[TriLUG] Palmer for another SC term; proposed amendment to the bylaws

matt at noway2.thruhere.net matt at noway2.thruhere.net
Thu Apr 25 16:47:59 EDT 2013


> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:27:17 -0400
> James Jones <jc.jones at tuftux.com> wrote:
>
>> If we have to make rules for decent behavior, then perhaps we should
>> all stay at home.
>
> I just read the policy at http://trilug.org/anti-harassment, and it
> looks pretty innocuous to me. (snip)
I have a question.

I read the policy too, and I agree that it looks pretty innocuous.  I also
read the blog, though I haven't read all the links in detail.  I
understand and appreciate the reasoning needing / wanting a policy; to
court sponsors.  The obvious difficulty in any policy of this sort is the
dividing line between a hostile environment and the (incorrect in my
opinion) "I have a right to not ever be offended" view.

In the blog, there is the line, "they won’t sponsor events that don’t have
and enforce a zero-tolerance policy on harassment."

My question is does this policy fit the exacting standard above?  Is it
sufficient or does it leave too much wiggle room?

I get really concerned when I see the term "zero tolerance" because it has
become a euphemism for zero sense and that it becomes a means for people
to avoid having to use reason and accept responsibility.



More information about the TriLUG mailing list