My letter to Jim Franklin about why I'm leaving SendGrid
snowedin.net
snowedin.net
1.) From what I can gather she wasn't the direct target of abuse, so to frame that was is disingenuous. I understand that making "dongle" jokes at a conference is inappropriate, but its nothing more than inappropriate.
2.) How she handled it was completely wrong and unprofessional. Again like Amanda Blum[1] states, she has frequently sidestepped the right channels and has taken issues into her own hands. This has caused considerable trouble for PyCon, SendGrid and PlayHaven. SendGrid, should not be DDoS for several hours over a dick joke. People lost money. More than anything that is the take away here. I doubt Adria would have lost her job if she took it twitter after coming to the conclusion that the men won't be apologetic and PyCon wouldn't do anything about it.
I interpret it as meaning that the author believes that indirect abuse, including hearing sexist jokes while in the workplace, should also be "absolutely unacceptable."
That is not a novel or even rare viewpoint. For examples that I easily found:
"Sexual abuse includes: Telling sexual jokes that make the victim uncomfortable" - http://haventhedalles.org/sexual-abuse.html
"Sexual abuse ... [can even take the form of] telling sexual jokes at the victim’s expense." - http://www.flaknelaw.com/minnesota-family-law/domestic-viole...
"[Patterns of] Sexual Abuse .. Makes sexual jokes about women" - http://www.wcsafeharbors.com/domestic_violence_patterns.html
This is why documents like http://www3.uakron.edu/lawrev/robert1.html include things like:
> Professor Catherine MacKinnon advises companies to warn employees against posting suggestive photographs, telling sexual jokes or making innuendoes, or romancing subordinates. ... Finally, she says that the company should prohibit everyone in the company from retaliating against a worker who files a sexual harassment complaint.
Do also note that this firing treads close to the anti-retaliation laws. Quoting from the EEOC at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/facts-retal.cfm :
> An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.
I am not saying that this firing is in violation of the law and EEOC rules, because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the case history. But my naive reading of the EEOC Compliance manual, at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB:
> Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices.
suggests that posting those pictures is likely a protected action. If so, then while you may think it's "unprofessional", it's not a valid reason for firing someone.
(The laws are made even more complicated by a balancing act between what a "reasonable person" would expect, the understanding that an employee don't know all of the details of the law, and more factors. Like, Richards's job requires going to conferences, hence PyCon is part of the workplace, but SendGrid doesn't have control over what happens at the conference, so discrimination claims filed to SendGrid are useless.)
I'm pretty sure you don't know how the EEOC would handle this case either, since your #2 does not reflect at least my limited understanding of the relevant laws. Protected opposition can include doing things that are "unprofessional" and things that cost others money (the EEOC's example is a production slow-down).
Also, you brought up an account of how "she has frequently sidestepped the right channels", but unless they were related to her job, I suspect that they cannot be used to fire someone. Specifically, Colorado law C.R.S 24-34-402.5 ("Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment")
(1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to
terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any
lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless
such a restriction:
(a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally
related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee
or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
(b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the
employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.
Thus, it really does read that if Richards is fired because of any of the reasons you gave in #2, then it's likely an unfair and illegal employment practice, and Richards can sue and win.
In regards point #1, the law is pretty clear that a joke does not need to be sexist or even sexual for it to be part of a hostile workplace environment. And my reading of the letter is that the letter writer believes that any sexual joke at the workplace is a form of verbal abuse.
While that is the considered opinion of the letter author, the law and courts do not agree that a single instance is sufficient to indicate workplace discrimination. But nemothekid is incorrect in saying that the letter author framed this in terms of direct abuse. The letter is actually best understood if "abuse" means "direct or indirect abuse" and is not restricted to "direct abuse." (After all, no one has made the claim that there was a direct abuse.)
