LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2020

ARSCLIST July 2020

Subject:

ARSC Code of Conduct and Responding to Incidents documents

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 25 Jul 2020 13:48:22 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (13 lines)

To ARSC members:
I have only recently caught up on the documents discussion here, and am pleased that it has been overwhelmingly civil. That is not always the case on the Internet, and speaks well of the ARSC community. It began as a commentary on Kurt Nauck's open letter to members, and while I have no comment on the contents of that letter I fully support the decision of Rebecca, the Board and Newsletter Editor Yuri Shimoda to publish it. Everyone deserves to be heard. Perhaps, as some have suggested, a response could have been solicited to appear in the same issue, but I'm sure the next issue will remedy that. Please remember that all those mentioned are volunteers, doing the best they can.

The considered input of some folks who have given a great deal of service to the association, including former presidents Mike Biel and Sam Brylawski, and ARSC co-founder Paul Jackson, is especially welcome. I have been honored to serve as president twice (most recently 2011-2015) and as program chair twice (four conferences, as opposed to Mike's five!), as well as in other positions of responsibility.
My concern now is the forthcoming Code of Conduct and "Responding to Incidents" documents on which all members will eventually be asked to vote. Three recent presidents of ARSC (including me) and a recent Program Chair have jointly communicated our concerns with the current versions of these documents, to the Diversity Committee co-chairs, the Board, and the Executive Committee (committee chairs). You should know about them too.
Our concerns are in three main areas. (1) There is no real definition of what constitutes offensive behavior, or especially "potentially triggering language." This is determined by a four-person team, but only *after* someone complains, and in the heat of the moment. Complaints can be lodged in regard to any ARSC activity, a conference (online or in person), a scholarly presentation, statements on social media sites, or even on this listserv. Severe sanctions can be imposed. One can imagine the chilling effect this could have. (2) There is no right of appeal. (3) In most cases the authority of the President and the Board, as conferred in the Bylaws, is preempted by this four-person team. This can include removing members, and even chairs, from committees. In our opinion this is far too much concentration of power and seriously undermines ARSC's governance structure.
Some of this is the result of poor wording. For example, the team makes recommendations, but the President *will* (not may) carry out those recommendations. The Code is "not intended to constrain scholarly... discourse," but presenters are subject to sanctions.
A final matter of concern is that the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee itself is unrepresentative of the ARSC membership, specifically of the half (approximately) of our members who are private collectors. At least three private collectors (including me) have offered to join the committee, to at least partially redress this imbalance. All have considerable ARSC experience, but all have been denied admission by the co-chairs.
The only reason stated was that the committee is "very large." To the best of my knowledge there is no formal or informal rule regarding the size of ARSC committees, and larger committees can easily form sub-groups to work on specific projects, although they too should be representative. In this case the co-chairs chose five of 15 members to work with them on the drafts, none of them principally known as collectors. The "Inclusion" committee is far from inclusive.
I certainly hope that the Committee will take these issues into account in the final documents which, apparently, will be secretly finalized behind the scenes, and then presented to the Board and membership for an up-or-down vote.
These documents grew out of altruistic motives, motives which I support, but the manner in which they are being developed is troubling to say the least. The original anti-harassment policy was enacted during my presidency. Surely it can be improved. But in our desire to address one problem we should not create even greater ones. I especially hope that all members will read these documents carefully, and think about consequences, when it comes time to vote on them.
Sincerely,Tim BrooksFormer president (twice), program chair (twice), Copyright, Awards, Publicity, Nominations Chair, Directory Editor, and numerous other positions.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager