[Smt-talk] Preserving SMT's social capital

[John Paul Ito]

Dear friends and colleagues,

Sorry for a very long email; for those who look at all, I've tried to
facilitate skimming.

Like many subscribers to the list, I've been seriously disturbed by the
recent conversation on sexism and related issues; smt-talk is looking like
the wild west, with generally lawless behavior and misbegotten attempts at
frontier justice.

I don't believe that this is representative of our society, and my own very
selective sample of face-to-face interactions suggests that in other areas
things are getting better, not worse.  When I was first attending SMT as a
grad student, 10-15 years ago, I found it rather offputting.  It seemed to
me that many of the questions after papers were either trying to poke holes
in the thesis offered or else trying to display the questioner's own
knowledge of the area, often without great relevance to the paper.  When I
returned this year after a long hiatus, the questions I heard were very
frequently encouraging to the presenter, and the ethos of the q+a was that
it was a time for building up, not tearing down.  I came away with a greatly
improved perception of SMT.

And there have been very positive aspects of the society on display even in
this recent discussion, seen in those who calmly explained issues of sexism
without accusing anyone of malice or ill will, or in those who humbly
apologized for unintentionally offensive posts.

Nonetheless, I see three ways in which recent events show that smt-talk
requires some kind of format adjustment.

A) People have been hurt, in at least three ways

- some have been offended by remarks that were very understandably perceived
as sexist, regardless of their intent

- some have undergone a painfully public education on a sensitive topic
(until now it never occurred to me to be thankful that my own education on
these matters took place privately, and not in front of hundreds(?) of
colleagues)

- emails have been sent off-list (i.e. without moderation), directly to
posters, that challenge them or in some way comment negatively on a highly
sensitive topic.  This sounds to me a lot like harassment.  It's an
oversimplification to speak of "sides" in this issue, but people on both
"sides" of the discussion have received these emails.

B) The viability of the list is threatened

Others seem to know other online forums where they can access this kind of
expertise.  I don't.  I greatly value much of what I have learned through
this list, and I have a question that I've been planning to send out as soon
as I can find the time.  I want this list to continue to reflect an amazing
breadth of knowledge, and (obviously) the more people that leave, the less
it does.

That said, I have complete sympathy with those who have left.  Like most of
us, I would think, I run pretty close to what I consider to be maxxed out.
If smt-talk causes me psychological distress, and if this makes me less
efficient (and both of these things have happened as a result of this
discussion), then at some point I have to question if it's worth it.  I
don't blame those, for whom the psychological distress has been greater, who
have already jumped ship.

C) The list in its current state is (in part) harming, and not serving, the
goals of SMT

That significant numbers of people can feel that an SMT-sponsored discussion
is not a safe space, some of whom leave and some of whom tolerate it
reluctantly because of other gains, cannot be good for the health of SMT.

--

So far most of the responses to this situation that make specific
suggestions fall roughly into two groups: "It's broken, so let's scrap it"
and "It stinks, but it's worth it" (the latter sometimes with tips for
dealing with it).

It seems to me that the list is very valuable but that it's current state is
not working.  I think we need to find a way to adjust the format of the
list. 

One of the many laudable things that Donna Doyle has said is this: "It seems
to me that, as a Society, as we move forward, we must continue to try to
ensure that, at least, we do no harm. "  Here are two suggestions of how we
might do that.  

1) add another layer of moderation for sensitive topics

Moderating the list is a huge job and I can't see adding to that.  But
perhaps when posts touch on sensitive topics (and maybe also when the
rhetorical temperature is getting heated) the moderator could pass them
along to someone else (or to a small committee?) for more careful review.
This person would be encouraged to set a high bar for civility and
sensitivity.  This could help prevent offense, and it could allow processes
of education to take place in private.

I am not suggesting some kind of p.c. thought police who would eliminate
some viewpoints, but rather a mechanism to ensure a high level of civility
in discourse.  When some people have said that we should be discussing these
issues in 21st-century terms, I take this to mean not that old-fashioned
views should be silenced, but rather that some topics are now widely (but
not universally) known to require special sensitivity, that the cultural
conversation on these issues has been going on for decades, and that
contributions to that conversation should reflect an understanding of its
current state.

2) restrict off-list communication

Clearly this shouldn't be overdone: much off-list discussion is entirely
benign; one of the purposes of the list is to foster relationships and
conversations that can continue off list; and even on sensitive topics, some
people will want to offer positive feedback to posters without entering a
gladiatorial arena.

But I would suggest that on sensitive topics, it be a requirement that all
negative or challenging responses be sent only to the list, so that they go
through the more-extensive moderation process.

I think of two mechanisms to help this to happen:

a) let all emails from the list come from the list as sender, and change
[Smt-talk] to [Smt-talk: Sender] or [Smt-talk: Sender's last name].

This is cumbersome, and maybe someone knows a better technical solution.
But currently, as Gregory Karl observed, if you hit "reply" the email goes
directly to the original sender, and sending it to the list requires some
extra work.   This is the reverse of the way it should be.

b) People who receive off-list emails that they find offensive can forward
them to the extra moderators; if the extra moderators agree that the message
is inappropriate, the sender can get their list privileges suspended
(clearly this should include receiving mail from the list, not just sending
to it).

So those are my suggestions.  Perhaps other people have ideas that would
more effectively serve the same ends.  But I do think that we need to do
something.  The memberships of the society and of the list are constantly
being renewed, and we can expect a constant influx of people who, for
whatever reason, missed what happened in the 1990's (or in whatever other
decade for other similar issues).  I don't think we can afford many more
incidents like this last one.

John

___________________________________
John Paul Ito
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/johnito/

School of Music
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

412.268.1246
412.268.1431 (FAX)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140502/2b8cb3f9/attachment-0002.htm>