How to manage fallout from misconduct at a conference
August 2, 2024 5:03 AM Subscribe
I banned a company from our community discord, events, and incubator for disruptive misogynist behaviour of one of their team members at a conference. What now?
I'm a community organiser for the games industry in my country, and I also co-run an incubator and events space. Last year during a major industry conference, one of the attendees repeatedly made very misogynistic comments in the Q&A sessions after talks. He was there with two other people from his company, who sat passively by.
I recently discovered that his company has been active in our community discord, including posting job openings. Given their public behaviour, I decided to ban them from both the discord and our in-person events. They reacted to this by making excuses, then by claiming that they had discussed and solved this guy's behaviour internally, and finally by attempting to bypass the decision by invoking their relationships with other members of the incubator's board.
I've discussed my decision with the other board members and they back me up.
When it comes to the misbehaving individual, it's clear for me that he is not welcome in our community. We have plenty of female, trans and non-binary members and don't want to let someone in who will behave like this towards them. But the situation with the company is more tricky: as far as I can tell, this is an important team member for their small company, but it's important to me that for the health of our industry, such behaviour is not simply tolerated.
So the question is, what do we tell them? Is there some way for the company to make amends? What's a way of handling this that also sets a good pattern for dealing with future incidents of this kind?
Note that I'm not interested in replies making excuses for the behaviour of the individual or the company.
I'm a community organiser for the games industry in my country, and I also co-run an incubator and events space. Last year during a major industry conference, one of the attendees repeatedly made very misogynistic comments in the Q&A sessions after talks. He was there with two other people from his company, who sat passively by.
I recently discovered that his company has been active in our community discord, including posting job openings. Given their public behaviour, I decided to ban them from both the discord and our in-person events. They reacted to this by making excuses, then by claiming that they had discussed and solved this guy's behaviour internally, and finally by attempting to bypass the decision by invoking their relationships with other members of the incubator's board.
I've discussed my decision with the other board members and they back me up.
When it comes to the misbehaving individual, it's clear for me that he is not welcome in our community. We have plenty of female, trans and non-binary members and don't want to let someone in who will behave like this towards them. But the situation with the company is more tricky: as far as I can tell, this is an important team member for their small company, but it's important to me that for the health of our industry, such behaviour is not simply tolerated.
So the question is, what do we tell them? Is there some way for the company to make amends? What's a way of handling this that also sets a good pattern for dealing with future incidents of this kind?
Note that I'm not interested in replies making excuses for the behaviour of the individual or the company.
You tell them that the problematic employee is not welcome at events or to share in community resources, and that if it's a problem for their business, it's their problem to solve. You tell them that if any other employees evince the same behaviour, their participation will also be banned. Just like anyone from any other company.
You are enforcing a boundary. Do not softpedal it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:16 AM on August 2, 2024 [42 favorites]
You are enforcing a boundary. Do not softpedal it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:16 AM on August 2, 2024 [42 favorites]
You sound like you have handled it well. They are now trying to wear you down by sucking up your time and energy (that could be spent on more worthy companies!).
You decision is final and any entreaty should be met with “no, that isn’t possible.”
posted by saucysault at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
You decision is final and any entreaty should be met with “no, that isn’t possible.”
posted by saucysault at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
I guess you might also be asking if there's a way for the person to be redeemed in the eyes of your organization, to perhaps take a class, or promise good behaviour, and the answer is absolutely not.
As a community organizer you're responsible for the health and wellbeing of many, many people. Your job is risk reduction, enforcement of boundaries, and creating a safe environment.
You don't let known shitty people back into a safe environment even if they "promise to be nice." Because then you are signing your self up for policing their behaviour at a micro-management level. You will also be scaring off any people who previously thought you were creating a safe space who now see a known problem back in their safe space.
It is not worth it. Hundreds of similar experiences with fan conventions all over the world agree: kick them out permanently, no matter how powerful they are. The loss of trust from vulnerable attendees is never, ever worth whatever advantage this one person could bring.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:46 AM on August 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
As a community organizer you're responsible for the health and wellbeing of many, many people. Your job is risk reduction, enforcement of boundaries, and creating a safe environment.
You don't let known shitty people back into a safe environment even if they "promise to be nice." Because then you are signing your self up for policing their behaviour at a micro-management level. You will also be scaring off any people who previously thought you were creating a safe space who now see a known problem back in their safe space.
It is not worth it. Hundreds of similar experiences with fan conventions all over the world agree: kick them out permanently, no matter how powerful they are. The loss of trust from vulnerable attendees is never, ever worth whatever advantage this one person could bring.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:46 AM on August 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
It is definitely possible (and appropriate) to do business with a company and say that the specific individual is not welcome to be involved in any way. In fact, that is probably what you should’ve done in the first place.
