In 2014, serial harasser Jim Frenkel attended Wiscon 38 despite complaints about him harassing a Wiscon 37 attendee, and previous reports. The Wiscon 38 organisers reported that they did not have a systemic way to track such issues. They reviewed the situation and provisionally banned Frenkel for several future years, a response that did not satisfy many onlookers.
2013 events
Main article: SFF harassment revelations 2013
In 2013, speculative fiction editor and then-Tor employee Jim Frenkel was the subject of harassment revelations, including a complaint about harassment at Wiscon 37.
2014 / Wiscon 38 events
April: Stephanie Zvan specifically alerted the WisCon 38 (2014) committee to the issue of Frenkel's attendance possible attendance at WisCon 38 and asked them to take action.
May 22-25: WisCon 38 was held. Jim Frenkel attended WisCon and volunteered in the con suite.
May 28: WisCon's ConCom posted to the WisCon blog saying they were aware of the issue and of safety complaints.
June 1: WisCon made a statement about new safety precautions they'd taken prior to WisCon 38 and how they were reviewing the situation for WisCon 39 (in 2015).
May or June (exact date unknown): Lauren Jankowski announced that Wiscon had lost her report of 2013 harassment, and moreover had falsely told her that a co-complainant had specifically requested that Frenkel not be banned. She apologised to her co-complainant for acting on that information.
June 1: Natalie Lurs posted a roundup of events to that point.
June 24: Elise Matthesen announced that Wiscon has told her they have lost her 2013 harassment report.
June 30: WisCon made a statement acknowledging that harassment complaints from Elise Matthesen and Lauren Jankowski had not been properly handed over by organisers of WisCon 37 (2013) to organisers of WisCon 38.
July 2: Elise Matthesen wrote a blog entry stating that she was unlikely to attend WisCon in future, even though she would forgo a great deal of income by not attending.
July 5: Stephanie Zvan published her blog post about her April discussion with the organisers, and discussed the general issue of whether and when event organisers can consider having a previous harasser attend.
July 7: WisCon 38 co-chair Joanna Lowenestein apologised for Frenkel's attendance at WisCon 38.
July 9: WisCon's subcommittee reviewing Frenkel's attendance published their report timeline.
July 18: WisCon's subcommittee reviewing Frenkel's attendance announced (in part) that:
- WisCon will (provisionally) not allow Jim Frenkel to return for a period of four years (until after WisCon 42 in 2018). This is "provisional" because if Jim Frenkel chooses to present substantive, grounded evidence of behavioral and attitude improvement between the end of WisCon 39 in 2015 and the end of the four-year provisional period, WisCon will entertain that evidence. We will also take into account any reports of continued problematic behavior.
- Allowing Jim Frenkel to return is not guaranteed at any time, including following WisCon 42; the convention's decision will always be dependent on compelling evidence of behavioral change, and our commitment to the safety of our members. If he is permitted to return at any time, there will be an additional one-year ban on appearing on programming or volunteering in public spaces. Any consideration of allowing him to return will be publicized in WisCon publications and social media at least three months before a final decision is made.
- Based on the policies adopted by WisCon's Harassment Policy Committee before WisCon 38 in 2014, Jim Frenkel has the right to appeal this decision to SF3, WisCon's governing body. If he enters an appeal, we will make public statements both when he does so and when the appeal ruling is issued.
- These are official WisCon actions, and will not be affected by future philosophical or policy discussions.
Reactions to the official actions
- Lauren Jankowski stated that she would not attend WisCon after WisCon 39.
- Kate Nepveu stated that she would not attend WisCon for the foreseeable future.
- K Tempest Bradford stated that she felt Frenkel was unlikely to reform and that therefore the actions amounted to a ban. [1] [2] [3] [4]