A creepy wrinkle has appeared in the battle over sexual harassment policies. The question in this post by Lousy Canuck at FTB is: “TAM’s harassment policy was secret. Why?” Read the post, then come back here.
I’m tired, so I’m just slightly expanding on the comment I made comment there:
Disclaimer: I just thinking out loud here, apologies for stating the obvious and re-stating what others have said. I am relying on what has been said on the Internet for these speculations, and we all know how reliable that can be, so get your bag of salt and keep it handy as you read.
The only way this makes sense is to look at what a policy is. What most people think of when they hear “sexual harassment policy” is the general description of what is considered unacceptable behavior. That’s not the case; those are the “policy goals,” or what the pointy end of the policy is designed to bring about. The full policy includes the description of what situations are to be responded to with particular actions by the staff, and how those incidents are to be documented, and what the escalation paths are. The actual goals of the policy for the institution are not necessarily stated in the policy goals that are presented (i.e. the standards of behavior that are a no-no).
The actions taken and the secrecy involved make sense if the institutional goals, or what JREF wants to accomplish strategically with a policy that focuses on observation of the person making the complaint* that I see connecting cleanly with the actions described above are twofold.
1. To demonstrate that the “squeaky wheels” are not being harassed in order to stifle any attempt at litigation for negligence or discrimination (or whatever) by the amorphous mass of #FTBullies etc. Seriously, I’m thinking that somebody scared DJ into thinking that this was a set-up for a civil suit or the like.
2. To demonstrate that JREF is taking seriously its reputation and the charges leveled against it, and is not “taking this lying down.” Assuming all is as described in the comments and post (because I’m cautious and paranoid, yanno), this sounds very much like
In short, makes sense if you are coming from the perspective of someone who feels embittered, unappreciated, henpecked, slandered, and besieged. It makes sense if you feel you are the organizer and you feel you have been unjustly persecuted, and are acting to defend yourself. In short, this is a policy to prevent JREF from being harassed, not a policy to prevent its attendees from being sexually (or otherwise) harassed.
This is majorly fucked up. I would appreciate it if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong, or (depressingly) confirm that my guess is right.
* and again, I’m thinking out loud here, speculation disclaimer, etc., but this is insane.
—
Also for your consideration, and separate from my comment at LousyCanuck’s blog, I present to you yet more proof that thunderf00t is a douchebag.
