Recently there’s been some discussion about how inclusive spaces are affected when someone wears a hat featuring “MAGA,” an acronym for the US political slogan “Make America Great Again,” to a WordCamp. Aaron Jorbin posted about this first, and it seems time to hold a courteous and respectful discussion on the topic inside our team.
The WordPress global community team asks community organizers to create events that are safe and welcoming for all attendees. We do this because WordCamps and meetups exist to connect WordPress enthusiasts and inspire people to do more with WordPress — and it’s difficult for people to connect or get inspired if they don’t feel safe.
Our methods for creating welcoming events include:
- Setting clear behavioral expectations with participants, by sharing our code of conduct online, in the event registration flow and in opening remarks
- Addressing behavior that doesn’t meet expectations promptly, using a “calling in” approach
- Refraining from hosting events at religiously- or politically-affiliated venues.
Our program has very clear guidelines about what kind of behavior we expect but rarely sets expectations around what attendees might choose to wear to a WordPress event, or what iconography is allowed on belongings. For example, while we do not hold events in houses of worship, we do not ask attendees to refrain from wearing religious symbols or clothing to WordCamp. This line of reasoning falls apart when it comes to widely-recognized symbols of hate, like Nazi iconography. I think we definitely would ask someone to remove a Nazi icon from our event spaces if they brought one in, on their clothes or laptop.
That said, I think all event organizers would like to avoid attendees being surprised, either by a reaction to what they’re wearing/displaying on their belongings, or by what someone else is wearing or displaying on their belongings.
Over the years, this program has had better results by defining what we would like to happen than by defining all the things we don’t want to happen. We have found that creating more rules tends to require us to make even more rules, to close loopholes and clarify. The fact that this is a global program, with events held in over 100 countries around the world, further complicates the creation of effective and prescriptive rules.
Join the Discussion
WordPress community organizers, please help discuss this question: How can we keep the inclusive and collaborative nature of our events, without specifying what can and can’t be worn to WordCamps and meetups?
This may be a difficult issue to discuss with calm and courtesy. Please do your best to express yourself kindly and assume good intent among those who are sharing their perspectives on this sensitive topic. I’ll leave comments open until March 16, or until we need a cooling-down period.
I think framing this on behavior, rather than attire is a very wise point to start from.
I further think that it’s important to keep in mind that WordPress’ simple mission statement of “democratizing publishing” most certainly needs extend to respectable religious and political speech. WordPress should remain radically inclusive.
While I understand (although disagree) with camps shunning politically or religious affiliated venues, we should certainly not exclude religious or politically affiliated people or their free expression.
We already do, swastikas being the obvious example, and in some countries we are required to by local law ( e.g. swastikas ).
It may be that the person intends no harm, or views the attire in a different manner that’s perfectly innocent, it may even be acceptable but endanger the person ( Free Hong Kong t-shirts at the innaugural WordCamp Beijing? )
So I suggest:
There will always be edge cases, but if somebody wears a political statement they know will cause distress, or is made aware that they are causing distress, it would be rude of them to persist regardless of wether our TOC allows it, and that’s not in the spirit of WordCamp. Like online platforms they’re able to do this elsewhere, WC Central won’t follow them around for 6 months of daily inspections.
These are really sensitive subjects: religion, politics, soccer teams, operating systems… because they divide and people might try to impose their preferences on others. I personally had no ideas about the second meaning of this red cap. A positive way to « restrict » is probably to talk about the need to respect each others freedom and the best way to preserve it is probably to be as neutral as possible in the way we speak or dress, .., about these sensitive or controversial topics. Let’s forget about all these differences for a day or two and come together around the subject that is uniting us : WordPress.
I think where this gets really difficult is in a couple of areas, and I’m not sure I have the answer to any of this. Below are thoughts without answers.
Slippery slope. How do we prevent this extending to other things? We need to be super clear in what we define so volunteer organizers and attendees have specifics. I remember in the mid 1980’s trying to get folks to understand that Act-Up wasn’t a hate group. If we are not precise and circumspect, I’m concerned that we are going to snowball into other things down the road like symbols from Pride, BLM, US 2nd Amendment issues, Right to Life, etc. The list goes on.
I think there is little chance if you’re wearing a swastika that you really have good intentions at heart. It’s also probably true of other adjacent groups like Proud Boys but I’m not immediately familiar with their iconography. With MAGA items I think we’ve seen folks who very much intend to intimidate vs. others who because of where they live, limited perspective, or other reasons literally don’t realize their attire is deeply offensive, intimidating, and why.
I do know that there is little chance of changing hearts and minds by shouting at people and presuming their motives, but I’m also not under fire every day as a cis-gendered white woman living in a Northeast US city. Conversely, it easier for me if not in fact incumbent on me to tell someone who comes from my experience why a symbol that they have is deeply hurtful to others and why if that person is a friend/family member,even though I may not get anywhere with the message.
One thing I circle back to is this story (scroll down to the section about David Abitbol) about how conversation rather than confrontation changed the heart of someone brought up to know hate from birth in an isolated community.
As I said, no answers, but a series of thoughts. I’d like to hear thoughts of others as well.
