WisCon’s LiveJournal reported in October that close to a dozen people resigned in the aftermath of the Frenkel harassment ban. No names were publicized, though in addition to Jeanne Gomoll’s resignation, File 770 has learned about changes in status of three other former WisCon chairs. The departure of one of them, Richard S. Russell, was involuntary.
Jim Leinweber is no longer chair of the 2015 WisCon. He reportedly is still a member of the committee and its parent organization SF3. The new chairs are Levi Sable and Mikki Kendall. File 770 has yet to learn the reason for the change.
James Hudson, who chaired or co-chaired WisCon 21 (1997), WisCon 29 (2005) and WisCon 33 (2009), has voluntarily resigned from the WisCon committee and SF3 Board. Hudson told File 770: “My choice. Didn’t agree with some of the directions the committee was going and I was close to retiring anyway.”
Richard S. Russell, one of WisCon’s founders and chair of WisCon 9, was notified on October 24 by SF3 President Jackie Lee that he had been removed from the WisCon committee by the SF3 Board “due to his alienating current and prospective concom members, as well as WisCon as a whole” and for “behavior [that] violates WisCon’s Statement of Principles.”
Russell has worked on all 38 conventions in the series and had expected to continue serving —
WisCon is always a stressful and exhausting experience, but that has been more than offset by the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment I’ve felt after each one. Despite having slowed down somewhat at the age of 70, I was very much looking forward to doing it all again next year for WisCon 39.
Regrettably, however, WisCon has fallen under the control of a bunch of self-appointed commissars of political correctness with a low tolerance for differences of opinion on matters of policy, and they have in fact ousted me from the concom.
Russell’s continuing expression of his views in committee channels about WisCon’s People of Color Safe Space and the Jim Frenkel harassment complaint was an issue, the parties disagreeing how that deserved to be characterized.
Russell sent File 770 a copy of the letter requesting his removal from the committee, which says in part:
We appreciate Richard’s extensive contributions as a volunteer, and we are not currently seeking a ban on his presence at Wiscon. However, we feel that his continued presence on the concom is alienating and damaging to many concom members and potential members, and to Wiscon as a whole.
We believe that Richard’s behavior is not in keeping with WisCon’s Statement of Principles, which the SF3 membership has now affirmed as a policy the SF3 board and WisCon concom members should adhere to.
- Richard continues to protest the very existence of the established POC Safer Space at WisCon, and continues to insist that his interpretation of what is racist is more important than the lived experiences of people of color. (see addendum for quotes from 2009-present on this subject)
- Richard’s characterization of the POC Safer Space as “racial segregation” and his refusal to drop the subject despite being told to stop, by fellow members and by several successive sets of chairs, has caused members of the concom to leave, and will continue to cause members of the concom to leave if he remains.
- Suppressing his comments about the POC Safer Space, as has been done for the last four years, is not an adequate solution. He has threatened to bring up the issue at a concom meeting as recently as Wiscon 38 in 2014, and there is no mechanism to moderate his Basecamp comments.
- Moderation as currently implemented requires the concom list moderator to be in the exposed, singular position having to decide which of his messages to let through, and to bear the brunt of his reaction. Richard has sent the moderator outraged emails over moderated messages (see addendum).
- Richard’s trivialization of harassment discussions as “angst and breast-beating” and his characterization of harassers as needing an incentive to not harass people (“Where’s the incentive for anyone to clean up their act* if they’re just going to be discriminated against indefinitely based on a single accusation?”) indicates that his presence on the concom during discussions of harassment will be disruptive and alienating to fellow members.
The request was signed by Juliana Perry, Elliott Mason, Levi Sable, Jess Adams, Gabby Reed, Jackie M., Sandy Olson, Julia Starkey, and Kat Tanaka Okopnik.
