wiscon, i am disappoint
Jul. 18th, 2014 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jazzfishAt 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 (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 ofsorcyress, 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 03:30 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 03:33 am (UTC)"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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-21 04:05 am (UTC)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.