined?

Obviously whether a communication is directed toward a person or class of people would be a determination. Calling a woman "b***h" is intended to humiliate her. Undirected obscentity is merely offensive.

But this is not to say that courts or corporate sexual harassment policies have really grappled with the subject, either. In fact, there is one place where they seriously blow it, which is that they consider harassment to be only unwelcome advances. Making it entirely dependent upon something the recipient decides after the message has already been sent. A fair rule would simply direct employees not to make such advances to their co-workers.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:55 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, that would be one determination - but it's hardly the only one. Which seems to support my point. The rest of the world doesn't rely on precise and objective definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and so your argument that a conference anti-harassment policy should doesn't seem to be terribly grounded in reality.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 1:00 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

So because those deciding a loosely-related topic don't do better, you think you don't have to either. And thus ignoring the fact that you could have drafted a fair policy, and still can is in some way OK, even though people are being oppressed and treated unfairly.

That hardly seems ethical.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 1:10 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

It is impossible to simultaneously achieve your definition of a fair policy and for that policy to achieve its desired goals for reasons that have been previously explained. While it's clear that conference organisers can take advantage of the fact that we're working in a grey area in order to unfairly punish individuals, the reality is that conference organisers can do whatever they want at their conference anyway. I haven't seen any evidence that they tend to do so, and I don't think I've seen any cases where the anti-harassment policy has been used to oppress or treat people unfairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 23:20 UTC (Sun) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (1 responses)

"I don't think I've seen any cases where the anti-harassment policy has been used to oppress or treat people unfairly."

Have you read the article your are commenting on?
I would imagine that Mark Pesce does not share your selective blindness.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 23:30 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

The policy states that no sexual images should be displayed in public places. Mark's keynote displayed sexual images in public places. There's nothing subjective whatsoever about the decision that followed, and Bruce's statement was related to the distinction between subjective and objective decision making. So on that basis, no, it wasn't used to oppress or treat anyone unfairly.

Mark's made no indication that he believes that the organisers' decision to apologise was unfair. In fact, without being required to in any way whatsoever, he made a personal apology. So even on the grounds that you're arguing, there's no evidence that anyone was oppressed or treated unfairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 21:36 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (4 responses)

"Have you read the rest of the discussion?"

he seems to have, and so did I, but the problem here is that you take a fallacy, turn that to an 'absolute and undeniable' Truth(tm)' and then demand that everybody subscribe to your unsubstantiated misandric position.

I challenge you to produce a study that demonstrate the causality that you claim. (namely that showing a girl in a bikini to a group of 'male' turn them into uncontrolled sex-maniac that are going to jump any female in the immediate vicinity, or even better in that case, showing them a cartoon of a pig doing a goose or a fake road-sign with some sexual content achieve the same result)

Furthermore, I did not read you or other proponent of your thesis demanding strict dress code for female at conference, after all if the mere sight of a sexy picture can have the devastating effect you claim they have, imagine what a good looking garment could do. Of course good looking female should also, by the same logic , be banned from conference, since they put - still by the same logic - every women in the audience in dire risk of rape.... stupid isn't it ? yeah I thought so.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 21:54 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

Oddly, that's not the argument I'm making. I don't think it fundamentally matters whether or not showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants[1]. What matters is that the audience are able to enjoy the presentation without sections of it being made to feel distinctly different from other sections of it.

[1] There's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 6:52 UTC (Sun) by AdamRichter (guest, #11129) [Link] (2 responses)

"[1] There's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association." I, for one, would consider your credibility increased if you would provide a little more detail in your citations, even it's just "I think a friend told me last year" or "I thought I saw it on a television advertisement in the United States about twenty years ago." If you don't remember a single reference at all, it would still help your credibility with me if you would explicitly admit it.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 16:36 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure. Haavio-Mannila et al is repeatedly cited for sexual harassment being linked to the degree to which an environment is sexualised - sadly it doesn't seem to be online and most of the referring articles are also behind paywalls (such as Pryor et al, 1993, from which the relevant line is "If local norms are more permissive with regard to sexual behaviour, sexual harassment is more likely to occur"). There's also a fair amount of research into the role of sexism and rape proclivity, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042541 (exposure to sexist jokes tends to increase men's willingness to self-report willingness to engage in rape, but this is influenced by their attitude towards sexist jokes in the first place)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 18:39 UTC (Fri) by AdamRichter (guest, #11129) [Link]

Thank you for the references. This response may seem nit-picking at first, but I way to honor your taking the trouble to provide references by providing a serious response, and also I think it is important to fight public misconceptions and moral panics, so here goes.