Russell’s own take is that he is upholding the Statement of Principles –
I support it enthusiastically and whole-heartedly. My main wish is that the concom as a whole would do likewise, in particular with regard to this provision:
Feminism is part of a larger constellation of movements seeking social, political and economic equality for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sex, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, creed, ability, status, or belief.
And, more recently, this one:
… we cannot pick and choose which people deserve justice and which issues we are more comfortable with. We are called to be true to our principles, even (and especially) when they are unpopular.
And this one:
Meetings, decision-making processes, program development, and guest of honor choice all reflect a commitment to feminist ideals of equality, respect for everyone’s right to be heard, and the obligation to hold each other accountable for what we say.
The expulsion letter’s first bullet point is a reference to Russell’s protest against the “People of Color Safe Space” established by WisCon several years ago, described by one proponent, N.K. Jemisin, as a place –
away from the main traffic of the con; I’ve found it useful after a panel in which somebody said something highly problematic, to go somewhere and either cool down by myself or rant at other people who understood what I was feeling.
The pithiest of Russell’s comments quoted by the letter (from a 2009 discussion) says:
Any “solution” that involves overt racial segregation is only one among many possible approaches to whatever the problem is. I have never seen a clear statement of the problem for which this “safer space” is supposed to be the solution, let alone any indication that anyone spent any serious amount of time considering alternative approaches.
The last bullet point in the expulsion letter objects to a comment he made in an online discussion about WisCon’s reconsideration of the terms of the Frenkel ban (earlier in 2014):
I preface this statement with an acknowledgement that I am far from impartial on the matter of how WisCon should treat Jim Frenkel, because Jim has been a personal friend of mine for 30+ years. I babysat his kids, attended Josh’s bar mitzvah, worked with him on opening-ceremonies skits for Odyssey Con, traded books with him, served with him on panels at cons, used him as entree to conversations with Gardner Dozois and George R. R. Martin, and so on. He is a frequent guest at my house and I at his.
So take whatever I have to say with the appropriate number of grains of salt.
And what I have to say is this: The guy already lost his job over this incident. How many sticks do we have to beat him with before he’s sufficiently bloody to satisfy everybody?
Where’s the incentive for anyone to clean up their act* [*even assuming Jim’s act needed to be cleaned up, which is by no means a certainty] if they’re just going to be discriminated against indefinitely based on a single accusation?
Earlier in this thread, somebody said “The matter was dealt with at the time, and now the case is closed.” IMHO, that’s the way it should stay. Let’s move on.
Russell further complains that when he was removed from the committee by decision of the SF3 executive board they “did not even do me the courtesy of notifying me that they were contemplating this action, let alone soliciting my reaction to it.” Undeniably that would have made it a more transparent process, however, there appears to be nothing in SF3’s Bylaws requiring notice.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I’m not sure how Richard could be confused about the fact that his presence on the concom was obstructing people getting stuff done (and recruiting people to help get stuff done). He had been told repeatedly his behavior was unacceptable, ignored all attempts to help him figure out how to be less obnoxious, and was in fact asked to resign multiple times over several years.
This was not a big surprise, or wouldn’t have been to anyone paying attention (and with access to the concom list emails).
Bet he doesn’t believe in women-only space either. Because people who regularly deal with aggressions both micro and macro totally don’t deserve space in which to refuel or vent.
What Elliott said.
I don’t understand why the POC safer space excludes me, a white man, any more than the mid-career writers workshop (not a mid-career writer) or the teen programming (haven’t been a teen in nearly 40 years). I’ve never had a problem with the POC safer space.
Here we have an example of the dangers engendered by inclusive cultures administered by non-inclusive sub-cultures.
Chris, of WisCon’s Media and Communications Team, emailed me the following information about the change in chairs for 2015: “Jim Leinweber was the chair for WisCon 39 as of the end of this year’s WisCon, and he remained so throughout the summer. In early August, Mikki Kendall joined Jim as a co-chair. At the end of September, Levi Sable joined as a 3rd co-chair. Up to the SF3 annual meeting on October 5th, we anticipated WisCon 39 would proceed with all three as co-chairs. At the SF3 meeting, however, Jim announced that he wished to step back from co-chairing. This was entirely a personal decision of his, and it came as a surprise to all of us.”
