I am sorry this happened to you Julia, it should not have, and the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference.
So just assume guilt and throw him out, sans investigation?
That's completely unreasonable and why these are sticky situations. It isn't black and white. Even with an air-tight sexual harassment policy, you can't automatically assume that the accused is in the wrong.
>"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference."
Shoot first, ask questions later?
This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or children to be part of, that simple.
>"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference."
Not much to "interpret" there. I've been wrong before, but I'll bet he meant exactly what he said; this individual should have been removed from the conference immediately. That's all well and good for a discussion on an internet message board, but in reality it could be extremely harmful to reputations, both of the accused and the conference.
Now, if jnoller meant what you are implying he meant, he could have easily written:
the conference organizers should not have blinked before [taking action/investigating/speaking with/questioning etc] the [accused] party.
or even:
the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty.
And that's something I could support. I think the conference representative's reaction to such a major accusation was reprehensible. But that isn't what he wrote. And I really don't think that's what he meant, either. Note the language. Responsible? At what point was that determined?
And by the way: jumping to conclusions about a sexual harassment charge is dangerous, and not at all analogous to doing the same with regards to a sentence on HackerNews.
In short; you're right - I could have spent more time wording it differently, and your second proposed text:
> "the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty."
Is closest to my thoughts on this. However, I feel the second half of that - "determined to be guilty" puts a flair on the statement that ignores the knowledge expressed in the article from the conference organizer - namely they expressed to the author prior knowledge that this individual might be a known issue and therefore, the second portion of your sentence puts an undue burden of doubt on the author's claims.
For the sake of clarity; here's the exact steps I would have taken as a conference chair for a conference sitting at around 2500 attendees:
1> Once approached, I would have immediately noted the code of conduct outlining our policy and thoughts on issues such as this, and explained that we would immediately look into the situation, as the accusations are indeed serious, and taken seriously.
2> I would take copious notes and asked the author to confirm my summary of the events. If they were serious enough, I would then ask if the author wished for me to summon law enforcement.
3> If a No was indicated to #2 - I would ask for any witnesses and immediately pull the accused party aside, without the attendance of the accuser, with at least one other senior staff member to ask the accuser about the events, and once again point out the stated code of conduct and ask for their side of events. During the investigation portion of this, the accused would not be allowed to speak or represent the conference in any way, to allow that would further open the door to further risk or an implicit endorsement of the actions under investigation.
4> If, upon discussing with senior staff, and any witnesses we felt that the issue being faced violated with our outlined code of conduct and indeed created a hostile environment, I would ask the accused to leave the conference per the stated code of conduct.
"Without blinking" was indeed meant to "take action" without blinking - whether that is to immediately pull all parties aside to investigate and discuss, or eject the accused.
However with the evidence provided in the post - most notably the fact that the conference organizer(s) seemingly knew that this individual posed a problem prior to the events occurring, I would have a responsibility to immediately act and isolate the accused to discuss, and in all probability ask them to leave.
A "zero tolerance policy" has a bad name in the news due to the concerns you outline. It does not, however, have to be enacted in the way we are all familiar with - namely skipping the investigation and discussion portion.
I wouldn't want my child or myself ejected from school stupidly from school or an event due to some written zero tolerance policy without discussion and proper investigation - I would not do that to anyone else.
I hope that helps.
Because that's exactly what I mean. Completely. Totally. Absolutely. Or not.
Event organizers are responsible for events that occur at the event. They are not there to police attendees both at and away from the event.
I think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event, despite not being officially sponsored by PyCon.
There is no need to split hairs here. Unacceptable behavior does not suddenly become acceptable as soon as you walk out the door of the convention center. These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference.
And heck, even if it was somewhere completely unrelated to the conference, we should probably try to do something; for instance, if someone has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference.