I got one hit on Google Books, zero on Google web, and zero on Google scholar for your quotation from "repeatedly cited" Elina Haavio-Mannila, whose wikipedia page is only available in Finnish, which I find surprising for someone being used used as an authority on a subject of such universal interest.

That quotation from Haavio-Mannila, "if local norms are more permissive with regard to sexual behavior, sexual harassment is more likely to occur", does not necessary even support your claim tht "showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants", since showing an activity does not necessarily indicate that that activity is the local norm. Come to think of it, the opposite can be true. Quite often an activity is interesting enough to show because it is the not the norm, such as a news presentation. I think it's fair to say that a common theme among the other images in mark's presentation was that they were showing images outside of the "local norm", so the inclusion of an image in that set does not imply that is is the local norm, and would not, by the logic of Evina Haavio-Mannila's statement, necessarily make sexual harassment more likely to occur.

Moving to your second reference, the link to the abstract that you include only describes sexual jokes as making subjects more willing to confess, which is different from making people more willing to commit an act. Just to illustrate with a speculative scenario, it's not entirely implausible to me that seeing something made light of might make one feel revulsion, think introspectively about it and be more willing to confess as a path toward self improvement.

So, I'm not convinced yet that "there's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association" for your claim that "showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants."

However, I am digressing with this argument. As I acknowledged at the outset, you did say that you "don't think it fundamentally matters", and what I really objected to was that you then made an utterly untraceable reference to try to support your claim. It is important to me to reduce attempts to make vague untraceable references to authority, which I see as argument by intimidation, which I suspect contribute to public misconceptions (but I don't know of any studies to support this).

Anyhow, thank you very much for providing references. Even though I find the references unconvincing so far (maybe I need to go read Havvio-Mannila's book), your proving references of any kind has substantially increased your credibility in my view.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 9:49 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> But the point there is that objectifies people
> (treats them as sexual objects). Which is easy
> to describe and identify as a category of material
> to be avoided, as is material that depicts or
> encourages coercion.

I absolutely concur with that. THIS is what
"harassment" is about (and what that policy should
prevent). It's not about somebody using "fuck" in
a speech, or showing pictures of pigs fucking geese.

And this is of course the prime example for it:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/CouchDB_talk

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 14:15 UTC (Mon) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (26 responses)

> You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that
> sex is offensive while violence is not.

On the contrary, I explicitly said that violence is offensive, and bothers me more than a bit of profanity or sex - "blood & gore bothers me a hell of a lot more than a bit of tit or some bad language might".

What I am saying is that it's not covered by the policy. So if your goal is to shock people, or offend people, then you still have a lot of scope to do that, without using sexual imagery.

This is by way of rebuttal to the point that the sexual harassment policy has imposed some sort of political correctness standard on presenters and attendees - I am not arguing that you should offend people, merely pointing out that it's possible to do so in a way which is consistent with the policy.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 17:06 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (25 responses)

If you are using the guideline that says "Avoid things likely to offend some people.", "Avoid unnecessary subjects." and "If someone in your audience is uncomfortable with something you've said, you're not doing your job." there is no telling what is in scope and what is not. It's subjective.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 17:52 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (22 responses)

Rules involving social interaction tend to be subjective. People tend to manage for the most part.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:39 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (21 responses)

Subjective rules are fine for parties. Although conferences have parties, their main function is a more serious one for which party rules are not appropriate.

You really should be made uncomfortable at times by a good speaker, because that speaker's purpose is to make you think of things you would not have otherwise. And thus it's no surprise that the most controversial speaker in our industry is the one whose message was entirely swamped by reaction to a well-meant joke about "emacs virginity" by the folks who have since imposed party rules. I would much rather have conferences tell that speaker not to talk about "taking" any sort of virginity, as "taking" from someone is easy to construe as a violent act, than I would tell him not to make people uncomfortable!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:54 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (18 responses)

If you're defining problematic behaviour in terms of whether or not it could be easily construed as violent, how do you objectively make the determination of whether a given behaviour is problematic or not?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:34 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (17 responses)

If you're defining problematic behaviour in terms of whether or not it could be easily construed as violent, how do you objectively make the determination of whether a given behaviour is problematic or not?

You need to analyze past situations and build rules based on how the actions violate an individual's civil rights rather than how they create feelings in that individual.

Don't touch because it violates the right to safety.

Don't portray or encourage violence or coercion because it encourages violation of the right to safety, even in so mild a form as jokes about taking virginity.

Don't demean or humiliate racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual (including sexual orientation, not just gender) classes of people for being themselves. Such things tend to excuse discrimination against those classes, the violation of their right to safety, or repression of them.

But also do not tolerate the imposition of religious or sexual rules upon others against their will, because it violates their freedom from repression.