It would be more accurate to say that a small number of concom members who were directly involved in responding to the harassment complaint against Frenkel resigned from the concom after the concom vote to overturn their initial decision, seeing it as a vote of no confidence. Some, not all, disagreed with the result of the vote.
Another group of concom members resigned during the pendency of events arising from the demand that the concom and/or SF3 adopt the requirement that concom members agree to uphold & adhere to the WisCon “statement of principles” and then immediately eject Richard Russell on adoption of this rule on the grounds that his statements and opinions were clearly not in accordance with the statement of principles (according to the group advancing the rule change.) Those advancing the rule change and supporting Russell’s ejection from WisCon carried the vote at the recent SF3 board meeting, resulting in the concom changes you see today. It would be fair to say that some resignations resulted from some concom members standing on principal and some simply choosing to walk away for personal reasons from an emotional controversy. Jim Leinweber resigned as conchair during this time. He would need to tell you his reason for doing so.
To be clear, I am on the concom but nothing I say in any way (necessarily) represents the beliefs or the opinions of the concom.
That having been said, RR also accuses the concom of ageism. That is not at all the case as far as I can tell, however, there seem to have been raging cases of GSF1, GSF2, and GSF3. (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) The older members–many of whom seem to be his close personal friends (some of whom actually admit that his behavior is problematic) seem to think working around it is the way to continue to go, that it is more harmful to ask as volunteer to leave than to allow a volunteer to drive (POC) people off the concom–did clash a bit with the younger members–who seem to feel that rectifying a missing stair is a good thing and that they have a right to an environment free of harassment–but they themselves chose this hill upon which to die. (Though I am sure there was lead-up to this with the contentious JF situation.) I can definitely understand standing up for one’s friend, but if I were in the situation, I would be mortified that my friend was acting that way and would hope I was the first to say, “hey, man, that’s not cool.”
I don’t know any of the younger members of the concom who wanted anyone but RR to leave. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t have a deep, deep respect for those who have chosen to resign.
As for RR’s characterization of his behavior as simply vocally expressing his unpopular dissent, it is a troll’s defense. Not only did he persistently ignore any requests for him to cease haranguing the concom about settled business, but, to my understanding, he also harassed POC members directly via personal email when the safer space was first discussed and persisted when asked to stop. There is a distinct difference between vocal dissent and abuse. He crossed the line repeatedly and was repeatedly asked to stop. He did not. Not to mention the cited instance of him minimizing the harm done by JF and, basically, suggesting that, because it was only a single victim coming forward and because JF was his friend, that perhaps she was lying or that it just shouldn’t matter as much and maybe we should just let it go. That’s how a feminist organization should work, right?
There has been a lot of fraught communication over the past several months and some of it stems from the geek social fallacies and some of it stems, I think, from differences in feminisms. For instance, where RR keeps harping on equality, many of us prefer to work toward justice which is not at all the same. Equality is giving every crash victim one unit of blood, justice is determining each victim’s hurts and treating them accordingly. Equality is making sure any child can go to any public school, justice is making sure everyone one of those children is fairly, properly, and appropriately educated based upon their individual needs. Why, for instance, would you fight to create special education classes for children, if the children who need those classes aren’t allowed to go to school, anyway? Equality is a starting point, not the end of the matter.
When it comes to WisCon, it is obviously open to all, but it is not a safe space on many levels. Walking around and in panels, I hear racist, ableist, sizeist, and anti-trans sentiments all the time. I have been sexually harassed. There is nothing wrong or anti-feminist about giving people of various oppressed groups space in which to decompress and connect and, yes, feel safe and we are absolutely impelled to stamp out even low-level sexual harassment for the safety of all our attendees.
