Interrogatives Without Answers: Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke
By Chris M. Barkley:
“Falsehood will fly, as it were, on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps, though sure, are slow and solemn, and she has neither viguor nor activity enough to pursue and overtake her enemy…” — Thomas Francklin, 1787
The past two weekends have seen two separate upheavals in our sf community.
Both incidents involve well known and well liked members of our family and both incidents have left them shaken, dispirited and their reputations seemingly in tatters.
So, before I start, I would like to clarify my relationships with the focus of this introspective discourse: Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke.
Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
I have never met either Ms. Lackey or Ms. Burke. Nor have I exchanged emails, texts, phone calls or even pleasantries in passing at a convention.
As a reader, I am totally unfamiliar with either of their works, although as a professional bookseller for many years, I have witnessed many sales of Ms. Lackey’s works and the testimonials of many readers and fans who have praised and loved her works. I am totally unfamiliar with Ms. Burke’s work.
But let’s remember this important fact; Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke are real people.
They are as human as you and I.
They have feelings, wants and desires just like you and me.
They are not abstract concepts. And yet, what I have seen and read over the past thirteen days have alarmed and angered me to no end. Because I guarantee what has been said and written about them would never be repeated in person to their faces. Because the things being said against them are so terrible that the perpetrators must view them at non-entities, lest they be consumed by their own shame.
Our mutual communities, in fandom and on the professional writer’s side, have had a big problem that has been simmering for the past few years and now boiled over in a way that we cannot ignore any longer.
From the earliest days of sf fandom, there have been people who have merited being either sanctioned or banned from community activities. In those days, people who were disruptive or misbehaved were either exposed through fanzine reports, informal gossip or “whisper campaigns”.
But, as technology advanced, so did the activities of bullies and malcontents spread and became prolific as well.
To our credit, fandom and the professional communities have become more diverse and welcoming to those who were previously either marginalized or openly discriminated against in the past.
To openly confront and combat abusive behavior this past decade, groups and conventions have implemented a standard “Code of Conduct” for activities, which specifies what is acceptable behavior and outlines the penalties for violations.
This innovative move was universally welcomed, especially in the wake of the Sad/Angry/Rabid Hugo Awards debacle of 2013-2016.
The typical Code of Conduct used by conventions today are not legally enforceable pieces of law. They do however, allow any public or private group to take action against an attending individual (or a group) that violates these rules.
On May 22, the 2022 Nebula Awards Conference and sf fandom were rocked when Mercedes Lackey was removed from any remaining sessions of the programming she had been scheduled for by administrators.
A day earlier, Ms. Lackey, while discussing the works of African American fantasy and sf author Samuel R. Delany during a panel titled “Romancing Sci-Fi & Fantasy”, uttered the word “colored” as a racial description of Mr. Delany.
SWFA addressed the posted the following statement that same day:
We learned yesterday that while participating in the “Romancing Sci-Fi & Fantasy” panel, Mercedes Lackey used a racial slur. First, we apologize to our attendees and the other panelists who were subjected to that slur. We’ve disabled access to the panel to avoid any additional harm being caused.
Second, we are immediately removing Mercedes Lackey from the conference and the additional panels she was scheduled for, in accordance with SFWA’s Moderation Policy. The use of a racial slur violates the instruction to “Respect all cultures and communities. Do not make derogatory or offensive statements even as a joke.” That applies to everyone in a SFWA space, at all levels of their career.
Third, we will be discussing with the other panelists for “Romancing Sci-Fi & Fantasy” how they would prefer we proceed when they are able and comfortable in doing so. We will be offering to edit out the offensive portion of the panel or hold the panel again at a later date, inviting back the other three panelists and moderator to again take part. We will respect their wishes on how to handle this issue while also sharing the invaluable expertise they offered during the discussion.
SWFA’s Moderation Policies, linked here clearly state that the “Moderator” is the person in charge of any panel and additionally:
Moderator decisions are final and non-negotiable. If you feel someone is being censured unfairly and have new information to add, please navigate to the Nebula Conference Online website, and on the bottom, right-hand corner of your screen, please select the “Request Help” button. (https://events.sfwa.org/moderation-policies/)
You will note that there is no explicit promise of a formal investigation in case something happens. Everything seems all cut and dried as far as the Nebula Conference administrators were concerned.
Except that it wasn’t, not by a long shot.
Ms. Lackey’s friends and colleagues came to her defense. Her detractors said that she broke the rules and actually got off easy because she was promptly and quickly sanctioned and did not have to forfeit her Grand Master designation.
Author Jen Brown, who was on the panel in question and was among the first to report her dismayed and deeply offended reaction to Ms. Lackey’s utterance on her Twitter feed, has been viciously and repeatedly harassed and attacked online by both Lackey supporters and trolls.
Other parties involved have been heard from; Samuel Delany (who is a friend of Ms. Lackey) has stated on his Facebook page that he felt no ill will and that she meant no deliberate offense,
Prominent Black sf author Steven Barnes felt that her use of the term was a mild offense at best and said that SFWA owed Ms. Lackey an apology.
Writer and critic K. Tempest Bradford, who opined that while Mr. Delany is entitled to his point of view, but even in this day and age, the casual usage, whether it was intentional or not, is totally unacceptable in any context.
Mercedes Lackey issued a formal apology on May 24th, in which she said:
On a panel at the 2022 Nebulas, I had the chance to celebrate authors who wrote positive gay characters long before me.