It’s tempting to persecute the company so that they in turn will persecute the individual, but unless that’s the specific business that you are in it would be an unnecessary distraction and drain on your resources.
You have made clear to the individual that their behavior is unacceptable and has consequences. By excluding that person, you have also made clear to the company that they are a liability. Your involvement should end there.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:49 AM on August 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
It’s tempting to persecute the company so that they in turn will persecute the individual, but unless that’s the specific business that you are in it would be an unnecessary distraction and drain on your resources.
You have made clear to the individual that their behavior is unacceptable and has consequences. By excluding that person, you have also made clear to the company that they are a liability. Your involvement should end there.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:49 AM on August 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
What's a way of handling this that also sets a good pattern for dealing with future incidents of this kind?
Do you have a formal anti-harassment policy? Because this could be an opportunity to formalize expectations and create a charter where your partner organizations sign on when they join the Discord/event. You could ask this company to sign it first and also promote that they support it, and let the company back in. It also gives everyone a set way to deal with this issues in the future.
I think the step you may have missed from your summary was discussing the breach in behaviour before you banned the company in other contexts. I don’t think they are owed access to your members, but I think it’s professional to raise the issue and settle the boundaries at the time of the incident, not be unclear about consequences and then ban them after. This isn’t necessarily a big deal here, but it’s a good practice
The danger will be that you don’t want it to look like you’re endorsing those job postings under this umbrella, since it’s likely there are still issues under the hood.
As for the individual, I’d keep him banned.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:54 AM on August 2, 2024 [15 favorites]
Do you have a formal anti-harassment policy? Because this could be an opportunity to formalize expectations and create a charter where your partner organizations sign on when they join the Discord/event. You could ask this company to sign it first and also promote that they support it, and let the company back in. It also gives everyone a set way to deal with this issues in the future.
I think the step you may have missed from your summary was discussing the breach in behaviour before you banned the company in other contexts. I don’t think they are owed access to your members, but I think it’s professional to raise the issue and settle the boundaries at the time of the incident, not be unclear about consequences and then ban them after. This isn’t necessarily a big deal here, but it’s a good practice
The danger will be that you don’t want it to look like you’re endorsing those job postings under this umbrella, since it’s likely there are still issues under the hood.
As for the individual, I’d keep him banned.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:54 AM on August 2, 2024 [15 favorites]
Came here to say what warriorqueen just said - it sounds like your community is in need of a conduct of behavior policy for conferences, discord, etc. This shouldn't just be drafted by one person - and you'll want to make sure the different demographics in your community have a say - in groups I've been in, these are usually drafted by a committee, sometimes they'll solicit comments on the first draft from membership. Ideally it's not just a code of conduct but also lays out what the penalties will be, how they'll be determined, what forms of restitution might be available, etc.
posted by coffeecat at 6:07 AM on August 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 6:07 AM on August 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
For the company specifically, would it be helpful for your community if they were suspended rather than banned?
This way your organization can ban the individual for their actions, and enforce consequences on the company for the actions of their employee, without eliminating them completely from all future participation.
In the anti-harassment policy or code of conduct your organization develops (as suggested above), you could specify that terminating the suspension requires some kind of policy update or report from the company that describes how they will prevent - or at least deter - future misconduct by their employees.
posted by keeo at 6:29 AM on August 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
This way your organization can ban the individual for their actions, and enforce consequences on the company for the actions of their employee, without eliminating them completely from all future participation.
In the anti-harassment policy or code of conduct your organization develops (as suggested above), you could specify that terminating the suspension requires some kind of policy update or report from the company that describes how they will prevent - or at least deter - future misconduct by their employees.
posted by keeo at 6:29 AM on August 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
If I was a member of your community, I would prefer that the entire company remain banned. If they haven't taken any meaningful action against the bad actor and he remains in a position of power within the company, then any job postings the company posts in your community will inevitably lead to members of your community having to work with/for the bad actor. Alternatives include taking away their job posting privileges, making them post all their jobs with an asterisk, or trying to whisper network around not to take jobs at the company; it seems simpler and safest for the members of your community to just to avoid the problem entirely by keeping them banned.
posted by jordemort at 9:16 AM on August 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by jordemort at 9:16 AM on August 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Did your conference have a code of conduct? I am struck by the idea that certain problematic behaviors should have been called out by this person's coworkers rather than by the conference organizers. If the poorly-behaving person was a company leader, for example, I wouldn't expect a junior employee or one who had never been at the conference to step in and correct their boss. A code of conduct can go a long way towards setting expectations and giving all attendees and organizers a roadmap for what after if there's a violation or potential violation--and who is responsible for this work.
