Tech Conference Anti-Harassment Boilerplate Policy

[nemorathwald]

I like my interest groups full of women, and I can't imagine chasing them out of the group which is supposed to be about the common interests, not a dating site. I want an environment in which they can be confident that they are meeting friends, not getting a lot of pressure or big expectations.

So you can predict my growing shock, alarm, disgust, and facepalm, at hearing about guys making unwanted advances, and even sexual assault, toward women at OSCON, OLS, or other open source related events. It's wrong to not take no for an answer. It's unthinkable to get all handsy, and I wouldn't tolerate it if I saw it happen. I would make sure they get kicked out. I keep worrying if it's happening at Penguicon and no one's reporting it.

For a geek event, Penguicon has an unusually large percentage of women attendees, organizers, and presenters (on all topics, not just tech). Our attendance has got to be somewhere between one third to one half women. They are just as passionate about the convention. If that went away, it would no longer be anything like the con we have come to know. The shocking behavior at other events related to open source is sparking an organized backlash which is long overdue. Unfortunately I think we're going to get lumped in. We already have a harassment policy, requiring that you leave people alone when they ask you to, forbidding touching without express permission, and promising the victims of abuse that the con will back them up. But I wouldn't mind expanding the policy.

The really cool Geek Feminism Wiki has a boilerplate Tech Conference Anti-Harassment Policy Document. It's really good. I would only make three changes for our circumstances.

As is all too common in the discussion of sensitivity, the boilerplate policy text escalates discomfort into a lack of safety; so I would switch "safe feeling" to "comfortable environment":

"... to feel safe for the duration of the conference."

"... to restore a comfortable environment for the duration of the conference."

It should be an environment which actually is comfortable in the judgement of 99% of the women at Penguicon, including those women running the con. We're not going to capitulate to the demands of those few attendees, both male and female, who we have to ban from the con, and have the hotel kick them out, and occasionally mock publicly, because everyone (including their own friends) agree they are insane liars.

Of course if you're actually in danger, you're also not comfortable, so this verbiage catches all the conditions meant by "safe".

Second, I would remove the broad, nearly meaningless "offensive" in this passage:

"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention."

Where verbal comments are concerned, you can't control how everyone reacts to what you say. It is vitally important not to forbid topics that offend people; pretty much every important truth that matters is offensive to someone. The GNOME speaker guidelines must be violated by every speaker, if there is to be any content worth listening to. Few things "offend" me more than the craven, phony, marketing-driven desire for the approval of everyone.

So far as I am aware from reading about incidents at conferences around the world, the rest of the sentence covers it fairly thoroughly:

"Harassment includes sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention."

We'd have to take out the prohibition on "sexual images in public spaces", but maybe we could modify it to be just about tech presentations.

Penguicon is not a workplace, a business, or one of those snooze-athons called tech conferences. If it were, most of us would stop attending. It's more like a hackerspace, LUG meeting, or SuperHappyDevHouse, combined with a science-fiction con, gaming con, and comedy music festival. It's a convention about all possible geeky interests, even if you happen to use your recreational interests in your career. I'm not sure how we can say "exhibitors should not use sexualized images" when sexualized images are their product. If we ask science fiction fans to not include Seven of Nine on the poster for their Star Trek themed room party, or wear a Princess Leia metal bikini to the masquerade, what would be the point of a convention to celebrate the science fiction we are fans of? The con would die.

In addition to the recommendations for the policy, I have an open question and an impassioned plea:

Open question for you: given that Penguicon is one big party scene, with a before-party, a during-party, and an after-party, why don't we get reports of harassment, intimidation, stalking, following, inapropriate physical contact, or unwelcome sexual attention? Why does it happen at snooze-athons where attendees are expected to act "professional"?

I would also like to make an impassioned plea to guys who are specifically looking for a relationship with a woman. Perhaps you have reasoned (correctly) that it would be awesome to have a relationship with a woman who shares your interests and enjoys your social settings. Conventions should be a place where a woman can expect to make friends without pressure or expectations. But it is exactly that comfort level that can lead to mutual respect, and every once in a while, substantial relationships develop over long periods of time. Making passes at a woman you just met, during the con itself, does not serve anybody's goals, including yours.

No sooner had I attended my first Penguicon (the first one, in 2003) than I developed a huge crush on someone. I waited three years before I ever told her, and then we dated. I met someone at Penguicon 2006, and we were friends for two years before I politely told her how fascinating and lovely she is, and how high I hold her in my esteem, and how I think about her when she's not around. We dated for years. I met someone at Penguicon 2009. She's really cool and fun. Didn't tell her so until a year had passed. Told her. Dated. You see the pattern. The whole scenario has been fortunate beyond measure.

