Open letter to the Readercon board
I don't feel I need to recap the details of the Rene Walling Readercon harassment fiasco at this point. Here is Genevieve's post about the harassment, her post about Readercon's response, and Readercon's pathetic, enraging offical statement. Here also are links to Nick Mamatas's post on Readercon's response, his post on their statement, Matthew Cheney's resignation from the programming committee, and Rose Fox's statement of unhappiness.
An Open Letter to the Board of Readercon:
Apparently Readercon has changed their attitude toward harassment. Where previously I had been told that the head of con security would not allow a predator to ruin her con for any woman, it now seems that Readercon is reluctant to allow some woman-or, hell, a couple of women who have been harassed to ruin their con for a predator. After my experience, I feel betrayed and I feel that the positive things I've said to so many people about Readercon and their handling of Agassi's harassment of me are worthless, that I have misled people about Readercon.
I do not feel able to return to the con if they continue to stand by this appalling decision. Further, I had previously recommended a list of women academics who would make excellent panelists (there was a strange dearth of female academics this year). Those women would still make excellent panelists. But I feel that I need to contact them and tell them of what has happened before letting women I know, respect, and like walk into a con that holds the feelings and interests of a harasser above those of women, that cannot be relied upon to follow its own policies, and that cares so little for women that its board cannot be bothered even to mention Genevieve's feelings in its official statement regarding its decision-indeed, the board did not see fit to mention Genevieve at all in its statement. I suppose that compared to Rene Walling's no-doubt heartfelt and sincere apology (I would be sorry too if I were facing a lifelong ban), she just doesn't matter much.
If the board should see the error of their ways, ban Rene Walling for life, issue a formal, no-weaselling-out-of-it apology to Genevieve and to all the other women whose interests they betrayed, and if those members responsible for this travesty resign, I could reconsider. Even then, though, I would do so only if Genevieve herself feels that their actions have been sufficient. Genevieve supported me absolutely, and I will do no less for her.
I want to address a few things, here. First, I'd like to address the Board's stated reason for abrogating its explicitly stated policy of zero tolerance for harassers, a policy I was always pleased to see displayed so prominently. The state reason is that Walling is just so very, very, very sorry about what he has done. There are a few things wrong with this reason.
One is that it is irrelevant. Walling's feelings should not take priority over Genevieve's. Part of the problem was that he did not understand that his so-called “regret” (I'm sure he's very sorry he got caught) did not give him the right to demand her time and attention yet again; his “regret” entitles him to fuck-all. His intent, his regret, his potential to learn-he is not the protagonist here. He is not the most important person. His feelings are immaterial. The feelings that matter are the feelings of Genevieve and of every other woman who wants to be able to attend a con without looking over her shoulder for fear of being grabbed, groped, or informed about Walling's dirty thoughts.
But here is another thing that is wrong with this stated reason. If the stated reason for the board's negligible response to Walling's actions is that he is very, very sorry for what he has done, then the board is either lying, or the board is stupid. What did the board think would happen when Walling was contacted? Did they think he would twirl his mustache while cackling evilly about how the bitch deserved it, and he would do it again, mwa ha ha? Of course he has said he is sorry. He wants to avoid the consequences of what he did.
Further, while the board was so impressed with Walling's apology, they never even followed up with Kate Kligman, who bravely contacted them to inform them of the even worse harassment she had endured at the hands of Walling, harassment that forced her to withdraw from a convention she had previously worked on and that persisted nonetheless. Why is Kligman's voice so inessential, while Walling's is so important that it caused the board to flout its own policy?
Is the board stupid? The board counts B. Diane Martin as a member, and when I met her four years ago, when she was part of the team that responded so promptly and wonderfully to my harassment, she did not seem so. She did not seem to be incapable of understanding that people who want to get out of trouble are capable of lying.
So is the board lying?
Genevieve does not feel it is right to discuss in detail what was said to her during her final phone call with Ms. Martin, beyond noting that the board refused to explain its reasons and deliberations, but I have some...strong suspicions.
Aaron Agassi has been well known and loathed for, among other things, his predatory, threatening behavior toward women for years. It has been suggested that the zero-tolerance policy was specifically aimed at Agassi, that the con had just been waiting to throw him out, and that I merely provided a convenient excuse. I hate to think that; the experience of being believed and validated and supported was such a powerful one for me that I hate to have it undercut like that. But in the wake of Readercon's utter fuck-up surrounding Walling's behavior, I cannot discount it out of hand.