Understand that people can be very different from you, and you may parse their actions incorrectly because you have not understood them. Unless you are in immediate physical danger, consider how their intent may not have been to violate your rights.

Make the rules specific. And if you find that one has been left out that should have been there, add it and make that specific too.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:47 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (15 responses)

You still seem to be trying to solve a different problem. I don't have any objection to that, and if you honestly think that you can codify a set of rules that covers every problematic behaviour we're likely to see without any subjectivity (such as "encourages" - who decides whether it encourages or not?) and without forbidding things that should be allowed, and if said rules aren't so long that it's impossible for anyone to reliably adhere to them, then I'd really encourage you to do so. It'd be a useful thing to have. But it wouldn't be a replacement for what we're talking about here, which is seeking to ensure that conference attendees enjoy a safe and relaxed atmosphere and as such requires consideration of human reaction rather than speaker motivation.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:59 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (14 responses)

But it wouldn't be a replacement for what we're talking about here, which is seeking to ensure that conference attendees enjoy a safe and relaxed atmosphere and as such requires consideration of human reaction rather than speaker motivation.

I am pretty confident that I can define rules about keeping them safe. I think "relaxed" is vague, what we want is for all attendees to be confident that all in the event will respect and not violate their civil rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:03 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (13 responses)

"I am pretty confident that I can define rules about keeping them safe. I think "relaxed" is vague, what we want is for all attendees to be confident that all in the event will respect and not violate their civil rights."

Why do you keep using "we"? I'm pretty sure that that's not what the authors of the AHP want.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:10 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (12 responses)

"We" would include both speakers and attendees, the two parties whose rights are to be protected. I feel at least the speakers rights are endangered at present. The AHP authors simply missed the mark.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:14 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (11 responses)

...so by "We" you mean the speakers and attendees other than the speakers and attendees who have explained to you that your approach doesn't achieve the desired goal?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:24 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (9 responses)

I mean the speakers and attendees other than the ones who, in my honest opinion, came up with an unfair and discriminatory strategy. It doesn't protect the people it is intended to protect well because it is so vague, and what protection they get is at another party's expense.

The fact that it is "what you wanted" doesn't give you any special rights, but it does give you the responsibility to take the blame. You're violating people's civil rights, including mine. You could have done better. "Man up" and take responsibility.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:55 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (8 responses)

Bruce, are you seriously suggesting that the organizers of a conference are violating your civil rights if they do not choose to invite you as a speaker? Or by not choosing to invite a particular speaker you would like to hear?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 1:22 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

Bruce, are you seriously suggesting that the organizers of a conference are violating your civil rights if they do not choose to invite you as a speaker? Or by not choosing to invite a particular speaker you would like to hear?

Let's not be silly, please.

Were you to speak as much as I have, you would not really want to go to yet another conference and deprive your 10-year-old of his daddy for another week. I make sure Stanley gets lots of my time, and consider conference opportunities very carefully. I turn down opening keynotes more often than not.

However, I have seen opportunities where I would have submitted a paper, were the speaker guidelines not in place. But a policy that violates my rights is not acceptable, so I refrain from submitting. I understand the problem the guidelines are meant to address and wish to solve it fairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 2:02 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (6 responses)

That is a distinction without a difference. If you choose not to submit a talk that you think will be turned down as being contrary to the guidelines for selected presentations, that is a rational choice that saves everyone involved from a hassle. But nowhere in that scenario is there any violation of your civil rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 2:12 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

You don't seem to have parsed my reason. I am not refraining from submitting because I believe I would be rejected. I know how to produce speech proposals that are reliably accepted and have keynoted a conference of the organization behind the policy in question.

I am refraining from submitting because I would have to be subjected to a policy that violates my rights, and is arbitrary and non-deterministic in the way it does so because of its vagueness and subjective nature - so there is no telling what will "offend" or "make someone uncomfortable" and no way to defend myself.

For you to tell me "just don't submit" is like saying "That lady should simply have stayed in the back of the bus".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 3:35 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

"You don't seem to have parsed my reason. I am not refraining from submitting because I believe I would be rejected. I know how to produce speech proposals that are reliably accepted and have keynoted a conference of the organization behind the policy in question."

You're confusing the Gnome Speaker Guidelines (which I wrote the first draft of) with the Anti-Harassment Policy adopted by LCA (which I had nothing to with).

"I am refraining from submitting because I would have to be subjected to a policy that violates my rights"

Given that you don't have any right to appear at a conference in the first place, and given that conferences have the right to terminate presentations at any time for any reason and issue whatever apologies they want to, I'm struggling to see how this violates your rights in any way whatsoever.

'For you to tell me "just don't submit" is like saying "That lady should simply have stayed in the back of the bus".'

You're genuinely arguing that a private event's requirement that speakers and attendees be conscious of the effect that their behaviour may have on others is equivalent to state-backed discrimination against its own citizens in their public life on the basis of the colour of their skin? There's... rather a lot of ways in which these things aren't analogous.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 4:05 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

You are correct, I am connecting the AHP with the GSP erroneously - at least if the AHP is not in any way derivative of the GSP. They both seem to embed the same problem of not being rights-based.

Given that you don't have any right to appear at a conference in the first place, and given that conferences have the right to terminate presentations at any time for any reason and issue whatever apologies they want to, I'm struggling to see how this violates your rights in any way whatsoever.

Suppose the conference decided to handle the problem of bad things happening to women by prohibiting women from attending. By your theory, the women's rights would not be violated. Apply your statement to the women instead of me: "they don't have any rights to attend in the first place". Sounds wrong, doesn't it?

The plight of a speaker who values intellectual freedom (within clear limits designed to protect others) may be a lesser plight than the plight of women (or Blacks, in my previous example) but his rights are still worthy of protection.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 14:07 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

"Suppose the conference decided to handle the problem of bad things happening to women by prohibiting women from attending. By your theory, the women's rights would not be violated. Apply your statement to the women instead of me: "they don't have any rights to attend in the first place". Sounds wrong, doesn't it?"

If a conference chose to discriminate along those lines, it's not a conference I'd choose to attend. But as a privately-run event, the organisers would be within their rights to discriminate in that manner.

"The plight of a speaker who values intellectual freedom (within clear limits designed to protect others) may be a lesser plight than the plight of women (or Blacks, in my previous example) but his rights are still worthy of protection."

And that speaker has the right to speak at a different conference, or to organise a competing conference with a different set of behavioural policies. But since that speaker never had a right to speak at this conference in the first place, putting boundaries on their behaviour within the context of the conference is not limiting their rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 4:36 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (1 responses)

Your position may be more nuanced, but if so you are not explaining it very well. From where I sit, it comes across like a parody:

Organizers: We welcome talks that meet the conference theme and guidelines.
Bruce: Your guidelines are oppressive! I want to speak, and my talk will demonstrate the futility of your guidelines!
Organizers: No thanks, we can find someone else.
Bruce: I'm being oppressed! My rights are being violated!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 5:03 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I do want the conference to accept topics that make people uncomfortable, like "why you should not use mono". I don't feel the conference is doing its job otherwise. I do feel that speakers (doesn't have to be me) have a right to present on that sort of topic and that intellectual freedom is harmed if they can't.

I want to be able to present my speech without being judged using rules that I can't parse and can't prepare for.

I accept that there should be rules to protect other's civil rights. They just have to be clear.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 17:45 UTC (Tue) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"who have explained to you that your approach doesn't achieve the desired goal?"

since you picked on the Bruce's 'we' usage: not "the" desired goal, but 'their' (the speaker and attendee you speak off) desired goal.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:35 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I should have added to this one problem I've already discussed. Don't present people as sexual objects. Specifically, don't use images or live persons meant to direct attention mainly through sexual attraction, because 1) that deprives a person or class of people (often women) of their right to be treated as human beings and 2) the recipients of such messages (often men) are manipulated sexually for business purposes, which is molestation, thus violence. This deals with the T&A graphic and "booth babe" issue without imposing a dress code upon attendees, etc.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:58 UTC (Mon) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

Hi,

> it's no surprise that the most controversial speaker in our industry is
> the one whose message was entirely swamped by reaction to a well-meant
> joke about "emacs virginity" by the folks who have since imposed party
> rules.

That's exactly the point. He made plenty of people unconfortable that day with his history lesson on the origins of GNOME and the reasons why we should avoid depending on Mono. What do people remember? The well, meant but ill-phrased emacs virginity joke.

Cheers,
Dave

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:40 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I think that walking out of the hall, many more people remembered what he had to say about mono.

The fact that people now remember the emacs joke is a result of subsequent beating of political drums about it, IMO way over the top and I still believe that one of the parties beating drums used the women's issue to promote his own agenda.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:03 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

Even though it is is subjective, most people will get it "right" most of the time. Aren't people amazing!
And when people don't get it "right", someone will complain (politely I hope as I think was the case at LCA), an apology can be offered, and the incident becomes information that future speakers can use to guide their subjective decisions.

Thus workable guidelines get defined largely by a set of examples.

Sure: the mathematician in me would rather precise guidelines, but the community member in me knows that it not possible and tends to create as many problems as it fixes (and hence is only valuable if the problems it fixes are much more severe that the problems it creates).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:43 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

It is possible to create working, precise guidelines from past incidents, based on analysis of the violation of civil rights in those incidents. I sat down and wrote down a start of this in another LWN message. Don't be lazy.