Thanks for expanding on your thoughts, Indiana. And, yes, openly talking about this so even the average attendee could get a clue that this might be an issue if she does a search on these conferences while planning to attend one — I imagine that will be a big help.

I tried to narrow down some names by asking for those speakers who are gentlemen, and was told by other commenters that it wasn’t helping and I should be banned from further posting.

It’s much easier to be comfortable with a secret being kept if you’re one of the ones that knows the secret.

(And incidentally, “blaming a rape victim for not using a non-existent support structure”? Really? Is that the straw man you people are going with? What I spoke out against was not reporting when a support structure exists. In the rape analogy case that you’re distorting, that was obviously the justice system. I didn’t stress the point that a reporting system has to exist before one is obligated to report because it seemed so obvious a child could figure that out, but alright, fine – I guess I should have made that more clear. Obviously if no reporting system exists, then no one can be blamed for not reporting, duh. But when one exists, one is obligated to use it to protect future victims. (And, relevantly, one is also obligated to inform other victims and potential victims about it, rather than keeping it to oneself and one’s privileged circle.))

You’re more than welcome to your opinions, but there’s only one name being dragged through the mud here. It ain’t yours.

But if it makes you feel any better, I’ll disengage now. Keep blaming and slurring the victims all you like. You’ll get no further resistance from me.

I think the most important change is not actually the procedural details of conference organization, it’s the fact that everything’s public now, and people are talking about it. That is what is really going to make it harder on the jerks, and easier on the potential victims – especially those potential victims who weren’t privileged enough to be part of the secret support network.

But if you were to ask me what I would do – what steps I would take – if I had the power and clout? I think what I’d do is get one of the big organizations – like CFI in Canada, for example – to start maintaining a speaker database (ideally as part of a collection of tools that can be used by conference organizers). When a speaker behaves badly at a conference, and reports are made to the conference organizers, they should duly register all the complaints with the database. At the same time, private attendees should also register their complaints – possibly assisted by the conference organizers when they make complaints to them. Then when the next conference organizer is planning their speaker list, they can check with the database to see what kinds of issues have been had with this speaker in the past. This wouldn’t be an open database, of course. The only people who can get information about the behaviour of a given speaker are representatives of a conference that speaker has been invited to attend. So basically, the procedure is: The conference planner asks a speaker to attend, but notes that their attendance is conditional on the results from the speaker’s database, so their acceptance must be accompanied by permission to retrieve information about them. The speaker agrees to attend, and informs the database holder that they give the conference planner permission to view their info. The conference planner views their info, and if there are any red flags, discusses them with the speaker. If they don’t get satisfactory explanations, or if the speaker refuses to agree to allow their info to be checked, the speaker can be declined (or, if the conference planner still really wants them, they can be escorted at all times by a chaperone).

With that system in place, the next step is to get the conference organizers to trumpet loudly the fact that a functioning reporting system is available, so if anyone is harassed by any speakers, they should not hesitate to talk to a conference rep.

I think this balances privacy concerns, worries about slander lawsuits, and the safety and comfort of conference attendees. The database could, of course, allow anonymous reports to be filed, along with reports with a name and contact information. And speakers, while they don’t have control over what information goes in the database, have the ultimate decision about whether to allow someone to see their database info. (I suppose they could also have the power to put challenges to reports in their database, so a conference planner could see a speaker’s defence against the recorded charges as well. That way, if there’s like one or two reports – or a bunch by the same person – the speaker could defend themselves against being harassed by false reports. On the other hand, if there are a bunch of reports by different people, their defences would probably ring hollow.)

As I said, I’m not an event organizer, so maybe this isn’t a good idea. For me, the big change, the thing that will really help people, is getting the word out, not hoarding among your friends.

You don’t know me. I’m just an FTB reader and have been following this issue for a while. Not any kind of conference bigwig. Just a feminist and atheist and a person who thinks people have been too fearful about doing the right things for too long.

So what do you think of the proposed harassment policies?

Nance