Chip Delany is obviously a major player in that game. Because there are two Samuel Delanys–there’s one from Texas–I wanted to make sure people got hold of the right one. So, in my excitement, I got caught in a mental/verbal stumble between “black” and “person of color,” and as best I can remember, what came stuttering out was something like “spcolored.”
I’m not an amazing speaker. I stammer, I freeze up, & I get things wrong. I am sorry that I bungled a modern term while bringing attention to an amazing black creator.
When all of this was going down, I could have easily unsheathed my verbal saber and heedlessly joined in like everyone else about who was right, who was wrong and provided some additional commentary about the situation.
But I did not. I was hoping, in vain as it turns out, that SFWA would conduct a thorough investigation and release the results to all of the parties involved and to the public at large, to tamp down on the hate and disinformation spreading about this incident.
And then, last weekend at Balticon 56, it happened again.
On Sunday, May 29th, Stephanie Burke, a well known local author and a regular Balticon panelist for many years, was accused of making racist and transphobic remarks and was summarily relieved of her remaining panels.
The panel in question, “Diversity Readers and Why You Need Them”, was moderated by Sarah Avery and featured Ms. Burke, Shahid Mahmud, Craig Laurance Gidney, Brandon Ketchum and Christine Sandquist.
Ms. Avery said in a May 31 File 770 comment that also appeared on her Twitter account that she was stuck in traffic that morning and was ten minutes late for the panel. She wrote:
I’ve been playing back my recollections of the panel from the moment I did arrive, trying to match things Stephanie said with the adjectives in her account of the accusations against her. As a white cishet woman, I know I am not optimally attuned to what is hurtful to all the kinds of people whose lives are unlike mine. (The reason I volunteered to moderate a panel on why writers need diversity readers is that I knew I specifically was a writer who needed them.) Until I can find out more about the contents of the complaint, I’m not able to make any kind of declaration on either the complainant’s assertions or Stephanie’s about the diversity readers panel.
In other words, the origin of the complaint against Ms. Burke was not witnessed by the moderator of the panel. We can only guess who the complainant is and what the offense was.
Ms. Burke was, in a statement by the Con Chair, Yakira Heistand said the following:
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.
Ms. Burke alleges that when she was notified of her suspension, she was verbally abused by Programming Division head, Lisa Adler-Golden. When she asked for the source of the allegations against her this is the answer she states that she received:
I asked to hear the recordings and wanted proof to defend myself against hearsay. The program director (possibly referencing Lisa Alden-Golden here) 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 remaining panels and book reading was to stand and that I was being convicted on hearsay alone.
So wait, what? The panel where the alleged offense took place on Friday? Or was it actually the Saturday panel? Exactly what the hell is going on here? It was also subsequently reported this week that the email from Balticon 56 that was supposed to have been sent to Ms. Burke relieving her remaining panels was actually never sent in the first place.
On the evening of June 2nd, Lisa Adler-Golden issued the following statement on the Balticon Facebook Page:
So, those are the facts as best as I can ascertain as of June 3rd, 2022.
There are those among you who may think that these are just two isolated incidents that are totally unrelated to one another and that on the whole, the Codes of Conduct being employed by conventions and meetings are doing just fine.
But, I beg to differ.
Because while I have my own opinions about what happened in these two cases, it is totally irrelevant in light of a disturbing trend that I have noticed recently.
I’m here to ask a few questions. Pertinent questions. Important questions.
It’s a call for introspection, for all of us.
Exactly why did the Nebula Conference managers and the “rogue” Balticon staffer go for the nuclear option and unceremoniously dismiss Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke without the benefit of a formal hearing?
My question to all of the SWFA panelists involved is this; while I know some (or all) of you may/had been shocked and hurt by Ms. Lackey’s comment, do you believe what she said was a casual slip of the tongue or was it deliberate and malicious? After reading her apology, do you have it in your heart to forgive what she said?
And to the person (or persons) who reported Stephanie Burke to Balticon’s Program Ops; what exactly did she allegedly say? Could you have misinterpreted or misunderstood what she said?
For those of you piling on endlessly to condemn and relentlessly excoriate Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke; is all of this vitriol and denunciations directed at them actually necessary at this point?
When is enough, actually enough? Today? Tomorrow? Next Week?
In acting in such an arbitrary manner, did the SFWA managers and the Balticon staff members violate their own Codes of Conduct?
What responsibilities do they have to be more transparent in how they handle these cases? Shouldn’t these established guidelines be under review and possibly changed in light of what’s happened?
All of which leads me to ask this: Are we all going to be subjected to such a rigid and unyielding standard every single time we make a ghastly faux pas when we appear in public or publish something?
Can you imagine what would happen to you if any of you were in a similar position? Would your partner, friends and acquaintances dare to stand with you?
Or, would they denounce you?
Can you, the reader, imagine what Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke are feeling right now? Accused, ridiculed and rejected without an opportunity to defend themselves?
In the case of an actual verifiable code of conduct offense, does the constant replay of events continue to mentally harm the person who had the courage to make the initial complaint?
Are people thinking about making a CoC complaint given pause when they witness the feeding frenzies like these occurring in the wake of these allegations?
Have there been other abuses of the Code of Conduct at other conventions that we are unaware of?
How would any of you react if you were in their position?
As the days have passed in this ongoing nightmare, I have seen comments on Facebook and Twitter that have absolutely mortified me.
