Balticon Chair Apologizes After Author Stephanie Burke Removed From Panels

Author Stephanie Burke has protested Balticon 56’s handling of an alleged incident which the host organization, the Baltimore Science Fiction Society, is investigating under their rules governing violations of the code of conduct.

Balticon 56 Chair Yakira Heistand has apologized for how Burke was treated, but said the complaints are still being investigated:

I am utterly heartbroken at how events have played out at Balticon this year with our panelist, Stephanie Burke. Ms. Burke has been a long-time panelist and we have invited her back year after year because of her engaging commentary and insightful additions to our programming.

An incident was reported to us regarding Ms. Burke. The plan was to quietly ask her to step down from her panels for the weekend while we had a chance to investigate. However, an overzealous volunteer decided to remove her from an ongoing panel in a way that caused her embarrassment. This is inexcusable and we deeply apologize.

Multiple investigations are ongoing, and, per our bylaws, BSFS cannot comment on an active investigation. If, after investigation, we find any of the complaints were valid, we will take appropriate action per our Code of Conduct. However, please be assured that, in addition to interviewing independent panelists and audience members and trying to build a more complete picture of the inciting incident, we are also putting together better methods on how to handle complaints during a convention.

I offer Ms. Burke my deepest apologies for her embarrassment and the way the complaint was handled.

Stephanie Burke has posted a complete statement on Facebook, pointing to it with this tweet:

[May 29]

Home from Balticon and I will never return. I was accused of some nasty things, treated like a criminal, judged without proof save for hearsay, and stripped of my remaining panels. My only recourse is to make a complaint. My reputation which took close to 20 years to build is now destroyed. I am devastated. This is my complaint. I am angry and I am hurt and I am at a loss because all of the networking I have done here is dead. The publishers I wanted to talk to probably are hearing the lies

Stephanie Burke

May 29, 2022

Hello,

My name is Stephanie Burke and I have been coming and presenting, participating in, and moderating panels for Balticon since it was in The Omni Hotel in Baltimore City. Since then I have done my best to uplift the reputation of this convention and the people who come and participate as well as those who organize this event. I have brought in dealers, publishing house owners, and many authors in addition to budding costumers and have tried to make everyone who attends feel comfortable no matter what.

I have held people who cried, managed to deescalate confrontations between hostile people before damage could be done. I have assisted this ordination to the best of my ability for years and now I am devastated,.

I have been accused of saying some hurtful insensitive transphobic, racist, damaging things and there is no recourse for me to fight this. Why? Because the panel where I was accused of saying these things during Friday’s Balticon Panel Diversity readers and Why You Need Them. I learned of this today after being confronted by a very cold and angry person who demanded to know if I received an email and that I was needed in con ops. I had no idea what he was speaking of because I have received no such emails and was unaware what was going on.

I was escorted out of that room like I was a dangerous and disgusting criminal before the panelist who had arrived to see the next panel discussion. After being spoken to with much disrespect, I was escorted to con pps where I was informed that I was going to be pulled from my panels for the rest of the con. When I asked why I was told that I had complaints lodged against me about the mentioned panel on Friday. Then Lisa Adler-Goldman [sic] proceeded to yell at me, stating that I not only said transphobic things, that I advocated for stopping people with a belt, for people to not take their meds, and that some Balticon years past I had said something about the Romany people being gypsies and that they were liars, dirty, and thieves, all allegations that I denied. I was called a liar to my face and laughed at when I defended myself and demanded proof.

I, of course, demanded proof and Lisa stormed off and I could hear her spreading these lies to the people who were outside of the con ops room door. I was then approached by the director and told that I would be stripped of my remaining panels because of the complaints. I asked to hear the recordings and wanted proof to defend myself against hearsay. The program director explained that she would have to listen to the recorded panel and explained that sometimes people took statements out of context and that she would check. She went to another room to listen to the recording because she needed a device bigger than a cell phone and later came back to tell me that the panel she listened to was wonderful but the panel on Friday was not recorded. The decision to strip me of the remains panels and book reading was to stand and that I was being convicted on hearsay alone.

This is where I get more angry than devastated. I was pulled from a room like a criminal for something I did not do. There was no proof and no way to get proof outside of speaking to people who were in the panel, among them my boss, several acquaintances, and my niece. Still and yet after years of proof that I have never said anything like the accusations being made against me, I was not to be allowed on Balticon panels. There would be an investigation and my only recourse was to write a complaint here.