I do appreciate that RR does so many good works in the community, that he has done a lot of work for the concom, and that he cares passionately about what he believes in, but that does not give him a right to abuse those who disagree with him and it is that abuse that is the issue. We deserve the right to work in an environment free of that abuse. If someone behaved that way in a 9-5 workplace, it would not be tolerated at all much less tacitly condoned for years and years. Nobody wants to silence dissent. At all. While it has been said that several former con chairs have resigned, little has been said of the former volunteers who have resigned in the past directly as a result of his behavior, including a former GoH.
Speaking as a concom member now (but still not FOR the concom): Since W38 and the whole JF debacle, the concom have stepped up like you would not believe. Mistakes were made, yes. (And I in no way want to minimize that–we fucked up. BADLY. Repeatedly. For a long, long time.) But I wish you could see the way things are changing. We have fresh volunteers, ideas are flying all over the place, and we have a renewed passion for doing things justly and for building mechanisms to ensure we do right by the community and by ourselves as volunteers. We are in a position where we can analyze how and why we do things and maybe do things a little differently to make sure there’s less volunteer burn-out in the future and that we rely less heavily on a few hardcore, core concom members in the future, to make sure we deal fairly and kindly with each other, and to deal more transparently with the community.
Of course, we can intend all day but until we DO, none of it matters. So I hope that those who feel frustrated and angry over previous issues do return and give us a chance by coming to us with future issues. We are doing our best to make amends and we are taking things seriously. All the things. And that includes RR’s behavior.
Luke-
I believe non-teens are allowed to attend teen program if they wish, yes? And whether or not one is a mid-career writer is a matter of choice and aspiration, yes? In other words, you are not EXCLUDED based on characteristics over which you have NO CONTROL.
In my experience, this smug nattering about so-called justice amounts to people who believe that two wrongs will eventually make a right if you act self-righteous enough about it. More honest people call it revenge.
But whatever. I gave up on Wiscon back the first time they decided that knuckling under to mob threats was the best way to serve the constituencies of the convention.
Wiscon was my first convention, It is where I learned about fandom. I was its chair for its tenth anniversary. I was as ideologically committed to its agenda as anyone impaired by being a white male could possibly be. But the contemporary institution– demanding that committee members sign and embrace a “statement of principles” — sounds like the most hyperbolic indictments that backlashers lever invented to discredit the con. A committee that has to expel those they don’t agree with is morally and intellectually weak — and the exclusion of those despised by the majority is a craven and contemptible tradition that has dogged convention fandom virtually from its inception. To find that 38 years of growth has made Wiscon as weak and stupid as any other self-important clique is predictable but no less repulsive or worthy of rebuke for that.
Personally, I think people are way too quick to dismiss revenge.
Culture is change. Culture gets to change. Society and culture are enjoying and suffering a huge change in the population of people who, on the Internet, in community real and virtual, talk about their own experiences in a narrative that is personal and political.
I’m personally a member of many marginalized groups. I’m not going to list them or play any of their cards. I am also a deeply feminist SFF fan and contributor to the fan community. I do think that while the changes in WisCon have been and continue to be traumatic, they are necessitated by the fact that previously information and experience that had remained private and personal are now in public. This characterization of WisCon as “taken over” by interests strange and unfriendly to the status quo is certainly a way of describing it, but not a fair or just one.
WisCon is a progressive convention and organization, portrayed by its committees and its communications with the SFF public as a progressive organization. As such, its politics MUST PROGRESS. If your convention is going to advertise inclusiveness, then the folks from marginalized communities will show up and will expect fair representation, fair treatment and just treatment. If you feel like you’ve been wronged by change, then I strongly suggest you catch up.
We people of color showed up at your invitation. That we were disappointed by our treatment and that we demanded a safe(r) space because of that disappointment SHOULD NOT have taken you by surprise. It should have been self-evident that the WisCon culture had to change in response to the change that you were promoting, inviting and encouraging. Again, I strongly urge those of you feeling left behind, or betrayed or targeted catch up.
