Before my day gets too busy to respond, I want to reply to a point made by Malachi about the need for specific acts and items to be named in a Code of Conduct. If I am interpreting what he is trying to say correctly, people need the specific words and actions named so they know what is and is not allowed. Acceptable behaviors vary widely from culture to culture so they may need specific actions listed to know what is expected.
The original thread was getting too long so I have copied this from Malachi’s long statement in a string of other long statements. I hope it is enough to illustrate what I am replying to. *************************************** The OUSA CoC (just used for convenience) says that harassment includes but is not limited to: * offensive communication related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, and age. * use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary language. From my point of view, this is like saying that "murder, stealing, and assault" are against the law. It doesn't go into details about what different specific words are offensive, but outlines broad areas of language that are not tolerated. However, I want to draw attention to one part of your statement that seems troublesome to me. I don't think it is a "problem" that the list will include "a lot of things that only a very small subset of people will care about." Part of the point of a CoC is to make it clear that people in what are often marginalized groups feel comfortable attending because they know what will and won't be tolerated **************************************** The library I worked in had to translate many of their policies into Spanish, Hmong, Karen, and Somali since, while the metropolitan area as a whole was still primarily Caucasian, the core cities are not. The cultures named have widely different standards of acceptable behaviors. All our city attorneys would not approve a code of behavior for the library that named specific words and acts because you could not name them all. If a list is specific and something is left off, it can be legally argued that it is allowed because it wasn’t named. I took statements where that argument was made. It is also perfectly possible to harass someone without using any prohibited words or actions. Malachi’s desire to protect people by being specific is very admirable. He wants to protect everyone. I wish it could work that way and everything would be clearly understandable. No CoC in existence will satisfy everyone. If I have misinterpreted what Malachi was saying, or he feels unfairly singled out, I apologize and he may publicly correct me. Furthermore, I am not a lawyer nor am I familiar with the laws in Ohio. Carol Martinson Sent from my iPad
