[NCUC-DISCUSS] Best practices in anti-harassment policies

Mon Nov 21 15:52:27 CET 2016

Dear Milton,

I have been commenting on the draft. And I am not at all questioning
whether we need one or not, we clearly do. Which is what I saw as the
debate in this email thread, whether or not these resources are useful. Not
if a harassment policy is useful. But I appreciate you moving our focus
back to the document. That being said - I think in between the resources
sent by Shane and some of the other suggestions we have a good place to
start.

Best,

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Corinne:
>
> That’s the problem with both the original geekfeminism document (and with
> your messages). They assume that we are having a debate about whether to
> have an anti-harassment policy or not. We are not. We are putting a policy
> into place and debating the CONTENT of the policy. So it’s not particularly
> useful to say “underreporting is worse than overreporting” or to find
> evidence about that because we are going to have a policy. There will be an
> opportunity to report. The question is what the policy says and whether we
> remove specific statements about “no corroboration necessary” etc. If you
> want to avoid running around in circles start with the specific suggestions
> that were made about changing the draft and debate their merits.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cattekwaad at gmail.com [mailto:cattekwaad at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Corinne
> Cath
> *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 8:44 AM
>
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Best practices in anti-harassment policies
>
>
>
> Dear Milton,
>
>
>
> Thanks for that clarification. However, my question still stands: so where
> should we be looking towards for 'unbiased' sources?
>
>
>
> Also - as mentioned I don't think there is a problem in using a resource
> (if it is one amongst several) that advocates in favour of anti-harassment
> policies, especially as  you will be hard pressed to find the
> counterfactual: most modern organizations, global north governments, and
> universities that will argue in favour of the importance of such
> anti-harassment policies.
>
>
>
> Would perhaps these UN resources be considered 'unbiased' (if such a thing
> even exists):
>
>
>
> http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fpsexualharassment.htm
>
>
>
> And can you please specify some metrics you would like such sources to
> meet, in order not to get stuck in a re-occuring loop in which we are
> suggesting different resources --> called unbiased --> new resources -->
> called unbiased etc. Because I think everyone's time and resources can be
> better spend than in this back and forth.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> What I mean is that the piece Shane circulated was advocating for
> anti-harassment policies and disputing arguments against them. That’s all.
> Doesn’t mean they are wrong, doesn’t have anything to do with feminism, it
> just means you need to be aware that you are dealing with an advocate, an
> entity that has already taken a specific position. To build on your
> example, if we are having a discussion about the proper scope and
> interpretation of civil liberties, and someone points us to an ACLU website
> and says “this settles the issue” I think it would be recognized as not an
> impartial source.
>
>
>
> *From:* cattekwaad at gmail.com [mailto:cattekwaad at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Corinne
> Cath
> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 12:34 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Best practices in anti-harassment policies
>
>
>
> Dear Milton,
>
> What exactly do you mean by unbiased? If Shane had sent a similar email
> including an ACLU website, would you have called it biased? If I had sent a
> Dutch resource would you have called it biased, because we have
> particularly strong laws on this issue? What exactly is it you are looking
> for? Because it is of no use to anyone that brings a thoughtful suggestion
> to be turned down, without any further explanation.
>
> Additionally, I do not see the danger in using a website that is an
> established resource for tech & academic conferences, atleast not as a
> starting point. The guidelines can always be adapted to meet the needs of
> this community. Shooting it down, without providing an alternative
> certainly isn't very helpful.
>
> I know you keep bringing up the issue of false reports, and the need to
> protect against those. In my many years of being on teams that are the
> first to deal with instances of alleged sexual assault at various
> universities and conferences, I have never had anyone bring a false report.
> But I understand if my n=1 example does not convince you of anything.
> Luckily there are plenty of statistics about harassment. For instance here
> <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vnrp0610pr.cfm.> you will research
> by the USDOJ on how many cases of assault go underreported  I can send you
> a lot of similar statistics from across the world, if that is what you
> would like to see.
>
> Now the DOJ does not publish similar statistics for false accusations.
> Perhaps because there are so few? Either way, this research
> <http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf>
> of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) (which also has
> links to supporting research) indicates that the prevalence of false
> reporting is between 2 - 8-10%. It also states clearly that "Research shows
> that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of
> inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual
> assault."
>
> So - comparing the number of cases of harassments versus the number of
> cases of false accusations, I think we can say that the first is more
> likely to happen than the second. And I am sure we can all get together to
> find middle ground and develop an anti-harassment policy that both respects
> those being harassed and freedom of expression.
>
>
>
> Have a great weekend all.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Geek feminism is not what I would call an unbiased source of information.
> And some of the information there is not reassuring; e.g., in response to
> free expression concerns it says "A private authority figure may reserve
> the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the
> basis of speech, without any legal consequences." Great. Nothing to worry
> about there.
>
> The statistics they provide about non-reporting are about sexual assault,
> not various forms of harassment. While I agree that non-reporting of
> harassment is a concern, I still think the policy should protect against or
> not encourage false reports. It does not invalidate this concern to say
> that harassment is underreported, even if that is true.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Shane Kerr
> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 5:34 AM
> > To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Best practices in anti-harassment policies
> >
> > Fellow NCUC members,
> >
> > [ Only sending to NCUC on purpose. ]
> >
> > I see concerns come up repeatedly in the discussion of ICANN's proposed
> > anti-harassment policy. Fortunately (?), ICANN is not the first
> organization to
> > attempt to introduce an anti-harassment policy. People have often
> > expressed similar concerns in those venues. So often that there is a FAQ:
> >
> > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-
> > harassment/Policy_resources#Common_concerns_about_adoption
> >
> > In fact I've seen each of those issues raised either here or on Facebook
> (ug,
> > don't ask!), except for the Autism one (I guess that that's more of a
> problem
> > in communities with more geeks and fewer lawyers).
> >
> > I'd ask that everyone concerned or otherwise interested please have a
> look
> > there. I don't know that this will make anyone less concerned, but it
> will at
> > least save us having to re-visit ground that is already been covered. :)
> >
> > Also interesting may be this table:
> >
> > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations
> >
> > It shows how people working in this area evaluate code of conducts.
> > (The proposed ICANN policy actually meets most of the criteria. Except
> for
> > the things that I mentioned I think it is not horrible.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Shane "Geek Feminist" Kerr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Corinne J.N. Cath
> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
>
> Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
> Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com
> Twitter: @C_Cath
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Corinne J.N. Cath
> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
>
> Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
> Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com
> Twitter: @C_Cath
>

-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com
Twitter: @C_Cath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161121/e41a8532/attachment-0002.html>