 |
 |
I think there's also both an implied targeting of a person, and repetitiveness or persistence with the word "harassment" that's not at all captured in that definition. The definition Ian quoted is so broad I think most contemporary network sitcoms would qualify as "harassment". Matt McCollow Programmer Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship, McMaster University On 2013-01-25, at 10:17 AM, Gary McGath wrote: > I haven't been following the discussion slowly till someone proposed > violence as a response to unspecified harassment. Now I'm worried. > > The policy which Ian quotes is based on the idea that no one must be > offended, which is a deadly opposite to academic freedom and open > discussion. What is "offensive"? With a policy like that, people must > weigh every word they say against the possibility that someone somewhere > might feel offended by it. > > For example, I don't think there is any good evidence for the existence > of a deity. My saying just that could offend a lot of religious people. > If I follow the policy, I must not express that view in any public space > or online forum, including this one. I am already in violation of the > policy; kick me out. > > "Non-verbal expressions" are included. Even a disapproving look could be > considered "harassment." > > There can't be any free give and take of ideas without the possibility > that someone will be offended. Too many people, especially in the > academic world, prefer a nice quiet environment where no one says > anything troubling to a free and open exchange of ideas. It isn't far > from there to banning "offensive" books from libraries. > > On 1/25/13 9:23 AM, Ian Walls wrote: >> My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of >> "harassment", particularly: >> >> "It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to >> gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability, >> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or >> discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)". >> >> I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another >> person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not >> seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or >> group who feels offended. People can be offended by all variety of >> material, and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and >> is not offensive. This translates roughly to: >> >> "I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me". >> >> This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own >> behavior and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of >> others with sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction. >> Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the >> wonder if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a >> way as to produce offense. Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating >> in the community. >> >> Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and >> inadvertent offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of >> banned for what would appear to me as no reason. > > > > -- > Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer > http://www.garymcgath.com