In point #2, nemothekid attempts to justify the firing, but the arguments given (eg, "People lost money", "unprofessional"), when in the context of a discrimination report, may not legally be used to fire someone, based on my understanding of Title VII. I also pointed out that what she did in "public shaming" was legal. While it might have been against PyCon's code of conduct, no complaint was made.
Even if the company decided to fire her because of her previous actions, independent of this most recent event, a court will likely find that it is a pretext for an illegal action. Quoting from the EEOC, "Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. ... Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity"
I think the comment about "heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity" is apropros, don't you? Do you honestly think she would have been fired had there been no heightened scrutiny?
Now as to your comments here, all of your objections ignore the point. Firing someone who made a legally protected and truthful complaint about possible workplace discrimination is illegal. (Everything I've read has said that the complaint was truthful.) Firing them for some other reason as a pretext for an illegal reason is also illegal.
The law does not require that the sexual jokes be at Richard's expense in order for her complaint to be protected, the law does not require that the sexual jokes be about women (or even about the complainant's own gender) in order for her complaint to be protected. The law doesn't require that the complainant have no ulterior motive, nor require that the complainant be without sin before casting the first stone.
In fact, to require any or all of these will greatly reduce the power of Title VII. It would mean that I can't complain in order to protect my Polish co-worker from a workplace hostile to foreign born workers (being neither the person attacked nor Polish), even though I as an American-born person am likely to face less reprisal for complaining. It would also mean my Polish co-worker couldn't file a complaint if for whatever reason he himself had ever told a Pollock, or a Russian joke. Do you really want the Civil Rights Act to be so constrained?
The law is quite clear. If someone make a truthful claim about sexual harassment, which is believable by at least one reasonable person, then that complaint is a protected action and may not be used to as the basis for firing the person who made the complaint. No matter if that complaint is made in private or public, no matter if that complaint may cause economic damage or embarrassment to the company, no matter if the incident occurred at the company's workplace or elsewhere, no matter if it was eventually found to be non-discriminatory.
(There are a few obvious restrictions, like the complaint cannot be in the form of sabotage, but do you really want me to quote more laws and legal decisions?)
Am I wrong? Feel free to show me how I've misunderstood the law. Otherwise I will continue to conclude that arguments like yours are meant to defend a personal belief which is opposed to the law.
Does your belief have any deeper moral basis or is it specific only to this single incident? Can you explain how you would like to change the law, in order to make a better future?
The emotional development of all involved, including these shallow protests, have the funk of adolescence and immaturity. I keep waiting for the principal to walk down the hall and break up the tantrum and shouting match.
Erik, grow up. Adira, grow up. Guys in the back, grow up.
Let me continue the High School metaphor for a moment:
Guys in the back, you are two man-boys who never matured or learned any etiquette,
and your dick joke was (unfortunately) overheard by the wrong person.
Adira, you are the nosy busy-body that would rat out anyone who you perceive to
break the rules.
Erik your symbolic protest reminds me of the permanently "friend-zoned" guy who
tries to show that not all men are pigs.
Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. One. AND THAT IS NOT FUNNY!
Ricky Gervais: Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.
Now, in cases where people are being harmed, then I care. This is such a case.
And the fact that she posted a joke to her Twitter doesn't change anything. There is massive pressure on women to be sexist too, to prove to men that they're cool and can be trusted, and to fit in. Women (also have to find ways to normalize sexist behavior so they don't go crazy. The fact that a women capitulates to this pressure on one day doesn't make her fair game for any and all sexist abuses on another.
You buy into, along with Richards, the notion that all women are victorian prudes and can't deal with off-beat humor.
These men didn't direct their lowbrow humor at adria. In fact they didn't even direct it at women. They compared their dongles and joked about forking the 'male' speaker.
Yes, the law says that reporting potential cases of workplace harassment is a protected action, and cannot be used to fire someone.