It sounds like no one, not coworkers or other attendees, addressed the behavior of this person at the event. And then, after the event, you banned the whole company from participating in online spaces, even when the behavior was fine . This seems not quite right to me, honestly.
I would think that this situation might trigger you all to look at your conference organization itself, to figure out how to hold someone responsible for their behavior in the moment (perhaps by removing them from the event).
Blaming this person's coworkers, and banning the whole company, seems to me an way to remove responsibility from the organizers, who didn't handle the conference itself well.
I note that you keep saying both he (referring to the person who was saying misogynistic statements) and they (referring to the whole company). I think part of the problem is that you are conflating both these things.
Perhaps the right decision is to ban (or suspend) the company, but you don't have a roadmap or plan for either the individual or the company. You can't exactly do a retroactive enforcement of a non-existent code of conduct, but I think it would serve you well to figure out how to interrupt this kind of behavior in the moment at future events. I also would urge you to consider (for example) what it might mean to ban a whole company for the misbehavior of one person. What if another member of the company is the victim of the harassment at the conference? Would you still ban the whole company, including the victim?
It's great that you are taking this seriously, but I think you all need to have some more conversations and read up on codes of conduct and decide if you want to hold the individual responsible for his behavior, or the company as a whole, and what each of those things means for everyone else.
posted by bluedaisy at 11:54 AM on August 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
It sounds like no one, not coworkers or other attendees, addressed the behavior of this person at the event. And then, after the event, you banned the whole company from participating in online spaces, even when the behavior was fine . This seems not quite right to me, honestly.
I would think that this situation might trigger you all to look at your conference organization itself, to figure out how to hold someone responsible for their behavior in the moment (perhaps by removing them from the event).
Blaming this person's coworkers, and banning the whole company, seems to me an way to remove responsibility from the organizers, who didn't handle the conference itself well.
I note that you keep saying both he (referring to the person who was saying misogynistic statements) and they (referring to the whole company). I think part of the problem is that you are conflating both these things.
Perhaps the right decision is to ban (or suspend) the company, but you don't have a roadmap or plan for either the individual or the company. You can't exactly do a retroactive enforcement of a non-existent code of conduct, but I think it would serve you well to figure out how to interrupt this kind of behavior in the moment at future events. I also would urge you to consider (for example) what it might mean to ban a whole company for the misbehavior of one person. What if another member of the company is the victim of the harassment at the conference? Would you still ban the whole company, including the victim?
It's great that you are taking this seriously, but I think you all need to have some more conversations and read up on codes of conduct and decide if you want to hold the individual responsible for his behavior, or the company as a whole, and what each of those things means for everyone else.
posted by bluedaisy at 11:54 AM on August 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
I don’t think I can say this hard enough: your decision to go after the company is on very shaky moral ground.
So, first you stop your collective punishment and possibly apologize.
Second, just permanently ban the person and get on with your day. If this was a fan convention then setting up processes and review boards etc. would be worth the time but you’re running a business conference here and there is no need for that sort of overhead. Publish a list of expectations that tells people they will no longer be welcome if they break them and move on.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:00 PM on August 2, 2024
Collective punishment is a punishment or sanction imposed on a group or whole community for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member of that group. […] Because individuals who are not responsible for the acts are targeted, collective punishment is not compatible with the basic principle of individual responsibility.You are punishing people for supposed complicity in something they had nothing to do with, and that is not something society approves of even in the most dire circumstances.
Collective punishment is prohibited by treaty in both international and non-international armed conflicts, more specifically Common Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol II.
So, first you stop your collective punishment and possibly apologize.
Second, just permanently ban the person and get on with your day. If this was a fan convention then setting up processes and review boards etc. would be worth the time but you’re running a business conference here and there is no need for that sort of overhead. Publish a list of expectations that tells people they will no longer be welcome if they break them and move on.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:00 PM on August 2, 2024
A Code of Conduct with no processes attached to it might as well not exist and will be extremely hackable/rules-lawyerable (example, with warnings for sexual harassment and abuse). A nonzero number of conferences in my field faceplanted because of this -- basically there was a CoC incident and nobody knew what to do about it! One such conference ceased operations entirely because the community no longer trusted its organizers with their safety. (Caveat: I'm in a majority non-male profession.)