My major issue was with the person who so disrespectfully came to take me to con ops. I never received an email about a panel on Friday. I was walked out of that room like I was trash and the way I was spoken to made me feel the lowest I have ever felt in a so-called safe space.

The lack of checks and balances on your staff decisions is the second reason I am furious. In fact, today was the first time I ever heard of any complaints lodged against me, and the fact that there was no follow-up on the issue angers me more. I saw and had several conversations with people in con ops since Friday and no one person mentioned a complaint or an email. It took close to two (2) days for someone to get in contact with me and that is very unprofessional. Then to get even angrier with me because they felt I was ignoring an email or trying to flaunt their rules and carry on with panels I have been removed from when I didn’t have a clue to what was going on is hateful and hurtful.

Third, Lisa Adler-Goldman [sic], should not be in a position to communicate with people. From the moment I walked into con ops, she was aggressive, dismissive, nasty and outright lied to my face. She referred to some incident with Balticon 45 or 46, she didn’t have the correct Balticon, where I supposedly said nasty and disturbing and downright racist remakes about the Romany People. In her own words, she stated that I called them dirty, nasty thieves. I have never nor will I ever spew such racist hatred from my lips. I told her that she was lying outright. She claimed to be on a panel when I said these things but could not tell me the panel or produce any proof. She screamed and laughed in my face when I complained and demanded the proof. They then walked out and left me standing there. I have never before felt such derision and mockery and I am truly offended that she told other people these lies.

My reputation as a fair person and someone who respects others in marginalized and as someone who constantly uplift is now in tatters. The word-of-mouth lies are going to have an effect on the publishers I intended to deal with, on the networking that I have done, and on the friends and new acquaintances I have made because it is my word against Lisa’s. Because Lisa is a part of Balticon staff, her world will be taken over mine and the lies she spewed forth will forever be attached to my name. Even when the investigation proves that I am innocent, I have already been tired and judged as a racist, an ablest, and a transphobic individual who despite having a transgendered daughter, would say untrue and evil things. I couldn’t even get someone to inform me of exactly what I was supposed to have said that offended so many people.

So I am issuing this complaint about the above reasons and when this issue is resolved, no matter what, I am done at Balticon. I can never return. I no longer feel safe and with someone who has as many neural-divergent issues, it is devastating to lose a place that felt like my home, with the knowledge that I would be treated as a liar, a hypocrite, or even worse if I return. With those rumors hanging over my head, how can I ever hope to sit on another panel and actually help impart information, share opinions, and offer a different point of view and perspective when everyone will view my words as tainted and me a monster.

I have been attending Balticon for close to 20 years and in all of that time, I never had one complaint lodged against me or was treated like a criminal by staff. During that time, I spread the word about what amazing and inclusive non-judging, and fair the staff and committee were. I avoided con politics and did my best to help improve the lives of people I met as well as made some wonderful connections and developed friendships. Because of this fiasco, all of that has been stripped away.

For all the above reasons, I am making this complaint. The program director informed me that this was handled wrong and that they would try to put protocols in place to prevent this from happening again, but it is too late for me. My reputation at this convention is destroyed and I will never return here as a panelist, a con-goer, or promote Balticon and the Baltimore Science Fiction Society ever again. I can’t honestly recommend this convention again as safe when this was done to me and I feel brutalized and abused.

Stephanie Burke

[[Note: The Balticon 56 committee list shows the programming coordinator’s name is Lisa Adler-Golden. However, Burke above mentions the program director in a way that suggests that was a different person.]]

Here is the listing for the panel at issue:

Diversity Readers and Why You Need Them

[6] Gibson, 11:30am – 12:30pm

tag: In HotelWatch OnlineWriting
Types: Panel

Sarah Avery (moderator)Shahid MahmudCraig Laurance GidneyBrandon KetchumChristine SandquistStephanie “Flash” Burke

No matter one’s background or life experiences, everyone has blind spots. Diversity readers help highlight what an author may be missing. We’ll discuss different kinds of diversity readers and how you find them, etiquette regarding compensation, how to think about incorporating feedback, and more.