I have seen comments by people who suggest that in most cases they are more likely to believe an accuser than the person who has been accused. Or that if someone is actually accused of something, it’s probably true.
In our system of justice, hearsay, which for legal purposes is defined as: “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor”, is NOT evidence of wrongdoing.
And as maligned and flawed as the legal system is, at its very core is one of the best innovations ever invented; the presumption of innocence BEFORE being proven guilty. Because everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter who they are or how they are perceived by the public. It is a fine standard and it should be ours as well.
I propose that we, as a community, fall back on this particular tradition in our reformation of our Codes of Conduct. In this day and age of social media, innuendo, gossip and falsehoods can lead to instant outrage, anger and a trial by internet in which none of us can possibly explain ourselves adequately enough to satisfy anyone.
It is quite evident, at least to me, that in some cases, our Codes of Conduct have been misapplied, zealously pursued or weaponized.
It has been done either by well meaning people who may have overreacted to what may or may not have happened, or by others, maliciously using it to destroy a person’s reputation and self worth.
Establishing a Code of Conduct is one of the more innovative things we have done in the last decade. In a best case scenario, a Code of Conduct violation led to the expulsion of a well known (and multiple Hugo Award nominated) fan, David Truesdale, for his well documented abusive behavior at MidAmericon II in 2016.
But it has backfired spectacularly at Worldcon 76 (which was held San Jose, CA in 2018), who rightfully barred Jon Del Arroz from the convention for his questionable statements and actions before the convention. But the convention made a mistake when they published their reasons for banning and Del Arroz took offense and sued the convention for defamation. He and the convention eventually settled in June 2021 with a public apology and a $4000 payment.
I have one anecdote to offer. I was at Balticon 56 last weekend, mainly in support of the Orlando and Buffalo NASFiC bids (in 2023 and 2024, respectively). On my way out of the convention Monday morning, I was stopped by a longtime friend (whom I am not identifying out of respect for their privacy) who told me the following story:
My friend was working and was overheard saying something under their breath while attending to their duties at Discon III, which was held in Washington D.C. this past November. Sometime later, they were approached by an incident response team staff member, who told them that the office had a complaint lodged against them about a racist remark being directed towards an Asian Pacific person and that they were considering asking them to leave the convention.
The friend explained that they recalled making the remark but it had not been directed at the API person, it was made in frustration at a machine that they were working on which malfunctioned and was not working properly.
Eventually, this person, who is both well known, well liked and very hospitable in the fannish community for decades, persuaded the staffer that no offense was meant towards anyone and the matter was dropped.
But, as the events of the past two weeks have vividly shown us, this could have gone quite differently had the incident been officially reported and publicized widely.
It seems quite evident to me that we urgently need to establish new standards for a Code of Conduct. I recommend that they include the following measures:
- When a convention or meeting announces a possible violation of the Code of Conduct, they must stress that the charge is an allegation, not a certain matter of fact. The accused party must be given the presumption of innocence until the conclusion of the investigation and the adjudication of the results by an impartial group, empaneled by the convention to handle these matters.
- Either an electronic or physical copy of the Code of Conduct must be checked off by all staff and attendees, which will show and acknowledge they have read and understand CoC (with the option that the document they sign be officially and legally notarized by the convention or event for their legal protection).
- NO ONE should be charged under a Code of Conduct violation on a single report of hearsay from an individual, unless there is a recording of the incident or multiple witnesses or verifiable circumstantial evidence of the event.
- If it is determined a Code of Conduct violation may have occurred, an investigation should be launched immediately. The investigation must include statements from the accuser, the accused and the impartial person (or persons) conducting the inquiry.
- Any Code of Conduct violation must generate a written report, which will be made public after an official investigation is completed.
- Investigations should not name the accuser in a public report without consent, but their name should be kept on file and confidential in the official investigation file in case of any legal actions beyond its publication
- Any convention that finds the accused party innocent, guilty or finds an inconclusive result of the accusation, will publicize the report as widely and vociferously as possible to demonstrate the transparency of the investigative process.
- EVERY convention and conference should strive to record every panel or meeting being held at the event. This should be done not only to check the veracity of any complaints and has the benefit of preserving a record for the sake of prosperity. (Since recording everything would be quite expensive, I would recommend that panelists or designated volunteers use their own cell phones or personal recording equipment to record these sessions).
These are the actions I strongly recommend we take.
These are the questions we should all be asking ourselves.
Because Mercedes Lackey and Stephanie Burke are real people. And mark my words, what happened to them will happen again.
And the most important question we should be asking ourselves is how can we prevent this from happening over and over again?
Because the next victim may be me.
Or you.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EDITOR’S NOTE; When this post first went live, the last 7 of Chris’s final points dropped out. They are now restored. So you early readers should reload to see them all.
Hear, hear!
Wow. Those suggestions, especially number 3, will completely kill reports of sexual violence, and make conventions even less safe from active predators than they are right now. Number 1 will tie our hands from preventing further harm until we are “sure.” You want EVIDENCE that someone put his hand on my ass or grabbed my arm without consent? Are you JOKING?!
At MAC II (the 2016 Worldcon) we received 40 reports immediately before or at the convention, for 28 distinct incidents. these numbers were a little higher at Arisia from 2017-2020 (the years I was actively involved in robust report-taking processes).