This isn't to say that event organizers need to "police" anything. No one is asking them to do that. No one is asking them to keep an eye on every talk, and immediately expel someone who makes an off color comment. What's being requested is that a policy is put in place to define unacceptable behavior and its consequences, so when something truly unacceptable does happen, you know what to do about it, instead of just shrugging and saying "that sucks, but I can't really do anything."
Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does.
>think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event ... >These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference.
I suppose so would paying a hooker and taking her back to your room or buying any number of drugs would fall under the convention organizers watchful eye as well? What about cheating on your significant other? After all you wouldn't have done either of those things there if it hadn't been for your attending the conference. While we're extending the conference attenders authority perhaps they should kick out those that don't tip enough at the dinner they have after the conference, or at the bar they went to afterwards.
You are trying to make it seem like splitting hairs, but it is not. The conference organizers only have any 'authority' over the conference and what happens at the conference. You are trying to extend that authority to basically anything that happens between conference attendees at any time or place during the days of the conference.
>we should probably try to do something
This phrase never, ever prefaces the right course of action.
>has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference
Sounds like a personal problem. One that should be handled personally, like, oh I don't know, choosing not to attend. You are now attempting to wield unrelated things as weapons against someone. Why stop at the conference, why not petition the airline not to sell this person a ticket? Or the hotel not to rent him a room? Or the rental car company not to loan him a car? After all, something should be done.
In your example, and in the event in the blog post, the group that should be 'doing something' about it is the person impacted by it, not the convention organizers. She walked off. She then tried to escalate her personal problem to others. That is inappropriate behavior as well, and it is asking convention organizers to police the actions of attendees.
> Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does.
Obviously, the conference organizer cannot determine whether someone can go to a particular bar at a particular time. However, the conference organizer can decide who can go to the conference. And that can be based on any judgment they want that they think is best for the conference, even based on what they have done outside of the conference. Remember, they are choosing who speaks at the conference based on things that happen outside of the conference; they are choosing based on whether the person has done good work in the past, or has something interesting to say. It's not like everything they do in organizing the conference is based solely on what happens in the conference.
It wouldn't be good if they banned people on just a personal whim. But having a policy about acceptable behavior, and applying that policy whether the behavior happens within the walls of the conference venue or not, is not unreasonable.
> I suppose so would paying a hooker and taking her back to your room or buying any number of drugs would fall under the convention organizers watchful eye as well? What about cheating on your significant other?
This is a different situation altogether. It doesn't make sense to decide one case on the basis of another, much more extreme, hypothetical case, that is completely unrelated. What happens at your hotel room is not the business of the conference; but if you have an "unofficial post-conference after party" that you announce on the conference notice board, and sexually harass someone there, then that does fall under the purview of the conference organizer. It's based on the association with the conference, the fact that the people were there together and interacting because of the conference, that makes it related to the conference.
>>we should probably try to do something >This phrase never, ever prefaces the right course of action.
And that is just not true. If we decided to just give up any time an injustice happened, we would still be living in the dark ages. Sorry, there are plenty of times when it makes sense to make something our problem, to help defend the oppressed, defend minorities, prevent people from being dicks to each other and ruining a perfectly good conference.
Sure, it's possible to go from "we should try to do something" to a solution that is worse than the malady. I've seen that happen plenty, especially when things as heavy handed as the law are involved. But we're not asking someone to be locked up on just the say-so of one person. We are asking that some kind of policy be put into place on how to deal with sexual harassment at conferences and the possibly unofficial events associated with them.
> Sounds like a personal problem. One that should be handled personally, like, oh I don't know, choosing not to attend.
So you are saying that you would rather have people who sexually harass other people at the conference, than their victims? That because someone is the victim of sexual harassment and feels unsafe, that they should stop going to conferences? This is unacceptable.
Let me discuss something more personal, rather than talking about theoretical situations. I have been in a social group which admitted a man as a member who made many people feel uncomfortable. This was a social group, and it's not like people were offended by mere sexual jokes or people hitting on each other. He went further than that, saying things that creeped people out, not respecting people's personal space, not taking "no" for an answer when he went over the line. Several people brought up these problems, but no one did anything, in part because we had no formal policy for how to deal with this; once someone was a member of this group, there was nothing we could do.