The law does not require that sexist humor be directed towards the same gender as the person who reported the incident, just like it doesn't require that racist humor be about the same race as the person who reported the incident. The law doesn't even require that the person who reported the incident be the one who was subject to the harassment. The law even protects people who make a truthful report that is later determined to not be discriminatory.
The same laws do not apply to watching prime-time television shows, so the earlier comment of rsanders does not apply. One difference is that it's easy to turn the television off, while it's hard to quit a job and find a new one.
Someone on cable television can tell racist jokes until the cows come home. Telling racist jokes at work, no matter how funny the jokes are, can create a hostile work environment, in violation of the law. The same with sexist jokes. That's because the law has special protections for race, religion, sex, marital status, veteran status, and others.
You might think that details of laws are as useless as the White Knight's "anklets to guard his horse against shark bites", but the law is the law. Reporting possible cases of workplace harassment is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and may not be used as the basis for firing someone.
Your personal beliefs on who the sexists are may be entirely correct, though I doubt it. But your personal beliefs are almost diametrically opposite what the law says, while the events we're all talking about are definitely well-defined and protected in current law and legal practice.
Since what she wrote specifically refers to sexual harassment ("Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". "[It] constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment", "The harasser can be ... a non-employee." - EEOC's "Facts about Sexual Harassment"), it's almost certainly a protected action under Title VII.
If so, then while it may not be acceptable to you and various others, it's illegal for her company to fire her because of that action. Assuming I understand the law correctly.
To show I'm not just making this up, I'll quote from the judgement in Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990): In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983)."
See the part about "protesting against discrimination by industry"? Doesn't that describe this situation almost exactly?
Now, if she broke a law, or violated some employee policy in a way that has nothing to do with Title VII nor is some other illegal practice (eg, it's illegal to suddenly fire her for doing personal blogging during company time if her supervisors had long known about that practice and had never given a caution or warning that it was a fireable offense) then that's a different issue. But no one has suggested anything of this sort.
So, while you might be offended by what she did, that doesn't mean she "should have expected what she got" if that includes that she got fired from her job.
I looked, but found nothing in the laws prohibiting this form of "public humiliation". Defamation? Yes. Slander? Yes. But it appears to be a protected free speech right to post pictures that were taken in public places and to write truthful personal accounts of what happened. (And I found a lot of people who want to sue their landlord/ boss/ neighbor/ cashier/ etc. for public humiliation. I really don't think you want to open that can of worms.)
In fact, it appears (based on my limited reading of EEOC laws), that firing someone solely for making a claim about sexual discrimination may be illegal. Quoting from the EEOC compliance manual at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices.
Picketing surely contains an element of public humiliation, no? I'm sure that the factory owners would love to fire the picketers because the picketers were causing the factory owners to be humiliated in public.
I then dug up the cited Circuit Court case, Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990). It says:
> To establish that his activity is protected under Title VII, a plaintiff need not prove the merit of his underlying discrimination complaint, but only that he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed. Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989); Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988). In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983).
So, Title VII protect employees who make "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including ... writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general." Huh. That sounds like a pretty close description of this event, doesn't it?
It really reads like the various actions of Sanders are explicitly covered under Title VII protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If so, that means that firing her - if done because of those actions - illegal.
When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action? If the latter, could you elaborate on how it avoids the seemingly relevant Title VII protections?
When doing so, please remember that select enforcement of employee rules is also illegal. For example, if you argue that it's acceptable to fire this employee because she took identifiable pictures of others in a public space, while on company time, then it can't be that others in the company have done the same and weren't fired. Similarly, if her supervisors have seen those sorts of pictures before and never gave a warning that they are against company policy, then they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on by suddenly enforcing it now.
If she would have been mature and confronted these men, as grown ups should, this all could have been avoided. The only reason I say she was the aggressor is the simple fact that these men didn't even know they were offending her. They were in the wrong, most definitely, but that does not make it right for her to act unprofessionally as well.
As far as I can tell, this company's choice was legal and in their best interest.
