My thoughts on the Readercon sexual harassment debacle

[xiphias]

The background, for those who have missed it:

(Note: the laws of lashon ha-ra might appear to prevent talking about things in this way. But there is a VERY IMPORTANT exception to those laws when it's necessary for the protection of the community. And these stories are necessary for the protection of the community. That said: I'm going to put this behind a cut-tag, for people who don't want to see it for whatever reason.)

The cast of characters:
Readercon -- a science fiction convention beloved by many fans and professionals, known for being a great place to actually socialize with people. It doesn't do as many fancy and flashy things as many other cons, but you can make friends and hang out with them. I've never been, but I keep intending to go.

The directors of Readercon: not actually a single person, actually five people, but if I'm counting Readercon as a character, I can count the directors as one character.

Rene Walling: a well-known Montreal fan, who's been a translator of science fiction into French, helped run a Worldcon, and otherwise done lots of cool stuff . . . but . . . ("Rene" is a male name, by the way. The fact that Rene is male is relevant.)

Genevieve Valentine: an author of various books and short stories; a Readercon attendee; and, sadly relevant to this story, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman

For historical purposes, I'm also going to include two more characters:

Aaron Agassi: a well-known jerk in the Science Fiction community.

Veronica Schanoes: a writer, academic, Readercon attendee, and, again sadly relevant, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman.

I'm starting the story in 2008.

Aaron Agassi is a tall, wide, big man, who smells bad. This is my personal opinion, based on direct observation, and even interaction, with him. He believes -- and has written pamphlets stating -- that if you stare at a woman long enough, and follow her around, and stand too close, she will EVENTUALLY have sex with you. And that the only reason this has never worked is that cons have always stopped him before it had time to work.

He has been known for this for YEARS.

At the 2008 Readercon, Aaron Agassi started using his technique on Shanoes, and, as you would expect, she felt threatened by him, and, as you would expect if you are female, didn't want to cause a problem by making a fuss and bothering people. Valentine, however, DID see Agassi's harassment, and supported Shanoes, helping her report the incident, and to get support from con and hotel security.

Readercon invoked their "zero tolerance for sexual harassment" policy, and banned Agassi from the con for life. (At some OTHER time, it might be useful to discuss why cons don't just ban him pre-emptively, since we KNOW he causes problems. Why does every con wait for him to cause specific problems at THEIR place, when they KNOW he's GOING to?)

That's background to show how the con has dealt with a sexual harassment in the past.

This takes us to the recently-past 2012 Readercon. Over the course of the con, Rene Walling sexually harassed Valentine a number of times. This was also reported to the concom. After Valentine posted about this, she began to hear about other cases where Walling did similar things to other women.

The result was that Walling has a two-year suspension from Readercon, after which his case will be reviewed.

So.

In one case, the perpetrator was banned for life. In the other case, the perpetrator was banned for two years, with a chance to come back after that.

Why are the results different in the two cases? In neither case did the perpetrator believe that he had done anything wrong. In neither case, did the victim sustain physical injury.

The only significant difference that I can see is that nobody likes Agassi, and a lot of people like Walling. Agassi is smelly, grating, annoying, and basically useless. Walling actually bathes, has a personality, and has done a lot of work that benefits the community.

Of COURSE that's why the results are different. But that's not a good reason. Most of us in the democratic world believe in "laws, not men" -- the idea that, for the most part, we ought to be judged on our actions, not on whether people like us.

Indeed, as it currently appears, Readercon has set up a hierarchy. Walling outranks Valentine; Shanoes, supported by Valentine, outranks Agassi.

I mean, I get it. Human beings believe that "bad things are done by 'them', not by 'us'." If a bad thing is done by an outsider like Agassi, it's easy to accept that he did it, and that it was bad. But if it was done by an insider, like Walling, it must not have happened. Except, in this case, there are enough witnesses that you can't deny that it happened. So, it must not have been all that bad, right?

Walling is our friend; we are good people, so our friends must be good people; good people might do SLIGHTLY bad things, by accident, but don't do REALLY bad things -- so therefore, what Walling did must have only been SLIGHTLY bad. And therefore, he ought to have a chance to redeem himself, right?

No. Not right. Readercon has a zero-tolerance policy, and has, in the past, used that policy. We can argue whether it was a good idea to have a zero-tolerance policy in the first place -- I can see both sides of that question. But the policy DOES exist. And enforcing it only on people you don't like is wrong.

