[Since LASFS distributed a statement by Gregory Benford as its determination about the code of conduct issues at Loscon 45, published here as part of a report about the incident, I have agreed to host Isabel Schechter’s statement about the outcome as well.]
By Isabel Schechter: It is unfortunate that I have to make a statement regarding the incident that happened last week at LosCon 45, but there has been lack of information, misinformation, and deliberately incomplete information being put out, and given Loscon’s lack of communication, I feel I need to set the record straight on some things.
The comments made by Dr. Benford at the “New Masters of SF” panel have been discussed elsewhere, and I will not address them or the reasons for my report of them further. However, the actions of the convention and the LASFS board, and my connection or lack thereof, to those actions have been confusing, and that is what needs to be made clear.
To begin, right after the panel, there were several people who spoke with the Programming department head, Justine Reynolds, about Dr. Benford’s comments. After that, various concom staff members sought me out regarding this incident. First, Justine followed up with me to let me know that Dr. Benford had been asked to not be on programming for the rest of the convention. Later, the con chairs sought me out to tell me that they had removed Dr. Benford from the convention. The third time I was approached, it was by Ops to ask me to make an official report of the incident. Each time concom staff sought me out, I thought that was the end of it.
Apparently, that was not the end of it. It was only after the convention that I found out that Dr. Benford’s removal from the convention had been reversed. It was only after reading social media posts about the incident that I found out that Dr. Benford’s removal from the convention was not actually because of my or anyone else’s report of his comments on the panel, but rather because he didn’t follow the concom’s directions, used foul language, and referred to one of the con chairs as “honey.”
I was not informed that the con would be issuing a statement about the incident on social media, nor was I informed that they would be publicizing Dr. Benford’s statement or asked if I would like the opportunity to do the same. In addition, contrary to what at least one concom member stated, Dr. Benford and I did not have contact of any kind after the panel.
In my on-site interactions with Loscon staff, I felt that they took their Code of Conduct seriously and wanted to ensure that this kind of incident was handled appropriately. Sadly, as I have now found out from other sources more about how Loscon did not follow their own procedures and has still, one week later, not communicated any of this to me directly, I am now extremely disappointed with their disorganization and unprofessionalism.
While I appreciate that the con chairs had good intentions in taking swift action against Dr. Benford, I need to make it absolutely clear that at no point did I request, pressure, insist, or demand that Loscon bypass their policies or procedures, or to remove Dr. Benford from the convention. I was never asked by Loscon for my input or opinion regarding any actions the con took toward Dr. Benford. His removal was a decision made by the con chairs without my knowledge and only communicated to me after it was already done.
I take CoC’s very seriously and believe it is imperative that all conventions not only have a strong CoC, but to also consistently follow policies and procedures to ensure all incidents are handled in an appropriate manner. I reported Dr. Benford’s comments and spoke to File 770 about what happened at the convention because I initially trusted Loscon would properly implement their CoC rules. Unfortunately that trust was misplaced, putting me at risk. When conventions bypass their own CoC policies and procedures, misinformation and confusions result. CoC policies and procedures exist to not only protect the convention, but also to protect attendees, including those who report problems to the convention. Failure to follow procedure can often lead to those who made reports leaves them vulnerable as targets for retaliation and threats, including some I have seen encouraging physical violence against me that have made because of the unclear and conflicting statements and actions taken by Loscon. Convention attendees need to feel safe enough to report incidents, and when failures like this occur, they can discourage other attendees from reporting issues because they don’t want to expose themselves to harassment and threats for doing the right thing.
Loscon did not handle this incident well to begin with, and has made it worse with their lack of communication. I hope that they will learn from this incident and do better going forward, and that other conventions will take note and strengthen their own procedures to prevent a similar situation from occurring.
Update 12/02/2018: The formal address in this post has been corrected to Dr. Benford. Isabel Schecter explains: “I was unaware the he was Dr., and would have used the proper address if I had known. I apologize for my error.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
When she says that Loscon “did not follow their own procedures”, it is difficult to understand exactly what she means, because the CoC doesn’t obligate Loscon to do much. It mostly proscribes behavior for attendees.
It says “action or behavior . . . may result in suspension.” So if an offender is suspended or not, either way, the result is in accordance with the CoC.