122 thoughts on “Balticon Chair Apologizes After Author Stephanie Burke Removed From Panels

  1. I would be very interested to know why the other panelists weren’t consulted, but if they have any sense they won’t announce it.

    ETA: Assuming, of course, that the complaint didn’t come from any of them.

  2. Is there some missing material in Stephanie Burke’s statements? I cannot follow everything that appears there, and this sentence in particular:

    “Because the panel where I was accused of saying these things during Friday’s Balticon Panel Diversity readers and Why You Need Them.”

    looks as if some words are missing.

  3. Oh, dear.

    I have a few suggestions as to how conventions can avoid this kind of thing.

    One is to let the moderator of a panel moderate the panel, presumably by asking the offending speaker to restate, retract, apologize, etc.

    Another good one is to record ALL panels. I realize this can be logistically difficult, but if the con is going to police public speech, they will need evidence to back themselves up–and to exonerate anyone they overreact against.

    A third is to not make snap judgments with no recourse for the accused. If you are going to prosecute someone for a CoC speech infraction, you had better have due process in place–and I mean genuine due process, with the accused having the right to confront their accuser, not a swift, knee-jerk kangaroo court.

    A fourth is to train the volunteers you are using to police public speech.

    If a convention’s management is unable or unwilling to take steps like these, they should not be in the business of policing public speech.

    For quite a few years, I have been a frequent panelist at Colorado conventions. Between this incident and the one involving Mercedes Lackey, I have decided to cease volunteering to be a participant of any kind. These days, it appears to be far too easy to get into hot water over my head because of innocent misspeaking.

  4. DB: No, that’s a verbatim quote. I think the opening words “Because the panel where” were meant to be excised, just leaving “I was accused of saying these things during Friday’s Balticon Panel Diversity readers and Why You Need Them.”

  5. A lot of this is starting to look more and more like character assassination for the purpose of getting rid of other creators you just don’t like. Who needs it? If I were a creator, I’d stop doing shows. This is getting ridiculous.

  6. A lot of this is starting to look more and more like character assassination for the purpose of getting rid of other creators you just don’t like. Who needs it? If I were a creator, I’d stop doing shows. This is getting ridiculous.

    It certainly seems to be a relatively easy way for a troll to cause an enormous amount of pain and difficulty.

  7. This is totally getting out of hand. I am in full agreement with Jeanne Jackson above. In order for sf conventions not to become akin to police states, where citizens are accused and convicted without proof, we need to see to it that the Code of Conduct is followed by accusers as well as those they accuse. Also, to constantly knee-jerk react by throwing people out of conventions, removing them from panels, and so forth, because of what might be simply a slip of the tongue, or a misunderstanding, is totally counterproductive. This will in the long run scare people off from participating at all, in what is supposed to be an all-inclusive environment. The CoC is meant to uphold that latter, not destroy it.

  8. Yeah, I got nothing on this. There’s too much to unpack, and I’m too tired of all the drama surrounding what should be fun events for everyone. I can only say how disappointed I am that Balticon, which has been run by the same folks for decades, doesn’t appear to have its act together on these topics, and/or didn’t train the volunteers adequately on how to behave.

  9. Absolutely no place for transphobia on a diversity panel, though – or anywhere else at a convention. And I notice, once again, that we’re seeing a complaint framed as harm done to the person complained about, with no mention of the people who were hurt enough to raise a complaint.

  10. @Jeanne Jackson: Moderators are only humans. They might not be aware of some problematic stuff that a particular expression carries, or it might pass them by, or the moderator is a problem themselves.

    @Sophie Jane: I have no idea what was said, or the context in which it was said. To compare it with the recent SFWA-Mercedes Lackey issue, I can see a need to use and discuss the word “colored” in a panel on diversity in a way that is certainly not applicable to a discussion about writing and reading romance.

    But no matter the merits of the original infraction, the way Balticon handled this was fundamentally unsafe and done in such a way that it will taint any further process.

    @rochrist: Yes, one of the sad things about the alt-right is that it tends to weaponise the very tools of diversity and inclusion that were intended to be used to protect marginalised groups, and direct them against those groups.

  11. @Sophie Jane

    Hence why I’d like to know what the other panelists can speak to, since as tis it seems quite… excessively described? To the point of seeming manufactured, although I’ve reported more than enough transphobes on Twitter at this point to know that bigotry usually runs in packs.

