Regardless of the ongoing pushback against anti-harassment policies, they continue to be put into place. I mentioned that the Minnesota Atheists would be adopting a policy for their meetings and social events. They’ve completed it.
The policy does contain a restriction on sexual images. I know there’s been talk about this before, with regard to its appropriateness for presentations on sexuality. All I have to say is that there will be plenty of time to change the policy if and when the Minnesota Atheists overcome their institutional conservatism enough to host presentations that would require such a change.
Then, yesterday, I got more good news. Tanya Smith of Atheist Alliance International sent me an email to let me know that they have adopted a policy for conventions. Their situation is a little unusual, though that’s true of every group that has adopted a policy. AAI doesn’t directly host conferences. Instead it works with local groups, who are the actual conference hosts. It intends to work with these groups to have policies in place for all its conferences as well.
This means that the AAI policy is public in all its details. You can read the definition given for harassment. You can look at the examples. You can see how they intend to administer the policy and how they intend for violators to be treated.
Once again, I’m generally happy with these policies. I’m very happy that progress continues to be made on this issue.
*cheers*
..okay, I actually linked a comment in Jason’s timeline THEN cheered, but still. ~;>
Thank you so much for leading this charge.
I love AAI’s version.
AAI’s actually got the first example AFAIK of a policy about handling information gathered from harassment complaints.
as far as I can tell, that seems like a good way to address the conflicting principles involved.
(posted on Pharyngula too, now I’ll behave)
…Wow. The AAI policy is heavy-duty. Obviously they’ve synthesized many of the best points raised over the months of ongoing discussion. I highly recommend checking it out.
For example, their version of the no-hug rule:
and this… (emphasis mine)
They laid it out. They LAID IT OUT in plain text that speakers will be expected to comply, too, or else. Wow.
Woohoo! Thunderfoot can suck our collective metaphorical cocks!
It smells like… victory.
One day this war will end…
You mean two more personal attacks against TAM, right? Spiteful little policy creators, all. </snarkasm> (just to be clear)
Another day, another policy, another email asking that age be included in the list of protected characteristics. Good policy otherwise, though.