> I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”).
The point I wish to make is that Jeremy is either experiencing some cognitive dissonance, or his frustration is overriding his fear with regards to his position on CoCs in general.
Whether he intends for it or not, his article taken as a whole aligns much more closely with the gripes from the "anti-CoC crowd" than one in support of CoCs; despite him stating that he is attempting to deter the anti-CoC crowd. Why? Well his argument is that the CoC committee is essentially a capricious entity. This is evidenced by his expected experience versus reality, among other things:
> I was also heartened that the manual has a section “Communicate with the Reported Person about the Incident” which says they will “Let the reported person tell someone on the CoC response team their side of the story; the person who receives their side of the story should be prepared to convey it at the response team meeting”.
but then the actual experience did not go quite as planned:
> I was stunned. The representative could not even commit to a time when they would get back to me, or tell me what would be happening next. I told them that I thought that telling someone that they had a violation report, but then not saying what it is, or when or whether they would be able to provide their side of the story, or providing any time-frame for any next step was cruel.
> The next call did not happen for another week (I had made myself available to meet any time). I was shocked to read that the purpose of the call would be to “discuss the results of our investigation”. I could not understand how they could have completed their investigation and have results, without any input from me.
And Jeremy's true feelings about the situation were laid out at the top of the article:
> The process has left me shattered, and I won’t be able to accept any speaking requests for the foreseeable future.
And directly following it is his dissonance/fear kicking in:
> ... for the foreseeable future. I support the thoughtful enforcement of Code of Conducts to address sexist, racist, and harassing behavior, but that is not what happened in this case.
Throughout the article, we find Jeremy constantly defending the ideas behind CoCs. Despite that, the entire article serves to show how those ideas utterly failed in practice; and as such, serves as an example against CoCs. As such, I hypothesize that this is either because Jeremy does not actually agree with CoCs, but is too fearful that he feels it's necessary to consistently defend their ideas. Or he still hasn't come to terms with the fact that CoCs aren't all he's made them up to be, and now that he's gone through the other end of it and been left feeling "shattered" is struggling to reconcile his emotions and experience from his ideology regarding CoCs.
In the event Jeremy's defense of CoCs is fear based, then I am saddened about the current state of affairs. On the other hand, if it's the case that he is experiencing cognitive dissonance, I wish him the best of luck finding clarity.
Does any else have other ideas on the author feels compelled to defend CoCs while at the same time damaging their reputation via example?