Code of Conduct

[Colin Clark]

There are some very good ideas in here, and it's a really interesting discussion.

Intent is a tricky thing to interpret, as you know. We've all experienced intentionally aggressive or hurtful comments that start with "No offence, but..." And it's easy for people to hide behind patterns of aggressive or exclusionary behaviour with the assertion "That's not what I intended." This is, indeed, a common pattern in abusive situations—the desire to be recognized within an abstract system of intent rather than real, recurring behaviours. It seems to me (and I think you might be saying this too) that we should try to avoid measuring the unmeasurable of intent, and instead simply try to address those relatively rare, specific cases of actions that are not consistent with our community's values.

In a contribution-oriented community—strange though it may sound—I think intent has to be understood as an effect rather than a cause (as in, one's intent is not a cause of one's actions, but instead is the product of actions over time). I think Michelle was getting at the importance of recognizing that certain actions can open the sphere of mutual and safe collaboration, dissent, disagreement, while some others can foreclose or antagonize it. The question for us all in a community is how can we better and more mutually act, adjust, respond, and empathize over time to each individual in our communities, and to make sure that the patterns of behaviour that prevent this are recognized and addressed without stigmatization? I think that's exactly your point about why it's important for a code of conduct to be relatively clear in scope and to address specific kinds of behaviour, am I right?

This idea of how "Shawn M" can be included in our community is quite fascinating, although possibly a distraction to the issue at hand. What's at stake here isn't whether or not there is room in our community for debate, disagreement, and personal challenge, disruption, and growth. That's a given—it's absolutely crucial. Clearly the potential for Shawn M to be included (at least in spirit) is right here in this thread, illustrated by our willingness to engage with the substance of his ideas, regardless of how problematic they might seem (or not). To recognize their privilege and simultaneously see the genuine opportunity in them to help amplify or transform our strategies for including different perspectives. In this case, to do so, one has to unpack things like the distracting dichotomy that has been set up in the blog post between "free speech" and "taking offence," and instead consider non-binary models that will help to generate positive strategies for enabling more and different voices, not just the dominant ones that I think we can all acknowledge have become particularly loud and concerning in our current political climate.

Can you suggest some concrete additions we could make to a code of conduct that would address the issue you're raising here, Jess? I think, if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying something to the effect of "Diversity is messy, and there should always be room for that messiness without having to always worry about the invocation rules of conduct or appeals to abstract values?"

Colin



> On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> More Yes-and(ery),
> 
> In the spirit of being fond of disagreement, perhaps Shawn M has some interesting points that, if nothing else, could help us sculpt our CoC to address often lobbed criticisms. He’s open to "learning about other people’s thoughts” and so are we! And at least “agree[s] with most of the Open Code of Conduct." It’s at least a point of commonality from which we might have some understanding of his points. Awareness of systemic inequality is throbbing through our thoughts and all of our work — with that in mind, I think Shawn M is saying that intent matters and immeasurables are hard to see and agree on. Which presumably is why many of the CoC are explicit. 
> 
> Presumably Shawn M is fond of open debate and disagreement (like Dawkins and Hitchens). We too are fond of that and building a CoC that creates the healthy, inclusive, supportive conditions for that sounds like a good goal. As JT says in her class, ‘expect to be offended, expect to disagree, and do it in a productive way’ — I think we’d want Shawn M to be interested in joining our community, wouldn’t we?
> 
> Best,
> Jess
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> From my perspective, this blog post really reflects some nasty and conflationary thinking, though it might seem subtle at first. This invocation of the trope of "political correctness" is always a marker of privilege. And it's a reminder of how privileged thinking is so often unable to even recognize or confront itself. One of the counterintuitive aspects of inequality it that often *seems* so equal—but only to some. 
>> 
>> Remember, as the quote from one of the CoCs Jess suggested reminds us: our community's social engagements are always sedimented in the power structures and asymmetry of the culture it is embedded in. To say things like "To be offended is a choice" is to entirely overlook the systemic nature of inequality: when you live and experience it every day, you don't have the freedom to choose whether or not to "just" be offended. Choosing not to be or respond in some way is a privilege reserved for those who have power. Freedom of speech and action needs to be inclusive of everyone's sense of freedom and safety.
>> 
>> Here are a couple of links that may help to break down the logics of privilege that I see at work in parts of the blog post you mentioned:
>> 
>> http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/10/complaints-about-political-correctness/
>> http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/your-racist-jokes-arent-funny/
>> 
>> Mistakes and oversights happen, and are not really what a code of conduct is all about. But it is when those things are systemically ignored or excused and allowed to accumulate that we risk creating a culture in which the most crucial members of our community—those who bring the different, otherwise marginalized, and unique perspectives that we need most as designers—may feel uncomfortable to speak or to contribute.
>> 
>