Hi Amy, sorry for the delay in response! While I agree that what happened over the course of two weeks for Science Online was nice (especially the lack of rape and death threats, as a whole), I think it’s probably a bad model to assume will always work. In fact, I think the atheism community and its handling of similar cases indicates precisely why the model can’t be relied on.

Secondly, it is—at least from my experience, which is shared by at least some of the people I’ve talked to—exhausting. It forces many people to rehash their own harassment and abuse, it inspires the #ripplesofdoubt, and it creates a lot of secondary trauma. I’m not sure that’s a healthy model to follow.

I would hope that anyone available/approachable on any kind of ad hoc committee to monitor and intervene in harassment situations also believes in the spirit of openness and transparency (although I recognize how difficult that is, too). It’s not a perfect solution, but the idea is, more than anything else, to minimize secondary traumas. I’d definitely be interested if you have an idea that does that without relying on any committee model, as well!

If there’s a standing committee on harassment, I think you should expect it to meet the fate of all other such committees: it becomes a little dump at the edge of town for “women’s issues”, and nobody wants to go there but women who can afford to be identified with women’s issues and men who have reasons to advertise as feminists. Moreover, every time a harassment issue comes up, or a “woman’s issue” generally, it can be shunted to the committee and out of the general community.

I would suggest instead that what’s gone on the last week or so is proof of the efficacy of a different model. And I’d suggest we learn from that. This has been a shocking demonstration of the power of open, no-official-spokesperson many-person conversation, one in which women are indeed at the heart of the community.

Maybe, now and then, ad-hoc committees are needed. But I’d suggest thinking hard before going to models that work less well than what we’ve just watched.