Please define “immediate” and please tell me how we’re gonna staff a department of trained persons of the correct temperament to run 30 simultaneous investigations over the course of the weekend? Because we can’t. There are reasons that the conventions who have the best track records on this stuff take months to conduct follow up post-con. Its not because we don’t care – it’s because we don’t have the resources to do it all immediately. Let alone the ones who do not bother to try and handle this shit at all, who we don’t even hear about.
Innocent or guilty is a criminal court standard which is, frankly, ridiculous to expect a weekend-long convention to have the resources to make claims about. Instead, the standards we should be using are akin to those in US civil courts, which break down, in lay terms to “more likely or less likely.”
However, I think your suggestions miss the fundamental point of having and then reacting to violations of codes of conduct – to protect those of us in the community who are from more vulnerable populations because of systemic injustices. While we should absolutely take care with reports, conducting follow up, and also not let CoC violation reports become a weapon, we need to not systemically prioritized the people who are reported to have made actions that have caused harm over the people they have harmed, which is what many of your suggestions would amount to.
I heartily agree.
One nitpick: Discon III was held last December, not November.
Just going to follow this ….
Following.
Quoting for agreement.
Nnchanter: if there are accusations of violence, the police should be called, period. And that’s the opinion of my SO.
Note this: the cons involved, Worldcon and Balticon, are NOT commercial cons. There are no paid professional employees. They are 100% volunteer run.
Then there’s the other thing: rule Zero should be “innocent until proven guilty”. Do you object to that? There needs to be a full investigation*, which does not happen within the hour.
I’ll even agree with Barkley – as I said on my website about this https://mrw.5-cent.us/?p=210 – the only perfect people are in fanfic. In the real world, people misspeak**, stutter, say things they didn’t mean. Many, especially many panelists, are NOT experienced public speakers.
Where does “that’s not right” become zero tolerance?
And then there’s the issue of the complainants, who can complain further if their complaints are not dealt with. This is a both sides can attack… and sf clubs are not wealthy commercial entities. They can go bankrupt, and destroy an entire community. Responses have to be within reason.
The chair of Balticon has announced a full investigation, and we will be hiring a professional to assist.
** In Mercedes Lackey’s apology, she notes that she actually was trying to say one word, and mashed two together.
@mark
Given Nchanter’s mention of MACII and Arisia, in terms that make it clear that they were involved with running them, I’m fairly certain they know what fan run conventions are and how they work.
@Mark if someone grabs my ass, and I call the police, the police will laugh at me and ask me what I want them to do about it. Like, not theoretical, actual experience of people I know. Many jurisdictions do not take rape seriously, let alone more minor forms of sexual assault and violence (and sexual violence is a category that includes verbal assault, which the police generally also don’t handle). But the convention can kick out a person who goes around grabbing people’s asses without consent. And should. Why bother throwing an event for your community if you have no interest in protecting the members of the community?
I also have reservations with number three. When you do an investigation, you also check other behaviour. How does the person react when you bring up the accusation? Do they show respect to the CoC? Are they attacking the persons who bring it up? Have there been earlier reports on difficulties, albeit with regard to other issues? Investigating this takes time and seldom involves only the last witness.
I also do not agree that a written report should be made public as it might contain sensitive information or open up for lawsuits. As an example, once I had to handle a situation where a person supposedly had been soliciting payment for sexual services at an event we organized. How the hell can you bring up something like that in a public report? And if the person was not named, how long time would it take for the internet sleuths to start their own whisper investigation with rumours spread around to even more people?
@Meredith – you are correct. Chicon 8, this year’s Worldcon, will be the 7th Worldcon I have been staff for, starting with 2011 in Reno. I am quite familiar with fan-run cons. More importantly, I’ve been involved in one way or another of handling 100’s of code of conduct complaints over the past 7+ years at volunteer powered fan-run conventions, and a few other types of events.
Among conrunners connected to Worldcon I am considered by many a subject matter expert on this topic, and am frequently consulted on best practices on how to handle reports on code of conduct violations and associated complaints. I’ve had dozens of hours of training from multiple rape crisis centers, and more recently anti-racism training, which includes disclosure training, awareness training on these issues, and bystander intervention and deescalation training. Which is why we only call the police when the people making reports ask us to: the police are not safe for many convention members from historically marginalized communities.
People of color, especially women, trans people, and queer people are often targets of harassment by the police . The fact that Mark either doesn’t know that, or doesn’t care, speaks to his level of knowledge on these topics, so I will give them the level of consideration that they deserve.
If it’s only about panels, i.e with a very large amount of witnesses, then I personally would assume that if no complaints came during or in connection with the convention the stuff was supposedly said, there is most likely no reason to start an investigation on the panel years later and even less reason to directly cut someone off from all programming during the current convention.
A Code of Conduct is vitally necessary for all conventions and organizations. But it is not sufficient. Without human judgment and wisdom, Code of Conduct enforcement can fail badly. It can cut either way. A popular figure can get away with egregious behavior because they are well known and trusted. Or a group can turn on an innocent person and use the Code of Conduct to cause harm.
I don’t agree with Chris Barkley’s proposed specific measures, because I don’t think a purely legalistic approach can cover all the possibilities. But I think he is right on about the general problem. We need to keep in mind that we are all human, and whatever we do, consider how it would feel if we were the other person.
@Nchanter
It sounds like you could write an opposing essay on this subject? If so, I for one would love to read it.