    If she said any of it, removal seems eminently reasonable to me as a protective measure to prevent further injured parties, as I thought it was the last time, and if she didn’t, then I would also very much like to know who made the report. (Also, if it turns out she definitely didn’t, if they deliberately targeted a supportive parent of a trans daughter? Because I’ve been seeing a lot of attacks on supportive parents, lately.)

    None of which I should necessarily find out.

  12. I attended a couple of Stephanie Burke’s previous panels and there was no hint of any problematic things.

  13. I have known Stephanie for 10 years, first meeting her at a Balticon. As an African-American author of very diverse fiction, someone who shares her thoughts authentically and extensively on Facebook, and as a friend, I can assure you that she is absolutely not transphobic or racist. That she was treated disrespectfully without processes being followed is incredibly upsetting.

  14. Handling it quietly would have been better, of course, but that isn’t the only problem. Removing someone on the basis of claims that can’t be verified, and that are contradicted by the available evidence, is deeply unfair and wrong, even if you do it quietly. An environment where the mere existence of a complaint is considered sufficient for removal is also an open invitation for people to settle personal scores. It’s hard to see why anyone would want to participate in that.

  15. So many missed steps here. Part of the nature of COC complaints is that yes. they all need to be taken seriously enough to investigate…. but anyone witnessing the investigation should be able to believe it was objective and fair. That it didn’t brush the complaint aside because of her longstanding community status … AND that it didn’t assume guilt without proof or abuse her without recourse.

    I am glad this investigation did not do the former but it most definitely sounds like it did the latter.

  16. @ Meredith
    You’re right — the accusations are really detailed. And that seems odd to me.

    I’ve read many of the comments on her Facebook post — there are so many that they won’t all load. As far as I can tell, everyone is supportive. (I know that isn’t always indicative of innocence, but wow, there is a lot of support there…)

    Unrelated to this but involving the same con… From what I understand, con attendees were also not told there was a shooting nearby. Sigh. Let me know if I’m wrong.

  17. An environment where the mere existence of a complaint is considered sufficient for removal is also an open invitation for people to settle personal scores.

    Jim Janney, well said. There’s definitely a problem with the mechanism. This same mechanism (one complaint = one punishment) has been wielded against marginalized individuals for a long time. While I understand that some events can be so egregious as to merit immediate dismissal, which may also have been witnessed by just one person, there’s a problem with the mechanism and the severe level of “justice” it metes out. It’s too easy to abuse and the damage it does isn’t as easy to reverse as it is to invoke.

    Not fun at all.

  18. I’ve known Stephanie for over 20 years. She has been an outspoken advocate for diversity, as well as for the LGTBQ+ community for longer than I’ve known her. The reference to the panel where Romanian people were discussed, she was educating the audience about why and how the label “gypsy” is offensive. She’s also done similar segments in regards to other ethnic and indigenous groups. She is, and has been the mother and replacement mother to many trans, and LGBTQ children. Giving them love, support, and a safe place to land while they find their feet.
    The accusations and actions of this particular volunteer seem extremely excessive as well as targeted. Almost as if they were doing this intentionally to silence Stephanie’s voice.

  19. I think people should only be removed from panels in extreme circumstances, like directly attacking (not merely arguing with) other panelists or doing disruptive behaviors like stripping while on a panel. Removing a panelist for possibly using somewhat incorrect language should not happen. If the moderator felt the language was wrong, let the moderator describe why it was wrong and move on from there. Every panel should not become a meta discussion as to what a phrase COULD have meant.

  20. @Laurie Mann Unfortunately that’s not the current climate we live in. It’s cancel first, ask questions later.

  21. @Sophie Jane: And I notice, once again, that we’re seeing a complaint framed as harm done to the person complained about, with no mention of the people who were hurt enough to raise a complaint.

    That’s true only if Burke actually said what she’s accused of saying, which she vehemently denies and for which, at the moment, there is no proof.

  22. I were on the jury of a defamation case I’d probably award Burke. Unless she really did say something bad, which is doubtful, because someone would have quoted it instead of indulging in all this Kafka LARP.

  23. I have known Stephanie Burke for over 15 years through Balticon and now friends. She is a staunch advocate for the LGBTQ community and minorities. The things she is accused of saying are the very things she has spoken up against. She lives and speaks and writes her values. She is not shy in speaking up. I can only imagine she is being falsely accused by someone who disagrees with her or is jealous of her or her work.