My observation is that there are certain standards which are illegal for a company to use as the basis for firing someone.
For example, a company may not fire someone based on marital status. Even if there is a company policy that only single people may be employed at a company. Nor may an accountant be fired for wearing a yarmulke at work; some workplace religious practices being another protected policy.
These don't even need to be Title VII violations. It is illegal for a company (at least in Colorado, which is where this company is located) to fire a janitor who, in off-hours, enjoys being a street mime, that being a 'lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours' and doesn't fit any of the exceptions to the law.
So just saying that something is unprofessional and against company policy, doesn't mean that that is lawful basis for firing someone, because acting on that policy can be illegal.
I think you agree with that. (I'm setting up for the next part.) Your view is instead that "the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired."
The problem is that the law doesn't appear to allow the company to use this form of unprofessional behavior as the basis for firing someone.
If it did, then any act that a company disagreed with, while done during company time, would be illegal. For example, under the NLRA a company may NOT "prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances", even if you are on company time, representing the company, and the company policy says that wearing your union pin is "unprofessional."
The law is very clear that there are things that a company may not use as grounds for firing. Reporting sexual harassment is a protected action, public discussion of sexual discrimination in industry or at a workplace is also a protected action, public shaming of one's employer for allowing discriminatory practices is a protected action. This is well settled by the courts.
Now the Title VII protections only apply so long as every reasonable person would say that there was justification to believe there was discriminatory act, even if this belief ends up being false. The court cases I read are very careful to point out that employees aren't expected to know the law and that some actions, while apparently discriminatory on the surface, are actually not. Even in those cases, an incorrect claim of discrimination may not be used as the basis for firing someone.
Making false accusations is not covered by this law. An employee cannot make false claims about sexual harassment while at the workplace and expect to be protected under Title VII or similar laws. So it's not like this is a safe harbor for spreading lies and misinformation.
To conclude, where in all the laws and court cases that allow someone to make a private report of sexual harassment, without fear of reprisal through firing, does it say that making a public report of sexual harassment is not also protected? Because I can't find it even after several hours of research.
I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards.
In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual?
"Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did"
Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive.
So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII.
"Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle."
The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law.
You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory.
You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52.
Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?
I do also acknowledge that I have not answered your questions. This is simply, as stated before, because I did not make this a legal statement and do not intend for it to be interpreted as such.
I am not sure why you feel that you need laws to tell you what is right and wrong. Personally, I have internalized my beliefs on morality. What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct. If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen.
Edited -To apply final statement.
I now understand that your view is that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are independent of the law, and that a company can and should do what is "right" even though it is illegal.
There's some justification for that view, but there are also penalties for those actions, should it come to court. There is also grave danger in that view, because not everyone has the same morality, and the different moralities may be in conflict. When there is a conflict, what happens? How is it resolved? Who decides?
Now that we're talking about morality, your view is that "What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct." You have the right to this opinion. However, what Richards did was legal, and you'll easily see people who support those actions is being morally correct.
Does your moral view supersede her legal rights? No. Absolutely not, under the American system.
Question: What happens with two sets of people have different moralities? What happens when they come into conflict? What happens if the conflict cannot be settled by the two sets of people?
Answer: the law and the courts get involved.
Yes, the law is imperfect. But the system is not so fragile that a few imperfections send the entire system tumbling down, which is what you suppose. The law is not a set of axiomatic principles that must be self-consistent. Judges help resolve those internal conflicts. So do legislatures. And voters.
"People here get fired for looking at there boss incorrectly. I'm not sure my boss's view of reality is even influenced by the EEOC compliance manual."
A boss may fire someone for looking at them incorrectly. Most workplaces place have at-will employment, where an employee may be fired at the whim of the boss. However, as I've stressed, acting on some of those whims are illegal, and a legally defensible reason cannot be used as a pretext for an illegal reason.