That's not always the outcome. Occasionally nothing changes. They understand it doesn't come with expectations or pressure that anything should happen, and that what matters is continued friendship. So again, it was full of "win". It's no problem because we are friends with trust and understanding. That will not develop over the course of one party.

(With some of them, I decide to never say anything for various reasons, because for crying out loud, it's not all about me.)

So basically, if you act entitled, get pushy, make it all about you, take only a superficial interest, or don't bother to get to know her first, you are not only ruining her day. You are not only reducing your game store or con or outing or hackerspace or LARPing group or comics shop or chat room. You are also defeating yourself.

Comments

[toni-rey.livejournal.com]

Since I am not an attendee, my comments come from a true outsider, nonetheless I feel my comments valid.

From what you have written (I have no knowledge of what else may be covered in the policy) I find I disagree with removing either statement.

"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments,..." Offensive, while it may seem vague to you, is what would be offensive to a reasonable woman. I do mean to state "woman" as I am speaking from that view point. Accordingly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 clarifies with,"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general." As a woman of many (MANY) years of life, who is surrounded by mostly women, I know that women perceive harassment differently than most males perceive harassment. It has less to do with being in-tuned to the feminine side of yourself and more to do with living in a world where we women are at risk of being verbally accosted and of physical sexual harm. It comes in forms as simple as the on-going "What? All I said was she has incredible boobs! Am I lying?" Sounds ridiculous, to a reasonable person, but I have lost count of the number of times statements such as these have been made in front of me. Often times by males I thought "got it." Leave "offensive verbal comments" in place. You are correct, "you can't control how everyone reacts to what you say", but to remove it opens the door to some jerk just being themselves without the need to consider around them. I don't see how prohibiting offensive verbal comments forbids topics? Aren't topics something one attends by choice?

I also think you miss the intent by changing "... to feel safe for the duration of the conference." to "... to restore a comfortable environment for the duration of the conference." Feeling safe and feeling comfortable are entirely different concepts. I feel comfortable knowing there are friends nearby; however, I feel unsafe when they are distance away from me. If I am attending a conference where I have had verbal harassment from someone, and I continue to see that someone from time to time, even when I am with a group of friends, in the back of mind lurks a feeling of being unsafe. Also (because with me there is ALWAYS more) when we hear the words safe and comfortable, they conjure different images. For most people, the primary meaning of safe is to to be free from harm and danger; while the primary meaning of comfortable is more about a physical sensation.

I applaud your outlook and passion on keeping people safe AND comfortable while they are enjoying the various CONS.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

My recommendations didn't remove all restrictions on speaking. The policy bans "unwelcome sexual attention". Do you agree this would include complementing a stranger on her breasts?

In both cases, the wrong policy implies "the customer is always right". We know from years of experience that only most of them are right.

We had a guy who wanted quiet, but reserved a room on the official party floor despite repeated warnings and offers to help get a room on the official quiet floor. He complained, and even called the cops on the room parties and attempted to get them all shut down. It went to the point that the hotel, with the help of the police, had to kick him out. He was not in an unsafe or uncomfortable environment, but he told us he felt unsafe and uncomfortable. He was a raving lunatic with a massive sense of personal entitlement. I don't want an unstable fruitcake like him to be able to wave in our face a policy guaranteeing his feelings.

I want to protect the ability of participants in a panel discussion, not just to have this or that panel topic, but to take controversial and upsetting opinions on the topic at hand. For instance, I think the world's religious heritages are misanthropic and abusive. That sure as hell "offends" me. In return, religious people get upset about my objection to their teachings, by framing the discussion as being about their identity group instead! That's why I omitted the part with the brackets, where specific concerns are listed, including religion. There's no way I want a convention to have an official policy picking a winner-- neither would I want the organizers saying it's off limits in a panel discussion about religion or mythology in science fiction.

Rude and unsafe are not the same thing. Women at Penguicon are not rare, they are not isolated, and they are not alone. We must respond proportionally to the severity of the offense-- following, and touching, currently carry an official consequence of getting kicked out. But hurting someone's feelings will carry a social consequence. This is a pretty tight-knit community, and we know who complemented their friend on her breasts when it was unwelcome. Or, I should say, ex-friend.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

I agree with Matt here. To be effective, any policy about kicking people out of a con needs to have clear, objective boundary lines about what is acceptable, and "It would offend a reasonable woman" is a very fuzzy test, especially given the diversity of opinions and views at a con. The Civil Rights Act was written to apply to employment situations, not private social functions, so it's not the right standard to apply.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

It would be a waste of breath for our policies to say to a future offender "don't do what would offend a reasonable woman". Think about who that is and whether they will come to the right conclusion about what we want. Plus it doesn't tell our staff a policy they can all agree on, as far as enforcement. If we write out a list of behaviors, rather than outcomes in your feelings, that will get results. We don't want to declare our attendees the guardians of each other's feelings, since if they have to be told and forced, they're not going to understand.