  24. Anders Bellis: Although you are announcing on Facebook that I “refrained” from posting your comment, what happened is that I released six comments from moderation when I woke up this morning. Yours was one of them.

  25. I don’t know what happened this weekend.
    But I DO know that Stephanie Burke aka Flash was one of the writers who quietly approached me after I wrote the (now delisted) paranormal romance short story Gypsy King many years ago.
    She patiently and with kindness explained to me why the term gypsy is extremely disrespectful.
    I’m not proud of what I did.
    I never wanted to disrespect or hurt anyone.
    But if folks from Balticon wants to talk to me about that interaction with Flash, to be a character witness, I will do so.

  26. @Carrie
    Thank you for the background information. I suspected that the Romani comments had been taken way out of context — perhaps from something said during an earlier panel on avoiding stereotypes.

    Years ago, Jim C. Hines wrote an article for Apex about how to write about sexual assault. It starts out satirically — and if you are familiar with the author, you would know he is satirizing a certain type of writer. At the end, he made it clear that you should not follow the steps in this satirical article. But somebody who did not know about him took it seriously, did not read all the way through, and proclaimed that she was going to boycott him.

  27. If cons are going to have Codes of Conduct–and they should,–they also need to have very specific ways of handling complaints–and that does not include immediately assuming the person accused is guilty, and assessing the same punishment (banning from participation in further programming) regardless of the nature of the offense. There is a world of difference between being an actual racist or transphobe and saying something, in all innocence, that someone from those communities might find hurtful The former does indeed call for shunning. The latter is better handled with discussion. Lastly, it strikes me that this particular situation smacks of purposeful character assassination.. What better way of mocking the entire idea of Codes of Conduct than using the system to stigmatizing a Black woman with a trans child? Seems to me that Balticon took the bait.

  28. I don’t know Stephanie Burke and my two interactions of Lisa Adler-Golden, when she was head of programming at DisCon III were positive. Obviously, I also wasn’t at Balticon and have no idea what was said on that panel.

    That said, while I’m in favour of taking CoC complaints and violations seriously, the way Balticon handled this was a disaster. The complaint should have been thoroughly investigated and that involves talking to the moderator and other panelists and also audience members before taking action. It also would be interesting to know if there were multiple complaints or just one. Because in most CoC violation cases I know there have been multiple complaints.

    As for the alleged racist remarks at an earlier Balticon, that should have been dealt with at that Balticon. Of course, previous complaints can indicate a pattern of bad behaviour, but there should at least be some kind of record of previous bad behaviour, not “someone remembered vaguely that someone said something bad five years ago”.

  29. @Carrie

    the panel where Romanian people

    Romanian — people from Romania
    Romani, Romany, Roma — people under discussion here
    Romansch, Romansh — language spoken in a region of Switzerland

  30. bill: I suspect an overenthusiastic autocarrot, not Carrie not knowing the difference.

  31. Conventions are rapidly digging holes for themselves with the bad specification and worse implementation of what are becoming legal systems. They need to understand what is evidence, due process, prosecution/defence, witnesses, revelation/hiding of previous offences, vexation, penalties, appeals, legal aid, civil/criminal offences etc etc.

    I suspect many potential panellists are now thinking twice of volunteering for items in a world where every con operates a different system with a hair trigger.

    There are reasons why we have policemen instructed to use discretion, pre prosecution assesements and why civil libel cases are rarely wise.

    I think legal systems designed by fans will be much worse than any WSFS BM rules

  32. @John Bray: I concur. Especially when the concom’s response, in Burke’s case, was to punish the accused first, and then do the investigation later (which is what pulling the accused from all remaining panels amounts to). To amplify my earlier remarks, I don’t think conventions are wise to even attempt to police speech. The recent incidents with Burke and Lackey smack to me of Orwell and Kafka, not to mention the Gestapo and the KGB (or NKVD, GPU, or Cheka–same lousy Soviet organization). Have convention organizers ever heard of “innocent until proven guilty?” Have they all taken leave of their senses?

    I repeat that, until this kind of kangaroo-court “justice” stops dead in its tracks, I shall avoid being any kind of public participant at conventions–and I urge all pros and fans who value their social and/or professional standing in fandom to do the same.