I get the point now. You're a student. You're likely not a law student or a philosophy student, nor a student of some other field which requires you to examine your own moral views or help resolve conflicts between different people. That's why you think that your own views of morality take precedence.
But as you make your way in the world, please remember that just because you think something is right doesn't mean that it is right. If you can't explain your position other than "that's the way I believe" then you probably don't understand your own views.
"If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen."
Nice strawman argument. The laws nor this situation require that you support bullying or public humiliation. Just like they don't require you to support a company which breaks employment law, though that is likely what you are doing. This is all part of your First Amendment right to free speech.
Since you want to open up can of anti-humiliation worms, then have you considered how you might define public humiliation? For examples culled from the web:
"Hi, I live in a condo and my dog pooped in the lobby. I cleaned it up and threw it in the trash can, and the next morning the HOA manager placed a poster in every floor(21),elevator, hall way and entrances of my fiance and my dog saying these people do not take care of the property and will be fined, telling us to be careful. My fiance feels so embarrassed she can't even walk into the condo and wants to move. What can I do?"
Do you think the HOA manager can be sued for public humiliation? (or that some other social response should take place?)
" went into a store the clerk told me that I was now banned from the store she accused me of stealing the last time I was in the store I then asked her to rewind the camras to prove the truth she said no she saw me she then called the police anyway it was a store full of people and I was completely humiliated I called the head office and soon the truth will come out"
Do you think the clerk or the store should be sued for public humiliation?
"My bf was pulled over after picking me up from work,for no front plate.( the police station is right next door.)The officer ran both our names said he had two warrants and i had one .Arrested him, said bc i had worked next door for 5 yrs he was giving me time to get taken care of.I thanked him and met them at the station to pay.When i come up w enough for the 2 he had they tell there is a 3rd for a lrg amt.so i ask for a list of bondsman.then come back and say its a lower amt.i start crying bc they keep coming and changing everything everytime im ready to pay.then the chief pops around a corner and is yelling that he is going to arrest me. he scared me so bad i lost my control and am now standing in my own urine.i walk out my bf calls and says they told him what i did.feels like allknow"
Can this person sue the police for public humiliation?
I really hope the answer to all of these questions is "yes", otherwise I will feel personally and publicly humiliated. (Or not. ;)
You see how difficult it is to say when something is "public humiliation"? You leave it up to the person being humiliated to define the severity, and the person with the most humiliation wins! Someone who is publicly humiliated by knock-knock jokes (due to an old door injury) can force everyone to stop telling them.
Do you really want that level of mandated civility? Where is the balance between 'public humility' and free speech? In the US, the balance is weighted very much toward free speech. Because that's the law, and because to do much otherwise leads into oppressive madness.
If you like fallacies look up argumentum verbosium.
But it seems that most of the people involved in the discussions I read want to have an emotional argument, unsupported by any explainable moral or legal framework.
And that annoys me to no end because our current legal framework seems to be a pretty good one for most parts of the discussion. Can someone be fired for telling a sexual joke at a conference? Yes. Most employment is at-will, telling sexual jokes is not a protected action, and there's nothing which implies that it's a pretext for some other protected action. Can someone take a picture of others at a Python conference, without their permission? Yes, excepting certain narrow legal limits.
Can someone 'name and shame'? Yes, truthful accounts are protected under the First Amendment. Is "name and shame" ethical? The law just says that it's legal, since there's no slander involved. But I don't want to get into the name-and-shame topic because a quick scan shows that there's no effective way to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable publish shaming and still have free speech rights. At least, I can't come up with one and no one has described one that looks the first bit achievable.
Is it okay to fire someone who files a report about sexual discrimination? Only if it's a false or spurious report, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the person who makes the report. Otherwise it's a protected action. Can someone be fired for not being "unprofessional"? Yes, unless it's a pretext for retaliation against a protected action, in which case the answer is no.