It says “We will mediate the situation, help you contact venue security or law enforcement, or otherwise assist you to feel safe during the conference.” But without specifics in the CoC as to how they would do these things, or without a statement from Schecter along the lines of “I need X and Y to happen in order for me to feel safe”, and X and Y were promised and didn’t happen, I read Loscon’s actions as general ham-handedness rather than “Loscon didn’t follow their procedures”.
Beyond those two statements, the Loscon Coc doesn’t seem to have much in the way of procedures for the convention to follow, and they arguably did follow those.
In other words, Loscon’s failures were due to a poorly-written CoC, not because they didn’t follow it.
Clickity
@bill: The Code of Conduct is not the same as the policies and procedures for enforcing said code. And what several people, including the head of programming for this con, have said it is that those PROCEDURES were not adhered to.
None of the cons where I have been senior staff published our procedures for handling incidents (not just CoC violations). We published the Code, and the Code explained that violations might result in suspension or ejection, but we didn’t publish the whole process.
I haven’t read Loscon’s CoC, but the fact that it didn’t include the entire behind-the-scenes policy does not make it a poorly written one.
@Bill
I took it as referring to the process referred to in the first para of the previous article on this:
I assume the process isn’t in the CoC for attendees because it’s internal for staff.
*Dr.* Benford.
@Mark — thanks
I think, though, that a well-written CoC should have more meat than Loscon’s did. It should say “if this happens, this will be the result” in much more detail.
@Olav:
I have a piece of paper here declaring me King of Molkaria. I demand to be addressed as Your Majesty. /s
@Atsiko: You’re probably aware, but (in case not): In the US, UK, and countries of my acquaintance on the European continent, it’s normal to include the honorific for someone you know has a doctorate. The Germans even acknowledge each doctorate separately, such that one hears things like ‘As Herr Doktor Doktor Schmidt was saying…..’ On a tactical level, if speaking critically of a person with a doctorate, it’s prudent to include the honorific to avoid inadvertently making your omission of the honorific the issue rather than one’s substantive criticism — even if you consider the person a phudnik (defined by Leo Rosten as ‘a nudnik with a Ph.D.’).
I once got in minor (tongue-lashing) trouble for referring to an interlocutor as Professor So-and-So rather than Dr. So-and-So. This was deemed (slightly) disrespectful, even though my theory was that Professor meant the person was doing something meritorious and admirable, i.e., teaching, whereas Dr. meant only completing one’s dissertation and getting a sheepskin. I thought I was being more respectful, not less. (Some days, you can’t win.)
Olavrokne corrects it to *Dr.* Benford.
So? Does that he’s a Doctor which is to say he has a Ph.D. make his behavior more or less acceptable? Not sure what your point is.
@Rick Moen
Not in my UK experience. If I addressed the friends of mine with PhDs as Doctor then they’d know I was being sarcastic about something. In general they use their title only in an appropriate context e.g. the one who’s an actual academic uses it within academia, the one for who it’s professionally relevant uses it at work, etc. Personally I never use the letters after my name outside of relevant work contexts.
Basically, unless someone was clearly using Dr in some sort of professional context then I wouldn’t automatically use it.
(Also, this is a very silly distraction.)
I completely agree with Cat Eldridge and Mark. I have a Ph.D. and I expect to be addressed as Dr. *in professional contexts where the content of my degree is relevant*. But never in normal daily life.
And, yes, here this is a silly distraction.
@Mark and @Dennis Howard, I of course don’t dispute anyone’s lived experience, but what I described was very much the case in polite discussion when I was growing up in British Hong Kong and also during long residence in Southwark, London in the 1980s.
But please note that we were in no wise speaking of ‘normal daily life’. That was just not the context. E.g., I wouldn’t have said to my courtesy uncle ‘Dr. Kaplan, would you pass the salt?’ It was always ‘Uncle Fred’. Even in London. ;->
Whatever he calls himself, Benford is still an ass.
And the important thing here, is LosCon have actively made things worse through their mishandling of the incident. This really raises the question of whether LosCon is a safe place for people of color
Olav Rokne: I overlooked that when I copyedited the piece. The formal address in this post has been corrected to Dr. Benford.