I see a lot of comments here that the rules Chris suggests are unenforceable or, if enforced, likely to make it impossible to enforce the original CoC. Maybe that’s true, or maybe not. I can’t begin to guess. But the suggestion that it is ridiculous to expect or attempt to enforce civil behavior at a convention is offensive to me. What’s ridiculous about it? Fans are such oafish, ill-mannered louts that they can’t be expected to behave decently? Or everybody knows that the whole point of a convention is to act like a total asshole without fear of repercussion? The specific rules suggested here aside, Chris is absolutely right about his main point — we need some rules to counter unfair or inappropriate complaints. We in fandom have never been great at holding our tongues, and the toxic culture around us is contagious. We need to find a way to reestablish civil discourse, or we will all go down. If fandom really is just a bunch of loud-mouth jerks, then I want out. If, on the other hand, fandom is a bunch of smart, sometimes insufficiently socialized but generally well-meaning people who take great interest in the future, then they should recognize the need to find a way to police themselves, before they become so unpalatable that the outside world will do it for them. The AMA managed it, and there are few people more oafish and self-absorbed than doctors.
It’s pretty clear to me that, in point 3, Mr. Berkley is referencing complaints about speech. primarily on panels.. Perhaps he should clarify?
Nnchanter – right, I live in the US, and I’m unaware of how the cops respond. I did mention that was my SO’s response.
Codes of conduct need to be enforceable… but since you have all that experience (I won’t mention how many decades I’ve been attending and working cons, but let’s just say last millenium), you know perfectly well that a) the complainant can come back with more, and b) the con committee is running full-out during the con. How do you suggest that it run an investigation after one complaint that, as far as I can tell in both Mercedes’ and Stephie’s cases, was about something they said? I know we had people in ops doing it – two friends, while drunk Sat night, said intemperate things, and it was settled and resolved the next day.
On the other hand, Lisa’s actions I (again, note that I am NOT con committee, nor speaking for anyone but myself) were appalling.
Perhaps, if the moderator is supposed to also police the CoC, the moderator should ask for a short break, and take the person aside to ask for a clarification in private?
This is literally illegal in quite a few states (and possibly European law) unless the person recording has collected written consent from every single person recorded. Don’t try it in California or Illinois or Florida, among other places.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/red-dots-and-banners-consent-and-92791/
I think we need diferent rules about speech and active harassment.
If people are in danger it is necessary to remove the person who is a danger from the con.
Also I can see that there are often no wittnesses.
I am not convinced that this is the same with insults.
Normally they are louder and there should be more people who heared them.
The other question for me is if it is necessary to remove everyone who uses a slur from a con.
A degenerating comment made from a panelist that only one person heared is definitly questionable.
The other question that I have is does the public need to know this, when the investigation is still ongoing, or is it enough that we learn person X is no longer on this con. (In the cases here, if someone endangers others, I may be necessary to tell this very load).
This comes from someone who is not a constaffer, so take it with a grain of salt.
One of the underlying themes of Chris Barkley’s proposal is that, when a Code of Conduct violation is alleged to have occurred on a panel and the convention takes action, the incident be handled discretely. “Ms. X was removed from her panels after a complaint was received, and that complaint is under investigation by the convention.” When conventions give in to the temptation to justify themselves by revealing the details of allegations, they are merely fueling attacks on the accused, and on the person who filed the complaint—often by people who were nowhere near the convention. The conventions owe everyone discretion and privacy. If the complainant’s goal is to have other attendees spared the anguish they experienced from the panelist’s inappropriate remarks or behavior, that goal will have been achieved when the panelist is removed or banned. If the complainant’s goal is to damage the panelist’s career and reputation, the convention should think very carefully before becoming a party to that.
I am worried that we have reached a point where mentioning a topic, even if you are making it clear that you condemn it, is becoming a reason to remove people from panels. If you look at Stephanie Burke’s public statement about the incident, it seems as though her mention of a traumatic incident in her childhood was reported to the convention as her somehow advocating for that type of behavior towards children. I hope we are better than this.
In terms of speech, when I was just about into my teenage years I was once sexually harassed in public by a complete stranger who walked up behind me and muttered something (which I prefer not to repeat) into my ear quietly enough that my mother, who was standing right next to me, neither noticed it was happening nor heard it. There is no guarantee that public speech will have witnesses. None.
Ginjer Buchanan on June 5, 2022 at 1:13 pm said:
“It’s pretty clear to me that, in point 3, Mr. Barkley is referencing complaints about speech. primarily on panels.. Perhaps he should clarify?”
Ms. Buchanan is correct. For the purpose of this column, I was mainly referring to speech on panels.
Addressing another concern voiced here repeatedly; ANY physical assault of a violent nature should be primarily addressed as a criminal offense and unlawful; violation of the jurisdiction where it occurs. The convention committee should refer ANY incident of a criminal nature to local authorities. Period.
I welcome any suggestions from Nchanter, or anyone else, which would help further the conversation to ensure that Code of Conduct investigations at conventions are fair, equitable and transparent.
Mark, I meant that if the person had been violent or there was a threat of violence. Rape and sexual assault cases must be handled by trained [personnel, and You should never call the police unless the victim asks you to. When the committee wrote the BSFS’s code of conduct, this was a huge point. I was on the CoC committee.