See, with the law in mind this discussion seems a whole lot easier. And with it in mind the questions are things like "what moral principles should guide changes to the law?", "how would changes to the law affect previous decisions?", and "what can we do to improve things without changing the law?"
But saying, eg, that it's acceptable to fire Richards for taking pictures of people at a conference without their permission is to ignore the law and society expectations entirely and to live in a fantasy world.
What do I do? I'm a self-employed person who writes software for the computational chemistry industry. I'm also a member of the PSF, which is the organization that sponsors PyCon. Over the last few years, we've been struggling with having a code of conduct for meetings like this. As such, I have a personal interest in understanding what went on, so that I might be involved in affecting change. Before last week, I had very little interest in this topic.
And as for argumentum verbosium, were it so easy. Then I would just ask to highlight the flaws in my fallacious logic and be done with it. But, no, I have a chronic case of logorrhoea. My Match.com profile was "intimidating" for its length, and I've been told I write very long and detailed emails.
Discussion over
From what I understand, she wasn't subject to abuse until after the tweet went live. She overheard some slightly lewd jokes not directed at her and decided to use a public forum to shame the jokers instead of more appropriate means.
The hypervigilance that pervasive sexism in the tech community demands from women is extremely harmful. It makes these spaces very unpleasant for most women. And so all women are excluded except the handful with very thick skin who think these things are "no big deal".
Assuming that this was true - she was so overwhelmed by jokes about a dongle that she could not concentrate on the conference - she could have easily turned around and told them that the conversation made her uncomfortable. She did not have to, and should not have, publicly shamed them for a private joke.
> whether she's safe in the space
Where does this come from? It was a joke about a dongle. Anatomy. Even if it was sexual, which is questionable, she was not threatened. They never threatened her. They never gave her lewd looks. They were never a threat to her or other people at the conference.
Why shouldn't she have? It's harmful to the community. Until we, as a group, create a culture of publicly standing up to these things, and supporting those who do, they won't change.
> she was not threatened
Sexist jokes come in a wide range of shapes and sizes. In our culture, women are usually blamed for violence against them. They are held responsible for the company they keep, and the situations they get themselves into.
But the truth is, there is NO reliable way to tell whether a man, or a situation is truly safe for you. Friends, people you're dating, colleagues, private parties, worksplaces all can go from "seems save" to "violent" in the blink of an eye.
As such, women are forced to develop a set of vague signals that they must be constantly vigilant of. One of those signals is how men use and respond to sexist jokes. By telling sexist jokes, you are engaging many womens' Safety Detection System.
It was joke between two people but told in the open, where others could and did hear it. It was in a semi-public venue, open to some 2000+ people who had purchased a ticket, with no expectation of extra privacy, where the number of cameras was likely more than the number of attendees (phone and laptop camera), and likely with several (laptop) microphones within 10 feet of them.
That is not private.
This strikes me as yet another overreaction.
I think the fact that the vast majority of women are not comfortable going to tech conferences and working at many tech companies is actually a big deal, and the rare cases where someone actually DOES something in response to it is actually a pretty landmark event that deserves significant attention.
If you feel differently, at least try to articulate why.
Also, just because someone is offended doesn't give them the right to respond however they want. They still need to be responsible.
But on the other hand, this started when someone made a crude but not (at least to me) harassing or sexist remark. Maybe as a male, you'll think I'm blind to such things and disqualified to judge them as "not harassing", and I actually kind of get that view--I haven't and can never live on the other side.
But I still maintain in the realm of sexist things that go on, this one was hardly a blip. And the chain of events that followed is nearly unbelievable.
There's no reason two people had to lose their jobs and have their names dragged through the mud, there's no reason two companies had to have their reputations sullied, there's no reason anonymous internet bullies needed to direct their bile towards Adria and women in general, and there's no reason any site needed to be hacked or DDOS'd.
Seriously, one loud distracting noise at the right moment and everyone's life would be better off.
Women are very well represented at most, and very welcomed.