Edited to Add: Comments from both ricevermicelli and also from palmwiz suggest rumors that the "zero-tolerance policy" was specifically designed to get Agassi. That they set up the policy, then watched him to violate him, to have an excuse to ban him: they'd already decided to do that, and were just waiting for an excuse. Which suggests that the board was completely unprepared for it to be relevant to anybody else, especially not someone they liked.

Comments

[gingicat]

Well said.

In 1997, Agassi was in the middle of a ban from Arisia. I was quite angry when he came back... and is still back, despite that the original victim was underage.

I don't know Walling from a hole in the wall, but he, too, should be banned.

I can, without thinking very hard, come up with five other men who should be banned from fandom. I'll name the one I know well: Tom Murphy, aka Merv.

There's a reason for the Back-Up Project.

[undauntra.livejournal.com]

1) Wow, I remember Merv. What did he do?

2) Have there been any cases of women who should be banned from fandom?

[gingicat]

1) Repeated instances of terrifying women into saying yes. He says it's because he can't read body language.

2) I do not know of any, but I would be surprised if none existed.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Anecdata, contrary: Merv likes likes me, and I have never felt pressured.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

So let me get this straight. Going by this and other posts, Arisia's chosen method of dealing with a known harasser, one whose often-favored target is *teenagers*, is to sell him tickets and allow him to freely harass until the victims clue that security and the concom are spineless wimps and go to the hotel in sufficient numbers that the hotel bans him?

Because I don't buy the lawsuit excuse. I can *maybe* believe that they wrote their rules with such stupidity that *maybe* there was a theoretical case one year. I do not in any way believe that they were not capable of consulting a lawyer and rewriting them in a way that allowed them to exclude predators. Especially predators of children.

God, the fact that Aaron Agassi apparently currently freely roams Arisia reminds me of why I got so goddamned turned off conventions.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

This is why I decided it was important to include a picture.

It's not a solution. But it's what I can do right here.

[ceo]

Jumping in here a little late: The issue, as it has been explained to me, is that Agassi was and is banned from Arisia, but Arisia can only refuse to sell him a membership; only the hotel can ban him from the hotel. And at least when Arisia moved to the Hyatt, the hotel was not willing to ban him, presumably for fear of lawsuits, until he harassed somebody. I don't know what the situation is with the current hotel.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

You know, it might be useful to show who these people are. Many of you may have seen them, even talked to them, but aren't connecting their names with the faces.

Here's a picture of Aaron Agassi, the one who has been banned from a LOT of places, and who few people like:



Here's a picture of Rene Walling, the guy that I actually like, and who has done a lot of good for the community:

[tikva.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I see just poorly enough that half of male fandom looks like these two guys to me. *heh*

[paper-crystals.livejournal.com]

Fear not. I do not see poorly and I assure you that half of male fandom still looks like these two guys.

[paper-crystals.livejournal.com]

...or maybe under these circumstances you should fear. I'll get back to you on that.

[paper-crystals.livejournal.com]

On your add to edit: It would not surprise me given what little I know about bureaucracy and bureaucracy in fandom that this was the case. It also doesn't surprise me that the people who implemented this policy made the short sighted assumption that sexual harassment wouldn't happen again at Readercon because of this policy.

[tober.livejournal.com]

(FWIW, I have never met any of the people involved AFAIK - at least none of the names are familiar - and I have never been to Readercon)

I find it ...odd... that sometimes organizations are so concerned with "obeying rules" and having rules to obey that they create for themselves unnecessary morasses. There is no fundamental (external) reason that the con board or committee could not have banned Agassi even if only because he is broadly reviled. They don't need to create some rule to be able to cite that he broke it[1]. They're not a court - which brings me to my second point - the con is truly not competent to adjudicate... well, pretty much anything, and it shouldn't pretend that it is. It seems to me, therefore, that the "zero tolerance policy" boils down to this in actual fact (if it were to be universally enforced) - any person against whom a charge of sexual harassment is made will be banned for life. Now, that may be ok or it may be not quite ok, I'm unwilling to even go there.

[1] It is my guess that you, xiphias will remember when The Justice (student newspaper of Brandeis University) accepted an ad from a holocaust denialist organization because they apparently had some kind of guiding principle that all ads should be accepted or some such malarky. This reminds me of that.

[paper-crystals.livejournal.com]

Unrelated: OMG parrots!

[tober.livejournal.com]

:) - That picture was taken somewhere not terribly far from Melbourne, Australia on an organized tour that stopped in a spot where the birds are habituated to being fed by people - if you offer seed they will perch on your hands, head, etc.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I absolutely agree with you.

