I am in full support of the new code of conduct and appreciate the work of the executive board in taking this necessary step to ensure all members are welcome and have full access to participate. If we are an organization that is truly “dedicated to maintaining a culture of respect, inclusion, and equity” then we must do more than write words on paper. A well-thought out and effective code of conduct, one that is applied objectively with clear mechanisms in place to enforce our values, brings meaning to these words and backs up our commitment to inclusivity. It demonstrates that the 34th Dems is an organization that is intolerant of inflicting harm, despite whatever good reason a person may think they have to do so. If we want to have a representational democracy, we must take active measures to ensure that all people are welcome and that means assuring people feel safe, respected and valued. The statement against the code of conduct argues that, should it pass, it would force the ideals of respect and dignity upon our membership. Why as a group would we not want to unify behind these basic ideals of human decency?
The argument against the code of conduct lists out three main concerns should it be passed by the membership. Each is addressed below.
1. The code of conduct will waste a bunch of “precious” time
The opposition uses the code of conduct complaint filed in 2018 against the former King County Chair, Bailey Stober as an example of how resolving these issues is a big waste of our time. What is not mentioned is that Stober was accused of harassing his employee, creating a hostile work environment and committing financial improprieties. Donations were withheld and work stalled because it took three independent investigations, several district resolutions calling on his resignation or a vote on his resignation (including the 34th), a letter from our State Chair and an open letter signed by over 200 democratic members and elected officials calling for his resignation, and an 11 hour trial with dozens of witnesses and hundreds of pages of documentation before he was found guilty on most charges and finally stepped down. People resigned over the frustration and disappointment the allegations demanded that level of proof and public outcry before they were taken seriously. It seems for some, they are still not taken seriously. They left because the Democratic ideals of worker’s rights and women’s rights did not appear to be upheld or respected, not because it took up too much of their time.
The two other examples given of how the code of conduct is an unworthy use of our time, involved members of the 34th– one regarding members conduct in a meeting and the other members conduct on social media. Here are my questions: What happens when a new member walks in and sees this aggressive hostile behavior? With the many ways a person could volunteer their time, what’s the chance of them returning to our organization? And how does this behavior displayed on social media read to people outside of the 34th? Will we really be respected if we are an organization that “speaks our truth” by engaging publicly in hostile and divisive behaviors to settle conflicts? The opposition argues for more, not less of this conduct as it is believed this allows people the freedom to speak their truth. That’s not an organization I’d be proud to be in. I argue that ensuring worker’s rights and women’s rights, taking code of conduct complaints seriously and handling them judiciously, and making sure all people feel safe and welcome is a very good use of our time, maybe even the best use of our time.
2. The code of conduct will stifle free expression
Yes, we are all ‘free’ to “speak our truth”, but with this freedom comes the responsibility each of us has for the impact we have on others. If a member cannot refrain from using defamatory language, demonstrating intolerance or engaging in inappropriate physical contact to express their opinion then there is a fundamental flaw in their argument. The code of conduct states it is on the speaker to find a way to respectively get their point across, not on us to “get over it”. We are held to these same standards of behavior in our places of employment, our schools, our houses of worship, and our community centers, why should the place where we exercise our civic duties and engage in activism be any different?There is a bigger point to be made about the opposition’s protection of free expression. Some of us are freer than others. The opposition in a “that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” argument, attests to the value of getting hurt as a motivator to “stand your ground”. Not all of us feel safe enough to stand our ground. Our ability to stand our ground depends on how much privilege we have in the world. I assume not many people could, or would even try, to intimidate an over 6-foot-tall white male. On the other hand, for women, people of color, and members of the LBGTQ community, harassment and intimidation can be a daily occurrence. For them, the idea of safety is a more tangible concern than it is a desire to feel warm and fuzzy. There are consequences for standing their ground. When we think about the values of our organization and how to best live up to them, we must look from positions of less privilege then we hold. Rather than focus solely on the most “passionate” in our group who may leave because they are now required to filter their thoughts, we need to think about how many voices are silenced in service to maintaining the loudest ones.
3. The code of conduct will be weaponized to remove members
This fear has no basis in reality. Attempted coups and political takedowns probably do happen even in small local politics. However, in reality, it is more likely that a complaint will be filed for a valid reason than it would be used as a subversive strategy. Concern that the code of conduct will provide a tool for people to lie about their injuries to gain some nefarious benefit is not backed by facts. The facts clearly show false claims to be rare. The code of conduct complaint was filed against the King County chair because he was guilty of harassing his employee and for no other reason.
Addressing the final paragraphs of the statement against the code of conduct:
The opponent suggests that serious misconduct should be handled by either the cops or the courts. Not only does an act of misconduct not need to be ‘serious’ (whatever that means) to cause harm, code of conduct complaints rarely rise to this level of criminality.
The argument against also suggests that a code of conduct is unnecessary due to member’s presumed ability to get along following conflict, proving that people can “get over it”. When there isn’t a strong code of conduct in place there is often no recourse, nowhere to go to, no one to ask for help, no one to believe you. Without the ability to confront the behavior directly, a person has few options. They either have to leave or find a way to stay and “get over it” by denying it, forgetting it, diminishing it, invalidating it, or taking the blame. A code of conduct gives members who have experienced disrespectful, intimidating or harassing behavior, the option to stay in the organization while preserving the dignity of their own experience. Then, and only then, can they truly move past it.
The code of conduct represents an organizational change and a larger societal one as well. Change is hard and some people are going to have to take more time to consider their words, time they didn’t have to spend before. But I assure you this will benefit everyone. Voting for the code of conduct is the right thing to do and now is the right time.
Treina Aronson