So, Emery Emery thinks D.J. should refuse to clarify that the TAM harassment policy will apply this year and be publicly posted. Why?
No, it’s not all they have to do! She is fighting them, Wendell! Do you not see that she’s trying to harm TAM!?
And just how did I try to harm TAM? What did I do? Well, here’s what I blogged before D.J. made his first public statement about harassment policies.
- Zero Intolerance I filled in the details around the statement that set off a small explosion at Women in Secularism.
- Making It Safer in the Meantime I suggested that organizations that wanted to address concerns around this should adopt an anti-harassment policy that covered race, gender expression, sexual orientation, ability status, etc.
- Real Progress I talked about which conventions had let me know they would be adopting policies.
- On Witches and the Hunting Thereof I explained that standardized policies protect the innocent much better than “naming names” does.
That’s it. You may notice that there’s no mention of TAM in any of those. There’s no mention of specific “prominent speakers” who could tarnish TAM’s reputation by being on the agenda there, because there is no mention of specific “prominent speakers”.
Now, what didn’t I do? [Trigger warning for denial of sexual harassment and assault.]
- I wasn’t the one who drew unsolicited attention to TAM’s declining registration.
- I wasn’t the one who attributed that decline to irresponsible, prominent, well-meaning, clumsy female skeptics, thus setting off testing of that claim that suggested very strongly otherwise.
- I wasn’t the one who followed up on that claim by blaming a quote-mine and 10-day-old blog posts for registration patterns.
- I wasn’t the one who used grossly inadequate data collection methods to claim there were no reports of harassment at TAM last year, thus prompting the people who did report to speak up loudly.
- I wasn’t the one tried to tell someone who was sexually harassed that my memory of events trumped theirs.
- I wasn’t the one who misrepresented what someone who was sexually harassed said in a way that favored me.
- I wasn’t the one who dismissed stories of gropings and other sexual assault as “rumor and distasteful locker room banter, often pretty mean-spirited, especially when it is from just one or a few women recounting sexual exploits they’ve had with speakers who are eventually deemed as ‘skeezy,’ and whom they feel should be not allowed to speak at such conferences going forward.”
- I wasn’t the one who buried an apology in a long comment thread.
- I wasn’t the one who made that apology only to the most prominent of the people I’d insulted.
- I wasn’t the one who repeated the behavior I was apologizing for within the apology.
- I wasn’t the one who consistently referred to TAM’s harassment policy in the past tense, raising questions about a policy for this year.
- I wasn’t the one who went on the radio to say, “So if someone is accosted or assaulted, and to be legal about it, sexual harassment cannot happen in a public event. Right? Sexual harassment can only happen in a workplace, by definition”, which, for the record, doesn’t even reflect a Wikipedia-level understanding of sexual harassment.
No, I didn’t do any of that. I didn’t force D.J. to sit down and do any of it. I didn’t force him to join the discussion, and I didn’t force him to say what he said. D.J. is a big boy with as much free will as anyone.
He is also not TAM. Me reacting to his behavior is not attacking TAM. It certainly isn’t trying to harm TAM. It is, if anything, bringing the problems with D.J.’s behavior into the light where he can see how potential TAM-goers (and current and past TAM-goers) react to them and change before TAM is hurt further.
Because when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t seem to be me who is trying to harm TAM.