| |||||||||||||
Debugging conference anti-harassment policiesDebugging conference anti-harassment policiesPosted Feb 6, 2011 0:27 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies by mjg59 Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
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.
(Log in to post comments)
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:36 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
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] 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]
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] 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]
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 (subscriber, #58347) [Link]
"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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||