At Balticon 50, two members called the police before they contacted the Balticon staff to make their complaint of being sexually harassed by the Hotel security. When the con investigated, they found a history of female members getting sexually harassed at the hotel, and the hotel hired another firm to handle the security the next year.
Some members have looked into having volunteers trained to handle sexual assault cases during the con. However, as far as I know, it hasn’t happened yet.
While it is really unclear what Ms. Burke is supposed to have said, I too got the impression that someone was “triggered” by her talking about how she was strapped as a child and either was or wasn’t made to take ADHD meds. If that is the case, I cannot see why she should have been subject to any kind of “punishment.” The person who complained clearly then has issues, but that’s not Ms. Burke’s fault. If panel discussions are to have any meaning or worth, panelists can’t be constantly concerned that something they say will upset someone.
Say what now? As someone who started going to cons at the tail end of the 1980s and started working them in the early 1990s, I question the historical accuracy of that statement. When I started going to cons there were a few, very few, conventions that had a formal Code of Conduct that addressed harmful behavior to the degree that most contemporary ones do. Enforcement was either lax or inconsistent at best. I know some of the people that put in modern Codes of Conduct, including processes for vetting complaints of CoC violations and how they get addressed. I’ve assessed CoC violation reports and made recommendations based on the information we had available. The recent wave of CoC re-evaluations and creations of formal processes to address violations happened after years of no or insufficient action by many Con Comms and after a few public blow ups at cons related to problematic behavior and the mishandling of responses to that behavior in the late 2000s – early 2010s.
And let me tell ya, when current Codes of Conduct started being talked about more, spelling out harmful behaviors that were not acceptable, and enforcing measures to address CoC violations there was much clutching of pearls and gnashing of teeth over it. There still is in certain quarters.
@Nchanter
Can you point us to a written online version of “best practices” for investigation of CoC violations?
Chris M Barkley:
Grabbing someone’s ass or otherwise putting unwanted hands on them without permission SHOULD be something that at least gets a stern talking to (and likely expulsion from an entire event, though extenuating circumstances may just mean being sent to sober up and barred for the rest of the day and owing a personal apology), but we’re back to having “Call the authorities” being cited for an incident that can both BE distressing and violating — and be laughable as far as criminality.
K. G. Anderson said:
For purely verbal complaints, even ones I’d definitely consider severe enough to be one-strike offenses, I’d actually be more discreet still: “Mx. X has been withdrawn from panels for the time being, and may or may not be able to resume programming. We will provide an update on their availability as soon as we can.”
The flip side of too little discretion is too much discretion, leading to missing stairs.
You say that like it would solve the problem and no more action by the convention would be needed. In the many instances where the cops took no immediate action, the convention would still be left in the position of what to do about a serious allegation against an attendee.
Treating code of conduct enforcement like a court of law is excessive. Conventions are private organizations and have the right to decide that someone is no longer welcome using any standard they choose to employ. This doesn’t deprive a person of liberty, which is the basis for a court of law having a high burden of proof. It is just exercising a right that any event host has — to respond to inappropriate behavior by showing someone the door.
On the one hand, I’m glad the discussion is happening (again). OTOH, I’m dismayed that’s it has to happen (again).
Codes of conduct often have the same issues that school “zero tolerance” policies* have- they morph the actual definitions of the words into “(immediate) defined response”. They also seem not to take into account accidental vs intentional actions but treat everything as intentional. People misspeak to someone else a slur might be heard. Or the listener wants to hear a slur. Etc. It’s incumbent on those who implement the policy to at least check things out before doing -anything-. Many policies also assume the complainant has clean hands on the matter, but perhaps they don’t. And as other have said, it’s also incumbent on them to treat everyone involved with dignity; anyone doing less shouldn’t be in that position to start with.
*”Students found with a knife get a 5 day suspension.”
When 5th grade Sally opens her lunch, mom has helpfully included a knife so she can cut the orange. Sally is suspended for something she had no part of. (This has happened multiple times.) IMHO that’s neither reasonable nor fair.
With regards to the case of Stephanie Burke, I would recommend a different approach as the problem isn’t really with rules, but how they were ignored or used by staff.
I would say that you should have a simple CoC that is so simple that everyone could understand it and remember it and so short that everyone will read it.
But I would also say that there should exist a bit longer guideline for those volunteers that will work with people for longer amounts of time. And there should be a specific guideline for those who will work with CoC violations and only those who have read and understood that guideline should be involved with handling cases with suspected CoC violations.
This will off course not be fool proof, we are human, but I think a helpful guideline is better here than harsh and inflexible rules and calls for rulings from the court of public opinion.
Chris identifies the problem with mobs on the internet. Thing is that he wants to make the problem worse with forcing the conventions to feed the mobs with more public information and reports for them to scream about and dissect in search of vulnerabilities. I can’t see how that would help anyone.
Gary Farber:
I’m talking about the public explanation for withdrawing a person from panels pending an investigation. If they are in fact guilty, you’d release that information AFTER an investigation. And anyone who was on the panel or in the audience or has reason to be contacted regarding the panel will know more because (this is an ideal world, after all) they will have been contacted separately. At most the concom might have to let out a call “Can anyone who was at the so-and-so panel and has concerns please contact Ops? There is a pending investigation.”
Not publicly airing why a person has withdrawn from part of the convention lets a person who was maliciously targeted resume smoothly if they so desire, without having to spend as much time on debunking. And the concom can still make their public statement “After investigation, Mx. X was removed for a code of Conduct violation, and will not be present at the remainder of the convention. They have also (Other consequences of their bad behaviour).”