That said, I DO think that the motives that make people do that sort of thing are noble -- a belief in giving people a chance, a belief in "rules above men", and so forth.

Which is why it's so ironic that, as soon as the people who made those rules find themselves trapped by them, they immediately take actions which betray the noble motives that they were probably trying to emulate in the first place.

[tober.livejournal.com]

Yup, intentions behind having rules (including the rule in question) usually are noble but I think that "zero tolerance" rules are very seldom appropriate, as they tend to have unintended consequences (see also zero tolerance rules in public schools, "three strikes" criminal sentencing requirements, etc). Of course, if it's not a "zero tolerance" rule then one must allow that such a thing could exist as an allegation of sexual harassment that doesn't have sufficient strength to be acted upon or one that has sufficient strength to be acted upon but not sufficient strength that the target of the complaint should be banned for life, etc. Squeamishness over having to think about that and the knowledge that in some (many?) cases there would be rancorous disagreement between various factions over what to do in a specific situation is probably what lead to the enactment of the zero tolerance policy. It looks like it has failed to prevent the sort of discord that I'm pretty sure it was intended to stop.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the reason for this sort of concern with rules is to create a sort of atmosphere of lawfulness and organization, which many people find reassuring and pleasant. Yes, the Readercon board could roam the halls in a pack, picking people at random and going "You! You're too tall! You're just doing it to bother me! BANT!", but it would freak people out, and so they wouldn't come back.

Unfortunately for the board, creating rules and not following them has the same effect as not having them in the first place. It creates an impression of misrule that people find disconcerting.

Beyond that, I'd imagine that for women, it creates the impression that a place that they thought had rules and a process to protect them from creepers...doesn't. That's a bad thing to find out, especially when you're already in the place.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Rene *did* know he did something wrong, that's why he was trying to apologize, cluelessly. And that's why the Readercon committee made such asses out of themselves, I suspect. I don't think it's any BNFness. I think if you accuse somebody and they bluster or deny or are clueless, that's quite different from accusing them and they immediately say they did it and they're so ashamed and explaining how they tried to apologize... I think that's probably why they screwed up on their own policy.

I do appreciate that the trying to apologize made it worse in this case. I also appreciate how there's this thing where men know they're nice and can't believe that women can really feel threatened. That Rene isn't creepy doesn't mean that Genevieve didn't really feel stalked. Men generally need to be much more aware of this.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

yeah. it sounds like a meme of "in a situation where someone evidently feels stalked or creeped by you, and it's seeming impossible to manage to go apologize to hir, this is probably b/c sie doesn't want you near her at all -- trynig to apologize in person will only make it worse" needs to get to some of the Clueless Guys and a meme of . . . and if this is your situation "please do not take a contrite note given to someone else to give to you as more stalking, provided it doesn't request further contact" could go to the other side.

'cause it seemed like (based on what I read in her post - I don't know any of these people) while Valentine had every reason to be pissed at unasked for touching, and was, what pushed her over the edge into Extremely Pissed And Contacting ConCom About It was Renee hanging around trynig to talk with her and apologize.

Which to me is very very sad.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

This isn't "clueless guy" behavior; this is classic predator behavior. He didn't want to apologize to her, because then he would have accepted the *first* time when she said "Don't want to talk about this, don't worry about it, goodbye" and walked on. He wanted her attention while he explained how she misunderstood him. He wanted her time spent soothing his feelings and agreeing that they were all good now. And then the next part of the cycle would have begun -- he apologized, now she owes it to him to be nice to him. She said it was okay, didn't she?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I don't think it has to do with BNF stuff. I DO think it has to do with "I know Rene, he's my friend, and I know he's a decent person, therefore he deserves another chance".

And, for that matter, ". . . and I like seeing him at conventions." I think it's not reputation so much as it is personally liking the guy.

I don't think it's POSSIBLE for a person to avoid having that color their decisions. Which is a reason for a zero-tolerance policy in the first place -- by removing human judgement from the decision, you remove being biased toward your friends.

[cos]

Just ran across this post a long time after the events in question, but I want to say you laid out the context simply and concisely better than any other summary I remember seeing.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

And thanks for prompting me to reread this post. I spent a fair amount of time in the discussion above.

pacific business group on health

[(Anonymous)]

shenandoah school of pharmacy [url=http://sibutramina.sitiwebs.com/]comprare sibutramina svizzera[/url] university of florida college of medicine jacksonville