Isabel Schecter explains: “I was unaware the he was Dr., and would have used the proper address if I had known. I apologize for my error.”
@Rick M
I am *intimately* aware of the “niceties” of the American/European academic hierarchy. It seems as if everyone, probably including you, understood my point. Out of respect for Mike and Ms. Schecter, I am leaving aside this issue following this comment.
@Atsiko, honestly, your point was pretty opaque given your comparison of Olav Rokne’s comment to someone demanding to be addressed as ‘Your Majesty’ of an imaginary monarchy.
It’s no skin off my back if someone speaks of as ‘Mr.’ people who fairly obviously have doctorates. FWIW, I think that academic nicety’s a bit silly. I just thought some readers might not be aware of why Rokne made that comment.
@Olav I wish to apologize to you, as in hindsight it’s quite possible you were intending your remark be directed to people unaware of Benford’s academic status, such as Ms. Schechter, rather than insisting his title be used to someone who had knowingly chosen not to, as I had assumed.
I have seen several people get very insistent on the issue from that angle, which I find pedantic and a bit condescending, both in regards to Dr. Benford and in general.
If that was not your intention you have my sincere regrets.
It’s not uncommon in adversarial communications between fans that one will express that distance by addressing the other in formal terms — Mr.
However, if one intends to be formal, then it matters that the correct formal address is used.
I’ll note I have seen the same kind of response when a woman is referred to as Ms. but has a doctorate.
@Mike
There are degrees of distance, and calling him Mr. Benford is a very different distance than Dr. Benford when one knows he has a doctorate.
Similarly, *demanding* a person be referred to by Dr. has its own contextual meaning depending on the circumstances.
I dare say we’d rather not drag this discussion into the nasty waters of the meaning around granting a woman her rightful title as Dr.
Those nuances are what I was attempting to speak to. However, I failed to give Olav the benefit of the doubt here, and given Ms. Schechter’s response it seems perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
Apologies to you also, Mike, for any disruption of the thread I may have caused with that.
Dear Bill,
I think you are suffering from a misconception, albeit an understandable one, regarding the relationship between a CoC and Procedures.
A good analogy would be that the CoC is the Constitution (or at least the written law), and Procedures are how those laws are enforced and adjudicated. There are a whole bunch of good practical reasons why judicial and legislative are separate functions, because process and content really aren’t the same thing.
Within my limited knowledge, Procedures aren’t secret. To the extent they are written down, you can ask a con for a copy. Perhaps some conventions do keep them secret. But it’s not really what you want the attendees to know. What you want them to know is how you expect them to behave, and that is contained in the CoC.
Publishing the Procedures in something like the program book would not be useful (and that’s assuming they are fully written down). For one, longissimus, non legi. It’s hard enough to get people to read the CoC — making it longer won’t improve that.
For another, it encourages more rules lawyering. This is a known and established problem when CoC’s try to get too specific about exactly what sorts of behaviors will not be tolerated and what the punishments will be. There are many people who will argue along the lines of “well, you didn’t tell me NOT to stick beans in my ear.” Add, “you failed to specify that my beans would be confiscated if I did.” Beyond a certain level of specificity, you are only providing an opportunity for them to play the technicalities game in an effort to circumvent the spirit and the intent of the CoC. And for them to then scream unfairness when the con refuses to play that game.
In the case of LosCon, it is unclear whether they had faulty procedures or they failed to follow the procedures they had. One or both could be true. Either way, that’s a problem on the “judicial” side, not the “legislative” side.
One thing LosCon unquestionably did wrong was making a public announcement with the details. All they accomplished by doing that was to put themselves, Greg, and Isobel on a public Trial By Internet.
Which works so well and is always a good idea (if well=badly and good=horrible).
One hallmark of good Procedures is that they remain confidential. If the Reporter or the Respondent want to make the matter public, they have the right to do so, of course. But putting both parties on public display without either of their consents doesn’t serve anybody well, ever.
– pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. Dragon Dictate in training! ]
======================================
— Ctein’s Online Gallery. http://ctein.com
— Digital Restorations. http://photo-repair.com
======================================
@Rick Moen
That’s not quite correct. Plenty of Germans with doctorates only use them in a professional context and don’t insist on being addressed as Dr. Soandso in regular life. Even medical doctors, where this is most common, don’t necessarily insist on it.
