Do you think that MWM should have an anti-discrimination policy in effect? Is this an issue of concern to you? If so, what should such a policy look like? Should it only apply to the ExComm and ExComm-sponsored activities, or should it also apply to anything organized (such as SIGs) or hosted (such as calendar events) in the chapter?
Please include whether you are an MWM member or member of another chapter when replying to this thread, even if you are otherwise anonymous.
Also note that this is different than the recently reaffirmed portion of the Copious Code that ensures that, save for Gifted Children's events, all events listed in the calendar are open to all members. (Note further than AML does not have a very good policy, IMO, from which to draw - it is far too vague.)
Should MWM have a nondiscrimination policy? IMO, yes -- and it should apply to ExComm-sponsored activities. Not sure how to word it though.
ReplyDeleteI think SIGs (or other member-hosted events) should be allowed to tailor their events to certain interest groups -- like GenX and the general age bracket, or events tailored to women (or men). IIRC, members are allowed to ban certain individuals from their homes. I suppose the "banned" person could claim he/she was discriminated against. Again, I'm not sure how an official policy should be worded to enforce those carveouts.
At least one of the recent commenters in the CapM took political correctness to an extreme. He objected to SIGs (or other groups) hosting things for women only, or those of a certain age group. I don't recall reading that he otherwise *wanted* to attend the event.
Jody
(MWM memeber)
So, if at all, how does it make a difference if someone wants to be a member of a SIG and is somehow excluded from doing so, even if that person is still permitted to attend the SIG's events? Is there something inherent in that sort of situation that needs to be addressed?
ReplyDeleteAnd when is an exclusionary SIG a type of SIG which should not be permitted to even exist (at least as recognized by the group)? Especially when the SIG itself might be exclusionary, but the events permit any member to attend.
Stop trying to regulate the local SIGs. Mensa has always given those Mensans who start a SIG the freedom to succeed or fail based upon their own desires. If you don't like somebody's SIG, don't go to it, or start your own new improved version. This meddling is entirely uncalled for and is destructive to Mensa. Don't you have anything better to do that would enhance Mensa excellence than be a politically correct busybody? You are wasting Mensa's time with this stifling of free speech pogrom against SIGs. Mensa is itself based on exclusivity. What could be more discriminating than the top two percent.
ReplyDeleteKindly talk specifics when you make such an accusation as "meddling" and claim something as "destructive". Despite multiple requests, you still haven't given any concrete example.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are in the midst of doing is laying down guidelines (which are long overdue) to ensure that neither this ExComm nor future ExComms (so long as they keep the guidelines, of course) stifle SIGs - the rules will apply to all equally, whether any individual ExComm member (and especially a majority of the ExComm) dislikes a particular SIG and doesn't want it to exist. And the guidelines also explicitly provide for the encouragement and fostering of SIGs.
Your "SIG Guidelines" failed to be approved at the December ExComm meeting. At that meeting you said, I think, words to the effect that now any and all ExComm members can disapprove any SIG listing, article, or event they don't like. Right? That's hypocrisy, based on what you wrote in October here. That's arbitrary stifling of SIGs based on individual ExComm member's opinion. Mensa's policy is that Mensa has no opinion as far as SIGs go, so your MWM ExComm policy toward SIGs is completely un-Mensa-like.
ReplyDeleteBruce Ford
MWM member
Not quite right, Bruce. What I said in the wake of the policy that we approved was that SIGs are now, essentially, approved and maintained in the SIGs listing at the discretion of the SIGs Coordinator (currently the role of the Member-at-Large). A far cry from saying that all ExComm members can disapprove any SIG listing, article, or event they don't like. The Editor, as always, can include or exclude anything whatsoever at their discretion -- that's always an Editors job. (Few things the Editor is MANDATED to include, and the Editor should never print libel. Outside of those categories, it's the Editor's call what to include. That has never changed.)
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy has nothing to do with anything, Bruce. What we WERE doing in October was exactly what I laid out above. It is what I was driving as much as possible on the agenda. You saw how the conversations were going back and forth each month. And we were attempting to do so in both November and December, too. And then Toni brought forth the language that is printed in conjunction with AML's policy regarding national SIGs. While it is certainly NOT my first choice (as I expressed multiple times during the Dec meeting), it settles the matter as much as this ExComm was capable of doing.
You're right that it is possible that it can be an arbitrary decision that denies a SIG being listed. That said, in the context of the current controversy regarding Stanley's proposed Caucasian SIG, it's not arbitrary as to why it is being denied. It might not be a decision that Stanley, you, or even I would like, but it is based on real, rational, and reasonable concerns that have been outlined many times in many different forums.
As far as MWM having an opinion on the SIG itself, it doesn't have one. The ExComm did not vote on actually approving the SIG itself. Nor did we vote on making an official statement, either on behalf of the chapter as a whole or just a sense motion of the ExComm, about whether his proposed SIG was good, acceptable, etc. We individually had our own opinions, and it guided some of the votes cast, but our own opinions were not transformed into an MWM or AML opinion on the SIG.
I find it fascinating how our following national's phrasing as approved by AMC however long ago (and tacitly "renewed" ever since by not deleting the ASIE) is deemed by you to be un-Mensa-like. What we have in place now is the same exact wording as AML writ large save for the minor adjustments changing AML-specific words/phrases to MWM-specific words/phrases.