theoretical question

[Guest guest]

This is a strictly theoretical question and does not in any way represent the views or intentions of NSPN. However, the participants in this forum represent a good cross-section of the type of people whom could be affected by this sort of situation, so I think it is a good place to get some feedback.

A friend and I are having a discussion about sexual harassment policies and the benefits and drawbacks of a private organization having one. (I am not speaking of workplaces because I believe these policies are mandated by Massachusetts state law.) If you were to see that an organization had a published policy stating that it does not permit sexual harassment would you:

a) think that the organization is being progressive and proactive in about this sensitive issue

feel that the organization has created this policy because of a history of problems with sexual harassment

c) be afraid that this policy could be applied in a heavy-handed way such that misunderstandings (or complete fabrications) lead to punishment without recourse

d) be more inclined to join or continue participating in this organization

e) be less inclined to join or contiue participating in this organization

f) other

Second question - do you think that publishing a policy might make some members less likely to sexually harass another member?

Third question - do you think that provacative questions that don't directly involve NSPN or paddling belong on the NSPN message board?

If anyone is interested in providing some feedback in a more private way, my user name is dee dawt hall and my domain is verizon dawt net. Ok, I am not from New Jersey, but this dawt looks cooler than daht.

Dee Hall

Impex Currituck, Blue over Smoky Ivory

[Guest guest]

#1) b, c, and e

#2) no, real sexual harassment is serial behaviour

#3) i feel the general message board should be open to whatever topic you want to raise. even if it's not a paddling topic, it'd be a topic shared among paddlers.

and re sexual harassment esp. in a private club, what's wrong with the old yankee tradition of telling the offending pig to F off and alerting your fellow club members of the abhorrent behaviour?

jay

[Guest guest]

So far the responses to these questions have been very interesting and not exactly as I expected. I think that I am going to compile (summarize) them and put them on a personal web page such that leaders in organizations can search for and use the results in whatever way might be helpful. Of course, all results will be kept confidential.

Keep 'em coming!

Dee Hall

Impex Currituck, Blue over Smoky Ivory

[buddy_hogan]

Dee,

Lets just take the sexual out of it and just say Harassment Policy.

It would still be b, c, e

But c for sure. Yep, C got a problem written all over it. Happens all the time. Especially if it is the Policy Writers that think they are harasses by a particular person. Why they can prohibit that person from doing a thing, anything they choose, and hide behind the policies they write. You see? That how it works in some circles.

==Buddy

[gerry s]

Can we say "Law Suit". Make something policy and in our society this just seems to open the flood gates to law suits. I think a lot of "harassment" sexual or otherwise is a matter of perspective. While some actions or words may be offensive to some the same actions or words may not be offensive to someone else. I'm sure that many offenders are unaware or ignorant that some of their actions or words are offensive. The workplace is totally different than when friends, ie. club members get together to have fun and comraderie. In the workplace there is the hierarchy of superior and subordinate with resultant expectations, perceived or otherwise, and potential consequences, ie. getting fired. But setting a policy in an organization like NSPN would only set up an antagonistic or defensive posture among members. With friends you have the choice to respond to the offending behavior or words or dissociate from the individual. Not so in the work place.

I for one would not be comfortable having a set policy and would have to reassess what this club means to me if we have to start implementing behavior policy. If there is a problem...address it, don't legislate it.

Just my opinion.

Gerry Smith

Wood Stripper

[Guest guest]

When I asked this question, it wasn't necessarily specific to an organization which is done for fun, like NSPN. Other examples include professional associations and unions. For some career paths, joining one of these organizations may be important for advancement in your career, and meetings with your peers might be needed for networking.

Another example might be a charitable organization where you have a truly passionate dedication to a good cause. You might have to choose between the desperate people you are helping, and avoiding another volunteer.

Do you still feel the same way?

Dee Hall

Impex Currituck, Blue over Smoky Ivory

[Guest guest]

>a) think that the organization is being progressive and

>proactive in about this sensitive issue

>

yes

> feel that the organization has created this policy

>because of a history of problems with sexual harassment

>

no

>c) be afraid that this policy could be applied in a

>heavy-handed way such that misunderstandings (or complete

>fabrications) lead to punishment without recourse

>

I would think the organization better covered by a stated policy, especially if that organization could be shown to have prior knowledge of incidents of same.

>d) be more inclined to join or continue participating in

>this organization

>

>e) be less inclined to join or contiue participating in this

>organization

>

Wouldn't matter.

>f) other

>

>

>Second question - do you think that publishing a policy

>might make some members less likely to sexually harass

>another member?

>

Undecided. "Good" people tend to follow rules without policies and "bad" people tend to find ways around them.

>

>Third question - do you think that provacative questions

>that don't directly involve NSPN or paddling belong on the

>NSPN message board?

>

Issues such at this are appropriate for the message board.

Sexual harassment need not be serial in form. In the workplace law, etc. has tried to define sexual harassment. Based on these attempts and personal experience it amounts to any and all behaviour of a sexual nature by one party that makes another party uncomfortable. I think we all have made comments in our time that we meant only in jest but instead found they were taken poorly by another party. Often these are people we care deeply about. Suffice it to say an incident can qualify as sexual harassment. Part of such a policy should be an understanding that the standards of sexual harassment are not common among us and provide for limited punishment, etc. for first and/or minor offenses along with the intent to educate these parties.

