I worked in a company that had 70+ policies for 150 staff... We went into ISO27000 so it was mandatory.
The policy obsession is one of the many useless practices I would cull from corporate culture - along with HR of course. Consider this - since your jurisdiction has a bunch of regulations about eg equal treatment & pay - why does every enterprise have to recapitulate them in (invariably) identical rephrasing? Why can't the rules just be - obey the law?
The true reason for "management by policy" is to absolve oneself from having to actually make decisions you are responsible for. Instead of having to "manage" people you just throw them to the policy wolves and blame them when something happens. It obviates managers from having to be actively involved in guiding culture and insulates the corporate from being responsible when they do a poor job - just cite the policy and blame (fire) the poor employee.
"The FA is not a religious, philosophical or political organisation. It is a sporting organisation." Ah, Helen, if only this were so! Then we'd be able to get on with watching a game of football as if nothing else really mattered... but anyway, thank you for the clarity of your thinking on this maddening topic.
May I ask you the following: do you believe an arts organization is a “philosophical” one that can, and should, be pressured into adopting ideological, “philosophical” anti-discrimination policies?
I run a classical music organization. Grants now require “diversity, equity, and inclusion” statements. Much of the success of your applications hinges on how neatly your answers pass through an ever-changing DEI gauntlet.
I would love to use your anti-discrimination policy as a guide for crafting a DEI statement, but am curious whether you feel an arts organization must go with the philosophical tide of the times — as evidenced by what comes out of the vast majority of organizations in the field — or whether it can hold firm to liberal principles.
Personally, I believe in art for art’s sake. Increasingly, art-making in my city comes second to social justice, and the art must serve the social justice. I’d love your take on whether an anti-discrimination policy like what you’ve described would be a persuasive way to have artistic and organizational integrity around this thorny subject.
I would love to hear you extend your discussion further... for instance, where is the line with moral pluralism? Where does liberalism stand if the paedophile is considered a valid sexuality but minors cannot consent? I’ve seen this being promoted by some. And how can we accommodate religious communities that have the age of consent set at 9 years old? Should we adapt and repeal Human Rights? This is clearly an extremity, but the logical one if we follow the reasoning.
Some paedophiles are morally virtuous. These are the ones who understand that they suffer from a paraphilia, try to get help for their condition, and do not act on their sexual urges towards children.
By contrast, child sex abusers are morally vicious because they do act on their sexual urges, thereby causing children harm. Most child sex abusers are not actually paedophiles, in the sense of their primary sexual attraction. Rather they are opportunistic offenders who prey on those who are the most powerless to stop them.
Call me “old fashioned” but I kinda still believe in a Universal moral consensus. And I do not follow any religious code, just a strong sense of fairness and belief in human flourishing. 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
Here in Australia we have just fought (and semi-won) the censorship law proposed by a loopy government. One of the big focus points in the argument against was “no clear definition of the word- harm”.
It’s all a bit fraught!!! I’ll put the kettle on and think more on’t. 🙏🏽❤️
You rock, Helen!!!
I worked in a company that had 70+ policies for 150 staff... We went into ISO27000 so it was mandatory.
The policy obsession is one of the many useless practices I would cull from corporate culture - along with HR of course. Consider this - since your jurisdiction has a bunch of regulations about eg equal treatment & pay - why does every enterprise have to recapitulate them in (invariably) identical rephrasing? Why can't the rules just be - obey the law?
The true reason for "management by policy" is to absolve oneself from having to actually make decisions you are responsible for. Instead of having to "manage" people you just throw them to the policy wolves and blame them when something happens. It obviates managers from having to be actively involved in guiding culture and insulates the corporate from being responsible when they do a poor job - just cite the policy and blame (fire) the poor employee.
"The FA is not a religious, philosophical or political organisation. It is a sporting organisation." Ah, Helen, if only this were so! Then we'd be able to get on with watching a game of football as if nothing else really mattered... but anyway, thank you for the clarity of your thinking on this maddening topic.
Transgenderism is a religious faith, so the same rules must apply to both.
Beautifully put.
May I ask you the following: do you believe an arts organization is a “philosophical” one that can, and should, be pressured into adopting ideological, “philosophical” anti-discrimination policies?
I run a classical music organization. Grants now require “diversity, equity, and inclusion” statements. Much of the success of your applications hinges on how neatly your answers pass through an ever-changing DEI gauntlet.
I would love to use your anti-discrimination policy as a guide for crafting a DEI statement, but am curious whether you feel an arts organization must go with the philosophical tide of the times — as evidenced by what comes out of the vast majority of organizations in the field — or whether it can hold firm to liberal principles.
Personally, I believe in art for art’s sake. Increasingly, art-making in my city comes second to social justice, and the art must serve the social justice. I’d love your take on whether an anti-discrimination policy like what you’ve described would be a persuasive way to have artistic and organizational integrity around this thorny subject.
Beautifully articulated as usual Helen.
I would love to hear you extend your discussion further... for instance, where is the line with moral pluralism? Where does liberalism stand if the paedophile is considered a valid sexuality but minors cannot consent? I’ve seen this being promoted by some. And how can we accommodate religious communities that have the age of consent set at 9 years old? Should we adapt and repeal Human Rights? This is clearly an extremity, but the logical one if we follow the reasoning.
Some paedophiles are morally virtuous. These are the ones who understand that they suffer from a paraphilia, try to get help for their condition, and do not act on their sexual urges towards children.
By contrast, child sex abusers are morally vicious because they do act on their sexual urges, thereby causing children harm. Most child sex abusers are not actually paedophiles, in the sense of their primary sexual attraction. Rather they are opportunistic offenders who prey on those who are the most powerless to stop them.
Call me “old fashioned” but I kinda still believe in a Universal moral consensus. And I do not follow any religious code, just a strong sense of fairness and belief in human flourishing. 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
My reasoning is liberal. The liberal line is harm and denial of freedom. So, between these two clauses,
Let people believe, speak, live as they see fit/
provided it does no material harm to anybody else nor denies them the same freedom.
Have a look at my pieces on liberalism.
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/relaunching-the-overflowings-of-a
There's a lot more than that, obviously. My whole site is about liberalism.
Here in Australia we have just fought (and semi-won) the censorship law proposed by a loopy government. One of the big focus points in the argument against was “no clear definition of the word- harm”.
It’s all a bit fraught!!! I’ll put the kettle on and think more on’t. 🙏🏽❤️
Yes, that's why I say 'material harm' and define it a lot drawing mostly on John Stuart Mill.