Thanks Aaron, I guess i feel a little defensive about the reverse-isms. Reverse sexism means MEN, reverse racism means WHITE, cysphobia means HETERO. That’s me and a lot of other people here. It’s easy to feel prejudged and targeted.
One can be a straight white male and not be a racist, sexist homophobe. The wording in code of conduct does not give that benefit of the doubt and I think therein lies the nerve that was hit.
Hmm, would it be fair to say you worry the wording in this code of conduct could be used against you?
Are their any situations or specific issues that come to mind?
No i think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I do understand where you’re coming from, benefit of a doubt wise but are you directly worried the COC will be used against you for current or previous behaviors?
Or used against you at all?
My other line of thought is, how do you feel this COC removes benefit of doubt?
Its not about me; just trying to help explain why some people are upset about certain parts.
"MakeICT prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. The Board of Directors reserves the right not to act on complaints regarding:
The board can act or not act on whatever it wants–yet they felt the need to leave this paragraph in. Why?
It doesnt seem like equal treatment. Hopefully you read through all the previous posts for clarification on why some people are upset.
Not trying to beat the dead horse, and i have to get back to work. The COC is passed and not perfect imo. I hope everone is treated fairly and there are minimal incidents and complaints in the organization!
I did but I do seek further clarification. I understand if you do not have the time. Have a good day at work.
I will try to message you later
No need, I do encourage you to join us at the next meeting.
I have a major issues with the newly passed “policy” that i brought up at the board meeting and i was totally ignored/ my opinion minimized. I do plan on attending future “anti discrimination” committee meetings, but i will address them here for the majority of members who can’t attend.
1 this policy effects our bylaws, article 3, section 5 membership rights and responsibilities. The board didn’t follow our bylaws when they accepted this “policy” which adds additional responsibilities to members.
2 this “policy” restricts free speech and sets up unfair reporting practices where no evidence is necessary and accused individuals don’t get to defend themselves, but the board gets to publically shame them.
3 when Ethan called the vote he didn’t call David Springs or Aaron Rivers, but both were present. Yet the vote was called unanimous?
To be abundantly clear i think we need an anti discrimination policy, but ramming this terrible policy forward was a bad decision that clearly went against the will of the organizations membership. Also, I am part of a very oppressed minority that is targeted and silenced by this document (a group that is vocal and very inclusive relating to a medical condition) and I have had insulting things said about it in the space. This document does nothing for me, or the insults said to me. In fact it implies that my condition cannot be spoken about in the space.
I was considering stepping into an area lead role, but I am now considering joining the anti-discrimination committee and the board this summer instead. It is clear to me that our current board is out of control and my help is needed much more there!
Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.
I take this to mean i can’t say something if someone else finds it “unwelcome”. This limits my speach and allows others to judge my lifestyle choices and practices.
I also didn’t see any “investigation process” mentioned nor do I see any details of how accused parties will be heard. Please show me those sections.
The “unwelcome comments” means other people aren’t allowed to criticize your lifestyle just as you shouldn’t criticize theirs. When speech crosses into hurting other people, it is not allowed. The First Amendment primarily applies to the government, which is why you can make fun of the US President all you want. You’re protected from criminal prosecution. However, private organizations have always been allowed to limit speech that hurts other people. You can be free to say anything, but you aren’t free from the consequences. That’s how Kanye just lost so many endorsements. This applies to other people speaking about you every bit as much as it applies to you.
The code of conduct is about expectations for members and who handles it. Because penalties are levied by the Board, they would be addressed in a separate document much like the Code of Ethics that is indicated as (was it Mike? who mentioned that in the meeting). This is how every single place of employment I’ve ever had handles it as well as nonprofits I’ve been involved with. When a separate committee is appointed, it will still need to be in a separate document from the code of conduct itself.
As current examples, please note the minutes from this meeting will include anonymized reports of how two members’ memberships were handled when suspension was involved. All parties have been spoken to and the names kept confidential because the safety of the membership does not require their being named. This Board has learned a lot about better handling situations in the 4 months we’ve had so far. That began with the Board criticizing itself internally, which you weren’t privy to.
This conversation is good for everyone, and yourself and everyone are still welcome at the committee meeting and to run for the Board.
The committee and the board members have been told publicly, privately and in these forum posts, that specific passages in the speech of the new policy are hurtful to members and why. The concerns have been brushed aside as ignored, irrelevant or ignorant. Therefore the policy and the defense of the policy are harassing to the offended members and according to the above quote “should not be allowed”
The wording in this policy is ambiguous and undefesible. I understand that “Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.” Could mean i cannot say offensive things about others, but it could also be interpreted to mean that I cannot talk about MY lifestyle choices and practices that someone else determines are “unwelcome”. This double meaning of “a person’s” is a great reason to give the greater membership a chance to reflect on the document.
I also understand my rights and the rights of the organization regarding free speach. I don’t think it’s illegal, just immoral to limit free speech and to publically name and accuse members of offenses without due process.