Verbal abuse is still a type of abuse. Though as Wikipedia points out, "[d]espite being the most common form of abuse, verbal abuse is generally not taken as seriously as other types, because there is no visible proof..."
I believe the logic is pretty straight-forward. Sexist opinions in the tech industry (and/or culture in general) have lead to a hostile workplace for a woman whose job includes going to many tech conferences and who often hears sexist jokes and other (unstated) sexist statements. These are a form of verbal sexual harassment, which is a type of verbal abuse.
To continue from the same Wikipedia citation for "Verbal abuse", "In reality, however, verbal abuse can be more detrimental to a person's health than physical abuse."
Quoting from the EEOC:
> Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
You may say that going after this situation is "extremely detrimental" to the overall cause, but you've switched different topic. escaped_hn asked where the abuse claim came from, not if the abuse claim was justifiable.
Let's see how this an organization's Harassment policy might handle this. I quote now from http://www.maine.gov/ag/about/harrassment_policy.html :
> Further examples of sexual harassment include: behavior that is verbal and sexual in nature - such as comments about a person's looks, personal inquiries, sexual jokes, use of derogatory sexual stereotypes, uttering sexually suggestive sounds, writing sexual notes, use of State computer equipment to send, receive and/or download material of a sexual nature; non-verbal sexual behavior- such as looking someone up and down, staring or leering at someone's body, deliberate blocking of a person's path, displaying sexual visuals, making sexual gestures; or physical - such as pinching, grabbing, sexual assault or any physical contact of a sexual nature.
> As a matter of State policy, any behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace is considered unprofessional regardless of whether it constitutes illegal sexual harassment. ... As part of their supervisory responsibilities, supervisors are required to actively prevent or stop inappropriate, unprofessional conduct in the workplace regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of illegal harassment. If they become aware of any such conduct occurring through personal observation or information from another party, they must consult with the Office's EEO Coordinator and take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including discipline, to end the conduct. Corrective action is required regardless of whether a complaint is made or the conduct appears to be unwelcome. Even if the person providing information requests that no action be taken, the supervisor must contact the EEO Coordinator. Managers and supervisors who fail to fulfill their obligations under this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
This unambiguously says that a supervisor at the Maine AG's office must report any joke of a sexual nature, even if there's no complaint, no indication of if it's unwelcome, no indication that it's discriminatory, no thought that it's sexist, and even if there's a request that no action be taken.
So even if you don't think this is a sexist joke, the undeniable fact that it is a joke of a sexual nature means that it is and unprofessional and reportable behavior for some workplaces.
The law defines what discrimination means, with many cases brought to the courts to flesh out the details, including a Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is part of Title VII restrictions on sexual discrimination in the workforce. It's much easier to reference these laws and these legal cases, with reasoned judgments which are directly relevant to the topic, then to suppose that my personal beliefs are the way of the world.
As such, my comments are not about the topic of whether the joke was sexist. My comments are about the topic of if jokes like these contribute to a hostile workplace. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc says
> This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the EEOC's new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 1609.2); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.
Notice how there's nothing in there about being sexist? It's all about discriminatory conduct.
So even if every reasonable person agrees that there is no sexism in the joke, it could still be part of a hostile workplace. That's why I'm focused only on the latter.
Now, as Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. points out, Title VII is not a civility code:
> Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at " discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.
> We have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering "all the circumstances." ... The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation ships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive.
Part of the "constellation" might include the severity or pervasiveness of the offensive acts acts. Part of it might include if there was an attempt to effect change. Part of it might be the reaction of people when there is an attempt to change things.
But none of it says that we can only look to see if a joke is sexist in order to help identify if it might be part of a hostile workplace.
So I don't care what people are talking about, if they are only concerned about if the joke is sexist or not. I care about if this was contributory towards a hostile workplace environment, and I care about what mechanisms we as the tech industry (and since I am a PSF member, what we as PyCon organizers) should have in place in order to reduce hostility in the workplace -- and yes, a conference is part of many people's workplace.