Walling, on the other hand, is some big wheel in fandom, chairing cons, running committees, things of that nature. As far as I am concerned, this makes it all the more imperative that we, as a community, protect women from him. A harasser with power is the most dangerous kind. But who knows whom he knows on the board? Agassi had no connections. Walling is, apparently, some kind of big deal. He's a big enough deal that apparently his apology carries weight equal to Genevieve's testimony, her eye-witnesses, and Kate Kligman's evidence that this is the latest in a pattern of behavior.
Let me also point out this: according to this post, the board interviewed character witnesses for Walling, but nobody followed up with Kate Kligman. Establishing his character by talking to his friends is just so much more relevant than discussing a history of harassment and stalking, isn't it?
It is much easier to ban somebody for life when it's somebody nobody has any reason to want around, isn't it?
I would like to live in a world in which a woman who comes to the aid of a friend and advocates for her when that friend is unable or unwilling to do so for herself is understood to be a hero and a pillar of the community. Unfortunately, I know what kind of world I do live in. I live in a world in which a woman who has been involved in one report of sexual harassment, even years previous, is automatically suspect if she becomes involved in another report, because clearly she's just over-reacting, right? I mean, you know women, always shouting their heads off about the least little thing (not true, of course, and you can see my previous post about how hard it is to come forward), probably she's just over-sensitive, just reporting sexual harassment whenever some guy glances at her, right? Because how likely is it that a woman's friend would be harassed and stalked by some guy, and then, four years later, that woman herself would be harassed and grabbed?
How likely? Very likely.
I sincerely hope that this suspicion curdling in my mind is only a suspicion; I sincerely hope it is not an accurate assessment of the board's “reasoning.” Because otherwise I would feel-I would be-implicated in the board's decision not to respect my friend's experiences or to support and protect her. And the message the board would be sending to women would be “you get only one chance.” And every woman who still attends Readercon after this debacle would have to think, when she was harassed “Is this harassment bad enough? Do I want to use my one chance on this, or should I wait for something worse to happen?”
Do I make a better victim than Genevieve? I am significantly more “girly” than she is; I have long hair, I wear skirts and dresses regularly, I wear heels, I am slightly built and look fairly weak. When I was harassed, I responded with the stereotypical feminine-socialization affect. I didn't want to bother anybody. I didn't want to escalate. I didn't want to cause trouble. I felt ashamed. I hid in the ladies' room for half an hour because I was frightened, I was prepared to have lunch in my room rather than have to be followed by Agassi again, and I felt too timid (not a word I generally associate with myself) even to go to the concom myself; Genevieve stepped in and, with my permission, did it for me while I sat anxiously in the lobby hoping that Agassi did not show up in the five minutes she was away. I did not come forward publicly.
Genevieve, on the other hand, is someone I deeply admire and find heroic precisely because she is brave and forthright and unintimidated. She responded directly and clearly to Walling; she physically rebuffed his physical advances; she filed a report with concom as soon as she could; she went public as soon as the report was filed, thus warning other women of and alerting the entire community to Walling's behavior. She wears her hair in a bob, she eschews skirts, and she is physically significantly stronger than I am.
Does that make Genevieve less sympathetic to the board? Is she not playing her role “properly”? Is she being punished for going public instead of letting Readercon sweep this incident under the rug?
The board also informed Genevieve that it is “rewriting” its policy. Why? Did the board not understand what “zero tolerance” and “lifelong ban” meant before this year? Did it not occur to the board that even a man with connections might harass women? And who will be involved with this revision? Will I be? Genevieve? Kate Kligman? Any woman who has experienced harassment and needed the support of the con? Or will it be another closed affair, with a public statement being issued only if the public brings enough pressure to bear?
Enough. I'm livid and I'm disgusted. The only heartening thing about this affair is the staunch support Genevieve has received from the community, and that community's opposition to your misguided decision and your outrageous official statement.
Sincerely,
Veronica Schanoes
Now, what actions can we take regarding this? I've seen so many people declare that they will not attend Readercon again, as panelists or as audience members, or that they had been considering going but now will not. Would anybody be interested in working with me to write up a formal letter to that effect and garnering signatures? I'm also interested in what the Burlington Mariott might have to say about this. Do they know that they may well lose serious revenue over this, if/when Readercon loses attendees? The head of hotel security was wonderful four years ago, when I was harassed, and he was very serious about not letting that sort of thing happen again. What if we contact them? Might the hotel ban Walling?