Context matters. It matters when someone says something potentially objectionable in a panel, and it matters when someone posts an article arguing for substantial changes to fan-run convention’s codes of conduct and how they are enforced.
The article here takes two specific examples with a very narrow focus (speech by a panelist during the con), and implies that it is situations like these that codes of conduct are designed to deal with. It concludes with a lengthy list of possible changes to codes of conduct, few of which relate to the two examples at hand.
The fact is that codes of conduct were created, not because someone might flub a word during a panel, but because of the institutional sexism and racism that were pervasive among convention fandom. The sexual harassment, both physical and verbal. The casual cruelty toward people of color. The situation we have found ourselves in now is based on a lengthy history of wrong-doing by fans. And when it is argued against, it is almost always from the perspective that fandom is inherently good and kind, and that any aberration is rare and probably inadvertent.
This presentation of the context is a matter of perspective, and the author reveals that his perspective is very limited. Who is he speaking to when he says: “Are we all going to be subjected to such a rigid and unyielding standard every single time we make a ghastly faux pas when we appear in public or publish something? Can you imagine what would happen to you if any of you were in a similar position? Would your partner, friends and acquaintances dare to stand with you? Or, would they denounce you?” He is clearly speaking to those who believe that they might violate codes of conduct. He is not speaking to those who believe that behavior that violates a code of conduct might be aimed at them.
Whereas, many people read this and think: “Wait, what happens when someone harasses me? What recourse do I have?”
The creation and enforcement of codes of conduct has improved our convention spaces and made them more diverse. That hasn’t just happened by accident, it’s happened because of the extremely hard work done by convention runners to make our spaces safer.
I would invite the author, if he is looking for more context on the subject, to stop just reading what is posted on twitter and talk to the volunteers who are making these difficult decisions. I suspect many of them would have very critical things to say about the way the two examples given were handled. But they would not advocate for completely destroying any effectiveness the system has.
@Lenora Rose
Saying “Mx. X has been withdrawn from panels for the time being” concurrently with “Can anyone who was at the [Mr. X’s] panel and has concerns please contact Ops?” is the functional equivalent of saying “Mr. X is being investigated for CoC violations.” You can’t have a full investigation without casting some pubic aspersions on Mr. X.
In addition, the idea of minimizing lawsuit risk to the Concom by not saying anything negative about Mr. X also goes away once you have a full investigation. If you discuss with potential witnesses that Mr. X said racist stuff, you might as well say so publicly in the interests of transparency and full disclosure. Slander can be face-to-face as well as broadly disclosed.
bill; The idea is to REDUCE noise and rumour. If you don’t want to do anything that creates noise and rumour, then you do nothing at all. (Which may create different rumours, and lets the guilty go on doing what they do, and is right back to the “Missing stair” issue.) I’m not trying to minimize lawsuit issues, I’m trying to make it possible for someone like Ms. Burke to resume at the con, this year or next, without the kind of tarring of her reputation that the combination of a public walk of shame and someone shouting in the hallways about what she did created.
And no, Joan Q Public who is at the con who goes to Panel Y and hears “Sorry, X guest is not able to make it”, then later hears “If you were at Panel Z, please come talk to ops” isn’t necessarily going to put 2+2 together the way someone AT the panel was. So Justine Q. Witness, who was at panel Z and does put 2+2 together, can go tell Ops what she saw, while Joan and Joan’s fellows go on their merry way having a fun convention and only later, when the investigation is done, hears “X guest was accused of a code of conduct issue but a full investigation of the incident, including witness statements, has determined she did nothing wrong, and she may resume her schedule. We thank all the members of Panel Y and the audience members who came forward to speak to us on the matter. If anyone has further concerns, please address them to email @ con.org .”
(OR, or course, they hear “X guest blatantly broke the code of conduct and is banned from this convention.” If they ask Justine, she can tell them “X Guest threw a hissy fit complete with literal clutching of pearls and called fellow authors rude names, so she got kicked out.”)
I agree with Hampus Eckerman that it would help to have better guidelines. I know this is not a new field and there are experts so this is not about reinventing the wheel. it is about helping staff who are not CoC experts and who are already very busy and stressed running an event. There should be clear guidelines, ideally with a checklist. They should be proportional. They should cover possible failure modes such as unsent emails. I know that’s kind of locking the barn door after the horses escaped, but there’s always another convention.
Another reason against complex detailed rules is that trolls love rules-lawyering. Let’s not enable that.
@Hampus
You can have the best rules in the world but if enforcement is going to be performed by volunteers with anger management issues, probably it would be beneficial to discuss risk management with knowledgeable persons and lay down some procedures (i.e. don’t scream at people in public; it appears that some people might require that sort of basic written instruction).
Can I imagine my mouth getting me into trouble? Absolutely.
If I commit a ghastly faux pas I hope that I can set aside my own ego long enough to recognize the hurt I caused and apologize. If I can’t do that, I hope somebody in my circle of partners, friends and acquaintances takes me aside for a come-to-Jesus to help me do the right thing.
Would it be a terrible experience to be kicked off panels or expelled from a con because of something I said? Sure. But the situation wouldn’t just be about me. Other people are affected.
It isn’t the end of the world to admit a mistake and take your lumps. I think it does more reputational damage to dig your heels in, admit no fault and continue to object to being held accountable.