If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.
No. Absolutely not. The law defines things for the legal system, not for our society and not for our culture. The concern here is a cultural one, not a legal one. The laws on the books are barely relevant to the real discussion here.
> If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.
My interest is in whether the joke is sexist because of its relevance to whether the culture is sexist. Many people are using the incident as evidence of a pattern of sexism in the tech community. I'm arguing against that conclusion, because the joke was not sexist.
The legalities are not more important. Thornier, sure, because the law is almost always thornier. Not more important. Culture is more important than law, every single time. If the culture of the tech community is positive and welcoming, it won't matter what the law says because nobody will care to file suits. If the culture of the tech community is negative and discriminatory, it won't matter what the law says because women will simply avoid the tech community. Either way, the culture matters and the law does not.
I propose that we shouldn't have a hostile workplace and you only want there to not be a sexist workplace. (Title VII protections include race, color, religion, sex or national origin, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination, all by the same language. You only want to focus on sex discrimination?)
I propose that non-sexist jokes can still be a form of sexual discrimination. You require that a joke be sexist before it is seen as discriminatory ("The question is whether or not the joke was sexist.") even though the law doesn't have that requirement. So you actually think that the current laws are too broad?
If the men only tell non-sexist and tasteless poop jokes to women in the workplace but tell each other non-sexist and hilarious poop jokes, might that indicate a sexist workplace culture? I think it can. But it seems that you would say it cannot be, because the jokes themselves are not sexist. Is there ever a case where non-sexual jokes can be part of a workplace which discriminates on sex? If so, might this incident be another such example? Why or why not?
I propose looking to the law as a place where these issues have been well discussed and fleshed out. You say to ignore laws and, I assume, ignore all of the relevant and diverse case history? There's some wonderfully interesting cases. Can a man sue other men for sexual harassment, even if none of them are homosexual? Is sexual desire a critical requirement before sexual discrimination can take place? Should there be provisions to prevent retaliation for claiming discrimination, and if so, what constitutes retaliation? Are anti-retaliation restrictions limited to financial considerations, like being fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied wages, or can a reassignment of duties "constitute retaliatory discrimination where both the former and present duties fall within the same job description"? (For example, can you assign the men to the worst locations and the women to the nicest, even though both are doing the same job?)
Even if you disagree with the court's conclusions, the questions discussed therein should be part of your repertoire.
I propose that laws are part of our culture. You say the law is barely relevant. I assume you think that changing the laws won't help improve our culture? How do you resolve the disagreements that will inevitably arise, when someone claims sexual discrimination but another says it isn't?
Or do you think the laws we have now are good enough, and we just need to change the culture to match the laws? I can agree with that. What is it that you want to change, and how would that change have affected this incident?
I'm talking about ignoring the law because culture is more important than law. Yes, there is plenty of interesting case law, and that case law is interesting when discussing the issue in a legal context. I'm saying that the cultural context is more important than the legal context, and therefore the case law is a complete non sequitur.
I would strongly assert that laws do not influence culture, and that rather the exact opposite is true. Laws reflect culture. Laws enforce the norms of the culture in which they are written. When the culture changes, the laws change. The reverse is not true.
I have not been arguing for change. I do think that some changes to tech culture should happen, because though the actual incident was not discriminatory, the internet reaction clearly was. That is a much broader issue, because internet reactions are always disproportionate and discriminatory. That is a standing issue that must be solved. What I'm asserting is that the joke was not discriminatory, and that the conference was not a discriminatory environment. Though I was not there, from everything I have heard from people who were, the conference was a very positive environment. This is good, and I take issue with people who would cast aspersions on the conference and the community as a whole because of a 'discriminatory' joke that was not in fact discriminatory at all.
Stop fighting the strawman err strawperson guys.