Eventually, he wound up raping another member of the group. He went beyond mere creepiness to actual rape.
That is the kind of thing that women have to worry about when this sort of thing happens. It's not just something that makes them feel a little uncomfortable. If someone has demonstrated repeatedly that they don't respect boundaries and don't take "no" for an answer, they are at a much higher risk of going further. That's not so say that they will; you can't arrest someone for just creeping someone else out. But you can decide that that is not acceptable behavior for someone at your conference, or in your social group, or at your bar, and do something about it.
> You are now attempting to wield unrelated things as weapons against someone.
No one is trying to "wield weapons" at anyone else. They are not trying to punish. They are trying to keep the space safe for other people.
> In your example, and in the event in the blog post, the group that should be 'doing something' about it is the person impacted by it, not the convention organizers.
Look, conference organizers make all kinds of decisions to make their conference informative, useful, and welcoming. They are not obligated to allow anyone who applies to be a presenter. They are not obligated to allow anyone in the world to be an attendee. If someone is making other attendees seriously uncomfortable, then they are harming the conference, and it is well within the rights of the organizers to deny them access to the conference.
> Why stop at the conference, why not petition the airline not to sell this person a ticket? Or the hotel not to rent him a room? Or the rental car company not to loan him a car?
You are again extending the point beyond what anyone is arguing. You are building up a strawman, and shooting it down, not responding to what is actually being discussed.
The point of a conference it to get people together to discuss things. It cannot be very successful if people are afraid to come to it because someone else there makes them uncomfortable. I am not affected by someone I don't like renting a car from the same company that I rent it from. I am affected by them being at the same conference, especially if they seek me out even after I have told them to stop.
As for the plane example, again, it doesn't affect me if we are on different flights. But if the person sitting next to me started inappropriately hitting on me and failing to take "no" for an answer, I would take bring it to the attention of the flight crew. I would expect that they would ask the person to stop, and if they continued, would bar them from flying on the airline again, or (depending on how physical it got), land the plane early and have them arrested. No, I don't expect an airline to ban someone without a restraining order, but I would expect them to accommodate a request to change seats if I had been seated next to someone who had a history of harassing me.
And anyhow, that's neither here nor there. The point of an airline is to transport passengers. The point of a conference is to foster a community; for people to meet and share ideas. They are different purposes, and while in both cases people should feel like they have a recourse against sexual harassment, in the case of the conference, given that it is a much smaller, more intimate community, there is a much greater need to ensure that everyone feels safe and you are not simply allowing one person to scare others away.
Let’s go back to the videotape: he gets a ‘no’, he keeps chasing, he gets the subject changed, he keeps chasing. He gets the subject changed to a couple of the females in his life which matter to most guys — his wife and his daughter, and he refers to them in some of the most vile ways possible and keeps chasing. His quarry keeps physically removing herself from his presence, he keeps chasing. And he’s completely comfortable doing all of this in a public setting. What's he capable of in private?
I’m not saying he’s a potential rapist, but I wouldn't be taking any chances. If I got a bartender to throw him out of the bar, I’d be paying some burly dude to escort me to a friend’s house for the night, because I don’t know when this guy gets the message.
Let me ask you a question. Where would your head have to be for you to refer to your daughter as a slut? And that you would choose that line on your intended prey, instead of the usual sweet nothings and empty compliments in the arsenal of most other guys? Now, that you’ve mapped that mindset, how would you want any of the women in your life that you care about to handle dealing with anyone with that kind of mindset?
Personally, I not only want this guy’s name, I want pictures, interviews with his wife, daughter, and parents, and I want it on Oprah with experts present to give me a full psychological profile. I wasn’t even there and I want someone to hold my hand and tell me it’s going to be alright.