Third and fourth wave feminists showed up at WisCon, also at your invitation and encouragement. That they brought new ideas, new language and new ways of doing things again should not have, in any sense, been a surprise. There are plenty of Internet-based resources available to the interested public about how new waves of feminism and social justice activism and antiracist activism go through the process of living, of cultivating growth and safety and courage among our members. How could these things be a surprise to the committees running WisCon unless, because of comfort in the status quo, you were caught flat footed?
Again, I encourage active board and committee members in progressive organizations like WisCon to catch the fuck up. There are resources freely and abundantly available to self-education, to do research and present on to your committees, to remain relevant, to cultivate the courage you asked us to step up with when attending.
To pretend that you were somehow wronged by progress when the convention and the ideals of the convention were designed to welcome, to cultivate, to encourage that progress is at best disingenuous. At worst it seems to show a dangerous and honestly rather insulting temptation to say one thing and do and expect another.
That letter you quote reads like something out of ‘1984’, or maybe ‘Animal Farm.’
I believe that the People of Color Safe Space is a good idea. I believe that the “POC Safe Space” however is not a very convenient name, and it ought to be given an easily identifiable and recognizable name. In honor of Rosa Parks I propose that the People of Color Safe Space ought to be referred to in the future as “The Back of the Bus”. Everybody will then easily know it for what it is.
Really. “The Back of the Bus”.
There is a racism problem here. Part of it has to do with respect. Part of it has to do with revenge. Part of it has to do with folks behaving badly.
“The Back of the Bus” is extremely insulting and extremely disrespectful. Implying that we people of color are ignorant of and repeating the history that killed us in droves is, to be quite honest, detestable.
Is that not what the ConCom wants to establish? It sure sounds like it to me.
Clearly you are flamebaiting.
No. I am disgusted. Science fiction has been about equality for … ages. All of the fans I ever encountered live this. /This/ ConCom on the other hand, seems bent on regressing. If they go any further they will soon be proposing a separate-but-equal con for those poor people of color. Is this really any way to run a con?
In your disgust, you’ve said some detestable things. Have a care.
Science fiction has STOOD for equality for ages, but marginalized minorities attempting to engage with science fiction have had predictably poor experiences, always waiting for the old guard to get the fuck out of the way and let us be equal.
Equal participation requires a lot of adjustments. And those adjustments, to have them be FAIR cannot always be on the minorities’ sides. We try to negotiate forward, to find new ways of handling discourse so that the minorities and the marginalized do not start from a position of disadvantage (which as we have noted is silencing and difficult to surmount). That it resembles old ways of doing things is not surprising. As many of us have observed, there is nothing new under the sun. So we reinvent and try to get it more right this time around.
LET US HAVE THE SPACE TO DO THAT, please.
Why does anybody have to “get the fuck out of the way”? Just … participate! Heck, the way this is being presented the next step in “keeping people safe” will be advocating separate bathrooms for the whites and the coloreds. Do you not see what this is doing? Returning to all the old crap we did away with, with completely skewed justifications. But it will be the same old segregationist CRAP, no matter who proposes it and what justifications they paint it over with.
Richard Hartman: You’ve made your point, or at least as much of a point as you can make by begging the question. The WisCon committee certainly is not contemplating such a regression. And Dick Russell’s objection is based on a belief that he and the committee have or should have a common view of the Statement of Principles, which has equality as one of its values (“Feminism, at its root, is the belief that women and men are equal…”)
Safer spaces are provided in good faith to give folks who need a break from participation a place to do that in community.
Comparisons to segregation are detestable. I encourage you to find and explore a new line of thinking.
Malcolm: You are engaging with ideas, which makes for a good reading. But if you feel this line of discussion needs to continue, as indicated by your continuing to respond to Richard Hartman, perhaps I should not be asking him to moderate his own responses.
I’m done. Thank you for stepping in. It was in your silence that I engaged at all, Mike.