    I respect everyone in fandom (until this or that individual shows me they are not respectable). But I do not walk on eggs for anyone.

  33. Codes of conduct should be limited to protecting people from physical harm and abuse, not controlling speech. Otherwise the circular firing squads are entirely foreseeable. The “speech as harm” paradigm needs to die.

  34. One thing that strikes me pretty strongly is that, if the con has already essentially arrested the suspect and banned them from all panels and only then started the investigation, those investigating have already received the word — implicitly if not explicitly — that they’re only to look for corroboratory evidence. This is not how you find truth, in science or in conventions.

  35. Hyman Rosen: NO. Speech can be harm.

    If someone is swearing on a panel, not in the casual “oops, dropped an f-bomb, sorry” way, but swearing AT people, insulting and demeaning fellow panelists, I am fine with them being expelled. If someone is undeniably and provably using slurs, I am very on board with their expulsion. If someone is, like Lackey was, using extremely dubious language that might not rise to the level of slur, I still think there is justification in removing them, though it requires more investigation and a lighter touch. (She and her spouse feel she did not get enough of the lighter touch, and I actually believe that may be true, but again, we do not know if this is true or what the investigation entailed.)

    IF someone is calmly and levelly and with well chosen articulation expression truly vile notions like White Supremacy or transphobia, I still think they are more than dangerous enough to expell.

    What I am not on board with is the lack of real investigation.

    This case, much more than the Lackey case, sounds very much like the investigation started after the fact, after the person accused was already targeted and mistreated, and only based on the realisation by someone in charge that someone else in charge Screwed Up Royally. (I would not be surprised to learn the person who was behaving completely unprofessionally about the accusation was also the accuser, that’s how messed up this sounded to me).

    One of my church ministers was accused of sexual harassment, possibly to the level of sexual assault. While she was put on hiatus during the investigation, when the investigation found no substance to the allegation, and she was reinstated, it was with the full confidence that yes, the investigation took both the claim seriously, took the safety of the congregation seriously, and took her reputation seriously.

    It was a textbook example of how to ask a person to step back from their role for long enough to look into a claim, without at any point assuming guilt or innocence, both protecting the congregation and protecting the person investigated. I’d like very much to see the same happen with SF Conventions.

  36. If Burke is exonerated, what will happen to those who accused and maligned her?

  37. @ Jennie Jackson:

    . . . Especially when the concom’s response, in Burke’s case, was to punish the accused first, and then do the investigation later (which is what pulling the accused from all remaining panels amounts to) . . . . Have convention organizers ever heard of “innocent until proven guilty?” Have they all taken leave of their senses?

    I have been reviled, called a ‘Defender’, and worse because, in the end, I’ve said that while the pendulum was too far in the direction of accepting things that were wrong and the people in the wrong it has now gone too far in the other direction. By conrunners, yes, but far more often by fans. Being punished by a concom is visible, what goes on everyday is insidious and does far more damage.

    I started to write about ‘safe places’ only being safe if you hold specific views, even (elsewhere) the view that pulling her in the middle of a panel was the right thing to do. That when I told the story to friends I found myself being careful who overheard me instead of the usual, all of us sitting around.

    But I’ve just recognized what I’ve been feeling all day. I have PTSD from, among other things, a long ago attack out of the blue. It’s been triggered at least twice w/in fandom in relevant circumstances w/in part of fandom that should know better.

    I’m terrified, justifyably, of saying anything online about what happened. The thing about PTSD is that it’s irrational; I’m now braced for the attack that’s certain to come, I just don’t know where or from whom. (Okay, remember to put the anti-anxiety meds in my purse so I can go shopping tomorrow.)

    I’ve learned to be careful of what I say and where. Things finally becoming so standard – I can hold it together long enough to say that yes, we’re eating our elders. Someone has to do something. Not just say “how awful”, do something. Be active. Someho

  38. @ Lenora Briefly scrolled up, saw what you’d posted while I was writing, yes, speech and and does cause harm. Not referring to me.

  39. The amount of people in this thread who are concerned more about the people who have had reports made about their behavior, and not the people who have been harmed by that behavior, is a thing.

