Nuance, feedback, and disagreement — reflecting on OpenEd19
By now, most folks in the open education space have heard of the controversy surrounding a particular panel at OpenEd19 — and probably a number of folks outside of the community, too, since it got picked up in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
As if the topic and makeup of the now-cancelled “Future of Learning Materials” panel itself weren’t discussion-inducing enough, this conference, this community — and this work more broadly — have elements of power, ownership, responsibility, accountability, bias, interpersonal relationships, and conduct interwoven at every level of the conversation: far too much to put into 280 characters (I’m at double that already).
So to me, it seems like we’re losing some really important nuance to the conversation — trying to debate on too many different levels at once because that’s what happens when we discuss hard, nuanced things over an unnuanced medium like Twitter.
Allegations of harassment and abuse (as referenced in the announcement withdrawing said panel) are serious, and unfortunately, we must recognize that type of behavior is far too common today. That’s precisely why, for events and convenings like this, we take time to write a code of conduct, and require participants to agree to it. It’s more than just a page we throw on the website to cover our bases.
That way, if and when an individual engages in unacceptable behavior (harassment, abuse, etc — these terms are defined clearly in the OpenEd Code of Conduct), there are protocols in place to protect the community. But a Code of Conduct is only as good as it’s enforcement.
Because these interactions were online, there should be concrete transcripts of any potential offenses. When harassment, abuse, or threats of bodily harm occur, the conference organizers and the program committee should review those cases, and they have the power — and more importantly, it is their responsibility — to act to protect themselves, the attendees, and the panelists by removing the problematic individuals (banning from the conference, blocking on Twitter, etc). If they have done so, they should report it out to the community. That’s what will create a safe environment: cancelling a panel and leaving those individuals in play does not.
In parallel, the program committee came to the decision to cancel that particular panel. In their statement, they reference significant opposition from members of the community. The majority of that feedback was constructive, and yes, it may have become frustrated or perhaps hostile at times. That disagreement, even heated, is not a violation of the code of conduct, nor should it be. Conflating this criticism with harassment or abusive behavior in the public statement withdrawing the panel was irresponsible (the statement appears to have been edited since) — as was blending the decision to cancel the panel with appropriate sanction for harmful behavior.
So, like many, I find myself struggling with how to move forward. The OER community has largely done a good job at maintaining professional disagreements in the past, but there are real, deep divisions in the community — this process has made that much clear. We have hard questions to answer: substantive discussions about vision, strategy, and how we want the Future of Learning Materials to look.
But that means navigating market pressures, opposition and barriers, bias and blind spots — so if we hope to succeed, we’re going to need every ounce of nuance we can get. We’re going to need to communicate clearly, focus on the content of the disagreement, be more transparent with decisions, and, when necessary, hold people accountable to create a safe environment for participation.
Here are two places to get started, as we prepare for the event next week:
- Read this amazing article on receiving critical feedback — every single one of these points is relevant to this conversation: https://medium.com/@brookeanderson/10-tips-on-receiving-critical-feedback-a-guide-for-activists-e51689c59d81
- Review the OpenEd Code of Conduct — which we should think critically about if it does not sufficiently empower the conference organizers to create a safe environment: https://openedconference.org/2019/code-of-conduct/ and compare with similar resources, like the OpenCon policy: https://www.opencon2018.org/code_of_conduct
