tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post5582967310170008447..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: Whole Human BeingsThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-13366134269453216562017-03-03T09:04:02.347+01:002017-03-03T09:04:02.347+01:00A conference held by a professional society is a p...A conference held by a professional society is a private event. They rent the venue, they can decide not to have alcohol on-site, and they can decide whom to eject for bad behavior. And if they find someone to be untrustworthy, or uncomfortable to interact with, they can exclude the person from the event.<br /><br />That's what they can do. These "can" statements are statements of law. Now let's talk about what they should choose to do if they want productive interaction between adults. In that case, they should probably ask people to not flirt on-site during events, encourage people to use common sense in gauging whether an interaction is making someone uncomfortable, and indicate that they don't want to adjudicate behavior offsite and during off-hours. But if they get a serious claim of serious misbehavior then they should probably try to honor requests to minimize contact between the parties. Either they have a dangerous person on their hands or a list who likes to make false accusations. Either way it is bad news.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-36439298025371528352017-03-02T21:25:49.197+01:002017-03-02T21:25:49.197+01:00I think the comparison to HUAC is the most apt. In...I think the comparison to HUAC is the most apt. In "legal terms", people can have whatever politics they like. But once you've got a "red scare" up and running, you can destroy a good many careers and lives anyway.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-21006800760281672372017-03-02T19:41:25.755+01:002017-03-02T19:41:25.755+01:00You may be right, but I think it would be difficul...You may be right, but I think it would be difficult to actually enforce any provision like that in legal terms. Can you actually ban social interactions that aren't harassment in the legal sense? Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-69977907005628215712017-03-02T17:22:08.871+01:002017-03-02T17:22:08.871+01:00Yes, in principle, if the AWP had a rule against &...Yes, in principle, if the AWP had a rule against "drinking at conferences" and someone reported you for having a glass of wine with dinner, even off-site then, as long they made this clear in their rules, they could revoke your conference credentials, banning you from sessions.<br /><br />No serious organization would have such a rule about drinking, of course. But, as I understand it, if you are an astronomer and you are at a restaurant having dinner with other astronomers during a conference (even if it is off-site), and a young woman catches your eye, and you talk to her for an hour and then invite her back to your room, you do so at the risk of her calling the "harassment hotline" and, in the worst case scenario, having your credentials revoked and being unable to present your paper (or even keynote). It's a "no pick-up zone", friend. Sorry.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-45547433924017531672017-03-02T17:12:53.701+01:002017-03-02T17:12:53.701+01:00Really? So could the AWP say that people couldn...Really? So could the AWP say that people couldn't order wine with dinner after hours? Because they are a private function? I am highly skeptical. What other conduct do you think they could regulate? Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-84791887618451298962017-03-02T17:03:45.539+01:002017-03-02T17:03:45.539+01:00I'll have to look into the legalities, but I t...I'll have to look into the legalities, but I think that AAS or AWP or MLA events can be seen as "private" functions, which means that they can pretty much make and enforce any code of conduct that they please.<br /><br />I agree with you that they have no moral obligation to regulate these things. But the corporate feminists that I'm worried about do think they have such an obligation. They believe that a, say, 28-year-old woman should never be propositioned at a conference (even a social function) by a, say, 44-year-old man. They will probably stick to their guns on this even if 9 out of 10 women say they enjoy the attention (at the social function) and don't mind having to say no every now and then. It's that 1 out of 10 woman who find the situation difficult to handle that they feel obligated to protect.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-6345645222076027952017-03-02T16:06:23.851+01:002017-03-02T16:06:23.851+01:00I don't think a professional organization has ...I don't think a professional organization has the legal or ethical right (or obligation) to regulate the otherwise legally permitted behavior of adults at its conferences. It is not a workplace or educational institution. It is an association that people voluntarily belong to. If two gay guys or two Lesbians want to hook up at the AWP ore MLA, or two heterosexuals, etc... why is that anybody's business? It seems like an odd way to address harassment. Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-12843341096095748322017-03-02T06:50:41.576+01:002017-03-02T06:50:41.576+01:00That is a good point. Although she does mention th...That is a good point. Although she does mention that she's "talked to" people at her university of about this compliance-oriented approach, it's not a very direct or strong criticism of her own university. <br /><br />I do basically agree with Clancy that resources are better spent on enforcement than training. Establishing a good process, with proper protections for the accused, would minimize the chance of getting sued by "perpetrators". (The scare quotes are necessary, as the various suits by innocent men who have been accused of sexual misconduct and expelled shows.)<br /><br />It's true that boring (and moralistic) compliance training just produces resentment, and makes everyone take the problem less seriously. But when a career is destroyed based on a "preponderance of evidence", it makes people outright afraid. I think Clancy, here, isn't pushing back against corporate culture, but intensifying it.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-82922451770220231252017-03-02T01:09:12.223+01:002017-03-02T01:09:12.223+01:00Thomas,
Thank you for linking to the Clancy-Bood...Thomas, <br /><br />Thank you for linking to the Clancy-Boodhoo interview. <br /><br />Clancy (at 33:00) criticizes the position of administrators that take the position, "Everyone needs to get training so we're going to trot out the most boring, dumbest online training that is going to make everyone resentful of sexual harassment training and not take this seriously..."<br /><br />Anyone else who would dare similar criticism of their own online harassment training will be labeled a trouble maker. If female, it will be assumed that she means well and wishes to improve the training: she will be assigned to a committee to study it. If male, he will be labeled a misogynist, a potential predator; he will be force-fed a larger dose of training.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com