No member of this club gets any compensation for their efforts. This does not mean they should be asked to choose between continuing giving of their time, etc. due to the environment in which their time is given.

[Brian Nystrom]

>"Good" people tend to follow rules without

>policies and "bad" people tend to find ways around them.

Good point.

>Sexual harassment need not be serial in form. In the

>workplace law, etc. has tried to define sexual harassment.

>Based on these attempts and personal experience it amounts

>to any and all behaviour of a sexual nature by one party

>that makes another party uncomfortable.

You have perfectly defined the problem. When you have an "offense" that is defined by the offended party, you do not have a consistent standard that can be applied fairly and even-handedly. This creates a legal morass from which there is no escape.

>I think we all have

>made comments in our time that we meant only in jest but

>instead found they were taken poorly by another party.

>Often these are people we care deeply about. Suffice it to

>say an incident can qualify as sexual harassment.

Not legally if you are in a public setting and there is no hierarchy of power.

>Part of

>such a policy should be an understanding that the standards

>of sexual harassment are not common among us and provide for

>limited punishment, etc. for first and/or minor offenses

>along with the intent to educate these parties.

Perhaps the lawyers in the group will step in here, but here is my understanding of the legal risks involved in having a formal harassment policy in an organization that operates in a public setting.

When you create a formal policy on harassment, you are making a defacto offer of protection. You are then legally bound to enforce that policy. While this may be workable in a workplace where there are substantial punishment options (such as the loss of one's job) that create a real deterrent, it cannot work in a public setting.

For example, let's use our own organization. We paddle on public waterways. We have no control whatsoever over who paddles those same waters, or when/where they do so. We have no way to control anyone's behavior out on the water. Our trips are posted on a public web site, enabling anyone who wants to show up at that time and place to do so, and there is nothing we can do about it. The only punishment we have is expulsion from the club, which would be little deterrent to an abusive party. The bottom line is that we cannot offer anything approaching the level of deterrent or protection that a workplace can, which would leave us in a very precarious legal position if we were to imply that we could by creating a formal harassment policy.

In a group such as ours, we have to trust each other. Trust that we will look out for each other, trust that we will act responsibly and trust that we will respect each other. There are bound to be conflicts and misunderstandings in any group as large as ours, but based on the trust we have in each other, we should be able to resolve these situations amicably, like adults. Without that trust, a club like ours couldn't exist.

We are blessed to share a wonderful bond of friendship. It came from within us all, from our love for kayaking and our desire to share the joy we've found with others. No policy was necessary to create that, nor could one ever do so.

[mccumial]

>and re sexual harassment esp. in a private club, what's

>wrong with the old yankee tradition of telling the offending

>pig to F off and alerting your fellow club members of the

>abhorrent behaviour?

I'm with Jay on this one. In a club setting, it is a) the responsibility of the harrassed to make their feelings known, the responsibility of the club membership to make sure that each member fits into the overall club society.

If the offender continues to offend and offend multiple persons in the club, then the offender should be aked to shove off becuase they do not "fit in" with the general club membership.

Conversly, if the offended keeps feeling offended and other members of the club do not see the problem or feel the same way, maybe the offended needs to consider finding a new club or group of people who better suit their personal tastes.

[glenn]

Sexual harrassment is one special case, but you could easily add statements about racial discrimination, religious tolerance, age, gender sensitivity beyond sexuality, peer pressure and a dozen other assorted behavioral topics, without even getting into the ones particular to the specific organization's purpose (nautical terminology, paddling-speed protocol, equipment and preparation standards, etc.).

The problem with all of these things, I think, is that codification, by its nature, usually attempts to be a substitute for judgment. If you write a Sexual Harrassment policy, you are attempting to draw a line, and by doing so you will eventually cause somebody to pay more attention to the line than the people it is supposed to serve. Someone will be obnoxious in a way they think the wording allows, or someone on the other side will take an offense to which they feel entitled. The more precisely you write the policy, the closer to the line people will feel they can come. Standing on the right side of the line takes the place of just behaving well. If, instead, you state only the values that are both absolutely critical and non-obvious, then everything unstated is left intentionally vague, which requires people to pay attention to the actual specific situation instead of the rules, which will usually have better results for both the people at the time, and the organization in the long-term.

In our case, this would mean no policies about sexual harrassment or race or politics or food allergies, and instead just a handful of good, succinct, helpful reminders about sea-kayak-specific issues like the order of precedence in rescues (yourself, yourself, yourself, the team, the victim), the importance of discretion (better to skip a hundred trips than not come back from one), clear communication and expectations (know the level/purpose/tone of a trip before agreeing to go on it), respecting the limits and goals and comfort of both individual paddlers and groups, etc. And maybe a couple more notes about the responsibilities of leaders, and something about how to keep the dynamics of experienced groups from becoming cliquish and alienating to new participants.

And yes, this seems like a perfectly appropriate meta-topic for discussion, to me, although meta-topics by their nature are almost certain to irritate some people...