So … you have feminist ideals, and now POC ideals. And provide safe spaces for each so they may take a break “in community”. In _which_ community? What about feminists of color? Do they have to choose between a safe space where they have to deal with white women, or the other safe space where they have to deal with colored males? Or do they get their own exclusive safe space? Once you go down this rabbit hole, where does this END?
And, I guess, the moderator wants this ended, so I shall make that last question my last thought on the matter for a while. But … the question of how many sub-divided communities you need to make once you start is very real. Think about it.
Thanks Richard. Upon seeing your last question, don’t we already have many subdivided communities? I think what some find upsetting about safe spaces is that they express in a physical dimension a criticism that the sf community is doing a terrible job of coexisting with those divisions in a civil way. And within the population who respond that way are some who disagree with the criticism, while some others object to seeing it expressed in such a public manner. It’s not a solution that appeals to me because I’d like to see those problems overcome in another way, however, there seems to be a meeting of the minds between people who use the space and the remaining WisCon committee and one of the things about fandom is different communities get to pick their own methods of dealing with issues.
Sexism and racism aside, I keep thinking about the logistics of the safe place. I’d like to think the occurrences at conventions aren’t so great they require so many safe places, but I’m sure there is more of them out there than I’m aware of.
What many of us find concerning about these “safe spaces” is that we feel we are being told we are not strong or capable enough to operate in fandom because of some characteristic, most of which we have no control over. If you look at some of the historical justifications for slavery in the US they used similiar reasons for holding some of my ancestors in bondage. I find it offensive that similar logic is being used by people who supposedly want to help to encourage self segregation. On top of this is the matter of how it is decided on who is let into a safe zone. Exactly what tests are going to be implemented to determine if I am sufficiently of color? Shall we use a pencil test? I would be a person of color on that test not because of my black ancestors, but because of the thick hair from my italian ones. Who decides if I am of sufficiently of color? Who decides I am sufficiently disabled? Considering that most of my disabilities are not visible, and those that are are only so when I am naked.
http://xkcd.com/1332/
Plus mouse-over text.
THe flip side to the post above is that if I am not judged sufficiently colored, or disabled, or whatever, then I am being told I am part of an oppressive majority that is a threat to those who do meet your criteria. From what I know of my lineage I am about or more so descended from people of color than the president, but he is much darker. He is the president and I am an engineer. Is he somehow in need of a safe place yet I am part of the oppressors because of our skin tone? My disabilities have caused me great problems at times, but if I am judged to able, then I am now some how oppressing people who could have fewer or less severe disabilities, but were judged to be more disabled than I am.
For the “equality” people out there, do you really think equality has been reached simply by establishing equal access? What about the equal ability and privilege to move through a space without even noticing racist bullshit? Isn’t that like saying we have achieved gender equality because women can leave their homes unescorted so we should just ignore catcalls; that women’s shelters are wrong because they exclude men?
Providing a safer space is not the one and only way WisCon addresses racism (though we obviously aren’t doing enough). To act like that is the case is over-simplistic and fallacious.
And as for this “back of the bus” crap… I was on a city bus awhile back and a bunch of POC, mostly teens, got on and headed straight for the back of the bus some of them choosing to stand rather than take seats in the front. One older, white man started fuming about Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. and how awful it was that these kids didn’t respect the work their elders did to give them the right to sit it front and etc., etc., etc. Never once did he consider that maybe the reason they were all piled up in the rear was because it was far, far away from him, the old white guy who thought he could tell them where to sit and why they should sit there (oh, and pull your damn pants up! Take that comb out of your hair! And stop talking all jive! If you want to be respected in this world, you’ll dress and speak respectably!) and all the other (mostly white) people in the front who eyed them suspiciously as they passed by. In this case, the back of the bus WAS a space where they could feel reasonably safe from harassment.
