Since we all know that Gerrold's request to let Antonelli attend Sasquan was a factor in the decision, it's incorrect to say that it was all worked out privately. We're all aware of the social-ties aspect as well and that was discussed openly on File 770 and elsewhere immediately after the decision. So the email dump still wasn't needed for a productive discussion to be had. I hope such dumps don't become routine, because it would certainly chill honest, frank concom communication, which would of course lead to a concom list where nothing of any consequence is discussed for fear of it being fodder for the internet.
Right, but once again, the result of the process isn't the same as the process that led there. The language of the Executive Committee in their announcement of the Antonelli decision lends a much more formal air to the "deliberations" than is given by the email exchange, which, as someone else on this thread says, gives the impression that the decision of Antonelli's culpability was only arrived at when the committee was sure that they wouldn't have to act on it.
So, I'm speaking partly as a faculty member in an academic program that has a history of problems with transparency and accountability. These are discussions that we have professionally all the time (by which I mean, last Wednesday, and also tomorrow). While it's true that harassment complaints should be confidential, the fact is that there's a culture of quiet backstage negotiation in "fandom" that needs to be worked against, and the only solutions are ugly in the short term. Broadly speaking, decisions that can't withstand the light of day are often bad decisions. Mme_hardy's point is true: an argument by Frank in the absence of evidence changes nothing, because it's easily dismissible by the parties involved.
The ultimate question is, do the constituents (the con attendees) have faith in the process? Privacy is one thing, but if the process is opaque, with allegations of bankruptcy and only he-said she-said arguments as evidence, then no. How to correct that? There is no really pleasant solution. This isn't to say that publicity is desirable, but at this point, the burden of proving good faith is on con committees. This is especially the case when so much of the argument, in those emails, are self-reflective appeals to authority and how often the people involved have done this before. Of course this is a hard genie to shove back into the bottle, but I honestly don't see any other viable strategy for making viable arguments about this recurring issue.
ETA: your own point is that she isn't really telling us anything we don't already know. Too you, this makes the "whistleblowing" merely chilling, but you could also just as well say she isn't violating confidentiality, she's just breaking a culture of privacy. And frankly, the hell with cultures of privacy in institutional situations.
A formal decision is like the skin on a sausage. A lot of things go into it that aren't so neat. As far as Antonelli's culpability, the facts are these: 1) Antonelli sent idiotic letter to Spokane PD. 2) Antonelli says he did it on a podcast. 3) Sasquan gets wind of it, and thinks about banning Antonelli, and let's him know that. 4) Antonelli apologizes to Gerrold, revokes idiotic letter before the con. 5) Meanwhile, initial decision to ban Antonelli is made. 6) Gerrold says he's o.k. with Antonelli attending. 7) Con-chair decides and announces that Antonelli can attend Sasquan. Meanwhile, Antonelli makes an ass of himself in other ways, which is to be expected.
As for the current situation, let me ask you this: how does Frank's email dump really change the debate over Antonelli? IMO, it doesn't. We can still have a discussion about harassment policies and how their followed and as far as I'm concerned it can involve Sasquan concom members. I'm just noting that email dumps aren't required to have it.
As for backstage negotiations, let me tell you from personal experience sometimes that's necessary. I'm on a public zoning and planning board and sometimes it's necessary for us to have discussions off the public record for privacy reasons. This doesn't make the process bad or opaque or unaccountable. If I decided to just blab to the internet some details of an off-the-record exchange I was upset about, I would first ask myself whether I had damn good reason for doing so.
ETA: to your ETA, "culture of privacy"? Come on, no one paying attention to this is unaware of this matter or what and who it involves. To the contrary, what you're advocating is the sort of "call out" culture that frankly can be toxic, as Mixon's report touched on. Don't be surprised if Frank's action leads to things getting really ugly.
If I decided to just blab to the internet some details of an off-the-record exchange I was upset about, I would first ask myself whether I had damn good reason for doing so.
I don't see any reason to suppose Frank didn't do so. Frank's email dump doesn't change the debate Antonelli, it changes the debate about how these decisions habitually get made, sometimes by the same people.
"Call out culture" can be toxic, and that should be guarded against; but of course, the first people for whom it's toxic is the people who get called out, who often dislike it. I'm not going to touch Mixon's post except to say that it was about an individual, not a "culture." For that matter, I too wouldn't be surprised if things get ugly; it's an ugly situation already.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
So, I'm speaking partly as a faculty member in an academic program that has a history of problems with transparency and accountability. These are discussions that we have professionally all the time (by which I mean, last Wednesday, and also tomorrow). While it's true that harassment complaints should be confidential, the fact is that there's a culture of quiet backstage negotiation in "fandom" that needs to be worked against, and the only solutions are ugly in the short term. Broadly speaking, decisions that can't withstand the light of day are often bad decisions. Mme_hardy's point is true: an argument by Frank in the absence of evidence changes nothing, because it's easily dismissible by the parties involved.
The ultimate question is, do the constituents (the con attendees) have faith in the process? Privacy is one thing, but if the process is opaque, with allegations of bankruptcy and only he-said she-said arguments as evidence, then no. How to correct that? There is no really pleasant solution. This isn't to say that publicity is desirable, but at this point, the burden of proving good faith is on con committees. This is especially the case when so much of the argument, in those emails, are self-reflective appeals to authority and how often the people involved have done this before. Of course this is a hard genie to shove back into the bottle, but I honestly don't see any other viable strategy for making viable arguments about this recurring issue.
ETA: your own point is that she isn't really telling us anything we don't already know. Too you, this makes the "whistleblowing" merely chilling, but you could also just as well say she isn't violating confidentiality, she's just breaking a culture of privacy. And frankly, the hell with cultures of privacy in institutional situations.
no subject
As for the current situation, let me ask you this: how does Frank's email dump really change the debate over Antonelli? IMO, it doesn't. We can still have a discussion about harassment policies and how their followed and as far as I'm concerned it can involve Sasquan concom members. I'm just noting that email dumps aren't required to have it.
As for backstage negotiations, let me tell you from personal experience sometimes that's necessary. I'm on a public zoning and planning board and sometimes it's necessary for us to have discussions off the public record for privacy reasons. This doesn't make the process bad or opaque or unaccountable. If I decided to just blab to the internet some details of an off-the-record exchange I was upset about, I would first ask myself whether I had damn good reason for doing so.
ETA: to your ETA, "culture of privacy"? Come on, no one paying attention to this is unaware of this matter or what and who it involves. To the contrary, what you're advocating is the sort of "call out" culture that frankly can be toxic, as Mixon's report touched on. Don't be surprised if Frank's action leads to things getting really ugly.
no subject
I don't see any reason to suppose Frank didn't do so. Frank's email dump doesn't change the debate Antonelli, it changes the debate about how these decisions habitually get made, sometimes by the same people.
"Call out culture" can be toxic, and that should be guarded against; but of course, the first people for whom it's toxic is the people who get called out, who often dislike it. I'm not going to touch Mixon's post except to say that it was about an individual, not a "culture." For that matter, I too wouldn't be surprised if things get ugly; it's an ugly situation already.
no subject
no subject