wiscon, i am disappoint

[jazzfish]

At Wiscon last year (2013), Elise Matthesen filed a harassment report against Jim Frenkel, a senior editor at Tor Books.

This official report seems to have triggered a whole slew of additional (mostly unofficial) reports, enough that the end result was for Frenkel and Tor Books to part ways.

Frenkel returned to WisCon this year (2014), and much hubbub was raised. In the process of the hubbub, it came out that the Wiscon concom had 1) "lost" a report of harassment by another individual, and 2) spread false information about Elise's harassment report.

To their credit, Wiscon, having exhausted all other options, started doing what looked like it might be the right thing: they formed a committee to look into l'affaire Frenkel.

The committee released its report today. (Linking to James Nicoll rather than directly to the report as there's some good discussion and interesting backstory in his comments. Summary: Frenkel is definitely banned from Wiscon 2015, and *maybe* for up to three years after.)

This... would seem to be insufficient, and a privileging of the rights of the accused over those of the harassed. It's like, to paraphrase someone (vschanoes?) in James's comments earlier, they saw the Readercon debacle, and rather than saying "oh, we should do something to make sure that doesn't happen here!" said "thank god we're awesome enough that that will never happen here!"

A number of people have already declared their intention to not return to Wiscon next year. Elise, I believe, is going to Balticon instead.

Well. Balticon is certainly more convenient if I'm already in the DC area in May. And it has the likely advantage of sorcyress, as well as members of my former writing group. And next year is a long way off.

I don't know what I'm doing. But... I didn't expect to say that. I didn't expect to ever say "I don't know if I'll make Wiscon this year."

Grr.

Comments

[rbandrews]

They decided he can't return to Wiscon unless he brings "substantive, grounded evidence of behavioral and attitude improvement," and if he does then they'll think about letting him return. What's really the problem with that?

If he doesn't do anything, he doesn't come back. If he brings fake or BS evidence, they'll say "not good enough" and he's still banned. But if he does actually get his shit together and stop harassing people, then why not let him back?

[thanate]

That would hold more water if they hadn't lost the original harassment reports; the fear is that in context they don't make people trust that they're going to evaluate the evidence usefully.

(I'm a little torn on this one myself; I'm pretty sure the nay-sayers wouldn't be happy with anything short of "banned for life, no appeal" and you can't exactly say this particular offender didn't dig his own grave on that one, but I agree that out of context it sounds pretty rational.)

[rbandrews]

Well yeah, I agree that if they don't actually stick to what they said they're going to do then it's bad, but if they don't stick to it then it really doesn't matter what the report says. :)

I think a lot of this is people being outraged to gain credibility by being publicly outraged, and they wouldn't be happy with anything, because their goal isn't to be happy.

[jazzfish]

Again, the Concom has repeatedly misplaced or ignored harassment reports, given out misleading or downright false information, and generally sat on their hands until being forced to do *something*.

I think a lot of this is people being outraged to gain credibility by being publicly outraged

...

You want to think real hard before saying something like that again in this space.

[thanate]

Given that this is someone who's been pulling this crap longer than we've been adults and there are a known large number of anonymous reports, you don't know which of the people being outraged are doing so because of direct personal crap they've had to deal with.

[jazzfish]

In *this particular case*, yeah, I strongly suspect that most people wouldn't be happy with anything other than a life ban. We're talking about a decades-long repeat offender, and three separate reports of harassment from Wiscon 37. (I think three? unsure if Karnythia's was from 37 or elsewhen.)

In a vacuum, as a policy? It doesn't have to be zero-tolerance, it doesn't have to be auto-perma-ban. But I am hard pressed to find any other reasonable response to the Frenkel incident.

[jazzfish]

In addition to the points Ann brings up about the fear that this is a slap on the wrist and a smokescreen:

Because he's expressed remorse before and not stopped (2010, according to Jim Hines's blog awhile back). Because he's got a serious ongoing recurring pattern of harassment, one that was severe enough to get him *fired from his job*.

Because being kicked out of a convention is not the end of the world, it's not like being thrown in prison.

Because, as noted, the point isn't to rehabilitate the harasser, it's to make the harassed feel safe.

[rbandrews]

They're not trying to rehabilitate him, they're just recognizing the possibility that someone else might.

They can't throw him in prison, since they don't have one.

The report sounds to me like they won't consider expressing remorse to be enough evidence, "substantive, grounded evidence" and all.

If you're afraid they're not going to enforce the ban, I can respect that. If you're afraid they'll have too low a bar for "substantive, grounded evidence" I can respect that too. But if you're just against the possibility that he might ever be rehabilitated, then I don't even understand that... You've never done anything that you regret, and won't ever do again? I know I have, and I'm glad that people forgave me for it.

[jazzfish]

I'm just going to quote Rose Fox here:

"What I mean is that we felt that the repercussions for Frenkel were appropriate"

This is perpetrator-focused. You continue to look in the wrong direction.

Can you honestly replace that with the following:

'What I mean is that we felt that our actions sufficiently protected both the people who had already been harassed and the people who were at risk of being harassed in the future, in addition to contributing to an environment where harassment is difficult and risky, and reporting is easy and safe'

If not, then a lot of work remains to be done.

[rbandrews]

Based on your last comment I think it's best if I just step out of this thread.

[notyourwendy]

Why is it their problem if he's rehabilitated or not?

He's behaved badly, he loses his right to come into the space where he behaved badly. If you (nonspecific) go into a bar, start a fight, and get thrown out, the bar isn't going to let you back in just because you have some friends in there and you promise to be good this time, no really, not like all those other times you promised to be good and didn't.

Frenkel's rehabilitation needs to happen somewhere other than the place he caused trouble.