That people are arguing so vehemently against allowing a space where POC can safely and comfortably gather within con space seems to me to be a major red flag indicating that the space is absolutely necessary. I mean, *obviously* detractors are failing to even TRY to engage POC guests in meaningful dialogue (or even engage the Internet–it’s not hard to find accounts of the maltreatment of fans of color) or they would know unequivocally how necessary a safer space really is.
I think the original safe space at cons was “the bar”, where you could be with a select group of fans and let your hair down. Wiscon is just more formal and organized about that sort of thing, as you might expect. So it goes.
I respectfully suggest that a safe space can be created by _enforcement_ rather than exclusion based on legally protected characteristics. Much of this discussion reminds me of the Pantheacon discussion of real vs trans women and exclusion of the latter from convention panel space. A “safety lounge” can be a safer space than the rest of the convention without needing to exclude anyone – but misbehavior can result in expulsion not merely from the safe space but from the entire event. The key point is staffing with multiple competent hard-headed people who will do that necessary enforcement if the clearly posted rules are breached.
I would like to respectfully suggest that enforcement has so far not created or enforced a very safe experience for some attendees of WisCon, which is why, at least to relative outsiders to the process like myself, a pre-arranged safe(r) space is more appealing, since no process loopholes would need to be negotiated in order to find or create a safe(r) environment, should I opt to go there.
Sorry, “loopholes” was a slip of the finger, I mean “hoops”.
1. I am choosing to believe that the “real” vs. “trans” wording was unintentional. Women are women. In fact, we have had issues at WisCon with trans-exclusive members sitting in the ConSuite–a space that should be welcoming–and conducting loud, anti-trans conversations. Where is a person who is deeply hurt and offended by this kind of thing supposed to go if they don’t have friends available? Back to their room to sit alone? Away from the con completely? In both cases, the offended party is the one penalized and nothing gets done to change the problematic culture.
Nobody is policing these spaces except to assure trolls stay out. If you identify as POC then you are welcome. No one gives a damn about anything except making you feel safe and comfortable and welcome. In fact, this past year there was an issue with internet trolls contacting the concom to let us know, out of the kindness of their hearts, that an attendee was lying about being POC and threatening to attend to out them for the lying liar pants they were. So Safety followed that person all weekend. TO MAKE SURE THEY WEREN’T ATTACKED. Because THAT is what we care about: the safety of our members. Not excluding anyone. (Except for harassers, obviously.)
So, yes, if you identify as POC, then you are welcome into the safer space. If we establish areas where those with disabilities or those who are trans can rest, recharge, and connect and you identify as either of those, nobody is going to demand credentials.
Wild extrapolation is asinine. By giving people of color a safer space at a con, we are rolling that pebble that will obviously and inevitably lead to the avalanche that is the new era of American slavery? Is that what I’m really reading? Because we give POC writers and fans a space to connect in realtime? And we are supposed to take the opinions of an old, white guy (RR) over the stated needs, preferences, and experiences of people of color who are stating, clearly and repeatedly, that they DO experience racism at the con and DO find that space useful and empowering? And we are supposed to believe that caving to the abusive diatribes of the old, white guy is the more feminist, less racist way to go?
I don’t think anyone (left) on the concom cares how it looks. You can believe all you like that we are evil, groupthinking, segregationists. What we care about is making an awesome, safe, enjoyable experience for everyone. If you are feeling hurt and left out because there is one room in the whole con where you may not be expressly invited, if your con experience is completely ruined by that, I’m not sure what to tell you. You’re probably not expressly invited into half the restrooms, either. (And those restrooms? SO FUN. Party hats, pin the tail on the horse’s ass, cocktails… And sparkly glitter TP that’s like wiping your bum with a disco angel’s wing!) If you think our actual intent is to segregate and disempower POC, why don’t you actually engage with some POC who attend the con and use the safer space and ask why they feel it’s beneficial? Don’t just go on about principles and equality and how everyone would behave appropriately in a perfect world and about how you have never experienced a thing personally so it must not exist. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. We are just providing an apparently-necessary space.
