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

Mon Nov 21 17:58:36 CET 2016

Comment period closes on January 12th.

----------------------------------------
 From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:53 PM
To: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Best practices in anti-harassment policies   

What is the time frame for submitting comments on this draft?  

From: cattekwaad at gmail.com [mailto:cattekwaad at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Corinne Cath
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:52 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, 

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 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 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/face2434/attachment-0002.html>