At minimum, there needs to be a responsible officer-of-the-day person to cope with CoC reports in the moment. They need to know how to help the target, what their options are for dealing with the perpetrator, and who they can call on for backup if they need to. It also doesn't hurt to have a post-conference blameless post-mortem process for evaluating what happened and figuring out how to do better next time if necessary.
The erstwhile Frame Shift Consulting has a handbook that may be useful to you if you go in this direction.
posted by humbug at 1:25 PM on August 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
At minimum, there needs to be a responsible officer-of-the-day person to cope with CoC reports in the moment. They need to know how to help the target, what their options are for dealing with the perpetrator, and who they can call on for backup if they need to. It also doesn't hurt to have a post-conference blameless post-mortem process for evaluating what happened and figuring out how to do better next time if necessary.
The erstwhile Frame Shift Consulting has a handbook that may be useful to you if you go in this direction.
posted by humbug at 1:25 PM on August 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
Keep in mind that if they disciplined the guy, including firing him, they may not be willing to say that publicly. People generally don't want employers broadcasting their personal HR/disciplinary stuff to the general public, or even to the organization as a whole.
I agree with others saying to ban this particular individual but get a policy in place that you can ask the company, and everyone else, to adhere to (and that you shouldn't have banned the full company in the first place, unless this guy was the owner or CEO or something).
posted by lapis at 2:26 PM on August 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
I agree with others saying to ban this particular individual but get a policy in place that you can ask the company, and everyone else, to adhere to (and that you shouldn't have banned the full company in the first place, unless this guy was the owner or CEO or something).
posted by lapis at 2:26 PM on August 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
I think it makes sense to have different punishments for an organization vs an individual.
Since the specific people in an organization can change, I think it makes sense to make a ban on an organization to be for a fixed period of time and not indefinite. Like tell them they are suspended from participating for a year and they should use that time to teach the members of their organization how to act.
If the individual offender's behavior is bad enough, then it might make sense to issue a lifetime ban against that person regardless of which organization they're affiliated with.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:22 PM on August 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
Since the specific people in an organization can change, I think it makes sense to make a ban on an organization to be for a fixed period of time and not indefinite. Like tell them they are suspended from participating for a year and they should use that time to teach the members of their organization how to act.
If the individual offender's behavior is bad enough, then it might make sense to issue a lifetime ban against that person regardless of which organization they're affiliated with.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:22 PM on August 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
The elements you wrote in this paragraph seem to be critical points on which I might base my decision. Their response appears to be a boilerplate. They also said that this person was an essential member of their team. My response would be to notify them that this person is no longer welcome to any of your collaborative events. Should they not want to do that (for whatever reasons), I would exclude the company from these events. I'm not sure that I would go so far as to suggest that they fire this person.
You indicated that the company displays certain practices your community finds unacceptable. It may be that this "important" person leads the way and that the company might be willing to move toward a more enlightened perspective if that person were not influencing them. This is not your problem to solve. Suppose your dialogue with that company's contact person can't assure you they can make this change (getting out from under this "important" person's influence). In that case, I see no way for you to effectively do your job under your community's guidelines without excluding the company from your community's events.
In any event, this person should not be part of your community's collective processes, nor should you assume the responsibility of constantly vetting this person's comments.
posted by mule98J at 10:32 AM on August 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
You indicated that the company displays certain practices your community finds unacceptable. It may be that this "important" person leads the way and that the company might be willing to move toward a more enlightened perspective if that person were not influencing them. This is not your problem to solve. Suppose your dialogue with that company's contact person can't assure you they can make this change (getting out from under this "important" person's influence). In that case, I see no way for you to effectively do your job under your community's guidelines without excluding the company from your community's events.
In any event, this person should not be part of your community's collective processes, nor should you assume the responsibility of constantly vetting this person's comments.
posted by mule98J at 10:32 AM on August 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, I forgot to cite the paragraph I referenced.
I recently discovered that his company has been active in our community discord, including posting job openings. Given their public behaviour, I decided to ban them from both the discord and our in-person events. They reacted to this by making excuses, then by claiming that they had discussed and solved this guy's behaviour internally, and finally by attempting to bypass the decision by invoking their relationships with other members of the incubator's board.
posted by mule98J at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2024
I recently discovered that his company has been active in our community discord, including posting job openings. Given their public behaviour, I decided to ban them from both the discord and our in-person events. They reacted to this by making excuses, then by claiming that they had discussed and solved this guy's behaviour internally, and finally by attempting to bypass the decision by invoking their relationships with other members of the incubator's board.
posted by mule98J at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2024
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by humbug at 5:15 AM on August 2, 2024