(The “2.” goes before the “Nobody.”)
Ulrika: children’s and teen programming both exclude adults except for the parents of those children/teens. Mid-career writer in this instance is specifically defined by a certain number of SFWA-qualifying sales.
After reading the stories above, since my last comment, I am even /more/ aghast at this ConCom. They are implicitly — nay, EXplicitly — stating that their con is NOT safe or welcoming, and further that they will take not steps to police it. Is that it? If it were me I would issue a policy that all sorts are welcome, and if someone is being attacked due to race, gender, or creed then the people doing the offending shall be ejected by security dressed as Klingon warriors. This ConCom seems to be practically endorsing that behavior as long as it is kept out of the “safe zones”? Something is drastically wrong here.
Drew:
The opposite of “trans” is not “real,” it’s “cis”.
Richard Hartman: are you honestly, really unaware that events that make fen of color feel unwelcome and actively unsafe happen multiple times (usually in the tens of incidents) at every US con of any reasonable size?
Why did you THINK congoing fandom was so blindingly white? Because non-whites just don’t read books? That is emphatically not the case. They feel unsafe and actively unwanted because of unaddressed white-supremacist assumptions built into the foundations of con culture.
Saying “There’s no racism at cons, and if they were we could just kick out the bad apples and it would stop” is provably false and has never worked that way.
Kindly have a long discussion with at least three non-white fen who have come to conventions, to find out what ELSE you haven’t been seeing.
We do have a policy. It is in the statement of principles that we ask all members to adhere to and that we recently asked all concom members to adhere to, as well. Having repeatedly asked a concom member who was violating our statement of principles to step down, his behavior having been EXplicitly discussed with him, he continued to misbehave and was ejected. Ditto the serial-harasser attendee.The only real question is why it took THIS LONG. In the latter case, nobody is denying that the process in getting there was a dismal failure on all fronts but the right decision was reached.
I would challenge ANY concom to eject con attendees based on racist, sexist, anti-trans and ableist behavior then come back and have that pissing contest. In the meantime, you can continue to deliberately misconstrue on your own. I am all out of troll food.
The fen I have encountered are not “blindingly white”. Nor, for that matter, do they tend to care about the color you are under the green body paint. Perhaps this is just a Wisconsin problem?
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
This will work until someone makes a complaint to the state about your POC zones. They violate the public lic accommodation laws. Just like you can’t refuse service to about gay couple for their wedding. You’re offering tickets to the general public to attend. Sooner or latter you’re going to be spanked by civil rights law.
Charging for memberships is what makes a convention a private event. They can allocate the function rooms contracted for a private event as they choose. It is only the hotel’s public spaces, like the lobby, restaurant, etc., that the public is free to enter.
Will there be a place for me (white, male) to go and be safe from confrontations with POC who find my thoughts, actions, and beliefs to be vile and wish to attack and upset me? Somewhere for me to cool down, take a breather, and discuss with people like me who will understand me position on things?
If the answer is no then I’m sorry, I won’t be attending anything so blantantly racist that it provides amenities or privileges to one race or gender but not others.
Think about it, racism used to be about whites having places they could go but everyone else couldn’t (among other things). What you have done is the same, just take whites out of that statement and insert colored. But it’s still racism.
On “reverse racism”: http://amptoons.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-concise-history-of-black-white-relations-in-the-usa-2/
This is 101 level anti racism/anti discrimination stuff. I sincerely believe it’s beneath us as feminists to be engaging at this low level with these concepts. As I said earlier, catch the fuck up.
So it’s okay for you to discriminate against my race because in the past white people discriminated against colored people?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
You are a racist and anyone who supports a POC safe zone but not one for other groups is a racist.
It hurts to have your victim card revoked and realize you are now the one being discriminatory to others.
Congratulations. You have brought this thread’s comments to singularity and have proven the antiracist corollary to Lewis’ Law.