In fact, there’s a saying among German academics that the more someone insists on being addressed as Dr. Whatever, the less work they have actually done to gain that doctorate. It’s probably no surprise that politicians with honorary doctorates tend to insist on being addressed as Dr. Whatever. And during the wave of academic plagiarism scandals among German politicians a few years ago, the worst plagiarists were inevitably the ones who insisted most emphatically on being called Dr. Whatever. Coincidentally, Angela Merkel never insisted on being called Dr. Merkel, even though she is a doctor of physics.
Meanwhile, addressing someone as “Herr Doktor” or “Frau Doktor” is very old-fashioned and pretty much never happens outside a medical context (maybe in Austria, where they really like titles). Elderly people will still use “Herr Doktor” or “Frau Doktor” during a medical appointment, but most people will use “Dr. Soandso”. In fact, I only use “Herr Doktor” or “Frau Doktor”, when I don’t know the doctor’s name (e.g. in a hospital or emergency context) and when I want something from them, such as please see my sick family member now and give me a moment of their time to tell me what exactly is wrong with them.
@Cora Buhlert:
Once again, the context of this discussion was not regular life. It was where someone elects to use a title (as did Isabel Schechter in this case), and concerned what title then is deemed appropriate. Which was Olav Rokne’s point.
(I would certainly agree with the German attitude you allude to, FWIW, and find the occasional person who insists on being called ‘Doctor” unless wearing a stethoscope or presenting an academic paper, etc. to be pretty silly )
That’s an oversimplification. Loscon’s announcements on November 25 and November 26 did not name anyone or even specify what happened to violate the Code of Conduct.
Gregory Benford did tell his experience to a number of people — that’s how there came to be a petition signed by several well-known writers, and he was the source of information for David Weber’s Facebook post of November 26. And even LASFS’ final statement was penned by Benford.
However, because this had occurred in public at a panel with lots of witnesses, a number of people went to the Loscon pages on Facebook and asked questions or made statements with names and what they thought had happened — even if they didn’t all share the same opinion about it.
Then, as I researched my post, Isabel Schechter agreed to answer my questions. Again, that didn’t come from the committee.
It wasn’t til I had posted the article that anyone from Loscon (Justine Reynolds, Robbie Bourget) shared any information about the process (whether it had been followed or not). Before that both principals had already gone public themselves. It’s not accurate or fair to say that Loscon put them on display.
In regards to the Mr./Dr. thing, it may be worth pointing out that US and European conventions are pretty different on this score. For instance, a veterinarian in the US is always addressed as “Dr.”, but in England is almost always addressed as “Mr./Mrs./Ms.”.
Since Benford is American, I would think that US conventions would apply. If you’re addressing him by his last name, “Dr.” is the correct prefix.
If I was interacting with him in an academic environment, or a professional science environment, I might well do that. However, I feel compelled to explain that at conventions, socializing, or in literary environments he goes by Greg or Gregory Benford, so when I report his activities in those contexts I just use his surname.
Of course, even within fandom cases vary. It was apparent to me that Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D. enjoyed being called Doctor Pournelle, and although he didn’t expect those who knew him socially to do it and seemed comfortable with being called Jerry, some of his friends nevertheless always called him Doctor Pournelle or Doctor P.
I wonder why academic titles matter at all in the science fiction convention/fandom arena? I was once addressed as “Professor Finch,” and though that was my working-day title, I felt it inappropriate on the occasion of my sitting on an sf panel that did not require academic credentials.
Somebody in the past decided having advanced degrees made a person better than people without them, someone else decided some people aren’t worthy to try for them, now we’re all stuck dealing with the aftermath.
I want to be clear I’m not accusing anybody in particular of having these views, but they exist, and it makes the issue of academic titles very problematic.
@Mike —
I didn’t see the original version of the post, and I’m not criticizing whatever was in it. IMHO, Greg, Greg Benford, Gregory, or Benford would all be suitable. The only form of address I would personally object to would be Mr. Benford, since that one is inaccurate by US conventions.
