[Linux-aus] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful
elliottbrennan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 21 10:24:51 EST 2011
On 21/02/11 08:41, Donna Benjamin wrote:
> Thanks Patrick - This is a great post.
> The tricky thing with policies is always in the implementation.
> A policy itself is just a signpost. It's not until it's implemented and
> acted upon that it really starts to mean something.
True. Once it's put in place and acted on, you
start to see the gaps and problems. Review,
review, review :))
I'd be curious to know what has happened at
previous LCAs in relation to complaints, such as
how many there have been, the nature of them, the
outcome etc. It would provide a very useful
collection of examples to draw on in reviewing the
> If we can learn from others how to phrase and implement the policy so
> that it does not become smothered in legalese, ineffective or draconian,
> then I reckon we'll be on the right path.
True. Policies should always be in 'Plain
English'. I used to hate the term until I attended
a training course with one of my, then, managers.
I realised that the clarity we'd always been
aiming for was merely Plain English by another
name - as opposed to my conception of it as being
'dumbed down English'.
Though 'Natural Justice' is a term I've always
cringed at (I've always had academic concerns over
the use of the term 'natural' :)), both that and
the concept of 'a reasonable person' are terms
which can be usefully employed when writing policies.
Obviously one cannot please everyone (I've years
of stories I could tell you about THAT!) but a
good understanding of the terms as commonly used
Additionally, my personal and professional view
has been that one needs to be conscious of the
dominant cultural values which have resulted in
regular and ongoing discrimination against various
groups in the community such as generic, low level
sexual harassment of women, discrimination against
gays, lesbians, transsexual etc, racial
discrimination. This needs to be combined with
allowing for individual responsibility and, as you
say, not implementing some doctrinaire,
excessively restrictive collection of rules. Too
heavy a hand upsets more than you please and
because many may feel it panders to a particular
group and acts as 'reverse discrimination' (gotta
love that mind set) merely entrenches bias and
negative feelings in some groups.
One way of addressing this can be through
discussing the purpose of the policies (as is
happening here) and ensuring they are clearly
disclosed to people attending. I understand a copy
if given to LCA attendees, no?
Posters highlighting the existence of the policies
can also be placed around the venue (if they
> I particularly like the right of appeal.
I've seen too many instances where "Justice
delayed is justice denied" and many cases where a
quick response to a complaint of unfair treatment
has lowered tensions and produced a much more
favourable outcome for all parties.
Again, you can't please everyone, but each person
who feels they've been unfairly criticised or
unjustly accused of something should have the
right to appeal and for this to be dealt with
quickly and calmly.
One things to avoid is the too frequently common
practice of 'managing' a complainant as against
addressing their complaint. This occurs frequently
in private industry and too often in government.
You call the phone company and they're 'nice' and
'friendly' but they don't address the specifics of
your complaint or give you blatantly rehearsed
replies which brush over the facts. This bugs the
crap out of me and usually merely escalates the
persons frustration and annoyance.
The other thing that causes trouble is telling the
person they shouldn't act in an angry fashion ("I
find your behaviour threatening") when any
reasonable person WOULD be angry and would act in
an angry fashion. I've seen a quite a few
instances where this behaviour has caused a
situation to escalate towards violence.
Anyway, this is becoming a long post and I'm
I wonder if the assembled
> ghosts of conferences past might be a suitable forum at an LCA?
'Twould be a very interesting forum :)
Home computer software training and hardware
Stylishly edited DVDs of your photos and videos
> - Donna
> On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 21:18 +1100, elliott-brennan wrote:
>> I'd like to add a few comments in relation to the
>> discussion going on here, though firstly will
>> admit I wasn't at LCA, didn't see the presentation
>> and have heard about it only from some of those
>> who did attend and that which has been written here.
>> Additionally, not that this makes me an expert :)
>> I've had quite a few years professional experience
>> in the area (including training people in State
>> government in the implementation of policies
>> relating to racism and discrimination, training of
>> State employees and community groups in the
>> handling and identifying of sexual abuse and in
>> complaints investigation for a State agency).
>> 1. All policies are interpreted by those who apply
>> them. It is not possibly to create policies (or
>> Acts of law) which cover every eventually
>> specifically. Thus the variations are expected to
>> be understood by a reasonable, average person.
>> The 'reasonable person' application is quite
>> common, provokes dispute amongst some and
>> frequently requires review.
>> That the current policy doesn't explicitly
>> identify all possible examples and eventualities
>> is to be expected - to think otherwise is to have
>> an expectation which cannot be met. Thus,
>> harassment policies will be general in areas and
>> specific in others. Referring to existing laws is
>> always a good idea, as appears to have been the case.
>> 2. Each person adversely affected by a policy
>> should be entitled to appeal the adverse effect
>> within a reasonable period of time. e.g.. if
>> someone was kicked out of a conference, they
>> should be entitled to speak to someone, other than
>> the person who took the action, who has the
>> authority to reverse the decision or recommend
>> such to persons independent of those making the
>> original decision.
>> If this doesn't exist, I would suggest it should.
>> It ensures that all reasonable steps are taken and
>> ensures a quick resolution (this does not mean
>> 'happiness making', merely that a decision is
>> taken and accepted by those with the final
>> authority in the location in question).
>> 3. If there isn't one already, has there been any
>> thought given to having designated persons (e.g..
>> at an information booth) to whom someone can take
>> a complaint if they believe they are being
>> harassed? This can then be pointed out in the
>> conference handouts etc.
>> These nominated/assigned persons can then deal
>> with the issue at that point and determine if any
>> other action is required - this would minimise
>> double handling, confusion of interpretation and
>> allow other conference personnel to carry on with
>> their duties while the matter is being dealt with.
>> It allows a clear point of contact and a person
>> with responsibility for recording the details of
>> the incident and action taken. It also allows for
>> a clear line of responsibility and accountability.
>> I raise this only because I've not been to LCA
>> (not through a lack of interest) and thus have no
>> knowledge of the mechanics of complaints handling
>> at the conferences.
>> I hope my comments are of some assistance.
>> linux-aus mailing list
>> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
More information about the linux-aus