Karen, as is her habit, speaks great wisdom. Jason
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: > On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote: >> >> >> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used in the >> policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing opinions can >> make people uncomfortable. Since I am not going to stop sharing what may be >> a dissenting opinion, should I be banned? > > I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can propose a > scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and that there are > only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows or says something > racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the people of color in that > almost-all-white audience feel.... uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated > against. > > I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came through on > Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol agents rounding > up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy: "We can take care of > all of your papers" as the ad line for a business computing company. It's a > "joke" that you can almost imagine someone actually doing. Any latinos in the > audience would be within their rights of jumping up and shouting at the > speaker, but in fact sexism and racism work precisely because people > struggling for equal status are least likely to gain that status if they > speak up against the status quo. What I think we want to change is the social > acceptance of speaking up. > > There's a difference between an intellectual disagreement (I think the earth > is round/I think the earth is flat) and insulting who a person is as a > person. The various "*isms* (sexism, racism, homophobia) have a demeaning > nature, and there is an inherent lowering of status of the targeted group. > Booth babes at professional conferences are demeaning to women because they > present women as non-professional sex objects, and that view generally lowers > the social and intellectual status of women in the eyes of attendees, > including the professional women who are attending. Because of this, many > conferences now ban booth babes. No conference has banned discussion of > alternate views of the universe. > > It's hard to find a balance between being conscious of other peoples' > sensibilities and creating a chilling effect. The best way, in my mind, is to > somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok with > that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll think > about that." If, however, every "I'm not ok" becomes a battle, then we aren't > doing it right. The reason why it shouldn't be a battle is that there is no > absolute right or wrong. If someone tells you "You're standing too close" > then you know you've violated a personal space limit that is specific to that > person. You don't know why. But there's nothing to argue about -- it's how > that person feels. All you have to do is listen, and be considerate. > Eventually we all learn about each other. It's an interaction, not an > interdiction. > > kc > > >> >> It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy. If you want to see >> something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and change it. >> :) >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of >>> Shaun Ellis >>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM >>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia) >>> >>>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from >>>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even >>>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context, >>>> rather than in the abstract? >>> >>> I share your unease. But deciding to situations in context without a set >>> of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more uneasy >>> about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle >>> it. >>> >>> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there >>> is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of >>> behavior it is meant to prevent. >>> >>> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues >>> and resolve them before we vote. Whatever issues can't get resolved end up >>> in a branch/fork. In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy >>> at all". >>> >>> Does that sound reasonable? >>> >>> -- >>> Shaun Ellis >>> User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> P Please consider the environment before you print this email. >>> "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be >>> confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, >>> distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you >>> have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender >>> by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all >>> attachments from your system." > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