Cough Gregory Benford cough.
@rcade said
“It isn’t the end of the world to admit a mistake and take your lumps.”
Surely, but I’d at least like the opportunity to acknowledge the mistake myself instead of having that thrust upon me. And, only if the aggrieved* is amenable, apologize to them directly.
*not the best word, but I use it because the complainant isn’t necessarily the target or the one damaged by the words or action.
None of that helps with the tendency of The Masses to not let go of something even after the parties directly involved have made peace and closed the matter. Or the tendency to demand those parties have a different, usually stronger, response. I lay a lot of that in the category of “There’s no pleasing some people.”
Hey, rcade, I would hope that in the future you’re sensitive to those of us who find the use of “come-to-Jesus” exclusionary!
(Actually, I can tolerate it; as a Jew growing up as a tiny minority in Bethlehem, PA, self-proclaimed “Christmas City of the USA,” I got accustomed early to such usage. It’s tiring, though.)
Gottacook: rcade used an expression that’s relevant to him in describing how he would want to be treated.
In a lot of the situations we’ve discussed, the person is told privately that a code of conduct complaint has been made. They have the opportunity to apologize before the situation even becomes public, whether to the people involved (if they are known) or on social media.
I wondered if that might be considered offensive and do apologize that it excludes. I’m not religious but I’ve always liked the phrase after hearing it so often in my Texas youth. The closest replacement I can think of is the British notion of “hard truths.” People on EastEnders are constantly giving each other hard truths. The receivers do not like this.
@Lenora Rose,
In the particular case of Burke, what you’ve suggested may have been the best thing to have done. But it wasn’t done, so it’s kind of moot with respect to her case. So I’ve been considering it as a generality.
Some here seem to be saying that any overt statement that a party is being investigated for CoC issues is bad for their reputation, and if the investigation comes up negative, then they have been harmed unjustly. And to avoid that, no statements that can be taken adversely against a party should be made publicly by a convention until an investigation is complete. Some are taking it even further, and seem to be saying that cons should not even identify people who’ve been investigated (and possibly found culpable) for fear of being subject to a Del Arroz-type lawsuit.
Although my comment was addressed to you, it was really in response to the sentiments above (which I’m not saying that you advocate).
I’ll reiterate: A properly done investigation will get out, and the subject of the investigation will be identified. Some will assume that anyone who has been identified as possibly having committed a convention CoC violation must have done something wrong (initial comments about both the Lackey and Burke news support this, I think). If Concoms want to have robust protection for convention attendees via enforced CoC’s, then they cannot protect the reputations of accused CoC violators during a “due process” type of investigation. The two goals of protection via CoC enforcement, and privacy to those accused of violations, are in conflict with each other.
Another conflict that comes up in these situations is the tension between CoC investigations that affronted people want done quickly enough that “guilty” parties can be removed RIGHT NOW; and the fact that investigations take time, and that investigators may not have the skill to do so quickly. (Over the long term, the SF community will have to come to grips with the fact that amateur- and volunteer-run conventions are in general not capable of providing the level of “customer service” that convention attendees have come to want. This issue comes up at small conventions all the way up to Worldcons. Conventions can either hire professional event runners [and the event gets LOTS more expensive], or attendees can accept that the events will continue to have issues that in many ways result from amateur [and I use that word in its best context] management.)
And a third conflict is between the goal of conventions being a “safe space” where people expect and desire not to hear anything that affronts them, and the rest of recorded history where it is unreasonable to expect that everyone shares your values and it is routine to hear statements and opinions that conflict with one’s own values, and may even be contemptuous of what one holds dear.
@ Lenora Rose
So handle things quietly until you have taken action (for minor issues) or have something to announce (for major issues.) Make sure the severity of the “punishment” fits the severity of the crime. Don’t announce that someone you’re investigating will not be at a panels prior to making a determination; instead cancel panel participation one at a time so the person can resume their participation if it turns out they haven’t offended. Where possible, record the panels so you have evidence of what happened. If you can’t do that, start by consulting the other panelists about X’s behavior or people who obviously misunderstood what X was saying…
As far as I can tell, do all the stuff that didn’t get done at Balticon.
rcade: Since that wasn’t you’re point, I’ll make it my point: If I screwed up in some way and my religious beliefs were instrumental in helping me become aware of that, and to make amends for that, my saying so would not be exclusionary. It would be me making a genuine statement about my experience.
OGH: Regarding rcade’s original post: Sure, but how different is a hypothetical “I” sentence construction from a hypothetical “you” construction? Not very, I’d say.
rcade: That’s a knock on Texas, then, not on you. No need to apologize; I’ve long since become inured to that sort of thing, as I indicated. I prefer not to hear it, but I’m not offended.
@Mike Glyer
This is directly relevant to my 3rd conflict above — rcade used an expression that I (and probably most mainstream Christian people) find offensive. I can raise Cain about it and push for him to be banned from the board (as might happen if he casually dropped an n-word), or accept that the world (and in particular the SF community as it shows up at File770) doesn’t share my values with respect to this issue. The latter is far more conducive to long-term harmony. The ability to roll with a few punches (and occasionally throw a few back, although there’s no need to do so here) is quite useful.
I agree with the point that Christians and people with a culturally Christian background should be allowed to talk about things in ways that reference things within that faith. Including when making hypotheticals about themselves.