There are two primary questions at-hand:
1. What symbols are unacceptable at WordCamps and how is that determined?
2. How do we ensure our events are safe, inclusive and collaborative?
I will add a third item, which is:
3. I believe our Code of Conduct requires updating.
On Unacceptable Symbols
As Andrea has indicated above, Nazi iconography isn’t acceptable at WordCamps. Hitler’s salute clearly falls under Nazi iconography and by-proxy would be intimidating and demeaning behavior in the Code of Conduct.
However, symbols are a quagmire of context.
In many Western civilizations, a swastika is officially classified as a symbol of hate by groups whose primary mandates include classifying hate symbols — in the United States both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center classify the swastika as a hate symbol and US law enforcement has often used swastikas as one criteria in classifying crimes as hate crimes. In Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine it is illegal to display swastikas in public, apart from historical and film purposes.
Swastikas are a 6,000-year-old symbol with peaceful origins (that are still observed in parts of the world), later adopted by other cultures and eventually co-opted by Nazi Germany to take on their primary meaning in Western cultures today.
The WordPress project should not be in the practice of classifying hate symbols. It is one thing to enforce behaviors, it is another thing for official WordPress representatives to unilaterally arbitrate a symbol as hateful that experts and law enforcement have not and on behalf of the global project. It is not our subject-matter expertise. It is not one of our primary mandates.
In an instance where a complaint is filed about a hate symbol, I believe project representatives should defer to the government bodies and/or leading non-government organizations of their region whose mandate is to classify hate symbols. If these groups classify the symbol as a hate symbol, or it is near-universally accepted that way (note not majority) in the local culture, it becomes reasonable to request the person remove or cover the symbol from public view, taking further measures as-necessary.
This does not null or dim the credible fear or sharp emotions someone may feel when seeing a symbol they identify as a hate symbol. This does not mean these symbols do not have hateful connotations or are not hate symbols — this means we should defer to organizations that specialize in this classification, despite our personal beliefs or what we interpret as supporting evidence.
We are a project that promotes Democratizing Publishing. This is inherently political, inherently taking a position. Some argue our professed and unwritten values are political or express a specific set of values — they do. However, this project should have a wide latitude for acceptable speech and expression — which should not be mistaken for inclusive or comfortable speech. Name calling, disparagement and intimidation all clearly fall under the Code of Conduct already — we are discussing peaceful expression.
Normalizing hate is toxic and antithetical to our goals of a diverse, welcoming community for all. Also toxic and antithetical is stating what expression is and isn’t acceptable, when that expression is displayed peacefully, doesn’t violate other Code of Conduct rules and is not officially classified as hateful by leading arbiters of hate speech. These two interests aren’t equally toxic and antithetical, it’s often a ratio that varies by the situation, but they must both be weighed. In addition, everyone’s safety and the best interest of the project must be considered — could banning a symbol as unacceptable in the interest of creating a safe, welcoming community result in harassment, retaliation or dangerous situations? We cannot shy away from doing the right thing, but we must weigh the side-effects of an action in addition to our desired outcome.
On Safe, Inclusive & Collaborative Events
To Andrea’s point about creating and maintaining safe, inclusive events through what we’d like to see instead of what we don’t, I believe there is more we can do. We can likely do more to create the communities we want, attract truly diverse people and ideology, by being radically inclusive, than by drawing lines about what is unacceptable.
People should be able to see themselves in the organizers, speakers, volunteers and attendees — it is up to the organizers to drive diversity in all these areas in how they market the event. We can require more deliberate outreach to diverse groups, including minority chambers of commerce and other community groups. The handbook already provides lots of material to this end, but we could develop further content about diverse outreach in local communities.
Specific acts of inclusivity — The handbook already suggests lots of helpful material to this end. Some new ideas or ideas that go beyond the current handbook:
This already happens organically, but create an official ambassadors program. Ambassadors would take both training on how the WordPress project works as well as diversity/inclusivity training. Then at events they can wear a special lanyard/pin so newcomers know that person is knowledgeable, expects people to approach them and can be a resource for helping them navigate picking sessions, getting involved in WordPress and finding specific types of people. These ambassadors can also get a specific treatment on the attendees page, speakers page, etc on a WordCamp/Meetup website. I don’t see a problem with the majority of an event being registered ambassadors, either — this would be a great way to show how many people in the community want to see it grow and want to help others find their place in it.
On the Code of Conduct
I believe our Code of Conduct is due a refresh in a few departments. Which includes both professing our expectations as well as greater specificity to what is unacceptable.
I agree with Andrea that rules can lead to more rules, be tricky to enforce and can be gamed. I respectfully disagree that’s reason enough not to explore global updates and the process local communities go through in tailoring and expanding on the Code of Conduct. Sometimes rules protecting people are what makes people feel safe attending and welcome — saying what behavior is unacceptable can be an important part of being inclusive, without inappropriately inhibiting free expression.
Some things I believe should be removed:
Some things I believe should be explored:
Finally, I believe none of the global Code of Conduct should be removed, but it should be encouraged to expand on it in local communities when appropriate. The Code of Conduct should be used as an opportunity for local communities to express their values, their expectations, their own norms and rules. In my local community, we add a weapons policy. We also add a line at the top of the page that says “Bring your best self. Be kind to one another.” As WordCamps attract attendees outside the region, outside the country or continent, attendees need to remember they’re entering a community that may have a different set of norms, values and rules than their own.
We can never perfectly codify human behavior, nor should that be our goal. All systems and rules will have people that test them. That said, we can always do better, we can always refine how we express our values and how we draw the lines of our rules.