I also think it’s immoral to say that one groups complaints are more important than another(“prioritizing”), or that certain groups deserve less protection than others (“reverse-isms”)
I have read this policy up, down and sideways and still don’t see anything that says that accused members will be given a private opportunity to respond to accusations, or mention of any investigation beyond reporting like you said.
I appreciate that the board and the committee worked hard on this document. I have been to many board and committee meetings already. I just think this copy/ paste document should have been reviewed and vetted and that the members comments should have been considered before adopting a vague but broad “policy”.
This is for everyone in this thread who has opposed the Code of Conduct.
Yes, men may also identify as members of under-represented or marginalized groups at times. All communities are multidimensional, not limited to people with disabilities, veterans, first-gen college students, and LGBTQ+ individuals, among others. In this way, men may be members of an under-represented group as well.
I ask that you not answer here and think about what I’m about to ask. If you still have problems with the Code of Conduct as written, then come to the table with wording that would be more accommodating and more inclusive.
My question is as follows:
Wouldn’t you want your daughter (or wife, mother, niece, or LGBTQ cousin) to be in an environment where their perspective is valued, and they can thrive?
Good points Malissa and I agree whole heartedly that we need documented conduct expectations.
What concerned me were the devisive undefined labels, prioritizing one member’s concern over another, the lack of due process and the public naming of the accused. To that end I propose a code of conduct that focuses on excellence, privacy and the 3 nerd rule:
Make ICT Code of Conduct proposal
All Members are equal at MakeICT.
All Members/Makers/Participants are expected to treat all other Member/Makers/Participants at MakeICT with respect, dignity, courtesy and civility in all maters and encounters.
Be Excellent to each other.
Issues arising counter to this expectation may be addressed to the “Committee on In-Excellence”
Which will consist of at least 5 members
The committee will evaluate the concerns and may at their discretion council or interview any or all of the parties involved in an initial attempt to resolve the In-Excellence. Each such occurrence will be documented by the committee and all documentation, interviews, counseling, resolutions and participants will be confidential and private, accessible to only the committee and the Board. At least 3 committee members will be involved in each reported incident and resolution attempt.
If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, the committee may escalate the issue to a private executive session of the Board. The Board, at its discretion and consensus may then take any action at its disposal to resolve the matter including suspension and expulsion of the In-Excellent member.
This type of policy does not label members, does not prioritize members, does not recognize forward or reverse In-Excellence, does not subject the organization to libel or slander, and provides a semblance of due process.
I welcome any consideration by members or committees and especially comment from those that disagreed with the policy just adopted and find fault with this alternate proposal.
I’m excited for the next meeting, it looks like we’re going to have a lot of member input and many helping hands.
I do request that folks do some research on what’s needed for a code of conduct legally/otherwise before attending so we’re all on the same page.
We do have access to a book that offers guidance on setting these up, if anyone is interested in reviewing it before the meeting, please reach out and we’ll be sure to get you a copy.
In addition, if anyone has any guidance legal/otherwise they’d like to share, I’m open to that as well.
I can’t find anything regarding requirements by law on a code of conduct policy. Can you provide a link?
I think you asked someone above for examples where a policy like this runs afoul of fair and equal treatment (excuse me if it wasn’t you, this was a long read). I have a couple, though these are open to anyone.
Would a mens only group within the space be acceptable? I ask because this policy would make that discriminatory. 2. If not and women were to complain about a men’s only group would they be discouraged from caring and essentially encouraged to get over it? 3. What if the reasoning was that it encourages male makers?
If a member sees a man at the space dressed as a woman and they call him a man, repeatedly, regardless of circumstance or motive, is that discriminating or harassment under this policy? 5. If a person were to be discussing their beliefs on children choosing their gender (regardless of what those beliefs are), in any way around any member. Is it discriminatory if someone who doesn’t agree hears it and reports it? Does that discourage free thought in your opinion?
The Consequences section is essentially unlimited.
6. Imagine a person is drinking in the woodshop and only one member is around to see it and reports it (potentially getting the other banned from the space.) The drinker in response falsely accuses the reporter of lying and sexual harassment in order to keep their membership. Will the reporter have a public trial by the board - as we saw recently? The policy gives no answer. 6b. If your answer is that the board can ignore the false claim due to their “beliefs” then what will the boards “beliefs” be guided by? 7. Is there a circumstance you could foresee where a board could determine that a woman filing a sexual harassment claim was lying due to their “beliefs” even though they can’t possibly know or prove it? 7a If so, is that decision itself discriminatory under these policies?
Im sure i could go on but those are pretty major issues with this policy and I’ll be interested to see thoughtful responses.
Edit i don’t know why the forum formatted my post like this but it was automatic so… sorry about that.
A dead name is the birth name of somebody who has changed their name for whatever reason. The folks I know that have changed their name now refer that name as their name. None of them have jumped from name to name. As such, I show them respect and call them by their name.