What the APA Could Do to Address our Collective Negligence and Collective Action Problems

The APA really does have to take the legal issues seriously. If it's sued, who will pay the costs? We're run on very much of a shoestring budget. In any case, this is at least as much a moral issue as a legal one. The APA is speaking out, is exhibiting moral leadership. I honestly don't see what more it can do at this point. It would be helpful if those of you who are dissatisfied would make constructive recommendations to the Board.--Hilde Lindemann commenting on yesterday's post.

Yesterday's post offered some criticism of the wording of the APA's "open letter" (which (a) failed to address the victims that left the profession and (b) exhibited too much frankness over its own limitations and, thus generates conditions of more collective negligence).  Lindemann's response does not address the substance of my criticisms. I am not alone in finding the APA's letter problematic (while applauding the effort and spirit that went into it); there is a post at Feministphilosophers that echoes my concerns, and it offers some constructive and low cost suggestions so that the APA need not retreat to mere symbolism but can reduce its own liability. 

After I wrote my post I received notes of gratitude from quite a few professional philosophers that are past victims of harassment (and worse). With them I did some brainstorming, and they have given me permission to use some of their suggestions to respond constructively to Lindemann's challenge.* I welcome further suggestions.

First, there are a whole bunch of collective action problems in professional philosophy that follow from too much past tolerance of the harassers (and too little concern for their victims) and our culture of silence/confidentiality-culture which isolate victims and their-would-be-supporters due to peer and university pressure. Often the victims lack resources, financial and personal, to see through various disciplinary procedures, and have a hard time locating willing, helpful outsiders. The APA could take a coordinating and pro-active role in these collective action problems or join forces with other philosophical and professional associations of sister disciplines with similar issues (economics and some of the natural sciences come to mind).

Second, some of the proposals listed below will require money. As the crowdsourcing success of one lawsuit on behalf of victims revealed last year (recall), there is quite a bit of support among professional philosophers to contribute to a legal fund that will help victims and their peers. Many members of the profession recognize our collective negligence and are eager to rectify it. Obviously, we should all make sure that universities indemnify victims and faculty from lawsuits (recall Jennifer Lackey), but the APA should start fundraising (among professional philosophers and foundations that support victims of violence) to help defend itself and its members.

So here follow some further suggestions:

• Where taking measures to provide support to victims within the discipline might incur legal liabilities, fundraise in an attempt to secure a legal defense fund so that the APA is not so limited in its capacities.
• Issue an apology to victims of sexual misconduct, including the ones that have left the field, in recognition of the harm that has been done to them.
• Undertake to design or delegate the design of, best practices for those seeking to create inclusive conferences, classrooms, and programs. 
• Host or assist departments in hosting bystander intervention training. 
• Clarify on the APA's website what bringing a complaint to the APA involves, and what the potential outcomes may be.
• Review the APA's non-discrimination policy with a view to determining whether it should be applicable to individuals as opposed to merely institutions (as first suggested by the APA Sexual Harassment Ad Hoc Committee in its 2013 'We Can Act' report), and as to whether or not membership should be limited to those who, for example, are not found by their home institutions to have repeatedly engaged in behavior that would violate it.
• Lobby to clarify and extend Title IX so that complaints arising from conduct which takes place off-campus, or across campuses, in inter-university spaces, like academic conferences, can be heard and adjudicated through existing infrastructure. 
• Organize a session at each of the division APA conferences where interested philosophers could learn from experts on Title IX and/or informal means of addressing harassment.
• Enable APA and discipline members to communicate anonymous feedback and solicit further suggestions (perhaps through an online form). 

 Obviously, the APA may well be addressing some of  these suggestions already.

*To be clear, I am speaking in my own name and I am solely responsible for these suggestions. (I am not appealing to anonymous authorities!)

Comments

[Hilde Lindemann]

Thanks, Eric. I'll make sure the Board sees this.

[Eric Schliesser]

Swell, Hilde!

[Mark Lance]

It is completely standard for organizations like the APA to have liability insurance for the organization, its board, and its employees. I find it surprising that this has not been pointed out as the obvious response to legal liability, and surely better than a crowdsourcing fund.
Otherwise, great list of suggestions!

[Eric Schliesser]

Yes, Mark, that is a key way to go.

[Heidi Howkins Lockwood]

Two additional afterthoughts:

(1) I'd like to see the APA back away from the implicit suggestion that victims will be required seek restraining orders in order to receive APA protection, due not just to the fact that it is often impossible (and unwise) to pursue a restraining order, for various reasons -- but also because the victim's name must be revealed on a restraining order, and the restraining order itself would no doubt be available to the public and advertised through that metameta cesspit blog.

(2) After some conversations with Title IX attorneys and activists in DC, I am finding it hard to believe that the APA truly cannot bar members from attending a conference if they have been found guilty of sexual assault by a university review board. (Recall that it is possible -- indeed common -- for victims to file a complaint at a university but then decline to pursue the same in court, often because they do not want to endure the additional trauma of a court case.) I'd like to see the legal opinion that led the Board to this conclusion.

(Hilde, would you mind adding these to our original list?)

[Anne Jacobson]

I dearly wish the APA had given us some examples of what they felt caused too much legal liability. There are all sorts of problems with cases of charging violations of Title IX, not least of which is that there is no law against being a complete jerk. There is a law against making hiring/compensation decision on the basis of gender stereotypes; in my experience, real jerks don't constrain their jerkiness to legal actions, but really it can be nightmarish to work through these issues.

I'm wondering if we have very accurate ideas about the costs of legal action. I have only my own case to refer to, and I realize that people like Heidi Lockwood have much more experience. Still, there is no way crowd sourcing would have come near to covering the cost of my complaint, if anything I've seen serve as an indication.
when I started legal proceedings against various people at the University of Houston, I did have a very excellent lawyer in Houston who took my complaint on a contingency basis, but I did have to pay 25K upfront. I don't think his fees were excessive.

Our stance was fairly conservative, since we wanted most of all to avoid a court case. He said that would cost about $100,000 with no guarantee of outcome. Of course, if I didn't win the court case and got myself sued, the results might have been financially dire. At the same time, since the settlement was in terms of paid leave, he didn't get a percentage of anything; he reckons he was out of pocket by about $80K.

This means we could be talking about $100K for a simple case.