    Yes, there needs to be consistent process, with thoughtful follow through carried out, but comparing the standards to the criminal justice system is bonkers. The consequences aren’t nearly as dire as loss of liberty, and if you’re gonna apply any US legal standard to it, it should be that of civil courts – a preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond all reasonable doubt.

    The point of codes of conduct at conventions is about protecting members from harm – not about punishing people. Anyone who talks about it in terms of punishment is fundamentally missing the point.

    @John Bray

    There are reasons why we have policemen instructed to use discretion, pre prosecution assesements and why civil libel cases are rarely wise.

    Talking about the police as standard to hold oneself to is also very telling. It tells me, a brown queer person, that you just don’t understand systems of oppression, and have no interest in learning, and that I’m not safe around you, nor should have you involved in any event I’m running.

  40. Nchanter: The point of codes of conduct at conventions is about protecting members from harm – not about punishing people. Anyone who talks about it in terms of punishment is fundamentally missing the point.

    Convention codes of conduct protect members from harm by deterring unacceptable conduct with consequences. There are a whole range of consequences, however, codes of conduct generally are administered within a standard of privacy. Therefore, only the tip of the iceberg makes the news — the shocking instances either made public by the people on the receiving end of discipline, or more rarely, some kind of ban announced by the conrunning organization. And those are examples of ostracism — being put out of a con community. It’s not surprising that is perceived as punishment.

  41. Elspeth: we’re eating our elders

    The fact that many of the recipients of CoC sanctions are older has nothing to do with “targeting” older people — and everything to do with the fact that a great many older people in fandom have either stopped learning to do better, or have no interest in changing or hiding their racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

    Being old and having been involved in fandom for decades should not, and does not, give someone a pass for reprehensible behavior.

  42. Steering this conversation back to Balticon, what Ms. Burke allegedly said or did not say is certainly an issue that needs to be thoroughly investigated, and I trust it will be resolved. However, unless Ms. Burke had been causing a genuine commotion, there is NO reason why the panel should have been disrupted in that fashion. If con staff wanted to speak with her about her alleged statements they could have waited quietly outside the room, or even in the rear of the room. Ms. Burke should have been, and was entitled, to be treated with decency and respect, but so were the other panelists and attendees. Con staff’s decidedly uncivil behavior ruined the experience for everyone. I certainly agree that codes of conduct is a must for attendees. But it also has to be a must for con staff.

  43. I’m not really for issuing a punishment before the investigation. And absolutely not doing it in public.

    I can agree that it might, depending on issue, be a good idea to speak with a member on an ongoing issue and ask if they are willing to step down from a panel or two during ongoing investigation, but this was absolutely badly handled.

    And I do think you are missing the point if you don’t see that removing a person from panels/convention is both a punishment in all practical ways as well as about protecting others.

  44. … comparing the standards to the criminal justice system is bonkers.

    Agreed. An organization enforcing its code of conduct on members and event participants is nothing like a criminal prosecution.

    The issue here should be whether Burke was treated fairly, not whether conventions should stop enforcing their code of conduct during events when someone has egregiously broken them. No one should want to return to the bad old days when it was easy to get away with horrendous behavior, especially if you were a VIP.

  45. Increasingly I believe there should be an organization that a) helps conventions by providing a solid Code of Conduct, training resources for teaching volunteers how to administer that code, etc. but also b) tracks these complaints so patterns of people who are causing problems emerge. If someone is getting multiple complaints and they are proven to be justified upon investigation, that would emerge. As would someone making multiple complaints that are not proven to be justified.

    If there’s a flaw in that logic, please point it out to me. I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. I know it would be difficult to implement in a way that made everyone happy, but at least a stab at it would be awesome and move towards solving our community’s infamous missing stair problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair if this concept is unfamiliar).

    Before anyone says “SFWA should do that,” I’m not convinced they should. It’s a convention thing, which includes but is not confined to F&SF publishing.

  46. I can agree that it might, depending on issue, be a good idea to speak with a member on an ongoing issue and ask if they are willing to step down from a panel or two during ongoing investigation …

    This sounds fair, but how’s it going to look when an investigation concludes that a complaint was justified? “We asked them to step down from panels while we investigated but they refused” will be perceived as not taking the code of conduct violation seriously.

  47. Both banning and not banning before investigation has the possibility to not look good depending on outcome.

Comments are closed.