Dear Mike,
I much appreciate the correction. On which I now stand. (Or does it stand on me? I’ve never been clear about that.)
pax / Ctein
(P.S. I can’t believe the discussion has degenerated almost entirely to the varied customs around using honorifics. Talk about small stakes.)
Cora Buhlert–I read somewhere that Germans with two doctorates, or a Ph.D. and an M.D., were called “Dr. Dr.” Is that true?
Is it still true that it is much harder to be a full professor in Germany than in the US or Britain, so that professors have a more exalted status than in the US or Britain?
I took no umbrage.
I try very hard to be an umbrage-free zone.
Dr. Benford’s academic (scientific) credentials seem relevant to the opinions he expresses. It seems to me that there is a long history of SF written by scientists, and a long history of those writers urging a greater degree of scientific literacy, or preferring works of “Hard” SF.
Personally, my literary canon has enough room in it for SF that falls in a wide range of the Mohr scale …
There is no “European convention”. All countries are different. In Sweden, we do not use honorifics at all unless we want to insult someone or mark how much we dislike whatever they are doing.
Hampus,
Is that like when the angrier some people get, the more ‘polite’ they become?
Martin Wooster on December 2, 2018 at 8:13 pm said:
Yes, and they tend to induce bad cases of loving them.
Just my 2 cents on the “Dr.” part of this conversation:
(Qualifiers: got my PhD about 20 years ago, have worked in academic, industry and government settings in the US)
In the US, the insistance on being called “Dr.” for PhD holders is based both on field and generation. The title of Dr., unless in a very formal situation, is used rarely in verbal communication, and only moderately in formal communcation (e.g. emailing a professional colleague for the first time). Case in point: I have addressed, or heard people being addressed, with their formal titles less than 10% of the time in work settings. That 10% is almost completely related to introducing speakers or award recipients.
Ctein — I see your point, and agree that too much specificity can open things up to rules lawyering.
But I still kinda think that Loscon’s has too little procedure, for a couple of reasons:
1. As written, an attendee can see a violation (or even be the subject of a violation), but has no idea what will happen if it is reported. That being the case, a potential reporter may think “What’s the point — it’s not obvious that they will do anything anyway, and it’s a big PITA for me to report. I’ll just suck it up and let someone else deal with the problem.” But if the CoC says at some level of detail the procedure for handling the report, and with a notional timeline for responses (immediate fact gathering, mediated resolution if appropriate, a decision on stronger responses within XX hours, etc.), a reporter can feel as if a serious response plan is in place and that reports therefore will be taken seriously.
2. A documented procedure makes the relevant Ops people publicly accountable. If an Ops person or a Con director knows that there is an expectation that a report will be dealt with in a particular way, they will be less inclined to bypass documented procedures and make ad hoc decisions. This point is specifically relevant in the Loscon case, I believe.
Soon Lee:
No, it is more complicated than that. With start in the end of the 60:s, there was a conscious choice to democratize the language which meant doing away with all titles and honorifics (apart from for the royal family). Even the formal “you” was removed rom common use (even if younger persons sometimes insult us in the mistaken idea that they are being polite).
This was done to remove hierarchial thoughts on who was better than someone else, to not anymore see someone as being of a higher standing in society.
To use honorifics with regads to someone is to imply that they think they are better than anyone else, have an undemocratic view of the society or are expressing viewpoints that they should know were wrong if they understood their profession.
There are of course exceptions,but thats the gist of it.
Dear Bill,
And I, in turn, see your points. You’ve raised good issues.
I’m not convinced that published Procedures are the solution, but the concerns you’ve brought up certainly need addressing.
As many groups, in all organizations, have found out the hard way– writing a CoC is easy, compared to figuring out how to enforce it.
pax / Ctein
Thanks for the explanation Hampus.
I see/read so much UK & American media, I sometimes forget (though I really shouldn’t*) about other countries having different conventions & histories and assume sameness when they are not.
(*For example, the New Zealand police recruiting video in this Pixel Scroll, is not something I can imagine being produced by American police. And it’s not just because NZ police do not carry guns routinely.)
Whenever Jerry Pournelle and I had a discussion, I tried very hard to always start by calling him “Doctor” or “Doctor Pournelle”. He worked to get that degree, and I felt it was a small courtesy easily rendered.
And he was the only person in fandom to ever consistently call me by *my* title. Which I also found not only a gracious thing to do, but a hell of a compliment.
Hampus: Ah, the whole “You and Bror” (amusingly, not, “you and Brother”, as the first name of the chap was Bror, which means “brother) movement.
Still, there are places for title, and a surprisngly non-trivial protocol for getting them right. My favourite example is, probably Princess Christina Doctor Mrs Magnusson (no, that’s not your typical “Mrs”, that’s an attempt at translating the noble title “Fru”, the title gained by someone married to a Freiherr).
But, yes, in general, titles are used mostly in contexts of ridicule, and/or professional introductions (and, sometimes, both).
Ctein, while one does want to avoid rules lawyering, I think it’s necessary to state what the CoC’s process is, at least as prominently as the CoC itself. Offhand, I’d want to see:
1) Who is an initial report made to (of course someone might report to any con person they happen to see, but con staff and volunteers should know who to immediately pass the complainant onto if they want to start the CoC process). This of course could be a group of folk, or a location which knows how to contact whoever’s on duty, such as Ops.
2) A general sense of what happens before a decision is made. Must all parties be talked to? Is there due process? Does the accused get to interact with the accuser, either directly or indirectly (i.e. what, exactly, am I accused of and what is the evidence. If you ask my accuser this question, you might get a very relevant response)? What happens if you can’t find the accused? Who is asking questions (whatever top level concom is handy? A specified CoC team? Ops?) Can anyone jump the process by pulling rank as appears happened at Loscon [con chairs over at least Ops]?
3) Who makes the decision? (i.e. by role, such as “Ops head” rather than by their name)
4) If recusal is necessary, due to making the accuser or the accused being a friend or on the concom, what happens? And who, if anyone, can order recusal if a person who perhaps should recuse themself does not.
5) Is there any means of appeal, and if so how does that work?
I’d kinda like to know if a convention is treating this as a Star Chamber, a make it up as it happens, or due process.
@Darren. Lol! So bad that songs have been written about them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNOmS78q-o
The lead guitarist’s name is Micahel Schenker. Coincidence? Or is it?
Er, that would have been funnier if Schenker and Schechter were the same names. Which they were in my age-fuddled head.
Thanks, Cliff, now I’m going to have to get out my MSG CDS.
Great! I might join you while I ‘wait for this code to compile’.
@Hampus —
Notice that I used the word “conventions” — plural. And I carefully specified that I was applying my given example only to England, which I did because I am not familiar with other non-US conventions. 😉
@Martin Wooster
My cousin has two doctorates and I’m pretty sure he won’t mind me using him as an example here. His full title is Dr. Dr. Magnus Buhlert, MdBB (member of the Bremen state parliament) and that’s what is printed on letterheads, cards, etc… On the website of his party, he’s listed as Dr. Dr. Buhlert, but on the website of the Bremen state parliament as well as on his own website and Twitter he goes by only one Doctor. In the press, he’s usually called just by his name, e.g. “The representative Magnus Buhlert said…”
Professor is a separate title in Germany, gained once you have a doctorate and write a second thesis to become a professor. The full title would be Professor Dr. Whatever or – if the person has two doctorates – Professor Dr. Dr. Whatever. The US habit of calling anybody who teaches at a university “professor” is very strange to us, because Professor is a very specific title over here. Though at least at the universities where I studied and worked, titles were used in correspondence and on websites, but not in regular conversation. University teachers – whether professors, doctors or graduate students – were addressed as Herr or Frau Whatever by the students and among themselves. I also had two professors who went by their first names.
Cora: so if your cousin is introduced to someone, but they fail to hear his name, they’ll ask, “Doctor doctor who?”
I’ll get my coat….
When I was a kid, I was told that it was a really bad idea to call anyone “doctor” unless he/she had an MD because in an emergency, someone might think that person was a real doctor. If “Mr. Smith, Ph.D.” insisted on being called “Dr. Smith,” then he was being pretentious. (I suppose that must have come with exceptions for academic contexts.)
Of course, my father was an MD, so it’s possible I was given biased data. 🙂